1). “The US Missile Defense Shortage is Worse than Imagined”, Mar 3, 2026, Larry C. Johnson, Sonar 21, at < https://sonar21.com/the-us-
2). “[SPECIAL] Larry Johnson: Cluster Warheads Rain Down - Iran's Retaliation Update”, Mar 6, 2026, Judge Andrew Napolitano interviews Larry Johnson, Judge Napolitano – Judging Freedom, duration of video 24:01, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
3). “Can Israel & the U.S. Sustain Iran's Military Power? (w/ Alastair Crooke) | The Chris Hedges Report”, Mar 6, 2026, Chris Hedges interviews Alastair Crooke, The Chris Hedges Report on The Chris Hedges YouTube Channel, duration of video 1:01:51, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
4). “THAAD Radar Shredded: $300 Million Down in Flames, Iran's Devastating Hit Blinds US' Gulf Eyes?”, Mar 7, 2026, Anon, Hindustan Times, duration of video 8:00, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
5). “Blind US First? Iran's Missile Defence Plan Hits Home As THAAD Radars Burn In Jordan & UAE | VERTEX”, Mar 6, 2026, Anon, Vertex, duration of video 11:00, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
6). “Iran Just Launched a Massive Missile Strike on Al Udeid Air Base — 10,000 U.S. Troops Inside”, Mar 8, 2026, Anon, Fred in Focus, duration of video 16:17, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
7). “Larry Johnson: AIR POWER CANNOT BEAT an ENTRENCHED ENEMY LIKE IRAN”, Mar 4, 2026, Daniel Davis interviews Larry Johnson, Daniel Davis / Deep Dive, duration of video 54:12, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
8), “Trump has privately shown serious interest in U.S. ground troops in Iran: The president’s private comments have not focused on a large-scale ground invasion of Iran, but rather on the idea of a small contingent of U.S. troops that would be used for specific strategic purposes, sources say”, Mar 6, 2026, Courtney Kube, Katherine Doyle, Julie Tsirkin & Gordon Lubold, NBC News, at < https://www.nbcnews.com/
9). “ ‘God help us’: Critics aghast at report Trump privately eyeing ground troops in Iran”, Mar 6, 2026, Erik De La Garza, Raw Story, at < https://www.rawstory.com/
10). “Will the US put ‘boots on the ground’ in Iran? US President Donald Trump hasn’t ruled out ground troops in Iran, but experts expect targeted special ops over an invasion”, Mar 4, 2026, Mohammad Mansour, Al Jazeera, at < https://www.aljazeera.com/
11). “Lawrence Wilkerson: U.S. Arms Kurdish Fighters in Iran to Start Civil War”, Mar 4, 2026, Glenn Diesen interviews Lawrence Wilkerson, Glenn Diesen, duration of video 54:00, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
~~ recommended by desmond morista ~~
Introduction by desmond: The U.S. / Israeli attack on Iran is predicated on a shaky premise, that Iran is a weak society with a population ready to revolt that includes many people who see the attacks by the U.S. / Israeli forces as a means of achieving a better socioeconomic order. The current Iranian Government and Ruling Class is descended from the 1979 revolution against the 1953 Coup imposed Regime of the Shah Reza Pahlavi. It is true that the clerical leadership at that time took the opportunity to kill off as many of the left-leaning secular political figures as they could find. The social stricture against interfering inside Mosques gave cover during the agitation to Islamic protesters and activists, cover the secular left never had. Khomeini finished off the secular left during the chaos of the revolt against the Shah during 1979 and 1980. Most of the current day Iranian rulers are not driven by religious ferver, in fact we might note that the influence of reactionary and fascist religious movements is probably stronger in the U.S. than it is in Iran.
