Under One Tent -- U.S. & Israel Wage War On Iran
“We have a very good relationship with Iran right now,” Trump said. - ROFLMAO. Why won't his supporters believe us when we point out with solid evidence like this that Trump lives in a fantasy world!
Now that Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz again, Trump will have another chance to lie WE WON!!
I thought it would be fun to give a time line on his false assessment which clearly establish his psychopothy.
Mar 11 - “We’ve won. Let me tell you, we’ve won… In the first hour, it was over.”
Mar 13 - We are totally destroying the terrorist regime of Iran… Iran’s Navy is gone, their Air Force is no longer…”
Mar 14 - “We have already destroyed 100% of Iran’s Military capability… no matter how badly defeated they are…”
Mar 14 - “The United States of America has beaten and completely decimated Iran, both Militarily, Economically, and in every other way…”
Now he starts qualifying his claims
Mar 20 - “Oh, I think we’ve won… From a military standpoint, they’re finished.”
Mar 20 - “Now that fight is Militarily WON…”
Mar 21 - “The United States has blown Iran off of the map… Yes I have, and weeks ahead of schedule! Their leadership is gone, their navy and air force are dead…”
Mar 24 - “We’ve won this. This war has been won.”
Mar 26 - “They’re defeated, they can’t make a comeback.”
Apr 1 - "Our Armed Forces have delivered swift, decisive, overwhelming victories on the battlefield… Tonight, Iran’s navy is GONE. Their air force is in ruins.”
Apr 7 - {/b]“We have already met and exceeded all Military objectives…”
[b]Apr 8 - {/b]“Total and complete victory. 100%. No question about it.”
[b]Apr 8 - “This is a victory for the United States of America… we have achieved and exceeded those core military objectives in just 38 days.” We are at day 48 as I write this
Apr 8 - “Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield, a capital-V military victory.”
Apr 9 - “Actually, it is a Victory, and there’s nothing ‘premature’ about it!”
Apr 11 - “Iran is ‘winning’ when, in fact, everyone knows that they are LOSING, and LOSING BIG!”
Apr 11 - “Regardless what happens, we win. We totally defeated that country. From the standpoint of America, we win.”
AFTER Apr 11, it seems Trump figured out he hasn't "won" after all because he reverted to language other than declaring outright victory.
Question - How many times can you win the same war?Likewise, showing Trump doesn't know what he is talking about - here is a selection of claims "the war is almost over"
March 9, 2026: Trump said the Iran war would be over “very soon.” At the same press conference, he also said, “It is going to be ended soon,” and described the conflict as already largely de-risked.
March 11, 2026: Trump told Axios the war would end “soon” because there was “practically nothing left to target.” He also said it would end “any time I want it to end.”
March 12, 2026: Trump said Iran was “pretty much at the end of the line. It doesn’t mean we are going to end it immediately — it is only a question of when.” That is one of his clearest “almost over” formulations without explicitly declaring victory.
March 13, 2026: When asked how long the war would last, Trump said, “It’ll be as long as it’s necessary,” and separately told Fox News Radio, “I don’t think it’s gonna be long.” That marks a slight hedge, but still keeps the “nearly over” message alive.
March 15, 2026: Trump said, “we’ve essentially defeated Iran,” but also said he was “still not declaring it over.” That is less a timeline quote than a near-end framing.
March 16, 2026: When asked whether the war could be wrapped up in a week, Trump said: “I don’t think so, but it’ll be soon, won’t be long… it’ll be wrapped up soon.”
March 17, 2026: Meeting with Ireland’s leader, Trump said the war was “essentially largely over in two or three days” and added, “we’ll be leaving in the near future… in pretty much the very near future.”
March 19, 2026: Trump said Iran “is close to demolished. The only thing is the strait,” which is less explicit about timing but still clearly frames the war as nearly finished except for Hormuz.
April 17, 2026: Trump told Axios he expected an Iran deal “in a day or two.”
It seems to me only the most brainwashed of Trump defenders would believe ANYTHING Trump says
But, what is true, Trump has lost HIS ILLEGAL WAR at all levels except militarily (which was a given).I want to be clear about what is actually happening today, based on verified reporting and not speculation or past events.
As of right now, the Strait of Hormuz is still open to international commercial shipping. There is no confirmed physical closure of the Strait itself. Ships are continuing to transit the waterway, although under heightened tension and increased US military monitoring.
What is happening is a very active U.S. naval presence in the region, with enforcement actions focused specifically on Iranian-linked shipping and access to Iranian ports. In all cases, vessels approaching Iranian ports or carrying Iranian-linked cargo have been ordered to turn back. The “blockade” in practice for certain routes tied to Iran, but it is not the same as physically sealing or shutting the entire Strait to global maritime traffic.
Iran, meanwhile, has not physically closed the Strait, and international shipping is still moving through it, albeit more cautiously due to the elevated risk environment.
So the situation today is best described as a heavily monitored, militarized, and high-tension maritime corridor with restricted movement in certain areas, not a fully closed Strait and not a total physical blockade of the waterway itself.
That is the factual situation as it stands right now.Seems like your news is a bit dated.
As of this morning
"Iranian gunboats fire on tanker after Strait of Hormuz closed again
A second vessel was reportedly hit by a projectile and others reversed course as Iran reimposes restrictions on the vital waterway."
Yikes --- Hard to keep up!
"Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) reportedly issued a sweeping warning to ships in the region on Saturday, saying any movement toward the Strait of Hormuz will be viewed as cooperation with “the enemy."
“Following the violation of the ceasefire conditions, the American enemy did not lift the naval blockade of Iranian vessels and ports; therefore, from this afternoon, the Strait of Hormuz is closed until this blockade is lifted,” the IRGC said, according to Tehran-based WANA News Agency.
The IRGC also instructed vessels in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman to remain at anchor, warning that any ship approaching the strategic waterway “will be considered cooperation with the enemy, and the violating vessel will be targeted.”
Posted by Sophia Compton" FoxSadly, Trump may be impacting Sharlee and myself negatively soon. Sharlee, I think flies to Mexico periodically and my wife and I are supposed to fly to Rome at the end of July to catch a cruise ship. Because Trump's war got the Strait of Hormuz closed, there might not be enough aviation fuel to go around.
Yes, Trump has created a serious worldwide situation. As you might know, in Europe airlines have already started cancelling flights because of the jet‑fuel situation. KLM has cut a chunk of its European schedule, SAS has cancelled over a thousand flights, and a few smaller carriers have started trimming routes as well. Others are openly talking about rationing if the Strait of Hormuz stays closed — it’s certainly making things more uncertain for people who do need to fly.
Thanks for that — I had a quick look to see what’s happening with Virgin Atlantic. They’ve cancelled their London–Riyadh route and added fuel surcharges across all cabins because of the jet fuel situation: about £50 ($67) for economy, £180 ($240) for premium economy, and £360 ($485) for business.
At the moment, though, they haven’t cancelled any USA–Europe flights. Virgin has said it’s trying to avoid major changes to its core transatlantic routes because they’re high demand and high revenue — money talks, especially in aviation. The onward London–Rome connections are still running normally, if that helps.
And sorry for the slow reply — we’ve had unusually warm weather here for April (global warming), so I’ve been making the most of it to get the vegetable plot planted up early. It’s turned into a busier week than expected, and what little computer time I’ve had has gone into dealing with Sharlee. I should have the garden sorted in the next day or two and can catch up properly on your other posts.Thanks — it really has been a productive week. I’ve managed to get the runner beans, broad beans, French beans, spinach, kale, chard, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, broccoli and cauliflower all sown or planted out. I’ve left one section of the veg plot empty, and when we get back from our holidays in late May we’ll nip to the garden centre and fill the rest with brassica seedlings.
I’m skipping root veg this year because just before Easter the supermarkets were selling off a glut at giveaway prices — cheaper than I could grow them. My wife picked up 20 lbs of mixed roots for just over 2 cents a pound, and most of it is now blanched and in the freezer. Should keep us going nicely.
The Claim - "FYI — the Afghanistan war was triggered by Article 5, invoked by the USA after 9/11." by Nathanville and myself
Sharlee's response - "But here’s the nuance people often miss: Article 5 didn’t automatically authorize the full Afghanistan war or NATO’s long-term combat role."
The Rebuttal - That was a deflection. It deflected into a debate about what Article 5 authorized. That wasn't what was claimed. What was claimed was that " the Afghanistan war was triggered by Article 5," with an emphasis on the word "triggered". Most people I know understand that to mean "started with" or "was a result of". Most people I know DON'T take "triggered" to mean "was the rational for" or "authorized".
Triggered means just what it says and doesn't play semantic games. It means that the sequence of events was:
1. Terrorists based in and with the support of Afghan leadership attacked America
2. America asked to have Article 5 invoked to authorize a NATO response to the attack
3. America responded with NATO troop support by attacking Afghanistan - America was in charge at that moment and NATO provided support.
4. As the war progressed the UN authorized NATO to assume the lead which it did - legally and still defensively.
5. Trump pulls the rug out from everybody by unilaterally quitting the battlefield and leaving NATO forces hanging by signing an agreement with the Taliban to do just that.
6. Biden follows Trump's agreement, albeit ineptly.
So, as everybody knew intrinsically but now actually, the word "triggered" was properly chosen.I will let ChatGPT step in... Facts matter.
Question to ChatGPT as written --- Is this claim factual - "FYI — the Afghanistan war was triggered by Article 5, invoked by the USA after 9/11. ECO post
ChatGPT reply.
Short answer: no, that claim is not factually accurate as written.
Here’s the precise correction based on established historical record:
The Afghanistan war was not triggered by NATO Article 5.
The war was triggered by the September 11 attacks (9/11) and the U.S. decision to respond militarily.
The United States launched the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 under its own authority (AUMF), targeting al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
NATO invoked Article 5 after 9/11, but that invocation was a collective defense declaration, not the initiating cause or authorization of the U.S. invasion.
NATO’s combat role came later through ISAF (from 2003 onward under a UN mandate), not at the start of the war.
So the accurate sequence is:
9/11 → U.S. decision to invade Afghanistan → NATO invokes Article 5 in response to 9/11 → later NATO operational involvement
Key factual sources:
NATO overview of Article 5 invocation after 9/11: https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articl … index.html
U.S. Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF, 2001): https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-con … olution/64
NATO ISAF mission timeline (post-2003 involvement): https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_69366.htm
Bottom line:
Calling Article 5 the “trigger” of the Afghanistan war is causally incorrect. It was a response to the same event (9/11), not the initiating cause of the war itself.
Take up your argument with ChatGPT.First, unless you include a disclaimer of some sort, by posting those words, you take ownership of them. Also, I think you are arguing semantics again.
Second, I personally never take ChatGPT at its word, especially if something doesn't make sense like when it said that Article 5 was invoked AFTER America invaded Afghanistan. That is factually incorrect and is why ChatGPT includes the disclaimer at the bottom: "ChatGPT can make mistakes"
In any case, this is how my ChatGPT defends itself against your ChatGPT - That ChatGPT answer overstates the correction. Article 5 was invoked before the invasion, not after it. It is true that Article 5 was not the sole legal authorization for the initial U.S.-led invasion, and NATO did not command the war at the start. But it is still fair to say NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan began with the Article 5 response to 9/11.From the Peanut gallery ... oh the irony ... , live by the sword, die by the sword ...
The ChatGPT OG hoisted by his own petard.
I know, I know, just shut up and sit down. I will, but this one was so ironic that the initial cheer was an involuntary outburst. ;-)
^5
ps. Grok says your ChapGPT's response was "spot-on."
GASo, Grok agrees with her ChatGPT that Article 5 was invoked AFTER America invaded Afghanistan?
As does Copilot. I quoted you, and I asked Copilot the same question I asked Chat GPT. "Is this claim factual - "FYI — the Afghanistan war was triggered by Article 5, invoked by the USA after 9/11." ECO
Do you feel AI is offering misinformation on your quote?
I also checked Grok --- No, the statement is not entirely factual. It contains two key inaccuracies:
The USA did not invoke Article 5.
NATO's North Atlantic Council (the alliance's governing body) invoked Article 5 on September 12, 2001—the day after the 9/11 attacks—for the first and only time in NATO's history. This was an act of solidarity by the allies toward the United States, declaring that an attack on one member (the US) was an attack on all. The US received this support; it did not request or invoke it itself.
The Afghanistan war was not "triggered by" Article 5.
The war (Operation Enduring Freedom, launched October 7, 2001) was triggered directly by the 9/11 attacks themselves. The US demanded that the Taliban extradite Osama bin Laden and dismantle al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan; when they refused, the US (with initial British support and later contributions from others) invaded to remove the Taliban regime and disrupt al-Qaeda.Article 5 provided a political and legal framework for collective defense and enabled NATO allies to offer support (e.g., AWACS surveillance over the US, overflight rights, and later participation in the International Security Assistance Force/ISAF from 2003 onward). However:
The initial US-led invasion in 2001 was not a formal NATO operation under Article 5 command.
The US largely conducted early operations bilaterally or with ad-hoc coalitions and did not heavily rely on integrated NATO military planning for the opening phase.
In short: 9/11 caused the war. Article 5 was invoked in response to 9/11 as a show of alliance solidarity, and it facilitated broader international (including NATO) involvement in Afghanistan over time—but it did not trigger the conflict, nor did the US invoke it.
The statement reverses the direction of invocation and overstates Article 5's causal role in starting the war.
I’m really glad you stopped by. My time here on HP is coming to a close, but I’ve truly appreciated your thoughtful comments and the way you’ve always carried yourself. Wishing you all the best—happy trails.
Shar
I asked the Microsoft Copilot the same question and it gave the opposite answer - it said “Yes, the claim is factual - but with an important nuance.” And then it went on to explain that NATO activated it on America’s behalf….. So, just goes to show you can’t always trust what AIs tell you.
I use ChatGPT extensively on personal matters and for work. Its computing and research power (as is any AI) is immense and saves enormous amounts of time.
For example, we are bidding on a new contract in the San Francisco Bay area. We are required to send employees or subcontractors to specific sites to collect drug specimens. They require that we be able to get two people, one male and one female to any site within 2 hours. I will use ChatGPT to figure out how many employees we need and where they need to be located to accomplish that.
Anyway, one huge problem with any AI is that they take anything you write (in my case) or say LITTERALLY. Not keeping that in mind has cost me hours of back and forth trying to get it to answer the question I really meant to ask, lol.Your statement was very clear; I just quoted your words. The context is clear.
"FYI — the Afghanistan war was triggered by Article 5, invoked by the USA after 9/11." ECOAnd that is true. No 9/11 therefore no Article 5 therefore no NATO troops in Afghanistan. Would Bush have gone in without NATO members behind him, who knows; very quickly almost 40% of the fighting forces there were NATO members.
