Evacuate Tehran? And Trump called Biden a warmonger?

Jump to Last Post 1-48 of 48 discussions (148 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image82
    Credence2posted 5 weeks ago

    Background;

    https://www.salon.com/2025/06/16/evacua … th-social/

    I find it at the height of arrogance for Trump to tell Iran that they cannot have a nuclear weapon, is not Israel a nuclear power?

    The balance of power requires that both sides have similar weapons, to discourage aggression from one side toward the other. It has worked for almost 80 years on the global scene.

    Since Trump so foolishly eliminated previous diplomatic and negotiation options, this is where we are. What is going to take to stop Iran, short of war? Is it a war that we, the US, will find itself in the middle of? I thought that Trump was speaking of reducing our involvement in international matters of this sort?

    So Trump boasted that he could solve major international conflicts at the wave of his magic wand? Both Netanyahu and Putin see him as nothing more than a useful idiot. They are both going to do want they want and Trump just makes it easier for them. If you are on the opposing side, of course you want to keep Colonel Klink in charge of Stalag 13.

    He is being made a fool of by Putin and has merely exacerbated the mess in the Ukraine. Iran is not Iraq as they have a substantial military force, will Russia support Iran against the US? This all remains to be seen.

    1. Kyler J Falk profile image78
      Kyler J Falkposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      For those interested in real-time monitoring of the world, I have a group that compiled all of the relevant real-time monitoring systems and instructions. It's a good time, and it's all relatively easy to use with direct access to information before the news tweaks it to their agenda.

      Popular Wide-band Web Receivers
      >http://websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/
      >http://websdr.k3fef.com:8901/
      OR Select one geographically close to you
      >http://websdr.org/
      >http://rx.linkfanel.net/

      INSTRUCTIONS
      >Set Frequency to 4724.00, 8992.00 or 11175.00
      >Set Mode to USB
      >Tap "Wider" to increase bandwidth (2.7-3.0 kHz)
      >Press "Chrome audio start" if necessary
      >Get /comfy/

      NOTE:
      >At night, 4724 is clearest along with 11175. (Take into account the location of your SDR)
      >Daytime 8992 replaces 4724.
      >Click the "wider" button once to get 2.7kHz.

      CSV OF FREQUENCIES:
      >https://pastebin.com/nRaDXdZN

      WHAT IS SKYKING???
      >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Global_Communications_System
      >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Action_Message

      AIR TRAFFIC:
      > https://globe.adsbexchange.com/
      > https://www.flightradar24.com/

      MARITIME TRAFFIC
      > https://www.marinetraffic.com/
      > https://www.vesselfinder.com/

      LIVE UNIVERSAL AWARENESS MAP
      >https://liveuamap.com/en/

      REAL TIME RADIATION WORLD MAP
      >https://www.gmcmap.com/index.asp

      MORSE CODE DECODER
      >https://morsecode.world/international/decoder/audio-decoder-adaptive.html

      SSTV DECODER (app for download)
      >https://hamsoft.ca/pages/mmsstv.php

      THE DOT
      >https://global-mind.org/gcpdot/
      >https://beigexperience.github.io/ponderthedot/

      As for this new, hip and happening war, I already have buddies on their way over there. Hopes, prayers, pleas, etc. all going toward hoping a hot war isn't popping off. The juice isn't worth the squeeze.

      I think it's time for America to focus on its own problems for a hot minute, and only be in the mix when it directly serves strengthening our bonds around the world as a whole. Israel has already admitted it could single-handedly wipe Iran, so let them if that's their course in life.

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yes, the juice is not worth the squeeze. This regime change, nation building stuff of the Bush era is passe. You wonder why so many domestic problems remain unsolved, so here stuff like this is part of the answer.

        Thanks for the other sources, quite a bit to cull through.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image73
          Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Bush era... you mean Biden era...

          Bush started a war against a lesser nation that had no chance.

          Biden started WWIII... against Russia... the country with a couple of nukes, the country now joined at the hip with China.