In Item 1)., “The US Missile ….”, and Item 2)., “[SPECIAL] Larry Johnson: ….” Larry Johnson looks at various aspects of the robustness of the U.S. defense against missiles likely to be fired at U.S. / Israeli targets. He basically says that weapons like the Patriot, are in short supply and will be overwhelmed by Iranian attacks. He said that the U.S. stocks of THADs, Patriots, and other missile defense will hold up for a couple of weeks, but will then be exhausted. In Item 3)., “Can Israel & the U.S. Sustain ….” Alastair Crooke expresses similar misgivings and doubts about what the U.S. / Israeli forces can achieve in a long-term war with Iran.
Item 4)., “THAAD Radar Shredded: ….”; and Item 5)., “Blind US First? ….”, both look at the Iranian missile attacks against the THAD radars, essential to operating the premier anti-missile system that the U.S. possesses. Three or Four of the $500 million radars were destroyed by Iranian missile attacks over the past few days. The U.S. has produced 11 complete Radar and missile THAD sytems, 8 of them are stationed in the Middle East and now 3 of those have lost their very expensive high-tech radars in those attacks. Those radars also were useful for vectoring attack aircraft in the area, but now cannot fulfill that job either.
Even more serious is the report in Item 6)., “Iran Just Launched ….”, that the huge U.S. Super Radar located in Qatar and Al Udeid Airbase was heavily damaged. This is the most important radar in the Middle East (one of only 4 on Earth) that the U.S. uses to operated its Patriots, THADs, B-2, B-1, and B-52 Bombers as well as naval ships operating in nearby seas and oceans. If this report is true the AN FPS-132 BLOCK 5 UEWR radar that is used to operate U.S. and Israeli forces is no longer operational itself. Thus it would seem that Donald Trump's bravado and bluster about unconditional surrender might be a pit premature.
In Item 7)., “Larry Johnson: AIR POWER …., Johnson discusses the general rule that air attacks alone are never enough to defeat a tough enemy, such as Iran. Contemplating that reality is the fact that Trump and his handlers and advisors are thinking about committing U.S. ground troops to some limited role in Iran. Item 8)., “Trump has privately shown ….”; Item 9)., “ ‘God help us’: ….”; and Item 10)., “Will the US put ‘boots ….”, all discuss various aspects of sending in some ground troops to carry out some important commando type tasks of Trump's agenda. This is the most dangerous and explosive part of the Iran War in its effects on U.S. domestic politics, along with the inflation and war prices we will soon see in the oil markets. Finally in Item 11)., “Lawrence Wilkerson: ….”, Col Wilkerson discusses CIA plans to arm the Kurds, and perhaps other disaffected groups to attack Iran internally.
It is interesting that in the last few hours Trump derisively refused Britain's offer of the use of their 2 super aircraft carriers saying the War was already over and the U.S. / Israeli forces had won it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The US Missile Defense Shortage is Worse than Imagined
Donald Trump made a bold and provably wrong claim yesterday about the US air-defense missile inventory:
The United States Munitions Stockpiles have, at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better — was stated to me today we have a virtually unlimited supply of these weapons. Wars can be ‘forever,’ and very successfully, using just these supplies (which are better than other countries’ finest arms!). At highest end we have good supply but not where we want to be. Much additional high-grade weaponry is stored for us in outlying countries.
I will now show you conclusively that Trump is gaslighting the public, at least with respect to the PAC-3 MSE missiles. The PAC-3 MSE (Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement) is effectively the primary missile used in the modern Patriot system for most high-priority threats, particularly in current U.S. Army and allied operations as of 2026. The PAC-3 MSE ( Missile Segment Enhancement) began low-rate initial production (LRIP) in 2014, with deliveries starting in 2015 and full-rate production approved in 2018.
Starting in 2015 and continuing through 2020, the US produced between 100 — 300 a year. Let’s use the higher figure… That is 1,800 PAC-3 MSE. In the succeeding four year period, the US produced an estimated 2,200 PAC-3 MSEs (i.e., 500+ per year). In 2025 the US boosted production to 620. Total PAC-3 MSEs produced since 2015 is 4,620.