What is a fact is that NATO members, under Article 5 authority joined in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban.
I use Copilot in a similar way — its research power really does save a huge amount of time. For the sort of task you’re using it for, like working out staffing numbers and locations, AI is absolutely ideal.
I use it a lot for research too: genealogy, comparing products when we need a new TV or cooker, checking tools, and so on. It’s brilliant for getting me onto the right track quickly, although I do still double‑check the final details from other resources, because AIs can occasionally make mistakes or give duff advice.
What you said about literal interpretation is interesting. I’ve noticed that with Google’s AI as well — it takes everything word‑for‑word. What I like about Copilot is that it often seems to intuit what I mean even when I’m not being precise or can’t think of the right wording. That’s incredibly useful when something is on the tip of my tongue but I can’t quite articulate it.
I asked ChatGPT a very direct question to review my comment. I added nothing but the question I offered. I copy/pasted the results.
I asked Copilot the same question, "Is this claim factual - "FYI — the Afghanistan war was triggered by Article 5, invoked by the USA after 9/11."
Cope/paste
Is this claim factual - "FYI — the Afghanistan war was triggered by Article 5, invoked by the USA after 9/11.
Short answer: The claim is partially true but phrased inaccurately.
NATO did invoke Article 5 after 9/11, but this did not “trigger the Afghanistan war,” nor was it invoked “by the USA.”
Here’s the factual breakdown:
✅ What actually happened
NATO invoked Article 5 on its own initiative, not at the request of the United States.
This was the first and only time Article 5 has ever been invoked.
The invocation occurred in response to the 9/11 attacks, after NATO confirmed they were directed from abroad by al‑Qaeda.
Article 5 led to limited NATO operations (e.g., AWACS patrols and naval missions), not the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The U.S. chose not to seek further Article 5 military support for the invasion itself.
❌ What the claim gets wrong
“Triggered by Article 5”
The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) was not triggered by Article 5.
It was a unilateral U.S.-led decision, supported by some NATO members individually but outside NATO command.
“Invoked by the USA”
NATO invoked Article 5 without a U.S. request. The U.S. was initially skeptical of NATO’s military usefulness.
⚖️ So is the claim factual?
Misleading.
Correct: Article 5 was invoked after 9/11.
Incorrect: It was not invoked by the U.S., and it did not trigger the Afghanistan war.
If you want, I can also explain why the U.S. chose to invade outside NATO, or how NATO’s later ISAF mission fit into the broader Afghanistan conflict.
Another semantic deflection is exemplified by Nathanville's claim that " “just about every NATO operation has been authorized by the UN Security Council”"
Sharlee's response was "Second, the claim that “just about every NATO operation has been authorized by the UN Security Council” is not entirely true. A big counterexample is the Kosovo War. ".
Only one counterexample was offered. So, the use of "just about every" is actually true, isn't it.This AM ---- Fox reports ---- Trump renews bridge, power plant threat against Iran in push for deal, mocks 'tough guy' IRGC
Trump remains threat to 'take out their bridges and their power plants'
"President Donald Trump is giving peace – and war – a chance after alleged ceasefire violations, he told Fox News on Sunday morning.
"If the deal isn’t done, the deal that we made, then I’m going to take out their bridges and their power plants," Trump said as he fired off another warning to repeat his threat to end "civilization" in Iran. "If they don’t sign this thing, the whole country is going to get blown up."
"We’re preparing to hit them harder than any country has ever been hit before because you cannot let them have a nuclear weapon," Trump added.
Those remarks came as Trump mocked the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in a Truth Social post for staking claim to a Strait of Hormuz "blockade" the U.S. military had already put in place.
"Iran recently announced that they were closing the Strait, which is strange, because our BLOCKADE has already closed it," Trump wrote. "They’re helping us without knowing, and they are the ones that lose with the closed passage, $500 Million Dollars a day! The United States loses nothing.
"In fact, many Ships are headed, right now, to the U.S., Texas, Louisiana, and Alaska, to load up, compliments of the IRGC, always wanting to be 'the tough guy!'"
Notably, Trump told Fox News that there is turmoil in Iran, over control of a country where multiple layers of leadership have been killed over the past few months during strikes by Israel and the U.S.
"There's a little bit of a fight between the moderates [in Iran] and the crazies," Trump said. "Nobody's winning it."
"Our Navy has done an unbelievable job," he continued. "We haven't even been challenged."
Trump declared that Saturday's IRGC fire was "a total violation" of the ceasefire.
"Iran decided to fire bullets yesterday in the Strait of Hormuz — A Total Violation of our Ceasefire Agreement!" his Truth Social post began.
"Many of them were aimed at a French Ship, and a Freighter from the United Kingdom. That wasn’t nice, was it? My Representatives are going to Islamabad, Pakistan — They will be there tomorrow evening, for Negotiations."
Trump remains hopeful about diplomacy, but is not ruling out a return to force, where he once warned about ending "civilization" in Iran as they know it.
"We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran," Trump's stern warning continued.
"NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!"
"They’ll come down fast, they’ll come down easy and, if they don’t take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years," Trump added. "IT’S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END!"
Trump's Middle East peace envoys are going to take the next step toward a diplomatic resolution first, he told Fox News.
"Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are heading to the Middle East," Trump said. "They will be leaving [Monday]. Their meeting will begin on Tuesday morning. It’s a very simple deal, they’ve agreed to much of it."
"It's almost like they don't learn," he said.
Trump added that he has not made a decision on targeting water infrastructure, including desalination plants."So you are saying Trump is back to threatening WAR CRIMES and GENOCIDE. Nice.
Direct Question - Are you personally in favor of Trump committing war crimes and genocide?
Is the war illegal? Of course it is under any rational reading of international or domestic law.
International
Under the UN Charter, force is unlawful unless the Security Council authorizes it or it is necessary self-defense after an armed attack. Neither apply here. Trump had no UN mandate, and the U.S. Article 51 letter to the UN leaned on generalized ‘ongoing threats,’ prior attacks, and collective-defense language even though the strike had been planned for months, negotiations were still underway, and a ceasefire from the earlier fighting was still holding. CLEARLY, Trump violated International Law
Domestic
For Trump to start a war, the Constitution places the war power primarily with Congress, and the War Powers Resolution says the President may introduce U.S. forces into hostilities only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories, possessions, or armed forces. There was no congressional authorization here, and the administration has not shown that America was under a direct or truly imminent attack. On that view, Trump’s action was unlawful domestically.
Face, Trump broke the law - AGAIN.Current --- Trump made the statement in a post to his Truth Social account, urging Iran's leaders to accept a peace deal with the U.S.
"Israel never talked me into the war with Iran, the results of Oct. 7th, added to my lifelong opinion that IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON, did. I watch and read the FAKE NEWS Pundits and Polls in total disbelief. 90% of what they say are lies and made up stories, and the polls are rigged, much as the 2020 Presidential Election was rigged. Just like the results in Venezuela, which the media doesn’t like talking about, the results in Iran will be amazing - And if Iran’s new leaders (Regime Change!) are smart, Iran can have a great and prosperous future!" Trump wrote.So, you believe what he is saying as the truth? If you do, there is a Brooklyn Bridge I can sell you at a very cheap price.
"So, you believe what he is saying as the truth? If you do, there is a Brooklyn Bridge I can sell you at a very cheap price." PP
When you say, “So, you believe what he is saying as the truth?” contextually, you are not responding to what I actually wrote so much as assigning a belief to me that I didn’t state. You are treating my post ( which is an article) as if I were personally endorsing it.
I offered no view. I simply posted Trump's quote. There is a lot to unpack in that quote, all of which the majority of that quote is based on opinion. I think many today have a hard time deciphering fact from opinion. This would include Trump.
Nathanville, PeoplePower, Island Bites, Credence - does this mean Trump has TACO'd a final time for Iran? Did he finally effectively give up without saying so directly?
"Trump says he will extend ceasefire with Iran until negotiations conclude"Absolutely
. At this point it’s a stalemate — Iran can afford to wait it out, but with a global recession looming if the conflict drags on, time is not on Trump’s side. And with the midterms approaching, the political pressure on him to resolve the situation is only going to intensify.Yeah, he TACOed, he sure talked tough in the beginning. To find out that Iran is not going to fold like a lawn chair seems to surprise him. The reality is that Iran called his bluff. A deadline that is moved forward? From what I read, i don’t see that any of the main irreconcilable demands from either side Even close to resolution. Trump will either have to settle for nothing at all from Iran or go into full war mode. And we know how that is going to play here, politically.
Latest Headline
"Iran says it has seized two ships crossing Strait of Hormuz"
QUESTION: How do you end an illegal war when both sides are led by crazy lunatics?
Trump seizes two Iranian vessels. albeit legally since both allegedly were on the sanctions list, so Iran responds in kind and clearly illegally seizes two vessels.I Trump has ceded the battlefield, here is the scorecard as I see it from his illegal war and gives cause for MAGA like Sharlee to celebrate.
PROs
* Trump killed a lot of really bad guys
* A major depletion, but not elimination of Iran's missile and drone stockpile
* A major disruption, but not elimination[b] of Iran's ability to produce more
* A minor setback in their ability to produce nukes (minor, in the sense they didn't have much of a capability before Trump started the war)
* A lot of Hezbollah killed
* May have all but guaranteed a Democratic sweep in the midterms
* Possibly pushed Europe and Asia to speed up development and implementation of renewable energy like WIND FARMS
[b]CONs
* Trump killed or wounded Hundreds of Americans
* Trump killed thousands of innocent Iranians and others in Gulf state nations
* Worldwide economic disruption
* Weakened America's military capabilities
* Reduced America's image and influence around the world
* Permanently damaged relations with our European allies
* Wasted BILLIONS of dollars and blew up our national debt
* Gave Iran control over 20% of the world's oil supply, maybe forever
* Rising inflation in America and elsewhereThe EU has just announced that plans are now in place to significantly speed up the rollout of Renewables across the EU with immediate effect e.g. to accelerate wind farms, heat pumps etc. Also announced in the news today that an increase of 43% of Brits wanting to buy EVs because of the Iran war. So it’s all happening on this side of the pond.
* Wasted BILLIONS of dollars and blew up our national debt
He increased the defense budget to 900 billion and he is proposing a 1.5 trillion dollar increase. So far in his 2nd term, he has increased the national debt by 2.3 trillion dollars.“You’re mixing facts with spin. Yes, there’s a proposed $1.5T defense budget, but that’s not passed. And the $900B level didn’t start with Trump. As for the debt, it’s been rising under every administration for years, Congress controls spending, not just the president.
“Trump increased the defense budget to 900 billion.”
What actually happened
The FY2026 defense budget (~$900 billion) was:
Passed by Congress (House + Senate) with bipartisan support
In fact, lawmakers approved more than Trump initially requested
That’s a big point people miss:
Congress didn’t just approve his number—they actually increased it.
And one must consider --- Congress approves up to a certain amount for that fiscal year. That is the spending ceiling, not a requirement to spend it all immediately.
Defense spending was already trending upward:
~$850B proposed in FY2025 (Biden era)
~$919B total national defense spending in FY2025
Then ~$900B+ authorized for FY2026
Did this concern you?
What was actually passed for FY2024
✔ National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) FY2024
Passed by Congress: Yes
Signed into law: Yes (December 2023)
Authorized amount:
$874.2 billion for national defense activities
About $841 billion for the Department of Defense itself
Plus additional defense-related programs bringing it to about $886 billion total impact
The Biden administration was responsible for the FY2025 budget request, but not solely responsible for what was ultimately passed, because of how the U.S. budget process works and the timing of the fiscal year. Who controls the FY2025 budget?
1) Budget proposal (Biden administration)
The FY2025 budget request was prepared and submitted by the Biden administration. That happens in early 2024 (typically February–March)
So was Biden “responsible” for FY2025 spending?
Yes, in these ways:
He proposed the FY2025 budget
His administration shaped the initial spending framework
Congress passed FY2025 defense funding levels, but it was passed through appropriations legislation, not as a single headline “$900B bill.”1) Budget proposal (Biden administration)
The FY2025 budget request was prepared and submitted by the Biden administration. That happens in early 2024 (typically February–March)
So was Biden “responsible” for FY2025 spending?
Yes, in these ways:
He proposed the FY2025 budget
His administration shaped the initial spending framework
Congress passed FY2025 defense funding levels, but it was passed through appropriations legislation, not as a single headline “$900B bill.”
The bottom line is, it doesn't matter. Each president assumes the national debt of the previous one. Below are the National Debt Clocks inks to Obama, Biden, and Trump's National Debt
https://www.us-debt-clock.com/presidents/barack-obama-2
https://www.us-debt-clock.com/presidents/donald-trump
https://www.us-debt-clock.com/presidents/joe-biden
https://www.us-debt-clock.com/presidents/donald-trump-2I understand what you’re laying out here, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say “it doesn’t matter.” It actually does matter how and when these numbers are set, because responsibility is shared, not interchangeable.
Yes, the Biden administration proposed the FY2025 budget. That’s standard. Every president submits a budget request that reflects their priorities. But that proposal is just a starting point; it’s not law.
Congress ultimately writes, negotiates, and passes the appropriations bills. In many cases, those final numbers differ significantly from what was originally proposed. So while Biden helped shape the framework, he didn’t unilaterally determine the final ~$900B+ defense spending level.
And timing matters too. A lot of spending is effectively “locked in” before a fiscal year even begins, especially with multi-year authorizations and continuing resolutions. So attributing a full year’s spending to one administration can oversimplify what is actually a rolling process across multiple administrations and Congresses.
On the debt point, I agree with you in principle that every president inherits existing debt. That’s true. But again, that doesn’t mean their own fiscal decisions don’t matter. Deficits, spending increases, and policy choices during their term directly add to that total.
So I’d put it this way:
Every president inherits the debt, but they’re still responsible for the direction it goes while they’re in office.
I’m stepping away from HP and won’t be responding to any further posts. I’m in the final stretch of finishing the book I’ve been writing about my mom, and it really needs my full attention.
I think it’s safe to say we definitely went the distance—and I truly enjoyed our back-and-forth. Shar
Is that before or after the $1.5 T proposed increase?
Two important meetings taking place in Europe today:
1: Starmer (UK) and Macron (France) are jointly heading a meeting of 32 European countries who have signed up to the peacekeeping force in the straits, once the war is over, to thrash out the fine details. And interesting, the member countries involved in the talks have made it clear that they do not want America involved in the peacekeeping.