          No contest which Administration was filled with bigger idiots... none.

      2. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        +100000000000

    2. peterstreep profile image82
      peterstreepposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Although it sounds honest, like give both parties the same amount of weapons...I disagree here. There is a huge difference between Israel and Iran. Israel is a democracy and Iran is a theocracy. I'm definitely not a fan of Netanyahu but he will be replaced in a couple of years through a fair election. (and yes there are some religious nut cases in Israel too!)
      In Iran there are no fair elections. The supreme leader rules, with laws following an extreme religious interpretation of the Koran.
      Iran has used children in the name of Allah to clean up mine fields. (Basij Militia).
      Extreme religious people think completely different than ordinary people. They are willing to make suicide attacks in the name of God (think 9-11)
      Now imagine Osama Bin Laden had the possibility to use a nuke. Do you think he would not have used it? He could have put it into an airplane and ramp it into a building..
      This is what Iran would do. And this is not what Israel would do.

      Now another point of concern is AI. Artificial Intelligence is developing with an extreme rapid rate. And is available for everybody. Now some countries with the resources can easily use AI to construct all kinds of malicious tools and weapons. (and cheap)

      The regime in Iran is a religious dictatorship now free liberated person can or should defend. As women's rights don't exists and if you are gay your life is in danger.
      Now, hopefully, as the Iranians themselves are fed up with the dictatorship, this war with Israel will topple the regime. The frightening question is, what will replace it?

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Peter, nice to hear the perspective from the other side of the pond as I have serious concerns about the opinions of our American Right wing. Do you really believe that Trump’s involvement was something most of you on “the continent” support?

        I know that Iran is not exactly a liberal democracy, but neither is Pakistan, China or Russia. Short of out and out war, do we really need this sort of intimidation right now? We have a variety of tinder boxes all over the world. I blame Trump for choosing not to negotiate over using brute force. It is characteristic of him, look at Greenland and Panama. Is not North Korea just as savage? The world is not a pretty place and sticking our noses in the affairs of others as we did in 2003 Iraq based on moral indignation has not worked. Are the mass of Iranians really willing to destroy themselves? Do they not realize that the retaliation from the rest of the world from mature nuclear powers would not wipe them from the map? Are they all in a hurry to meet with Allah? Up to now, I have seen more aggression from Israel than from Iran. Iran has been saying for years that they want Israel removed from the map, but yet Israel is still here. I want thinking people (our leaders) to use a little discernment and avoid putting adversaries into corners from which they cannot extricate themselves. There remains a few minutes before midnight, can we not use that time to defuse this matter?

        1. peterstreep profile image82
          peterstreepposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          I can't really talk for the whole of Europe. But what I feel is that the general consensus among European politicians and the public is that Trump is an unreliable person. One day he is saying and doing this, the other day he turns 90°. He has shown that he has a different objective than Europe and isn't looking for a partnership and dialogue but for conflict.

          Trumps involvement? It is more a lack of involvement. Trump abandoned the nuclear deal with Iran without replacing it with an alternative. Leaving a gap. Same with the Trump leaving the Paris agreement without offering an alternative.
          And same with Ukraine, Trump talks a lot but does not want to make tough decisions. He does not offer realistic solutions.

          The fact that Netanyahu does what he does is because the US has a weak leader who is not able to push back against Israel. (Same with Russia, Trump is terrible in Geo politics.)
          Basically Trump does not care what is happening outside the US. This ostrich politics will hit home. As if the US is unwilling to "police the world" someone else will (China) or nobody ( resulting in many conflicts around the world)
          Or in the words of James Brown... "It pays to be the boss." If you want to be the boss, it comes with responsibilities. And Trump wants the benefits of being the top dog country asking for tariffs etc, but is not willing to accept the responsibilities.
          What happens is that Netanyahu, Putin, China and bit by bit smaller terrorist groups will become more active in the world, as Trump does not step in. These terrorist groups will also hit the US in the end.

