History has many lessons for us to learn from. One of them is do not make assumptions. The word Assume is comprised of three words, if you know what they are you know what they are. If you do not, then you do not.

Talking heads are still debating things that no longer matter. It no longer matters whether Iran had a nuclear weapons program. It no longer matters how close they were or how far they were from having the material to make one. Hostilities have commenced and that is what matters.

I find no example in history where a successful bombing campaign ever brought a conflict to a conclusion. It has always taken ground forces to end the war, sometimes meaning up close and personal violence. At some point ground forces will come into this, whether it be American or Kurdish perhaps both. I did not mention Isreal because I think they will be occupied elsewhere.

Taking a little sidetrack here for a moment. I personally am so tired of hearing the phrase “boots on the ground”, especially when those words come out of the mouth of one who has never served (worn those boots). One who has served and yet still utters those words should really know better and be ashamed for using them. Think on this, those “boots on the ground” are going to have a soldiers’ feet in them. It is a little different when you attach a face to those boots, isn’t it.

It was assumed that possibly, maybe, hopefully the Iranian protestors would rise up and take over their government. Well, that has not happened as of yet and most likely will not. There is no formal government to seize as we understand. I am not saying the Iranian citizens (civilians) will not fight, they may well, later.

Think back to occupied Europe. In some of those countries the government fled setting up a government in exile in a friendly country and left the citizen to fend for themselves. Some stayed and endured the hardships with the citizens. Others capitulated and collaborated with the aggressors. There were partizan fighters in all of the occupied countries. Not a one of them was fighting for their government, they were fighting the invaders. At the end of the war the collaborators were dealt with. I never could understand why the ones who fled and set up a government in exile were ever welcomed back and even worse allowed back in power.

A more recent example would be the war between Russia and Ukraine. It could be said that Russia saw itself as a liberator, but the Ukrainian people saw them as invaders. When arms were provided to the citizens who or what did they fight, the Ukrainian government or the invaders?

Funny thing is if Ukraine ever has another election, they may well elect a pro-Russian government. Politics are unpredictable.

When ground forces are introduced into the mix, how will the Iranians see them? Liberators from an oppressive government or invaders?