2: The EU (27 European countries) are meeting to agree with each other on sharing limited aviation fuel supplies with each other in a coordinated way to increase the efficiency of supplies and service.Can anyone explain the 60‑day rule to me, in the context of the Iran war, in a way a non‑American might actually understand?
CNN isn’t a channel I normally watch (not being American), but I switched over briefly just to see how the Iran war was being covered in the USA, and they mentioned this “60‑day rule.” Most of what they said went over my head because I’m not familiar with the American political background behind it.
I even asked an AI afterwards, but without that American context, I still ended up confused.
So I’d really appreciate it if someone here could explain it in plain English, from the American point of view, in a way a Brit might understand.Hello. Arthur I hope the following explanation helps.
Technically, only Congress has the authority to declare war but the President can deploy military under exigent circumstances. And they have many times, but a leash is employed to prevent involvement into deeper conflicts without Congressional approval. The President has a 60 day leash that may be extended to 90 days.
Yes, there are two distinct "60-day rules" involving Congress: the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (military actions) and the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (agency regulations). Under the War Powers Act, a president must remove troops from hostilities within 60 days unless Congress authorizes more time, such as during the 2026 Iran conflict.
Time Magazine
1. War Powers Resolution (Military Action)
Purpose: Limits the President's power to engage in armed conflict without congressional approval.
The Rule: After the president notifies Congress of military action, they have 60 days to operate before needing explicit congressional authorization (a declaration of war or specific legal authorization).
Extension: The law allows for a single 30-day extension, bringing the potential total to 90 days, if the president certifies in writing that it is needed for safe troop withdrawal.
2. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
Purpose: Allows Congress to review and veto new federal agency rules.
The Rule: Major rules must be submitted to Congress and are subject to a 60-day waiting period (60 days of continuous session) to allow for a joint resolution of disapproval to be introduced and passed.
U.S. Government
These mechanisms are designed to assert Congress's constitutional authority over both foreign conflict and federal policymaking.Thanks for the explanation, Credence — greatly appreciated.
With the 60 days being up in just a few days, can I ask what that means in practice? For example, does it usually result in the President getting the extra 30 days, and then things being pushed along again after that? Or is Congress likely to put the brakes on at that point?
If I’ve understood you correctly, it isn’t a simple black‑and‑white rule, and a lot depends on whether Congress chooses to authorise more time. But I may still be misunderstanding something, so I’d appreciate any clarification.With the 60 days being up in just a few days, can I ask what that means in practice?
Most certainly.
I am going by the book, but to have a President blatantly defy Congress is a real possibility with Trump and is unprecedented. Where are the reins? What is the penalty for defiance? Impeachment was a remedy, but the mesmerized and cowardly GOP members on the House and Senate still remains terrorfied of the ire of Trump. The representatives are more interested in their paychecks than adhering to their oaths and the principles that they were elected to uphold. I fear the lack of any real “teeth” to rein Trump in, whatever has been an accepted boundary for Presidential use of power in the past, we can be sure that Trump will trample and trumple right over it. If he does not get Congressional approval, who can really be sure that he would comply?
Things were “pushed” along in the war against terror after 9-11, but it did have tacit support within Congress, that is why it was allowed to be continued. Because, since 1941 there has been no formal declaration of war. Who is to say that we will once again experience a “pushing along” again, as it has been behind every military action since Korea. I have always believed that it has been a ripe area for abuse by the executive/President. I can only hope that continuation of this war gets explicit rejection from Congress in a way not reflected in the past.
If i missed your intended target let me know, i am providing conjecture in a situation that appears outside the norm.Thanks, Credence — that really helps put things into perspective.
From this side of the Atlantic, what strikes me most is the silence. We’re now only three days away from the 60‑day point, and yet there doesn’t seem to be any public discussion, speculation, or even hints from Congress about what might happen next week. If something similar were happening in the UK, there would already be MPs from all parties on the news circuits debating it, journalists analysing every angle, and no shortage of predictions about what the government was likely to do.
So as a Brit watching from the outside, it feels quite strange that there isn’t more visible movement or commentary. I appreciate your explanation that this situation is outside the norm — that does help make sense of why there isn’t the usual political noise around it.
If you have any further thoughts on how Congress might handle things once the deadline actually arrives, I’d be interested to hear them.
Hot off the press:
Just announced as a headline on British news: a leaked Pentagon email suggesting that the USA might review its diplomatic support for the UK’s claim to the Falkland Islands as a form of punishment because Britain has refused to support Trump’s war in Iran.Yes, I read that, chastised like a petulant child? This is Trumpian foreign policy? In the adult world, it constitutes a vile threat.
I also note that Trump’s war that was to be over 2-3 weeks after it started, now has no “time limit”.
The clown car that Trump is supposedly driving has no steering wheel…..Yes, and what made it even more notable yesterday was that Trump took a couple more swipes at the UK over our refusal to join the war. The timing went down particularly badly here because the King is due to visit America next week to try to steady the diplomatic waters, and comments like that don’t exactly help.
And as you probably saw in your own news cycle, he also said that Spain should be kicked out of NATO as “punishment” for not supporting the war.
MAGA thanks you, dear Leader, for screwing up their lives with his illegal war they didn't want. Imagine - TUCKER CARLSON telling anybody who will listen that he wished he didn't help get Trump, the felon and sexual predator, elected. But, I digress.
"Asia’s spiraling supply shock is coming for America" (and MAGA)
"Gas stations are rationing fuel. Hospitals are running out of medical supplies. People are hoarding plastic bags, and factories face packaging shortages.
That’s all happening in Asia now.
That could become a problem for the United States: About half the stuff Americans buy comes from Asia.
If Asian factories are dealing with a lack of supplies, should Americans expect shortages, too?
Possibly – but not just yet. At least not in any widespread or severe manner. But the longer the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, the harder it will become for the United States to avoid the problems piling up elsewhere.
US is ‘more exposed than we realize’
Certainly, the red flags are waving."
From one of the most trusted news networks - https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/24/business … es-us-asiaYes — it really is global, and it affects all of us, including the USA. And it’s not the sort of disruption that just disappears the moment the war ends. Once supply chains in Asia start seizing up, there’s a ripple effect that takes time to work its way through the system, and that will still be with us long after the war is over.
And from what I’ve read, the USA is actually more exposed to this than we are in the UK. Roughly twice as much of America’s imported goods come from Asia compared with Britain, so any slowdown in Asian manufacturing hits the U.S. consumer market much harder and much faster. The UK will feel it too, of course, but the impact will tend to arrive a bit later and with a bit more cushioning.
So yes — this isn’t a quick shock that bounces back overnight. It’s a slow‑moving wave that will keep rolling for quite a while.
Still speaking of the Brits ...
... and for grins a giggles,a purported English correction to an American claim: "It's quite alright sir, history's a big book, hard to read all the chapters."
When Americans Explained British Inventions
*The user name "Potato Ninja" is nutty. This young lady's videos are good. Twice now, one reference led to an hour's more.
GAI loved that video — thanks for sharing it. What really caught my ear was her mention of Fry’s chocolate factory in Bristol (where I live). Fry’s was founded here in 1761 by a Quaker family, and funnily enough my grandparents were Quakers when they married in Bristol in 1900. One of the witnesses on their wedding certificate was actually one of the Bristol Fry family.
Being local, I’ve got lots of fond memories of the factory, and I’ve always loved their chocolates. So it was a sad day when the Bristol Fry’s factory finally closed its doors for the last time in 2011.
And yes — this young lady’s videos are excellent. Because she’s lived in both America and Britain, she has that rare first‑hand understanding of both cultures, and she’s very good at explaining the differences without being snarky about either side. I’ll definitely be watching more of her.
Up to now my favourite American who moved to Britain has been Evan Edinger. I’ve followed his videos for years because he really does “get” both cultures from lived experience. If you’re interested, here’s one where he talks about how he sees the U.S. after 13 years living in Europe:
How I View the US After 13 Years Living in Europe https://youtu.be/M1QvVnjiegEAt 78, I still have ADHD and couldn't make it through in one sitting, lol.
1. Guns (I was afraid that was all it was going to be about): IMO, he is mainly right. However, I am liberal enough to believe that any adult can possess anything they want so long as it is not inherently dangerous to others, and that includes guns, howitzers, nuclear bombs. That said, and unlike the gun fanatics here in America, I have no problem making it difficult to possess one; the more dangerous a device in the wrong hands, the more difficult (and expensive) it becomes to own one. In America, it is WAY too easy to acquire a gun which is why we live in fear of getting shot to a much larger degree than any advanced civilization, especially if you are a school kid.
One of the sad facts about America is that a tourist in America has a 15 - 20 times more chance of getting killed by a gun in America than they do in Europe. The answer to that from America's gun fanatics is "stuff happens".
I think I do disagree with him about democracy vs parliamentary gov'ts. I have thought about it many times over the years and concluded that even with our occasional retreat in the the Dark Ages like we experience with Andrew Jackson and now Donald Trump where Americans lost our way in choosing our leaders and Congress, our kind of democracy is much more stable than what I perceive as the chaos parliamentary gov'ts seem to often be in.
I would say that, setting Netanyahu aside, it is much more difficult for a parliamentarian form of gov't to fall into dictatorship than a democracy like ours; which is on the brink of it right now.I appreciated your comment about ADHD — Evan’s videos are brilliant, but he really does pack a lot in. Even I sometimes need two sittings to take it all in.
One thing that’s easy to miss from the American side is that Evan isn’t a Brit explaining America — he’s an American who has lived both cultures. He arrived here with the same assumptions most Americans have about guns, democracy, and how Europe works. But after 14 years living in England, he’s had to re‑evaluate a lot of those views. He talks quite openly in his videos about how his perspective has shifted simply through lived experience.
On the guns point and your comment about Netanyahu — I hear you. Those are huge topics in their own right, and Evan only touched the surface in that particular video.
But the part of your reply I found most interesting was your view of American democracy versus parliamentary systems. From the outside, I completely understand why parliamentary government can look chaotic. Between 2015 and 2024 we had six Prime Ministers and four General Elections — on paper it looks like absolute turmoil.
Yet despite all that churn, the system kept functioning and major policies still moved forward quickly and efficiently. A few examples that show how resilient and productive the system actually is:
- In 2012, less than 2% of the UK’s electricity came from renewables. By 2024 it was over two‑thirds — a complete transformation achieved across multiple governments.
- In 2015, public EV chargers were sparse. By 2024 we had roughly twice as many public charging points as petrol (gas) pumps.
- In 2019, the legally binding Net Zero 2050 target passed with full cross‑party support in just three weeks.
- In 2022, the Homes for Ukraine scheme was created and launched within about two weeks of the invasion.
So yes — parliamentary systems can look messy, but they also have built‑in safety valves: votes of no confidence, leadership challenges, snap elections, and the ability to remove a failing leader quickly e.g. in 2022 Boris Johnson was deposed by his own party as Prime Minister for consistently lying, and replaced by Liz Truss, who was then deposed by her own party within just six weeks as Prime Minister for crashing the UK economy. Governments can fall, but authoritarianism is much harder to entrench because power is so distributed.
That’s the contrast Evan was getting at. The American system is incredibly strong when everyone plays by the rules — but when someone decides not to, the rigidity becomes a vulnerability. Parliamentary systems look chaotic, but they bend before they break.
And to finish on a lighter note — there’s a short video that cuts back and forth between the calm formality of the USA Senate and the lively, sometimes chaotic debates in the House of Commons. It’s less than two minutes long, but the contrast between the two styles of democracy is genuinely entertaining: https://youtu.be/4a7kvqrHpto
I don't see an issue with, as a general rule, supporting a candidate's "agenda", so long as it is rational, humane, and forward looking. But I must call into question continuing to defend that person when that person goes off the rails in implementing that agenda.
Border security and immigration enforcement — including stricter controls, deportation policies, and reducing incentives for illegal immigration.
On the face of it those are rhetorically laudable goals, Harris had the same agenda in that regard. But that subject has two parts: on the border and interior.
Trump has been very successful at rolling back border apprehensions (the measure for crossings) to levels not seen since the 1970s. But he had to break a couple of laws and reduce America's stature around the world to do it. Examples of the former are violating the Immigration and Nationality Act by banning asylum applications and threatening to deport people to third-party nations.
An example of the second is that Amnesty and other rights groups felt it necessary to issue a World Cup travel advisory for the United States saying it was too dangerous to come here (I recently posted an article about on German who cancelled plans to come here for the World Cup because of Trump's policies.
While I would agree with Trump's first agenda item, I would be forced to criticize him heavily for how he implemented it - and that is something his defenders are unable to do.
As to the interior aspect. Trump said on MANY occasions he was ONLY concerned with the "worse-of-the-worse". Again, that is a fine agenda item and many presidents, especially Obama, did that. IF ONLY he had not lied. We would have two now dead Americans murdered by an out of control DHS that would be alive today, if not for Trump's lies. It took those two murders to finally get Trump to pull back and change course.
Personally, i would have criticized Trump to the rooftops for his illegal actions yet we didn't just get crickets from his defenders, we got support!Trump is ONLY concerned with the worst of the worst...or the worst of the worst is the primary target with other criminals picked up as they happen to enter the radar screen?
Because that is what I have always heard him say. That you choose to twist it into something he did NOT say does not make it true.How did I twist it - He Lied. Or are you saying that Trump never said that?
Here is another agenda item that BOTH Trump and Harris campaigned on.
Economic Growth and Job Creation:{ — through tax cuts, deregulation, and bringing manufacturing and industry back to the United States.
I wouldn't be singing his praises as his defenders are considering the meh-to-poor record Trump has on this.
- GDP: Trump is below average so far at 2.5% from 4/1/25 to 3/31/26. Using 1955 - 2025 as a baseline, the overall average was 3% No spin, just facts.
- Tax Cuts: First, consider his failed 2017 tax cut. The promise was it would "pay for itself" from growth. Granted, there was a tiny bump in growth for a very short period, it failed to cover the cost of lost revenue. The winners were large corporations and the very rich. The rest of America saw little if any benefit and many lost (I was one). It also drove an increase in national debt by $1.5 trillion. That is the History.
This tax cut will again benefit the very rich and give a pittance to everybody else while causing others to lose, The is the estimate anyway. The big difference is that instead of raising the national debt $1.5 trillion, this one will raise it $5.0 trillion!!! It is also expected to fail just like Trump's last tax cut and Bush's before him. What ever minimal growth might occur will not come close to covering the cost of the tax cut.
Now you may find that something to praise Trump for, I find the opposite motivation.