          About the nuclear bomb and Iran.
          I don't think Iran is the same as Pakistan or even North Korea.
          Iran is ruled by extreme religious fanatics. This is even worse that an extreme ideology like Nazi Germany. Iran would use the atom bomb to destroy Israel, a country pretty close. It has said so over the years.
          I don't think Nazi Germany would have used the bomb to destroy Paris. But would have used it, just like the US and Russia as a thread. I think even North Korea is not as bad as Iran, although this is a society that's brainwashed as well. (much more so than Iran, as the majority of the people in Iran are sick of their leadership)

          Iran is really a different case, as they have lunatics who will do suicide bombings, that's a complete different mindset than an ordinary war. And I think this extreme religious mindset is something we can hardly imagine in the west. As all religions have become much more moderate over the centuries in the west. But the extreme Islam in the middle east is a different thing all together. They will not care about retaliation from the west. Just like Hamas does not care about their own citizens being carpet bombed and use them as human shields. As it is a sacrifice for God (Allah)
          So yes, I think it would be incredibly unwise to give Iran an atom bomb, as they will use it for real and not just as a threat.

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Yes, if I were on your side of the pond, I would see Trump as an unreliable flip flopper who will change with the weather and just drag everyone along.
            Russia or China just might not sit still as Iran is allied with Russia. Trump is gullible and easily swayed and manipulated.

            But you have to wonder, Peter, if jihad is so certain from Iran why does Iran even consider negotiations? Why not simply build the weapon and use it?  Why would extreme religious zealots bother to negotiate? Another poster revealed that the threat posed by Iran in acquiring sufficient fissionable material to make a bomb has been akin to ‘sky is falling” for the last 30 years. It reminds me of the coming breakthrough regarding successful nuclear fusion, “it is just around the corner”. But it has been just ‘around the corner’ for 3 or 4 decades.

            In the film and novel “Is Paris Burning” I recall Hitler planing to decimate Paris prior to its liberation by the allies. The German officer assigned to carry out Hitlers command had second thoughts and did not carry out the order. Based on the film and Hitlers behavior, I would believe that he would have used all the conventional munitions available at the time, even though he did not have nuclear capacity.

            1. peterstreep profile image82
              peterstreepposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              The nuclear bomb capacity of Iran is a pretext for the war. If it is true is irrelevant.... Just like the US used the lie of Iraq having chemical weapons. Or the made up fights across the border of Poland and Germany.
              Governments make up stories to justify a war.

              The reason why Israel attacks Iran today is as it has disabled Hezbollah and Hamas who were fighting a shadow war for Iran.
              They aren't a threat anymore.
              Also as said Trump is not able to stop Netanyahu as he does not know how to handle this kind of situations. (Same with not doing a thing about Ukraine and Russia.)
              He walked away from the G7 where all the diplomacy takes place. And is staling with making a move.
              So basically giving Netanyahu card blanch.

              Iran as we know is since 1979 when Ayatollah Khomeini a theocracy and a problem in the region.
              The west could say, let it be. Don't bother, let them fight among themselves. Why should we care that human rights are being violated. And normally that's the attitude of the rich countries. They only come to action if there is financial gain. Human rights is not important (as a classic example the many dictatorships in South America who were directed by the CIA, and the colonialism by Europe..)

              Now I'm sure, as Trump is only thinking in dolars, that this will be a motivation for the US to support or not to back Israel.

              The war between Israel and Iran was waiting to happen. There are a lot of arguments. But my own argument is that Israel is a democracy and Iran is a dictatorship. I support a democracy. Same with Ukraine fighting Russia. I support Ukraine because it is a democracy and Russia a dictatorship.

              We can say that Israel has used to much violence. And I totally agree, and Netanyahu is an extreme right wing populist (defiantly not my vote). But the other side is much worse in my opinion. Imagine that Hamas had conquered Israel. What would have happened? Or what would have happened if Iran was stronger than Israel and conquered the land?


              The difficult thing about these conversations I find is that we are talking about a war from our comfortable home. Having different theories of how the war can develop and what will happen etc... And often I think, I don't know anything about this whole thing...