When the PAC-3 MSE is employed against an incoming threat, a minimum of two are fired. Keep that figure in mind. So how many have we sent Ukraine? According to open source documents, including DOD/DOW budget figures, the the US has transferred 847 PAC-3 MSE missiles to Ukraine. Assuming that the US and Israel have NOT fired any PAC-3 MSE missiles in 2025 and 2026, the US only has 3,773 in its inventory. We know that is ridiculous, but play along with me.
During the 12-day war Iran fired at least 600 ballistic missiles into Israel. In theory, the Patriot system is designed to work against ballistic missiles while Israel’s Iron Dome is designed to defeat short-range counter-rocket, artillery, and mortar (C-RAM) defense, plus capabilities against drones, cruise missiles, precision-guided munitions (PGMs), and some ballistic threats in certain configurations. So let’s assume that the Patriot was fired at 500 of the Iranian missiles — i.e., at least 1,000 PAC-3 MSE missiles were fired. That shrinks the US inventory to 2,773.
In just four days since the start of Epic Fury, Iran has fired an estimated 200 missiles at sites in the Gulf nations and Israel that have Patriot batteries. Conceivably, that means that another 400 PAC-3 MSE missiles have been launched, which shrinks the inventory to 2,373. If Iran fires 60 ballistic missiles per day, and the Patriot system uses 2 interceptors per incoming missile (a common conservative engagement doctrine for high-confidence intercepts against ballistic threats), the inventory would be exhausted after 19 full days, with enough left on the 20th day to handle roughly 46–47 Iranian missiles before depletion (about 19.775 days total, or roughly 19 days and 18–19 hours of sustained operations at this rate). In other words, the US PAC-3 MSE missiles will be exhausted on March 23, 2026.
Note that I am assuming that the entire inventory of US Patriot missiles have been deployed to Israel and US bases in the region. That is a false assumption because there are Patriot missile batteries with a full complement of missiles in other theaters. At present there are three Patriot battalions permanently assigned/forward-deployed to INDOPACOM (e.g., in South Korea/Japan/Guam areas, like 35th ADA Brigade and 1-1 ADA at Kadena); EUCOM has one Patriot battalion assigned (e.g., units in Germany like Baumholder/Ansbach areas, supporting NATO/Eastern flank).
The US Army has 15 Patriot battalions total (14 fully available as of mid-2025, with one in modernization), each typically consisting of 4–6 batteries (a battery is the firing unit with launchers/radars). A Patriot battery (also called a fire unit) typically includes 6–8 launchers (Launching Stations), though configurations vary by operator, mission, and launcher type (e.g., M903 for modern U.S. systems). If we assume that the four Patriot battalions have four batteries each, with 72 missiles per battery, we get a total of 1,152 missiles that must be subtracted from the maximum possible number deployed to the Middle East — i.e., the actual inventory, using the most conservative estimate, is 1,221. That means the US inventory of PAC-3 MSE missiles, using the assumptions above that Iran is firing 60 ballistic missiles per day, the supply of missiles will run out in 10 days. This is why I assert that Donald Trump is out of touch with reality.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
2). “[SPECIAL] Larry Johnson: Cluster Warheads Rain Down - Iran's Retaliation Update”, Mar 6, 2026, Judge Andrew Napolitano interviews Larry Johnson, Judge Napolitano – Judging Freedom, duration of video 24:01, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
3). “Can Israel & the U.S. Sustain Iran's Military Power? (w/ Alastair Crooke) | The Chris Hedges Report”, Mar 6, 2026, Chris Hedges interviews Alastair Crooke, The Chris Hedges Report on The Chris Hedges YouTube Channel, duration of video 1:01:51, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
4). “THAAD Radar Shredded: $300 Million Down in Flames, Iran's Devastating Hit Blinds US' Gulf Eyes?”, Mar 7, 2026, Anon, Hindustan Times, duration of video 8:00, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
5). “Blind US First? Iran's Missile Defence Plan Hits Home As THAAD Radars Burn In Jordan & UAE | VERTEX”, Mar 6, 2026, Anon, Vertex, duration of video 11:00, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
6). “Iran Just Launched a Massive Missile Strike on Al Udeid Air Base — 10,000 U.S. Troops Inside”, Mar 8, 2026, Anon, Fred in Focus, duration of video 16:17, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
7). “Larry Johnson: AIR POWER CANNOT BEAT an ENTRENCHED ENEMY LIKE IRAN”, Mar 4, 2026, Daniel Davis interviews Larry Johnson, Daniel Davis / Deep Dive, duration of video 54:12, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Trump has privately shown serious interest in U.S. ground troops in Iran
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has privately expressed serious interest in deploying U.S. troops on the ground inside of Iran, according to two U.S. officials, a former U.S. official and another person with knowledge of the conversations.