Deregulation: This is an agenda item that Trump loves en mass and Harris might support on a case by case basis, depending on if they help or hurt Americans. By definition, regulations are put in place to PROTECT things, mainly Americans. So, in my view, getting rid the purpose of getting rid of regulations is to HURT Americans and make businesses marginally richer.
So far, Trump as implemented only ONE deregulation measure of any note and that hurts YOU and other consumers directly - you will get to pay higher bank fees again. I suspect you are in an extreme minority that won't criticize Trump for that move. The others that are some stage of approval will HURT one of two things directly - Americans or our Environment. I criticize Trump for both, but you do not.
Bringing manufacturing and Industry back to America: Something Trump campaigned on as did Harris, when it made sense.
This one is short. Trump has LOST 75,000 manufacturing jobs from 4/1/2025- 3/31/2026
Somehow you find this record praiseworthy. and defend Trump's record.
I, on the other hand, find it worthy of criticism.Iran makes Trump look like a FOOL again, lol
April 20: “I sent a U.S. delegation to Pakistan for another round of peace talks with Iran Monday.” - He didn't
April 19: His representatives “would be heading to the capital of Pakistan and would arrive Monday evening in Islamabad for a new round of peace talks with Iran.” - He didn't
April 21: “Iran has ‘agreed to everything’” - They have not
April 25: After Iran left Pakistan, Trump rushed to say "You’re not going to be making any more 18-hour flights to sit around talking about nothing,” and added that Iran can “call us anytime they want.”
Yeah, he is in charge alright ROFLMAOWHY SHOULD AMERICANS CARE ABOUT WHAT EUROPEANS THINK?
You do not have to care what Europeans think of Trump in some personal or emotional sense. But you do NOT live on island walled off from the rest of the world. If you care about American power, alliances, trade, diplomacy, tourism, or global credibility, then what Europeans think can matter a great deal. If you don't care about those things, then a "not caring" position can make some sense.
Europe is not just a random audience booing from the sidelines; it includes countries whose cooperation affects U.S. interests directly. Europe contains allies, markets, investors, and governments whose view of an American president can directly affect American security and prosperity - YOUR prosperity.
Bottom Line - You may not care what Europeans think of Trump, but America still has to live with the consequences of what they think."Trump discusses continuing blockade of Iranian ports for months"
That means into November. If America is very lucky, we will end up with a supermajority in both the House and Senate."Trump says Iran has ‘not yet paid a big enough price’ as he reviews new peace proposal"
What is WRONG with this man??? Oh yeah, he is a Psychopath!.
It is not that Iran leadership doesn't deserve what they have gotten, they do, but the people don't. Only a psychopath thinks in and articulates those kinds of thoughts.I wasn't aware - scary.
"Because fiber optic cables are so thin and light – virtually invisible to the naked eye – the cable can stretch for up to 9.3 miles (15 kilometers) or more, an Israeli military source told CNN, allowing the operator to remain a safe distance away while the drone feeds him a crystal-clear, first-person image of the target."
This from a story of Hezbollah using these drones against Israel. After checking, Ukraine is using them extensively against Russia.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/03/middleea … l-intl-cmdWow - who needs missiles costing $100,000s or $millions, with weapons like this!
I had to look up how much 9 miles of fiber optic cable weighs. Can you imagine - only about 3 pounds. That seems impossible.
I then asked why it doesn't break a lot. The answer was that in the way they are normally flown and the spooler is constructed, very little tension is put on the cable. So long as they don't start flying it in circles around trees or buildings or something, they are cool.Wow - they are cool - thanks for the info.
I started a new forum titled When Will Russia Invade Europe?
As a result of Trump's enormous stupidity, Trump, the idiot, made the first move to strip Europe and America of its defense against Russian aggression.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/03/europe/g … urope-intlAmericans have a long history of being hurried into war on false pretexts. The “yellow press” encouraged a war fever in 1898 by blaming the sinking of the USS Maine on the Spanish, even though the Navy’s own expert said it was caused by an accidental explosion. The George W. Bush administration justified the invasion of Iraq by claiming that Saddam Hussein had connections to the 9/11 attacks and was building weapons of mass destruction, neither of which turned out to be true.
But with the Iran war, as in so many other ways, Donald Trump has broken new ground. He is the first president to start a war without even bothering to lie to the public, because he simply didn’t care what the public thought. The American people weren’t consulted about attacking Iran—neither formally, through their elected representatives in Congress, nor informally, by allowing pundits, activists, and civil-society groups to have their say. As Trump told The New York Times in January, his power as commander in chief was constrained by nothing but “my own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
——
With an attitude like this, i would be afraid, very afraid…..I try to look at this from both sides rather than jumping to a single conclusion. On one hand, I understand why a reduction of U.S. troops in Germany raises concern, because that presence has long been a visible part of NATO’s deterrence, and in a time of ongoing Russian aggression, perception matters. I can already see the argument that any drawdown could be viewed by Russia as a sign of weakening resolve, even if that’s not the intent. On the other hand, I also think it’s important to recognize that U.S. troop levels in Europe have never been static and are often adjusted based on broader strategic priorities, not just politics. The Pentagon has framed this as part of a larger force posture review, and Europe—especially Germany, has been increasing its own defense commitments, which plays into the long-standing burden-sharing discussion within NATO. To me, the reality likely sits somewhere in between: the concern about how this is perceived by adversaries is valid, but so is the argument that shifting troop levels doesn’t automatically mean NATO is weakened, especially when overall capability and allied contributions are still in play.
Where I think the stronger, more grounded argument sits is this: Trump’s rhetoric can absolutely shape how these moves are interpreted, both by allies and critics, but the underlying policy debate about troop levels, cost-sharing, and global force posture has been going on across multiple administrations. So while some people see motive and connect it to past frustrations, it’s more likely a mix of political messaging layered on top of a broader strategic recalibration, rather than a single act of payback.Wouldn't you agree that to be able to look at something "from both sides" you need to agree on certain facts? You pin your rebuttal on: "I also think it’s important to recognize that U.S. troop levels in Europe have never been static and are often adjusted based on broader strategic priorities, not just politics"
That belief is simply not true, as I pointed out elsewhere. I'll try a different approach here.
I hope we can agree that the purpose of NATO was to protect both European AND American national security interests from a very aggressive Soviet Union who vowed to conquer the world.
I hope we can also agree that stationing hundreds of thousands of US troops across Europe beginning in 1951 was to act as a deterrent to Soviet aggression.
It started with about 180,000 American troops. It peaked at about 475,000 in the early 1960s and then settled down to around 300,000 around 1971.
And there it stayed - until the Soviet Union started collapsing in 1991- 20 years of stability.
Now, solely due to the decrease in the threat environment the force structure was reduced. It fell to about 109,000 by 1992.
And there it basically stayed until 2004/2005 when Bush conducted another force posture review. As a result, he withdrew another 33,000 troops by 2008. We are now down to 82,000.
And there it basically stayed again until 2013 when, after another force posture review Obama withdrew another 10,000 by 2014 when Putin invaded Ukraine the first time.
And there it remained until 2022 when Putin invaded Ukraine the second time. Biden Increased troop levels because of Russian aggression. Now we are back up to 100,000 until now, four years later.
I hope we can agree now that force levels were basically stable from 1971 to 2026 with four exceptions"
1. From 1991 - 1994, when due primarily to the collapse of the Soviet Union, forces were reduced about ~180,000,
2. From 2004/2005 - 2008 based on an assessment of a lower Russian threat, forces were reduced another 33,000
3. From 2012 - 2014,, based on yet another assessment (incorrect as it turns out) of a lower threat level from Russia, forces were reduced another 10,000 until Putin invaded Ukraine, when the drawdown stopped.
4. From 2022 - 2024, based on Russian aggression in Ukraine, forces were increased by about 30,000
So, out of the 55 years our forces have been stationed in Europe, they changed significantly in only 10 of those years - always based on the assessment of Russian capability and intentions.
[i]I hope we can now agree the NATO force levels have been relative stable and that a lower threat assessment of Russian aggression cannot be the reason for Trump to pull 5,000+ troops; that something else is causing him to do that.
Just as a side note, I worked for OSD's Program, Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) from 1992 - 1998. While I was not part of the team evaluating force reductions, I did chair a committee on reducing the Civilian side of the equation. The powers that be were determined to cut the civilian workforce big time and we warned that would cost them big time. Their answer was ":read my lips". Clinton/Gore gored the DOD civil service and guess what, when the dust settled, costs went way up and effectiveness went down.
Around 1998, I did an analysis of war readiness material and where it was located around the world. I determined that as it currently stood, our Army material reserve posture could not sustain what was then the national strategic plan both in quantity and distribution. Partly based on that analysis, the Army was required do a deep dive in their preparedness and make appropriate adjustments.
Likewise, in 1999/2000, when I was back with the Air Force, I led another study to determine the impact of all the budget cuts up to that time on AF readiness. The result was not a pretty picture, and when that, along with other operational analyses, made its way to the President (it would have been great to have gone to that, but I was only a GS-14 and the highest I was able to brief was the Secretary of the AF), DoD got its first plus up in eight years in their Operations and Maintenance account."I also think it’s important to recognize that U.S. troop levels in Europe have never been static and are often adjusted based on broader strategic priorities, not just politics." Shar
"That belief is simply not true, as I pointed out elsewhere. I'll try a different approach here." ECO
ChatGPT --Your statement is well-supported by historical data, defense policy analysis, and recent reporting. Below are credible sources and clear examples you can copy and use.
---
CORE EVIDENCE (AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES)
1. Long-term fluctuations (not static)
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) reports that U.S. troop levels in Europe:
* Reached approximately 475,000 during the Cold War
* Declined significantly after 1991 following the collapse of the Soviet Union
* Today generally range between about 60,000 and 100,000 depending on global conditions
Source: Council on Foreign Relations
https://www.cfr.org/article/where-are-u … yed-europe
This demonstrates that troop levels have never been fixed and instead shift with global security conditions.
---
2. Adjustments tied to strategic priorities (not just politics)
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022:
* The United States deployed an additional ~20,000 troops to Europe
* Total troop presence rose to roughly 100,000, the highest level since 2005
Sources:
Council on Foreign Relations
https://www.cfr.org/article/where-are-u … yed-europe
Stars and Stripes
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe … 50187.html
These changes were driven by deterrence strategy and NATO defense priorities.
---
3. Rotational and flexible force structure
U.S. troop presence in Europe includes:
* Permanently stationed forces
* Rotational deployments
* Temporary training and reinforcement units
Source: Council on Foreign Relations
https://www.cfr.org/article/where-are-u … yed-europe
This structure is specifically designed to allow troop levels to expand or contract as needed.
---
4. Recent example of strategic adjustment (2026)
In 2026, the U.S. announced plans to withdraw approximately 5,000 troops from Germany.
Officials described this as part of a broader strategic realignment, including shifting focus to other regions such as the Indo-Pacific.
Sources:
Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/world/nato-work … 026-05-02/
Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national … rump-merz/
This shows that troop levels are adjusted in response to evolving global strategy, not maintained at a constant level.
---
HISTORICAL EXAMPLES
Example 1: Cold War vs. Post-Cold War
* 1950s–1980s: Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops stationed in Europe
* 1990s: Rapid drawdown after the fall of the Soviet Union
Strategic driver: shift from deterring the USSR to reduced forward military presence.
---
Example 2: War on Terror era (2000s–2010s)
* Troop levels stabilized around 60,000–70,000
* U.S. focus shifted toward operations in the Middle East
Strategic driver: reprioritization away from Europe.
---
Example 3: Ukraine War buildup (2022–present)
* Troop levels increased to roughly 75,000–100,000
* Reinforcement of NATO’s eastern flank
Strategic driver: deterrence of Russian aggression.
---
Example 4: Rotational deployments
* Programs such as Operation Atlantic Resolve rotate troops in and out regularly
Strategic driver: maintaining readiness and flexibility without permanent increases.
---
CONCLUSION (POLISHED VERSION)
U.S. troop levels in Europe have consistently fluctuated over time—from hundreds of thousands during the Cold War to roughly 60,000–100,000 today—reflecting changing strategic priorities such as deterring the Soviet Union, responding to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and shifting focus to other global regions. These adjustments are driven primarily by military strategy, alliance commitments, and evolving security threats, rather than remaining static or being determined solely by domestic politics.I have found that to use ChatGPT properly, you have to keep refining your question. I asked it to give me the troop levels at various points in time. It wanted to keep giving me actual and "planned". I didn't want planned, only what really happened - which is what I reported.
But as to the point of this discussion: I gave ChatGPT my post and your response. This is what it had to say without reasking the question.
Shar (it is more informal than I am), this response does not actually rebut my point. It rebuts a straw man.
I did not claim U.S. troop levels in Europe were literally frozen year to year. (you claimed they NEVER were static) Of course they fluctuated. The question is whether they were strategically stable for long periods and whether the major changes corresponded to major shifts in the threat environment.
The historical record says they did.
U.S. forces in Europe reached roughly 475,000 during the Cold War, then settled into a long plateau of roughly 300,000 by the early 1970s. They stayed broadly in that range until the Soviet bloc collapsed. After 1991, they dropped dramatically because the Soviet threat disappeared. CFR (Council of Foreign Relations) summarizes the same arc: Cold War peak around 475,000, then a post-Soviet decline into the tens of thousands.
Then came another major posture shift under Bush: actual U.S. personnel in Europe fell from roughly 115,000 in 2004 to roughly 82,000 by 2008 — about a 33,000 reduction. That was not a random fluctuation; it followed a formal posture review.
Then, after Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine, the Obama administration reversed the drawdown logic and began reassurance measures, including more persistent rotational deployments in Eastern Europe.
Then, after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Biden added more than 20,000 forces, bringing the U.S. presence in Europe to over 100,000. ()
So the issue is not whether the number moved. The issue is why it moved. The major moves were tied to the Soviet collapse, formal posture reviews, Russia’s renewed aggression, and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
That is exactly my point.
And that is why Trump’s current withdrawal of 5,000 troops from Germany, with threats to cut “a lot further,” is different. It is occurring while Russia is still actively at war in Ukraine and while NATO is still trying to reinforce deterrence. AP reports Trump has said cuts will go beyond the announced 5,000, while NATO and lawmakers are seeking details and expressing concern.
So no, “troop levels have fluctuated” is not a rebuttal. It is an evasion. The real question is whether the reductions matched the threat environment. Historically, the big reductions followed a reduced Russian/Soviet threat. Today, the threat has increased.