              I remember the live images of CNN of the Iraq war of missiles being shot at people on a bridge, destroying the bridge but missing the people, and the commentators yelling, oh boy that was their lucky day...
              Like war is some entertainment.
              Today with social media people have lots of opinions following influencers like Joe Rogan and other people who don't know anything about the background of a conflict and are just yelling things to get more likes, to become more popular using controversial statements or conspiracy theories.

              1. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                “Iran as we know is since 1979 when Ayatollah Khomeini a theocracy and a problem in the region.
                The west could say, let it be. Don't bother, let them fight among themselves. Why should we care that human rights are being violated. And normally that's the attitude of the rich countries. They only come to action if there is financial gain. Human rights is not important (as a classic example the many dictatorships in South America who were directed by the CIA, and the colonialism by Europe..)

                Now I'm sure, as Trump is only thinking in dolars, that this will be a motivation for the US to support or not to back Israel.”
                —-
                Trump is in it for political “browny points”with certain constituencies in this country, I don’t believe that he has any ideals or preferences for either side

                Interesting points,  Peter, but was not the Shah of Iran seen as merely a western puppet? As far as I can see, much of the globe suffers injustice. It is almost too overwhelming for any one nation or group of nations to grasp a hold of. Philippines, Central America, north and sub Saharan Africa, where has it stopped? Ending the suffering and making an example of one part of it depends on strategic interests of the wealthy nations and not so much about “human rights” Why would I think that the focus on Iran is any different?
                ——-
                “The war between Israel and Iran was waiting to happen. There are a lot of arguments. But my own argument is that Israel is a democracy and Iran is a dictatorship. I support a democracy. Same with Ukraine fighting Russia. I support Ukraine because it is a democracy and Russia a dictatorship.”
                —-
                The problem with that for me, is that at least here in the United States, the designation of the country as a Democracy is circumstantial. We claim to be a democracy, but internally that has not always been the case. We both know of situations where the CIA would undermine democratic governments in central and South America in favor of tyrants that would toe the line regarding American political and economic interests, while the best interests of the inhabitants are not considered. I see the designation of “free world” as those that conform to western political and economic interests and the “bad guys” as always being the ones to challenge Western hegemony. But, is there anything wrong in challenging Western hegemony? Does anyone want to be ruled over and controlled? That observation is particularly true of the United States. So, in my opinion there is more involved than labels. I support the Ukraine because there should be no situation where one nation invades another in a tyrannical fashion, regardless of its form of government. We have virtually gotten into bed with Saudi Arabia, certainly not a democracy, while castigating Cuba 90 miles from our shores over a “pi$$ing contest” 65 years ago.

                Peter, after looking at some statistics, Iran has 10 times the population of Israel. Looking at the numbers, Iran may well use its greater numbers and subdue Israel with conventional munitions, if it really wanted to. Netanyahu, “the beast of the Middle East” is taking advantage, after decimating the Palestinian question via Hamas terrorism he really thinks now that he can subdue a nation 10 times more populous. Frankly, Peter, it stinks, all of it….

                1. peterstreep profile image82
                  peterstreepposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I does stink. But more I think it is the result of the US (Trump) not understanding GEO politics. Or better said, not caring. Trump only cares if he benefits personally. (Getting some crypto currency from companies and states, or airplanes as a bribe.)

                  What stinks is that Netanyahu is misusing war for personal benefit. As he knows that his political days are over the moment the war stops. Thatcher did the same thing. She started the war with the Falklands at the time her popularity was far into the red. And thanks to this war she could continue.
                  I guess Trump will do the same thing before the midterm election and create a "crisis" or use the Iran-Israel war.

                  1. Credence2 profile image82
                    Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I will make another prediction, Trump will use the war to abuse his executive power and find a way to nullify the risk of Democrats taking over congress in the fall of next year.