Trump has discussed the idea of deploying ground troops with aides and Republican officials outside the White House while outlining his vision for a post-war Iran in which Iran’s uranium is secure and the U.S. and a new Iranian regime cooperate on oil production similar to how the U.S. and Venezuela are, the sources said.
The president’s comments expressing serious interest in deploying ground troops have not focused on a large-scale ground invasion of Iran, but rather on the idea of a small contingent of U.S. troops that would be used for specific strategic purposes, the U.S. officials, the former U.S. official and the person with knowledge of the discussions said. They said Trump has not made any decisions or given any orders related to ground troops.
“This story is based on assumptions from anonymous sources who are not part of the President’s national security team and are clearly not read into these discussions,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. “President Trump always, wisely keeps all options open, but anyone trying to insinuate he is in favor of one option or another proves they have no real seat at the table.”
Publicly, Trump has not ruled out putting U.S. “boots on the ground” in Iran, though the war has so far consisted only of an air campaign. His private discussions about the idea show a president perhaps more willing to consider taking such a step than his public comments on the issue so far have suggested. Any deployment of American troops inside of Iran could increase the scale and scope of the war — and escalate the risks to American forces.
Since the war began on Saturday, six U.S. service members have been killed and 18 wounded in counterattacks from Iran, according to the Pentagon.
Trump has privately described to aides and Republican officials outside the White House that his ideal outcome in Iran is one like the emerging dynamic between the U.S. and Venezuela since American special forces captured Nicolás Maduro in January, the current U.S. officials and former U.S. official said. In post-Maduro Venezuela, the U.S. backed a new president, Delcy Rodríguez, under the condition that she implement policies that Trump views as favorable to the U.S., including that the U.S. benefits from Venezuela’s oil production.
The president said in an interview with the New York Post this week, “I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground.” He said while other presidents have ruled out boots on the ground, “I say ‘probably don’t need them,’ [or] ‘if they were necessary.’”
Foreign policy experts offered various scenarios in which the president might choose to deploy U.S. troops on the ground in Iran.
“You could envision them doing some sort of special operations insertions if there were targets that they absolutely needed to take out or reduce but didn’t lend themselves to bombardment,” said Joel Rayburn, a former Trump administration official and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. “That’s the kind of thing where you do an insertion, you attack a target, or conduct a raid, and then you get out.”
But Rayburn said such a scenario is very different from what most Americans imagine when they think about deploying ground troops or putting “boots on the ground,” and that he had so far not seen the conditions emerging that would require that step.
Behnam Ben Taleblu, the Iran program senior director at the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said in the event of collapse of the Iranian regime, U.S. forces could be used on the ground there to try to help facilitate a dynamic between the U.S. and Iran that mirrors Venezuela or to help keep track of Iran’s uranium stockpile, which is believed to be entombed beneath some of its nuclear sites.
“You don’t want it to become a failed state nuclear bazaar,” Taleblu said of Iran.