Back to me. SO, without spin, in 55 years, force levels changed ONLY four times in any significant way (which what you posted confirms) and ALWAYS for a good reason related to threat level. Trump is trying to change it for ONLY the fifth time and only because he was pissed at Europe. If he were reacting to threat levels, he would be increasing the number of troops and not putting America's national security at risk by decreasing them. I don't understand why you try to defend such an obvious error on his part."Back to me. SO, without spin, in 55 years, force levels changed ONLY four times in any significant way (which what you posted confirms) and ALWAYS for a good reason related to threat level. Trump is trying to change it for ONLY the fifth time and only because he was pissed at Europe. If he were reacting to threat levels, he would be increasing the number of troops and not putting America's national security at risk by decreasing them. I don't understand why you try to defend such an obvious error on his part." ECO
Where I think the stronger, more grounded argument sits is this: Trump’s rhetoric can absolutely shape how these moves are interpreted, both by allies and critics, but the underlying policy debate about troop levels, cost-sharing, and global force posture has been going on across multiple administrations. So while some people see motive and connect it to past frustrations, it’s more likely a mix of Trump's political messaging layered on top of a broader strategic recalibration, rather than a single act of payback.
I see this as part of Trump’s governing style—using a show of strength to make a point not only to the intended audience, but also to anyone who encounters the issue through the media. It reflects a form of transparency that many people don’t necessarily respond to or interpret comfortably. I can agree he chose a bad time to withdraw troops from Germany, as you pointed out. My view is that I don't appreciate these kinds of games or his timing.I am glad you don't appreciate his games (the timing was on purpose), but why is it, Sharlee, you can't come right out and say his reasoning for diminishing our national security is for selfish, ego driven reasons?
I agree that is his "governing style" and all but MAGA and other dictators agree it is abhorrent.
In my opinion, what he did is the opposite of a show of strength. Instead, it looks like a show of childish petulance.Sharlee, you can't come right out and say his reasoning for diminishing our national security is for selfish, ego driven reasons?" ECO
I can only share my feelings regarding the issue. I have no right to read into his motives. As I said-- My view is that I don't appreciate these kinds of games or his timing.
Again, while some people see motive and connect it to past frustrations, as you do. It may be more likely a mix of Trump's political messaging layered on top of a broader strategic recalibration, rather than a single act of payback.
To your first example:
I think you’ve moved the goal post from your original claim that force levels "were never static" which implies they constantly change (otherwise, why point it out?).
Your example 1 from CFR doesn’t actually contradict what I said—it describes the same major inflection points I outlined: Cold War buildup, post-1991 drawdown, and the modern 60k–100k range. That’s not evidence of constant fluctuation; instead it supports my claim of long periods of stability interrupted by major strategic, Russian threat-based resets.
The point I was making isn’t that troop levels never changed. Of course they did. The point is that for long stretches—especially from the early 1970s through the end of the Cold War, and again in the post-2000 period—levels were broadly stable, and the big changes coincided with major shifts in the threat environment.
So citing that troop levels were once 475,000 and are now 60,000–100,000 doesn’t show continuous fluctuation. It actually reinforces the argument that changes happened at a few key moments, not as a constant response to routine policy shifts.
That’s the distinction I’m trying to make.
Sometimes it just the little things, unnoticed by most of us that portend for far greater dangers ahead.
Trump’s politicization of the armed forces now includes the takeover of Stars and Stripes, the military’s congressionally-authorized independent newspaper. First published 160 years ago during the Civil War, it has been in continuous publication since World War II, with its editorial independence guaranteed by Congress. The act is a preview and warning of far worse things to come. The ombudsman responsible for the integrity and impartiality of this publication that has weathered thru the last 85 years of conflicts and changing administrations, has been fired by the Trump administration. They now turn this respected publication into a “rag” made up of Trump administration propaganda and lies. As a veteran, i take great offense at this move. Hegseth says it is to eliminate “woke”? It seemed like the real war heroes over the past 160 years, not the “chicken hawk” like Hegseth, were not afraid of objective and candid reporting. So, what gives here? What is woke? This administration is devoid of all decency and decorum and has got to go……..
https://www.salon.com/2026/05/03/milita … d-by-maga/I understand why this would raise concern, especially from a veteran’s perspective, since Stars and Stripes has a long and respected history going back to the American Civil War and has been associated with independent military reporting for generations.
That said, I think it’s important to separate concern from assumption. A change in leadership or oversight does not automatically equal the loss of editorial independence or a shift into “propaganda.” Those are serious claims, and they should be supported by evidence of actual changes in reporting content or editorial interference, not just personnel changes or administrative restructuring. Every administration has had disagreements with military-affiliated media, but that alone doesn’t demonstrate that an institution has been fundamentally compromised.
On the point about Pete Hegseth, it’s also important to be accurate about his service record. He served in the U.S. Army National Guard for about a decade and was deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan. During his service, he received multiple military honors and qualifications, including the Combat Infantryman Badge, Army Commendation Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Army Service Ribbon. He also completed officer training and served in both stateside and deployed roles. You can strongly disagree with his political views or leadership approach, but it is not accurate to suggest he did not serve in war zones or that he lacks combat-related military experience. So, is it fair to call him a "chicken hawk?
More broadly, terms like “chicken hawk” tend to shift the discussion away from policy and institutional concerns and into personal legitimacy debates, which usually makes it harder to evaluate the actual issue at hand.
If the concern is truly about Stars and Stripes, the more grounded questions would be: has its reporting content actually changed in practice, is there evidence of editorial interference in specific stories, and are journalistic standards being altered in a measurable way? Those are the factors that would indicate a real shift, rather than assumptions about intent or direction.Ok, Sharlee, as you are always quick with an answer or explanation, lets separate concern from assumption.
———
Toward the end of his first term, Trump tried to zero out funding for Stars and Stripes, but he was forced to back down following public outcry.( we are not confused with “context” or misunderstanding, this information is found over several media sites as confirmation)
——
In September 2020, the Trump administration moved to zero out funding for the Stars and Stripes newspaper, directing the Pentagon to shut down the publication by transferring the $15.5 million in annual funding to higher-priority programs.
The move was widely seen as an extension of the administration’s broader hostility toward mainstream media and frustration with independent reporting, particularly reporting that sometimes contrasted with official military leadership narratives.
Key Details Behind the Proposed Funding Cut:Budget Priorities: Then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper argued that the money could be better spent on other, higher-priority military issues.Media Hostility: (yeah, 17mil. Against an almost trillion dollar budget, sure)
The decision was viewed by many, including members of Congress, as an attack on an independent, taxpayer-funded news source that provided watchdog coverage of the military.
Independent Reporting: Stars and Stripes had occasionally published news that conflicted with the administration's goals, such as featuring reports from veterans criticizing the president."Controlling the Message": Editorial staff reported increasing pressure and, in some cases, attempts to align the paper's coverage with the Pentagon's focus on warfighting, rather than independent reporting.
Outcome and ReversalFollowing significant bipartisan backlash in Congress, which labeled the move as censorship, President Trump reversed the decision in a September 2020 tweet, announcing that the funding would not be cut and that the newspaper would continue to operate. The reversal occurred shortly after reports alleged that the President had disparaged fallen U.S. service members
What is YOUR explanation as to WHY? How do you spin this, Sharlee?
——-
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell described the new direction: “no more ‘woke content,’ and a ‘focus on warfighting, weapons systems, fitness, lethality, survivability, and ALL THINGS MILITARY.'”
(Now, that was a DUMB thing to say) There are many other valid concerns for those men and women in uniform. Can there not be discussions regarding poor housing on military bases, difficulties accessing medical care, sexual assault and high rates of suicides among veterans. This will mean less information for service members about how to exercise their rights, and to hold the military establishment accountable. It is more than about the active members but families associated with the members. (In my world, everyone should be subject to being held accountable, but not so in the conservative mindset)
———
A disproportionate number of the purged officers are Black, brown or women. Hegseth and Trump view them as presumptively unqualified due to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives — which, in practice, means they were fired because of the color of their skin and gender. During a speech at the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump previewed these moves, accusing the military of being “woke at the top.”
(This is not just a coincidence, this sort of policy and the man behind it I consider eminently disqualified. No excuses, “context” nor spin this time, Sharlee. Diversity, inclusion and equality is the foundation of our military and is important for its continued cohesion, what idiot fails to recognize that?)
————————-
Yes, for the first time in the position's history, the Pentagon fired the Stars and Stripes ombudsman, Jacqueline Smith, in April 2026. Smith, the 13th person to hold the role established in 1991, was dismissed without cause after criticizing Pentagon efforts to assert editorial control and censoring content.
(Is this just a coincidence, Sharlee, where is the spin? This is happening for the first time in 35 years over 13 people that has held the position. (In my world, there are only so many “coincidences” before one must accept that there is a reason or deliberate pattern behind them.) Editorial interference? There is always an excuse, isn’t there? No one has spoken in those terms in 160 years, now Trumpers try to justify it as merely incidental.)
(The issue at hand is right under your nose and mine, will the paper continue to exist with its standards of editorial freedom and independence or not?)
———
These moves follow Hegseth’s February announcement that beginning in 2027, the Pentagon will no longer allow military personnel to attend Ivy League and other elite institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Brown, Princeton and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In a video posted on social media, the secretary declared that such universities and colleges “have gorged themselves on a trust fund of American taxpayer dollars, only to become factories of anti-American resentment and military disdain” that had “replaced the study of victory and pragmatic realism with the promotion of wokeness and weakness.” In their place, military personnel will be steered toward Hillsdale, Liberty University and other schools judged to be ideologically-aligned with the Pentagon’s goals.
(Is this not another DUMB policy? Sort of hypocritical when one considers that Hegseth himself graduated from Princeton, an Ivy League university. Who is he to say that military members are to deny themselves the opportunities that come from attending Ivy League schools?. So don’t deny it , this has been documented as fact, everywhere.)
———-
What is this all about? Do conservatives ever consider the sheer magnitude of the things that they support?
In May 2025, the Pentagon ordered that books and other materials that discuss race, gender and LGBTQ+ identity and other “divisive concepts” should be removed from military service academy libraries and Pentagon schools for review. In practice, this meant award-winning and essential books on the Holocaust, chattel slavery, civil rights, racism and feminism. Maya Angelou’s autobiography “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” was included in the purge; Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” was not.
(Hmm, another coincidence, do you have flowery oratory to explain all of this? I will recommend you for a Pulitzer Prize if you can)
————
As for Hegseth
According to multiple analysts and politicians, Pete Hegseth is considered to have the least military and management experience of any U.S. Secretary of Defense in modern history. While some past secretaries did not serve in the armed forces, Hegseth—a National Guard veteran and TV host—lacked prior experience running a large organization, such as a major corporation or government agency.
Key points regarding Hegseth's experience:Military Background: He served as a platoon leader in the Army National Guard, but never held a significant, high-level command position.
Management Experience: He had never managed a large-scale organization before being appointed to lead the Department of Defense, which includes over 3 million personnel and a $900 billion budget.
Historical Context: While earlier 20th-century secretaries occasionally lacked military experience, observers note that for modern times, his background is uniquely limited.
Opposition to his nomination, such as that detailed by Senator Tammy Duckworth, highlighted this lack of experience as a major qualification concern.
However, some supporters viewed his outsider status as a benefit. As detailed by LiveNOW from FOX, some defenders argued that his experience in the military was sufficient, even if it was not in senior leadership, and that he was chosen to reform the department rather than maintain the status quo
(While chicken hawk was a bit strong, i still say that he is unqualified for the position and represents true Trump: Loyalty over competence. In these perilous times, there is no room for amateurs at the very top. This evaluation is also everywhere, so no point in trying to marginalize the facts as media bias and such. Conservative love to make these kinds of explanations that i consider as mere excuses.)
To conclude, “anti-woke” policies promoted by the administration is interpreted by me as being anti-black and white supremist. This would make me automatically anti-Trump and I have no choice in making that assessment.I’m not going to try to “spin” it into a single hidden motive, because most of what you listed is a mix of policy decisions, political messaging, and interpretation layered on top of each other.
On Stars and Stripes, the 2020 proposal to cut funding was real, and it was framed by the administration at the time as a budget reallocation issue inside a massive defense budget. Congress pushed back hard and it was reversed. You can reasonably see that as either an overreach or as a budgeting decision that didn’t survive public and legislative scrutiny, but the key point is it didn’t ultimately happen, and the reversal matters when judging intent and outcome.
On the “woke” vs “warfighting focus” language, I agree the rhetoric is blunt and often unhelpful. But I don’t think it automatically translates into “anti-any group” intent. In government and military settings, “focus on readiness, training, lethality, etc.” is often used, sometimes clumsily, as shorthand for prioritizing core mission functions. That doesn’t mean issues like housing, mental health, or sexual assault aren’t real concerns; those absolutely exist regardless of which administration is in charge.
On DEI-related claims and personnel decisions, I’d be cautious about jumping from “policy direction or restructuring” to conclusions about race or gender being the cause of specific outcomes without very clear evidence. In large organizations, especially the military, personnel changes happen for a wide range of reasons, and political narratives tend to fill in gaps that the actual records don’t always support.
The Ivy League education policy idea is similar: it’s usually argued from an “institutional culture / curriculum alignment” standpoint, not a blanket claim about the quality of education or individual worth. You can disagree with it (and many people do), but it isn’t necessarily aimed at limiting opportunity so much as steering training pipelines toward certain institutional priorities.
On the book/library removals, this is where context really matters. Military academies and service libraries often review materials under evolving guidelines about instruction standards. People see that as censorship; others see it as curation for training environments. Both reactions exist, but it’s not automatically equivalent to banning ideas broadly across society.
And on leadership qualifications, Hegseth included, there’s always a tension in politics between “career experience running large institutions” and “outsider reformer” arguments. Supporters emphasize disruption of existing systems; critics emphasize management scale and institutional complexity. Both are standard arguments in government appointments, even if people strongly disagree on the conclusion.
Stepping back, I don’t see a clean, single explanation that ties all of this together as one coordinated intent. It looks more like a mix of budget fights, political signaling, institutional culture debates, and contested interpretations of policy choices. You can absolutely disagree with those policies, but jumping from disagreement to a unified motive like “therefore it must mean X about race or ideology” is where the reasoning starts to get less solid and more assumption-driven.On Stars and Stripes, the 2020 proposal to cut funding was real, and it was framed by the administration at the time as a budget reallocation issue inside a massive defense budget. Congress pushed back hard and it was reversed. You can reasonably see that as either an overreach or as a budgeting decision that didn’t survive public and legislative scrutiny, but the key point is it didn’t ultimately happen, and the reversal matters when judging intent and outcome.
——
No, that is not the answer, why in over a century and a half was it proposed in the first place?
On the “woke” vs “warfighting focus” language, I agree the rhetoric is blunt and often unhelpful. But I don’t think it automatically translates into “anti-any group” intent. In government and military settings, “focus on readiness, training, lethality, etc.” is often used, sometimes clumsily, as shorthand for prioritizing core mission functions. That doesn’t mean issues like housing, mental health, or sexual assault aren’t real concerns; those absolutely exist regardless of which administration is in charge.
———-
Then WHY neutralize issues of concern within the military family? This also has not been done in the past, Why now? It is only under this regime has such a distinction has even been considered. Again, Why?
On DEI-related claims and personnel decisions, I’d be cautious about jumping from “policy direction or restructuring” to conclusions about race or gender being the cause of specific outcomes without very clear evidence. In large organizations, especially the military, personnel changes happen for a wide range of reasons, and political narratives tend to fill in gaps that the actual records don’t always support.
———
How much evidence do you need? Your insistence on “clear evidence” comes off as an excuse for activity by the War Secretary and the President that has been corroborated by the preponderance of news sources. Under the circumstances, I don’t believe that there any “grey areas” involved. You are marginalizing and equivocating, those “wide variety of reasons” constitutes another excuse, which you do not have to substantiate in any way. Why was it that General George was fired? Check that out?
The Ivy League education policy idea is similar: it’s usually argued from an “institutional culture / curriculum alignment” standpoint, not a blanket claim about the quality of education or individual worth. You can disagree with it (and many people do), but it isn’t necessarily aimed at limiting opportunity so much as steering training pipelines toward certain institutional priorities.
———
What does “institutional culture”/curriculum alignment” standpoint supposed to mean? This, too, is unprecedented and unsupported as nothing more than the personal bias of Hegseth turned into policy. I consider that to be loathsome at best.
On the book/library removals, this is where context really matters. Military academies and service libraries often review materials under evolving guidelines about instruction standards. People see that as censorship; others see it as curation for training environments. Both reactions exist, but it’s not automatically equivalent to banning ideas broadly across society
————
There is that word again “context”, for you it covers a multitude of sins, particularly those that you wont define. I attended the Air Force Academy Prep School in the 1970s, the Academy provides a standard college education with emphasis on what we called aerospace studies. What guidelines involve censorship of specific ideas that are inconsistent with an ideological agenda? This, too, is unprecedented. This is not education, but indoctrination. Again the question is WHY? And I am not talking about banning ideas across society. The military cadet should have the option of academic self investigation and discovery, as we all expect. This entire thing stinks and you can douse it with Chanel No.5 and it smells no better.
Sorry, Sharlee, I don’t care for Hegseth and his agenda, regardless. And I will support anything the continues to discredit him in the position he currently holds. Your verbose dialogue continues to evade answers to specific questions, it comes off as wishy-washy, much like trying to nail jello to a wall.Also, her comments on DEI, et all, are contradicted by simple observation.
Hegseth wears is racism proudly like a cloak.
Fundamentally, Hegseth opposes being awake/alert — especially alert to racial danger, injustice, and social reality.
It is as simple as that.
I'm insulted as well, but not surprised - he is an psychopathic authoritarian after all.
"US military strikes Iranian sites but says it does ‘not seek escalation’
Meanwhile, Trump warned "we’ll knock them out a lot harder, and a lot more violently" if Iran doesn't sign a deal soon."
"knock them our a lot harder ..." - boy, doesn't he ever get tired of that BS that nobody pays attention to except himself? Boorish.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/07/world/li … n-war-newsQuestions for all to answer, especially for those who approve of Trump's war.
1. Has Trump achieved his objectives?
2. Is the world better off today than on Feb 27?
3. Is America better off today than on Feb 27?
4. Are Americans better off today than on Feb 27?
5. Given how Trump conducted his war, do you still approve, assuming you initially approved?1. Despite Trump’s “happy talk”, i believe that we are no closer to agreement than we were at the war’s outset. The irreconcilable differences between the parties are simply too great.
2. Rather than this being an American boondoggle like Vietnam, a vital artery associated with body of global commerce is experiencing an embolism. The entire planet is pissed off at the United States.
3. ESO, the price of gas has gone up to around $4.50 a gallon. Thus, due to the ill advised war against Iran combined with the off and on tariffs create instability where there was once harmony. I have nothing to smile about except the fact that I can expect a nice raise in my pension COLA next January, if this keeps up. And, knowing Trump, it probably will.
5. Only fools will consider supporting Trump after his breaking every campaign promise that he has ever made. Are people stupid? I saw this coming long before Trump threw his hat into the ring.1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. Never have, and never will approve this illegal war.Thank you, those are my answers as well. I suspect 70% of Americans will answer the same way.
1. Could well be. I don't know what his objectives were. Normally it's enriching himself and his family. So it could well be that he made a ton of money by the rising petrol prices.
2. No, Iran is in a better negotiating position. As it showed that the regime change can not be forced with bombs. So there is not much left with to threaten Iran. Also the patrol prices will have an long lasting effect and slow down the world economy.
3. The US is alone. It alienated itself from its allies.
4. I can't answer that one, but I don't think so. The democracy is under attack, there is more police violence (ICE) on the streets, and prices have gone up because of the tariffs and the war with Iran.
5. Never approved of his rhetoric and corruption with his own untraceable crypto currency. Trump is the most corrupt president of the US ever. And not ashamed to admit so: Thank you for the lovely plane!
Hey, Credence, you remember when a couple of people here drug President Biden across the rack on almost a daily basis for drawing down the strategic petroleum reserve to help stabilize oil prices from a REAL emergency (one not caused by him)? Well, isn't it funny how silent they are in not criticizing Trump for doing the same thing, only worse, for his contrived war.
Trump now owns the historically high rate of drawdown (8.6 million barrels a week!),
FUN FACTS:
* The SPR can hold 714 million bbl
* Prior to Putin's invasion of Ukraine there were 638 million bbl
* When President Biden stopped the drawdown, there were ~350 million bbl
* Just prior to Trump's drawdown there were 416 million bbl
* As of May 18, there is about 368 million bbl
* By Jun 5, Trump will have reached a record low of about 345 million bbl
* At his current rate of drawdown, the Trump caused war have only ~161 million bbl left in it by election day.
Yet all we have is SILENCE from the Right. Can you spell hypocrite?Chatgpt- Current SPR level
About ~384–415 million barrels
Most recent DOE/IEA-related reporting centers around ~384 million barrels after ongoing loan and release programs tied to the Iran-related energy disruption
Earlier March 2026 reporting still showed levels closer to ~415 million barrels before additional withdrawals began.
Source https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_endin … hatgpt.com
Date Value
May 08, 2026 384.10M
May 01, 2026 392.70M
April 24, 2026 397.92M
April 17, 2026 405.04M
April 10, 2026 409.18M
April 03, 2026 413.32M
March 27, 2026 415.06M
March 20, 2026 415.44M
March 13, 2026 415.44M
March 06, 2026 415.44M
February 27, 2026 415.44M
Facts --- Chatgpt
U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) timeline:
When Biden took office (Jan 2021)
• About 638 million barrels in the SPR
• Near modern highs after Trump’s first term
Trump first term (2017–Jan 2021)
• Started in the mid-500 million barrel range
• Ended at about 638 million barrels
• Net increase of roughly 70–80 million barrels
• Growth came mainly from routine fill policy and limited drawdowns
Biden administration (2021–Jan 2025)
• Peak level around 638 million barrels
• Significant releases during:
• 2022 Russia–Ukraine energy crisis
• 2023 additional mandated withdrawals and sales
• Low point around 347–350 million barrels in 2023
• End of term (early 2025) about 390–395 million barrels
Trump second term begins (Jan 2025)
• About 393–395 million barrels in the SPR
Replenishment before Iran conflict (2025–early 2026)
• Administration began refilling the SPR
• Increased to about 410–415 million barrels
• Net gain of roughly 20+ million barrels
During Iran conflict (2026)
• Emergency releases and loans began
• Withdrawals and planned releases reduced levels
• Current reported range about 380–410 million barrels depending on week
Simple summary
• Biden inherited: ~638 million barrels
• End of Biden term: ~390–395 million barrels
• Trump first term peak: ~638 million barrels
• Trump second term start: ~393–395 million barrels
• Pre-conflict replenishment peak: ~410–415 million barrels
• Current levels: ~380–410 million barrels
"Trump frequently criticized the administration of his predecessor, Joe Biden, for tapping the reserve to try and bring down gas prices. U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright reiterated that criticism when announcing the coming release from the reserve on Wednesday — and said that the U.S. had arranged to replace about 200 million barrels of reserve oil within the next year."
https://www.energy.gov/articles/united- … hatgpt.com
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/us-isr … hatgpt.com
What I see is a president who previously criticized Biden for drawing down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and is now in a position where he is also using it. He must eat his words.
At the same time, he has a stated plan to replenish the reserve over the next year, with the goal of restoring what was used and increasing overall levels.Thank you for supporting my point, FYI, ChatGPT was my source as well.
Also, Biden, who started the drawdown because of Putin, promised to replace the oil as well, that is not unique to Trump who started the drawdown because of, well, Trump.As I have mentioned. I use ChatGpt for stats. The stats are very important regarding this issue.
Roughly, yes — if you are talking about actual physical barrels repurchased and put back into the SPR during Biden’s term.
The key distinction is:
About 180 million barrels were released in 2022.
About 59 million barrels were directly repurchased by late 2024 and physically returned or contracted for return to the reserve.
The administration argued the effective replenishment number was much higher because they:
canceled congressionally mandated future SPR sales,
used exchange returns,
and secured future deliveries.
That is how they reached claims closer to 180–200 million barrels “secured” or “restored.”
Critics responded that canceled future sales are not the same thing as physically refilling the reserve with oil already replaced underground. So depending on the accounting method
ChatGptYour comment was " Trump, early on in his second term, started replenishing the oil reserves,"
All I was pointing out is that is misleading. Trump didn't "start" that, Biden already had it going.
Sharlee, in her usual defense of Trump’s said that Trump’s drawdown is different, after all, he has a plan to replenish.
But, if I recall, he also had a plan to end the Iraq attack in a matter of days, it is going on 3 months. I don’t care what this Trump says, he always lies or exaggerates.
For the conservative, excuses always reigns supreme….I thought my comment was very clear. Trump, early on in his second term, started replenishing the oil reserves, and now is drawing down, but yes, has intentions of replenishing. At any rate, I see he must "eat crow" due to his prior words on the issue.
At any rate, I see he must "eat crow" due to his prior words on the issue.
You can rest assured that I will make him “eat crow” raw without any condiments……Shouldn't you have said, to be fair, that on Dec 16, 2022 Biden started replenishing the oil?
It is hilarious, Trump says "very soon" as often as CNN says "election results are minutes away",(and hour later, they say the same thing.) In Trump's case, it is a month, then two months, and now three months later.
So now what is Trump going to do? Create a constitutional crisis and defy congress? Congress has clearly said enough is enough. I am grabbing a ringside seat
By the way, we dems need to rid ourselves of Senator Fetterman, a wolf in the fold….
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ … m#positionWhat Congress has done so far regarding Iran is important, but a lot of people are acting like Trump has already been “stopped,” and that really is not the case yet.
What happened on May 19 was a procedural Senate vote advancing a War Powers Resolution aimed at limiting Trump’s ability to continue military action against Iran without congressional approval. The vote was 50–47, and it was the first time one of these efforts successfully advanced after several earlier attempts failed.
A few Republicans joined Democrats in support, which is politically significant because it shows concern is no longer coming from only one side of the aisle. Some members of Congress are arguing that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president alone, the authority to declare or continue war.
But people should understand where this goes from here.
The Senate still has to hold a final passage vote on the resolution itself. If it passes there, it then has to pass the House. That may be difficult because the House has already struggled to get similar measures through, including one recent vote that ended in a tie.
Even if both chambers pass it, it would still go to Trump’s desk, and he could veto it. Congress would then need a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate to override that veto, which is a very high bar and probably not there right now.
There is also the reality that presidents from both parties have challenged or worked around the War Powers Resolution for decades. Many administrations have argued that the president has broad commander-in-chief authority to conduct limited military operations without a formal declaration of war from Congress.
So at this point, this is less about Congress fully “stopping” Trump and more about Congress trying to reassert its constitutional authority over war powers while also sending a political message that there is growing concern about deeper involvement in Iran.
Whether people agree with Trump or not, this situation is also exposing a larger debate the country has had for years: how much military authority should a president have on their own, and when should Congress step in before conflicts escalate further.
A lot of people are talking about John Fetterman and whether he’s “shifting right,” but I think what’s really going on is more about the politics of Pennsylvania than just one politician changing his views.
Pennsylvania is basically a true swing state. It’s not solid blue or solid red — it swings depending on the election, the turnout, and the issues at the time. That’s why you can see Trump win the state in recent presidential elections, 2020, and 2024.
Fetterman does sometimes break from the party line or talk in a more independent way, especially on issues like crime, borders, or foreign policy. I think that reflects where Pennsylvania voters are more than it reflects a full ideological shift from him personally.
It probably makes more sense to say he’s representing a state that itself is tightly divided and constantly shifting depending on the political climate.
He is very reminiscent of the liberal I knew in the past, before they adopted socialism.
I think it also bears mentioning that Josh Shapiro is also seen as moderate or pragmatic rather than strongly progressive. He tends to focus more on practical issues than ideological messaging.
The state could be becoming a bit more red than blue in terms of ideologies.Well said, this is a good synopsis. And you know what, you are right. This may all be an exercise in futility, but it is a canary from the coal mine.
It is not likely that there will be enough votes in congress to overcome Trump veto desire to continue to prosecute this war without oversight.
I can only hope that he keeps on pushing making more and more legislators and the people at large uncomfortable to the point where the economic and political pressures to bring him to heel will be irresistible.
The question as to how much authority the President should have to conduct military operations outside of the concerns of the legislative branch needs to be addressed. This cannot be Trump’s sole decision without oversight as the American people through their representatives are entitled to know and say how much blood and treasure is to be invested in all of this. I will tell Trump to go indulge himself in his martial tendencies. It may well take American body bags and 5 dollar gas to apply the proper pressure point, that may well be the only way to “stop him”.
What you say about the nature of Pennsylvania politics is spot on as well. It has gone from a democratic area to a swing state status. Fetterman is a reflection of that “swingy” attitude.I agree with part of what you’re getting at regarding oversight and the constitutional tension between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to military action. There is a real, long-standing debate there, and Congress absolutely does have a role in authorizing and funding sustained military engagements.
On the broader point about executive war powers, I think the more workable path people usually land on—across parties—is tightening the War Powers framework, improving reporting requirements, and forcing clearer congressional authorization for extended operations.