Nate Swanson, a senior fellow and director of the Iran Strategy Project at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington, D.C., said the U.S. could rethink its military options if Iran “thinks it can win a war of attrition.” Such a scenario could lead the president to deploy ground forces into Iran or arm opponents of the Iranian regime. Trump is considering whether to arm opponents of the regime.
In an interview with NBC News on Thursday, Trump suggested he is not seriously considering a ground invasion of Iran at this time. He said he wants new leadership in Iran that he approves of and has said he expects the war, which began Saturday, to last four to five weeks while leaving open the possibility of it continuing indefinitely.
Leavitt said Wednesday that U.S. ground troops are an option that remains on the table for the president although “not part of the plan for this operation time.”
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told NBC News’ Tom Llamas on Thursday that Iran is prepared for U.S. ground troops. “We are waiting for them,” Araghchi said, adding that “we are confident that we can confront them, and that would be a big disaster for them.”
“We have prepared ourselves to confront with any scenario,” Araghchi said.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
‘God help us’: Critics aghast at report Trump privately eyeing ground troops in Iran
Critics quickly sounded alarms online after a report that President Donald Trump has privately shown interest in sending U.S. ground troops into Iran.
According to an NBC News exclusive, Trump has discussed the idea with aides and Republican officials as part of a broader vision for a post-war Iran in which the country’s uranium would be secured, and the United States could cooperate with a new Iranian government on oil production.
The discussions inside the Trump White House are not focused on a large-scale invasion, the sources told NBC, but rather on the possibility of deploying a small contingent of U.S. troops for specific missions. Trump has not made any final decisions or issued orders related to sending any troops, the report on Friday added.
Still, the idea sparked sharp reactions on social media from political commentators and foreign policy observers.
“God help us all,” posted former Obama staffer Tommy Vietor, now co-host of the Pod Save America podcast.
“Everything—literally everything—the pro-diplomacy, anti-war camp has been warning about for years is happening as predicted,” Dylan Williams of the Center for International Policy warned on X.
Pennsylvania Capital-Star reporter Nick Field added in his own social media post: “If only there was a historical analogy of Americans sending in just a few troops only to [be] pulled further and further into a quagmire. Something that might've happened in Donald Trump's formative years.....”
Former MSNBC anchor Mehdi Hasan, founder of Zeteo News, offered a blunter reaction, telling his followers on X the report was “Madness,” while analyst Malcolm Davis with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute warned the move was “quite likely” to become “a slippery slope to a ‘forever war.'"
“And here we go….” wrote University of North Georgia rhetoric professor Matthew Boedy.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Will the US put ‘boots on the ground’ in Iran?
When US President Donald Trump casually floated the idea of putting US “boots on the ground” in Iran, he openly defied a longstanding presidential taboo. “Like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground’. I don’t say it,” Trump declared amid the ongoing US-Israeli strikes on Iran.
But while the political rhetoric from Washington hints at a sprawling conflict, military experts argue that the reality on the rugged Iranian terrain will look vastly different from a traditional invasion.
Military and strategic analyst Colonel Nidal Abu Zeid told Al Jazeera it is unlikely the US is contemplating a traditional ground invasion involving tanks and massed infantry, but rather a different pattern of warfare.
‘Boots on the ground’ vs ‘pick-up’ operations
In his interview with The New York Post on Monday, Trump left the door open for the arrival of ground forces while expressing confidence in the current aerial campaign, dubbed “Operation Epic Fury“.
“I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground – like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it,” Trump said following the strikes that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of other officials. “I say ‘probably don’t need them,’ [or] ‘if they were necessary’.”
US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth echoed this at a Pentagon news briefing, confirming no US troops are currently inside Iran but leaving the option on the table. “You don’t have to roll 200,000 people in there and stay for 20 years,” Hegseth said.
According to Abu Zeid, Hegseth’s and Trump’s comments align with what is militarily known as “pick-up” or selective operations. This involves limited efforts by special forces infiltrating specific points to execute precise sabotage or intelligence-gathering missions, followed by rapid extraction.
A traditional invasion to occupy territory is not viable, Abu Zeid said, citing Iran’s complex geopolitical environment, rugged geography and demographic density, all of which provide Tehran with a distinct defensive advantage. He noted that Israel has also previously declared a ground operation in Iran to be impractical.
The nuclear pretext and a shifting timeline
Trump revealed that the decision to launch the joint US-Israeli strikes came after “final talks” in Geneva collapsed on Thursday. The trigger, he claimed, was intelligence showing Iran had surreptitiously moved its nuclear enrichment programme to a “totally different site”.
In June last year, Trump had claimed that US strikes, known as “Operation Midnight Hammer,” had “obliterated” known Iranian nuclear facilities. “So then we found them working on a totally different area, a totally different site, in order to make a nuclear weapon through enrichment – so it was just time,” Trump said.
Get instant alerts and updates based on your interests. Be the first to know when big stories happen.
Trump said the operation is “way ahead of schedule”. Originally estimating the war would last around four weeks, Trump said the primary objective of eliminating the leadership structure – killing 49 top officials – had been achieved in a single day.
However, Abu Zeid pointed out that Trump’s initial reference to a four-week timeline is not merely operational; it is tied to US domestic law. The US Constitution restricts the president’s authority to wage war beyond 30 days without Congressional approval, making the “four-week” window a critical legal and political calculation.
The missile war and naval propaganda
While the Iranian command structure has taken a severe hit, Tehran has continued to retaliate. At least six US service members have been killed in action during the conflict with Iran, according to the US military.
Simultaneously, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed to have fired four cruise missiles at the US aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which is stationed in waters close to Iran. Abu Zeid dismissed this claim as media “propaganda” designed to target the morale and prestige of the US military.
He explained that the carrier is protected by advanced RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile systems capable of high-altitude interception, backed by a multi-layered defensive umbrella from escorting destroyers. Furthermore, US reconnaissance aircraft, notably AWACS early-warning planes, maintain constant surveillance, making undetected missile launches highly improbable.
Approximately 72 hours into the confrontation, Abu Zeid said, a drop to a medium-intensity level in Iranian missile attacks was observed. He attributed this decline to the likely destruction of Iranian launch platforms. While higher estimates suggest Iran possesses about 3,000 ballistic missiles, it relies on only a few hundred launchers. In a missile war, the destruction of platforms is just as critical as the depletion of the missile stockpile itself.
Domestic pushback
Despite the military momentum, Trump faces scepticism at home. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed only 27 percent of Americans approved of the strikes, while a CNN/SSRS poll placed approval at 41 percent.
Trump dismissed the numbers, insisting a “silent majority” supports the preemptive action to prevent “crazy people” from acquiring a nuclear weapon and citing a 47-year history of Iranian hostility that includes the 1979 embassy hostage crisis and the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings.
Meanwhile, Abu Zeid noted that US and Israeli intelligence may have underestimated Iran’s ability to quickly repair its chain of command. By adopting a doctrine of “centralised planning and decentralised execution”, Tehran has managed to absorb the initial shock and maintain its missile barrage despite heavy US electronic jamming and technological superiority.
Yet, how long Iran can sustain this strategy of “fire flooding” remains the defining question. As Trump boasts of completing a four-week leadership decapitation in a single day, the clock continues to tick for both sides. Ultimately, the next phase of this war may not be decided by tens of thousands of US boots marching across Iranian soil, but by which side runs out of time – and launch pads – first.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
11). “Lawrence Wilkerson: U.S. Arms Kurdish Fighters in Iran to Start Civil War”, Mar 4, 2026, Glenn Diesen interviews Lawrence Wilkerson, Glenn Diesen, duration of video 54:00, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
No comments:
Post a Comment