And on Pennsylvania, I think your observation about it being more fluid politically now is fair. It’s been moving away from predictable patterns for a while, and that does affect how individual senators like Fetterman operate within a more divided electorate.Since you both wrote this, Johnson in the House had to pull a vote in order to not embarrass Trump in that chamber as well.
Only when the Senate majority is not at stake.
I want to be a Fetterman fan, if only because of his overcoming personal tragedy. He has voted with the Democrats 90% of the time at this point, I just wish he would pick less controversial issues to go Massie on us.
I GUESS THAT TRUMP HAS REALLY SCREWED UP THIS TIME, HE HAS BEEN CHECKMATED BY IRAN
Anyone care to wager how is it that Trump will weasel out of this one? Nothing short of decimating Iran militarily will do, but he doesn’t have the belly for it.
Excerpt from an Atlantic article…….
The outlines of President Trump’s endgame in the Iran war are now emerging. In a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday, Trump reportedly explained that the United States was negotiating a “letter of intent” with Iran that would “formally end the war and launch a 30-day period of negotiations” on Iran’s nuclear program and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The purpose and effect of such an agreement should be clear: The United States is walking away from the crisis. Trump may launch another limited strike to look tough and satisfy the demands of the war’s supporters, but it would be a performative gesture. Endgame in this case is a euphemism for “surrender.”
Trump has blinked many times in the confrontation with Iran—ever since March 18, when Israel attacked the Pars gas field and Iran retaliated with a strike against Qatar’s most important natural-gas-production facility. Trump then called for a halt on U.S. and Israeli targeting of Iran’s energy infrastructure, and the war effectively ended.
Trump’s repeated threats to resume attacks since then have proved to be bluffs. The leaders in Tehran have been calculating for two months that Trump would not launch another attack, and for this reason they have made no concessions despite the damage they suffered from 37 days of relentless strikes. On the contrary, their terms for a settlement are those of a victor: They demand war reparations, no limits on uranium enrichment, recognized control of the strait, and an end to sanctions.
For Trump to respond to this defiance by now calling for another 30 days of cease-fire and talks is a tacit admission of defeat. If he does launch a performative attack in the next few days, the Iranians will understand it for what it is. No one believes that he is going to resume a full-scale war a month from now. Among other reasons, with 30 more days to heal, rearm, and fill its coffers with tolls, Iran will be a more formidable adversary.
In 30 days, moreover, the new Iranian strait regime may already be firmly in place. As the Institute for the Study of War reports, Iran has been using the cease-fire period to “normalize” its control over the strait by “compelling oil-importing countries” to establish transit agreements with Tehran and charging fees on vessels from nations without such deals. According to Iranian officials, the new strait regime will give Iran’s strategic partners, such as Russia and China, priority and allow nations friendly to Iran, such as India and Pakistan, to negotiate their own transit agreements. Vessels associated with nations that Iran regards as an adversary will be denied access to the strait entirely.
Several nations, including South Korea, Turkey, and Iraq, are reportedly already negotiating at least temporary transit agreements. Now that Trump has made clear he has no intention of fighting to reopen the strait, the stampede to get good terms with Tehran will begin. All nations heavily dependent on energy from the Persian Gulf will want to cut their deal quickly to get the oil and gas and other commodities flowing and rescue their battered economy. Those nations currently allied with the United States and friendly to Israel will feel pressure to distance themselves and make their peace with Iran. The international sanctions against Iran will collapse, and even more money will pour into the country’s accounts as its newly central role in the global economy becomes normalized. By the end of 30 days, most of the world will have a stake in the new arrangement and will oppose any resumption of hostilities, even in the unlikely event that Trump wanted to go back to war.
Trump no doubt hopes that he can slip away without Americans noticing the magnitude of this defeat. The financial markets may stabilize if it is clear that oil will eventually start flowing again through a reopened strait, even if under the new Iran-controlled system. A major strategic setback for the United States need not affect Wall Street. The president may also hope that he can change the subject by launching another military operation, this time against the government in Cuba. And the news media have indeed begun writing more about Cuba than about the unfolding disaster in Iran.
According to one U.S. official, Netanyahu’s “hair was on fire” after the call with Trump—for good reason. The Iran war may end up as the single most devastating blow to Israel’s security in its brief history. On the present trajectory, Iran will emerge from the conflict many times stronger and more influential than it was before the war. It will exercise leverage with dozens of the richest nations in the world, all of which will have an acute interest in keeping Iran happy. They will be unlikely to take Israel’s side in any conflict that it has with Tehran or with its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza, because Iran will have the means to punish them if they do. Israel will emerge more isolated than it has been at any time in its history—and not least from its only reliable protector, the United States. When Trump turns his back on Israel, as he must do to implement this policy, MAGA will gladly follow. The bipartisan anti-Israel consensus in the United States will grow and harden.
Will Israel go gentle into this good night? That is the wild card that may disrupt the financial markets’ dreams of a new stability in the Gulf. A stronger, richer, more influential Iran will mean new life for Hamas and Hezbollah. It will mean the end of the Abraham Accords, as the Gulf States will have to make their own peace with Tehran so that their economies can survive. Trump says that Netanyahu “will do whatever I want him to do.” But can Israel stand by while Iran replaces the United States as the arbiter of power in the region?
Most likely, the new normal in the Persian Gulf will be chronic instability and frequent disruptions in shipping. That’s what happens when the hegemon cedes hegemony.
———
Thanks, Donald Trump, AKA “smooth move Exlax”The comment takes a handful of unverified or anonymous-sourced claims and builds an entire geopolitical conclusion on top of them as if they are established fact.
The idea that the U.S. is “walking away,” “surrendering,” or being “checkmated” is not a factual assessment. it is interpretive language. Even the reported “letter of intent” and cease-fire framework (as described in the article) comes from anonymous or secondary sourcing, not an official U.S. government announcement or confirmed agreement. That matters because policy discussions and preliminary diplomacy are not the same as outcomes.
The entire argument assumes a chain of outcomes that have not occurred:
that negotiations = defeat
that cease-fire talks = surrender
that market stabilization = geopolitical collapse
None of those assumptions are factual conclusions — they are interpretations of uncertain events.
There is no verified basis for claims that Iran is emerging as a dominant global arbiter or that sanctions enforcement and U.S. regional influence are collapsing in the way described. Those are predictions about future geopolitical alignment, not measurable present-day facts.
Reducing complex foreign policy decisions to “Trump got checkmated” or “he doesn’t have the belly for it” is rhetoric, not analysis. Real-world diplomacy is often a mix of pressure, deterrence, negotiation, and de-escalation, and outcomes are rarely as binary as “victory” or “defeat” in real time.
You can criticize strategy if you want, but it still has to be grounded in what is actually confirmed — not a chain of assumptions presented as inevitability.Before Trump's illegal war, the straights of Hormuz were open. After Trump's illegal war, the straights of Hormuz are closed. He lost, period.
Before Trump's illegal war, Iran's despotic regime was, by decree, not going to produce a nuclear weapon. After Trump's illegal war, Iran's even more despotic regime IS going to try to make a nuclear weapon. He lost, period.I don’t know, Sharlee, I do the arithmetic and 2 + 2 can’t be 5. Put the pieces together and a picture forms and it is not pretty.
Of course it is not factual, because much of it has not happened yet, but it the most likely outcome short of Trump and Netanyahu reducing Iran to ashes.
So, you are going along with Trump’s ‘happy talk”. This thing has been going on for 3 months, when it was supposed to have been over in as many days. Why the delays?
So what is there to negotiate? Iran clearly is not interested in any concessions toward American demands. Trump will have to settle for a half-loaf, more probably a quarter loaf, leaving the other 3/4 to Iran, short of total war that is.
This cease-fire has been going on far too long when Trump tells us all “we” are holding all of the cards.
The stabilization will occur just as the article suggests, with the US and its allies having the most difficulty transversing the strait. Xi and Putin met recently. I could not help to think that they are laughing their a$$es off at Trump’s latest pratfall. Why should they care, Iran will support any of their vessels being allowed to pass through.
The “assumptions” are highly rational and the most probable interpretation of events as we sit here today.
Of course there is not a verified claim that Iran is emerging as a dominant global arbiter, etc… The article is about potential future geopolitical alignment.
If you were Trump how would YOU stop these trends which are quite real. If Trump does not destroy Iran, Iran wins, it is that simple.
Real world diplomacy is surely taking a long time to have an effect on events in the region. In this case, America’s reach may well have exceeded its grasp.
You can dance around it all that you wish, but this entire affair is not going according to plan. If one considers that Trump had a plan.
This entire matter was poorly conceived and executed. Trump has a problem of placing loyalty over competence. Any state dept 101 student could have anticipated Iran’s actions and response once they were attacked. Why would Trump send his son and law to participate in critical negotiations? Sending a boy to do a mans job. Because of narcissism and insecurity you don’t send your best, what do you believe the party on the other side of the negotiating table would think?
While I can’t predict the future, this is as probable an outcome as any….I think it must be more than "destroy Iran", it must be "occupy Iran" - and look how well that turned out in Afghanistan where the IRGC is the equivalent of the Taliban.
"Even the reported “letter of intent” and cease-fire framework (as described in the article) comes from anonymous or secondary sourcing, not an official U.S. government announcement or confirmed agreement. " -
I think the “anonymous sourcing” objection is mostly a deflection here.
Yes, a reported letter of intent is not the same thing as a signed, official agreement. That is a fair distinction.
But anonymous sourcing does not mean “no evidence,” as you seem to imply, and it certainly does not mean the reporting can be dismissed without engaging it. Unnamed sources are common in serious journalism, especially in diplomacy, national security, law enforcement, and internal government negotiations, where people often cannot speak publicly without risking their jobs or access.
The real question is not simply whether every source is named. The question is whether the outlet is credible, whether the information is corroborated, whether the sources are described as people in a position to know, and whether the reporting is careful about what is confirmed versus what remains tentative.
So yes, we should not treat a reported letter of intent as a finalized agreement. But “unnamed sources” is not a magic phrase that makes the reporting disappear. Unless we are talking about outlets with a documented record of knowingly spreading false claims (yes, I am referring to Fox News), unnamed sourcing is a legitimate and often necessary part of serious reporting..It is my belief that this whole Iran/Israeli conflict is because of Netanyahu (Bibbi) and his treatment of the Palestinian people. Bibbi’s plan has always been to rid Gaza of the Palestinians so Israel could expand their settlements into the Palestinian territory.
Granted, October 7 was a blood bath for Israel, but there are two sides to the story. Iran used Hamas to do their dirty work because of the way the Palestinians were made refugees in their own land by Israel’s defense forces.
They pushed down their houses with bulldozers in the middle of the night, including other vicious tactics to clear the land for their settlements. They have turned the territory into rubble with the excuse of looking for Hamas. Independent demographic studies estimate true deaths may exceed 90,000–100,000 when accounting for undercounting and indirect deaths (disease, hunger, lack of medical care).
Netanyahu is now attacking Lebanon because Israel is now in an open war with Hezbollah, which escalated after Hezbollah fired missiles following the U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iran. Israel says its goal is to push Hezbollah away from the border, destroy its military infrastructure, and prevent a northern front that could threaten Israeli cities. The war has been devastating for Lebanon:
3,000+ killed (fighters + civilians)
1.2 million displaced (over 20% of the population)
So now Bibbi is fighting a war with both Hamas and Hezbollah serving as proxies for Iran. But Iran is also attacking Israel. Bibbi’s wish is to have a regime change in Iran.
So, he brings Trump into the fray with the excuse that Iran is an imminent threat to the U.S. with their nuclear weapons. So, Trump bombs their nuclear facilities twice. With each time claiming he has decimated their capacities to have nuclear weapons.
The next two sections are a result of asking AI the following questions: Is Iran’s nuclear program an imminent threat to the U.S. and what is Trump's position of the Strait of Hormuz?
Quick verdict
The chance that Iran launches a nuclear weapon at the U.S. right now is effectively near zero—because:
• Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon, according to U.S. intelligence and the IAEA. FactCheck.org Arms Control Association
• Iran also does not yet have missiles that can reach the U.S. mainland, despite political claims to the contrary. PolitiFact
So the “Iran nukes the U.S.” scenario is not a realistic near term risk; it’s a political talking point and a worst case future scenario used to justify policy.
________________________________________
1. Does Iran have a nuclear weapon?
Short answer: No, not according to the best available evidence.
• A 2025 U.S. Intelligence Community assessment said Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that its weapons program halted in 2003. FactCheck.org
• The IAEA director in 2026 said they do not see a structured program to manufacture nuclear weapons in Iran. Arms Control Association
Iran does have a large stockpile of enriched uranium and the technical know how, which means it has “latent” capability—it could move toward a bomb if it chose to—but that’s different from actually having deployable nuclear weapons.
________________________________________
2. Can Iran hit the U.S. with a missile?
Short answer: Not yet.
• A 2025 U.S. government assessment said Iran is still years away from having long range missiles that could reach the U.S. homeland. PolitiFact
• Independent missile and arms control experts agree that claims Iran can “soon” hit the U.S. are exaggerated and not supported by current capabilities. PolitiFact Arms Control Association
Iran can threaten regional targets (Israel, Gulf states, U.S. bases in the Middle East), but not the continental United States with current missiles.
________________________________________
3. Even if Iran had a nuke, why is a strike on the U.S. still unlikely?
This is where deterrence logic kicks in:
• Guaranteed retaliation: A nuclear strike on the U.S. would trigger overwhelming U.S. retaliation and almost certainly mean the end of the Iranian regime.
• Regime survival is priority #1: Iran’s leadership is repressive and aggressive, but it is also survival driven, not suicidal.
• Nukes as deterrent, not first strike tools: States that pursue nukes typically want leverage and protection, not a one way ticket to annihilation.
So even in a future where Iran did get a bomb, the most likely use would be deterrence and bargaining, not a first strike on the U.S.
________________________________________
4. What is realistically risky right now?
The real dangers are serious, but different from “nuke on U.S. soil”:
• Regional escalation: Missile and drone attacks between Iran (and its allies) and U.S./Israeli forces in the Middle East. FactCheck.org Arms Control Association
• Attacks on U.S. bases and ships in the region.
• Nuclear program expansion: If diplomacy collapses completely, Iran could shorten its “breakout time” to a bomb, increasing long term risk.
Those are real strategic problems—but they’re not “mushroom cloud over Los Angeles tomorrow” problems.
________________________________________
Now Iran has control of the straits of Hormuz. And Trump is looking for a way to get out of this mess.
________________________________________
So what is Trump’s actual position right now?
Putting the confirmed pieces together:
Trump’s current position on the Strait of Hormuz is:
1. He wants it reopened, but
2. He is not willing to restart large scale strikes to force it, and
3. He is pursuing a negotiated reopening instead, and
4. He is using the U.S. oil reserve to cushion the economic fallout, and5. He is signaling that the U.S. will not escalate to a full war with Iran.
________________________________________
So, in summary
This is really Netanyahu's war caused by his treatment of the Palestinian people.
Hamas and Hezbollah are proxies for Iran and Trump and our Department of War are a proxy for Netanyahu.
There is no imminent threat of a nuclear missile attack to the U.S., by Iran not now or even in the near future.
Trump doesn't know what he is going to do about the Strait of Hormuz, but he may open up our national reserve to bring oil prices down.People keep speaking about Iran’s nuclear program as if everything is proven fact, when in reality much of it involves uncertainty, intelligence estimates, and incomplete information. Yes, there is evidence Iran enriched uranium to levels far beyond normal civilian use, built advanced centrifuges, restricted inspections, and previously concealed parts of its nuclear program. Even the IAEA has acknowledged it lost visibility into some materials and activities.
But at the same time, there is no publicly released definitive proof that Iran currently possesses an assembled nuclear weapon or an operational warhead. We also cannot honestly claim with certainty that inspectors saw everything, because inspectors were denied access to certain sites and there is always the possibility of hidden facilities. That is exactly what makes this situation so tense internationally.
The reality is that proving a country has a secret nuclear weapon is difficult, but proving with certainty that no hidden program exists is just as difficult. So the debate is not really whether Iran has nuclear capability, most experts agree they likely do. The real questions are whether Iran has made the political decision to weaponize that capability, whether covert sites exist, and whether intelligence agencies truly know the full picture.
What has changed dramatically is Iran’s missile capability. For years, Iran publicly claimed its missiles were limited to roughly 2,000 km in range, and many Western assessments operated around that understanding. But recent reported long-range strikes toward Diego Garcia demonstrated a capability approaching 4,000 km, roughly 2,500 miles, far beyond what many believed Iran operationally possessed. Even defense analysts acknowledged this appeared to reveal a much longer-range capability than previously confirmed.
That matters because long-range missile capability changes the entire discussion surrounding nuclear deterrence and delivery systems. A country does not need to publicly unveil a completed nuclear weapon for the international community to become deeply concerned when uranium enrichment, restricted inspections, hidden-site concerns, and rapidly advancing missile technology are all occurring together.
At some point, people have to ask a difficult question: is it wiser to confront and contain a potentially massive threat before a nuclear weapon exists, or wait until there is undeniable proof and face an Iran that may already possess one?
I think President Donald Trump is approaching Iran from a position of “maximum pressure mixed with unpredictability.” He appears to believe that strong economic pressure, military buildup, direct threats, and the possibility of force are what bring Iran to the negotiating table. At the same time, he has also repeatedly signaled that he prefers a deal over a long war if Iran agrees to major concessions. I have no opinion on where this will go from here. His strategies are beyond me, at this point.It is hard to follow your reasoning, but it seems to come down to this: because we cannot know everything with certainty, we should be willing to make war before the threat is proven or even known with a reasonable level of certainty.
Does that sum it up?
Oct 7 can, in my opinion, be laid at the feet of Israel and their resettlement policy of stealing Palestinian land. Absent that policy, one could reasonably argue that Hamas would not have gained such a dominant position in Gaza.
Ironically, it was the "liberal" side of Israeli politics that started the policy in 1969 after the Six-day War and the "conservative/religious zealots" didn't object. Not soon after that, the liberals saw the error of their ways and began to oppose the expansionism and took up the Two-State Solution cause.
It was the conservative/religious zealots (Netanyahu today) that kept the policy in place and even became more aggressive with it.
It was that platform that was, in my opinion, the underpinning of Hama's popularity.
He is not called TACO TRUMP for nothing. If he wants to salvage any shred of self-respect, he will need to invade Iran with troops. Otherwise the despots in Iran have beat the despot in America, hands down.
I think the GCC countries must thank Donald Trump. In case Trump had not arrested Iran, the GCC countries would've been wiped out.. as it stands. I think Iran is going to be destroyed very soon and maybe it would be a blessing in disguise..
For the tenth time (it feels like) the Felon and Sexual Predator says the deal with Iran is "Largely Negotiated". Only time will tell.
From the current reporting, if it goes through, it will be a shell of the JPOCA Obama negotiated.
The status of a once open Strait of Hormuz, which Trump is responsible for getting it closed, is unclear.
Trump will forever be known as the American president who let Iran almost get the BOMB."Why Trump’s possible Iran deal may be almost as divisive as his decision to wage war'
Trump started Iran on the path to a nuclear weapon when he stepped away from Obama's masterful JCPOA. That agreement, which Trump didn't want any part of for the petty reason that Obama did it, stopped Iran in its tracks from acquiring a nuke and getting rid of its highly enriched uranium stockpile.
Because of Trump's master class incompetence, Iran quickly restarted its nuclear ambitions and begun enriching their uranium once more; now they have 880 pounds of the stuff.
So what does Trump do to correct his massive mess up - START A WAR he could not win!!!!
And now that Iran has bested Trump at his own game, Trump wants to minimize his damage with a "peace deal" that leaves America and the World much worse off than when Obama left office.
FROM one of the most trusted news networks - https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/25/politics … l-analysisWith the threat from the US and Israel, Iran would be foolish to give up the right to defend themselves in the future. This latest attempt to have gulf states sign on to agree to normal relations with Israel may well be premature and naive. But, again, that is Trump for you. He will either TACO, leaving while accomplishing nothing but a useless ramping up of the regional body count or he will be forced to go to, war boots on the ground with quagmire on the road ahead.
As “People” says, we have been nothing more than Netanyahu’s pit bull on a leash. Let Israel defend itself and stay out of foreign entanglements, isn’t that what Trump pledged?Oh, he will have (has) accomplished something alright. Since his war is illegal, he effectively caused the death of 13 American service men and women. He cause Sharlee to pay $4.50 a gallon for gas. He caused inflation to surge to AT LEAST 3.8%. He caused more of the world to hate America. he has effectively murdered tens of thousands of innocent Iranians and hundreds of really bad Iranians.
This list of "accomplishments" can con go on forever.This is all kinds of crazy... Hey, I will pay as much as necessary for gas, if it means Iran is stopped from having nuclear weapons--- Just hell-bent on leaving my grandchildren a safer world. I get a kick out of your logic -- "rather have cheap gas, who cares about a terrorist nation having the power to blow however they might please off the face of the earth.
I asked AI What are the particulars of Iran's missile launch to Diego Garcia?
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/4k … zWvVWooQ9u
I asked AI Could an Iranian nuclear missile reach Israel?
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/QP … bwV8HBvFyZ
Conclusion:
Netanyahu has been beating the same drum for years. He knows full well that Iran is not going to launch nuclear weapons at Israel. If they did, it would be cataclysmic for both sides. Iran is using its nuclear stockpile as a deterrent, just like all the other countries that have nuclear capability.
Trump got suckered into this war and used the excuse of imminent threat to justify it. Now we have higher prices because of his tariffs and the straits of Hormuz that he has no way out of. In my view, he is not a deal maker. He is a master con-artist suffer from a extreme case of narcissism
"13 US service members have died in the war with Iran. Here are their stories"
Trump is responsible for their deaths with his illegal war. Why is MAGA cheering?
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/25/us/us-mi … s-iran-warNegotiation 101 - Kill your opponent
"Iran threatens to retaliate after US strikes on launch sites and boats"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/25/world/li … peace-dealAs only a fool believes” Read it and weep, Trumpers….
Recent article by David Frum from the Atlantic Monthly.
————-
The first surprising thing about President Trump’s impending defeat in the 2026 Iran war is that he already fought and won a successful war against Iran last year. In June 2025, U.S. and Israeli air strikes badly damaged the Iranian nuclear program in 12 days of bombardment. Exactly how badly remains controversial. But they didn’t do nothing. If Trump had quit while ahead, he could have banked his gains from last June as a solid if imperfect win.
The second surprising thing about Trump’s impending defeat is that he does not seem to have cared at all about the only evident reason to resume fighting in 2026: the Iranian people’s rebellion against their brutal oppressors. Trump has never given any evidence of caring about Iranian democracy or human rights. He promised the Iranian people “Help is on the way” on January 13, but military operations did not commence until thousands were dead and the rebellion was already effectively crushed. During military operations, Trump made clear that he sought a deal with the existing regime. He made no effort to support or cooperate with Iranian dissidents before, during, or after the uprising.
The third surprising thing about Trump’s impending defeat is that even he himself seems never to have understood why he went back to war against Iran. What exactly did he think he would achieve? He kept saying that he wanted to ensure that Iran never developed a nuclear weapon. He also insisted that he had effectively prevented it from doing so in August. He seemed genuinely to believe that claim. If so, why resume the fighting? If, however, those words were wrong, then why not simply hit the nuclear sites again? Why the need for this bigger war?
Trump started the February 28 war for reasons of personality, not strategy. He is on his way to losing the war for the same reasons of personality.
Trump is arrogant. Think how often Trump mocks his predecessors as “dumb” and praises himself as “smart.” Those predecessors, from Jimmy Carter through Ronald Reagan to Joe Biden, all had to ponder military responses to Iranian terrorism and aggression. They all ultimately decided not to wage a major war against Iranian national territory. Among the prime deterrents to action: the Strait of Hormuz problem. Trump apparently decided that a problem that was too hard for everybody else would magically disappear for him, because he is tough and growls in his official photographs.
Trump is reckless. Trump is not a plan-ahead guy. He plunges into desperate adventures without any clear endgame in mind. What really was Trump’s plan on January 6, 2021? After Mike Pence was seized by rioters and forced at gunpoint to recite the magic words Trump wanted him to say, what was supposed to happen then? The 81 million American majority who’d voted against Trump in 2020 would submit? The military, CIA, and FBI would follow blatantly illegal orders? In 2021, Trump provoked violence and hoped it would all somehow work out. He followed the same approach again in 2026.
Trump hates procedure. A lot of the apparatus of the modern presidency exists to force confrontations with unwelcome realities. Cabinet officers are confirmed by the Senate to assure the country that major offices are filled by people of character and competence. The National Security Council is supposed to process challenging data to ensure that the president receives necessary information. But to run the Department of Defense, Trump nominated and the Senate approved Pete Hegseth. Instead of choosing a national security adviser to replace Mike Waltz after Waltz’s resignation on May 1, 2025, Trump tapped Secretary of State Marco Rubio to take on the role. But to double up that particular job dooms the job not to be done at all, especially because Trump has shriveled the NSC’s staff and subjected it to loyalty tests demanded by his most screwball supporters.
Trump is panicky. For all his bluster and boasting, Trump cannot take the heat. Presidents who believe in their decisions ride out bad polls. Trump panics and reverses course. Trump has been signaling since mid-March that he wants an end to the Iran war at almost any price. The Iranians have read those signals. For all the damage the U.S. military inflicted on Iran, the Iranians seem to have gambled that they could outlast Trump. They’ve been proven right.
Trump is gullible. As Trump’s present secretary of state observed back in 2016, Trump is most fundamentally a con artist. But Trump is often a self-defeating con artist who falls victim to his own con. Trump demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran. Instead, he’s negotiating an exit that concedes most of Iran’s demands and leaves Iran in a more dominant position over Persian Gulf oil traffic than it occupied before the war. But Trump seems genuinely to have convinced himself that he’s won a mighty victory, and he seems truly baffled that others decline to endorse his flim-flam.
Trump can’t lead. Trump’s method of governance is command. He cannot work across party lines, and he cannot speak to any part of the American nation beyond his MAGA base. A war leader, however, must be a national leader. War imposes costly sacrifices. Leaders who take the nation to war must explain those costs and inspire those sacrifices. Trump simply cannot do any of that work, and he has no idea how it could be done.
For three years in his first term, Trump benefited from the strong economy that he inherited. Then the pandemic struck, and his first instinct was to hunt for someone to blame. In this second presidency, his main work has been spectacular self-enrichment, even as the economy has sagged under the weight of his catastrophic trade wars. He made no case for an Iran war to the public and never sought approval by Congress. There are some Iran hawks on the Democratic side, especially in the Senate. Trump never tried to ally with them.
Trump’s vision of the presidency is authoritarian and kleptocratic: Issue orders, grab money, luxuriate in flattery, erect monuments to oneself. That’s no way to lead a nation through the hazards and difficulties of war. Now the war is ending on disadvantageous terms for the United States. Trump’s old methods will be turned to a new task: trying to deceive the American people and the world into believing that the war he lost was really a big win, the biggest ever, so big you cannot believe it. He’s likely to discover that, indeed, nobody does believe it.
————
Wasn’t it Trump that said that a successful negotiation with Iran was in the wings? Rubbish!!
Related Discussions
- 17
Why President Trump Was Right to Target Iran’s Nuclear Sites
by Sharlee 11 months ago
And Why the World Can't Afford to Keep Guessing at GhostsIran’s Decades of ProvocationIran has spent over four decades cultivating its status as a rogue regime. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has waged a slow, deliberate campaign of terror, subversion, and bloodshed, fueling proxy wars, funding...
- 129
Iranians terrorists funded by the US!
by Deforest 13 years ago
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The US administration just gave them the...
- 9
U.S. Moving Heavy Bombers To Middle East After Iran Vows Revenge
by Ken Burgess 18 months ago
As we near the election, military actions abroad are escalating at an alarming pace, from North Korean troops being deployed to battle Ukrainian troops along (and within) Russia's borders, to Iran (and China) heightening military efforts in Iran. The U.S. Department of Defense announced this week...
- 316
Is the World More or Less Safe Given Trump Killed an Iranian General?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Donald Trump, after some discussion with few of his top generals, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense as well as some of his advisors, over a two or three day period, decided to assassinate the second most powerful person in the Iranian government - General Qasem Soleimani, the leader...
- 16
Biden's Foreign Policies Talk Loud Insult Whoever...
by Sharlee 5 years ago
It is early to determine how Joe's foreign policies will work out for America. However, he appears to be starting off with an ideology that he will speak loud and strong, and carry a big-ol' foam rubber stick. In comparison to our previous president that stated on several occasions "keep...
- 73
To GOP gripes about US military failure in Afghanistan: Piss Off!
by Credence2 4 years ago
I have just recently read articles from GOP congressmen criticizing the Biden Administration for the fall of Kabul with the Afghan leader now on the run.Looking toward the 20th anniversary of 9-11, I am waiting to hear from the Republicans regarding their sane and sensible solution to this?We never...