                    He has to be sweating, because a screwup in the economy and a war of aggression where we should not have been involved, combined with the tendency of midterms outcomes to be negative for the party in power, may mean “lame duck” status for the rest of his term where Congress would not so much as pass gas on his behalf, let alone anything else associated with his agenda.

                    Right now, my problem is that too many members of Congress are a mere collection of a ventriloquist’s dummies, allowing Trump to usurp their authority and role and allowing him to get away with it.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image73
            Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Oh. Like the guy before him was?

            1. peterstreep profile image82
              peterstreepposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              I was not talking about Biden. I was talking about Trump.

      2. DrMark1961 profile image100
        DrMark1961posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Good points. I feel the same way about the CCP. As we say in Arabic `Do not change your friends unless the new one is certainly better`

    3. Sharlee01 profile image83
      Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      I think some of your points are oversimplified or even upside down when examined with a clear-eyed view of the facts.  Equating Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons with Israel’s existing arsenal ignores a critical distinction: Israel is not a state sponsor of terrorism, nor has it called for the annihilation of any other country. Iran, on the other hand, has consistently threatened Israel’s existence, chants “Death to America” in its parliament, and funds terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Giving a regime like that nuclear weapons isn’t balancing power, it’s inviting chaos.

      Your opening sentence suggests you may see Iran as just another nation, but do you believe Iran should have access to a nuclear weapon?

      Calling Trump arrogant for opposing a nuclear-armed Iran misses the larger truth: for decades, both Democratic and Republican administrations have maintained that Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons. That’s not a Trump idea, it’s longstanding U.S. foreign policy rooted in the real threat Iran poses to the region and beyond. You also mentioned deterrence working globally for 80 years. That’s true, but only when dealing with rational actors. The Iranian regime has shown time and again it values ideology over survival, which undermines traditional deterrence theory.

      As for diplomacy, it’s worth pointing out that the Obama-era JCPOA legally gave Iran billions in relief, yet allowed them to resume advanced enrichment over time. Trump pulled out of that deal because it was temporary and unverifiable in key areas. Instead, he applied a “maximum pressure” strategy, which crippled Iran’s economy, reduced its ability to fund proxies, and, most recently, he took military action again just five days ago with targeted airstrikes against Iranian-backed targets, sending a clear message that nuclear ambitions and aggression won’t go unchecked. That’s not negligence, that’s deterrence in action.

      Calling Trump a “useful idiot” for Putin and Netanyahu also doesn’t stand up to facts. Under Trump, the U.S. provided lethal aid to Ukraine after Obama refused to do so, sanctioned Russian oligarchs, and even killed Russian mercenaries in Syria. That’s hardly appeasement.

      As for Israel, Trump facilitated the Abraham Accords, historic peace agreements between Israel and several Arab nations, something critics said couldn’t happen without solving the Palestinian issue first. Again, those are real-world results, not magic wand promises.

      I end with suggesting that Trump “exacerbated” the mess in Ukraine, ignores the timeline: Putin invaded Crimea under Obama, all held steady under Trump, and escalated into a massive war under Biden.

      Trump may be unconventional in style, but that doesn’t make him weak. In fact, his unpredictability kept adversaries cautious. And that’s exactly what we need with Iran right now, measured strength, not passive optimism. War is not inevitable, but peace through strength has historically been more effective than appeasement through naiveté.

      Just a reminder, the ceasefire between Israel and Iran is still holding. Trump managed to help bring that about after just 12 days of conflict. Yet you don’t mention a single accomplishment of his. How do you overlook so much?

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        The cease fire is just the beginning and is precarious at best. Short of all out war, there is no way that you can really prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, after all we have thousands of them. I am not willing to go to war and tally up casualties to defend a nation on the other side of the globe. But, you can send your kids, if you want.

        Yes, I know that Iran has been a thorn in the side of much of the world, but I don’t trust Trump or his proposal of a pax-Americana as a solution. If I were Iran, I would just keep moving facilities around, and no one will know what the extent of the development is.

        I guess that we are all entitled to our perspectives of the facts at hand.

        Trump was just lucky that the crisis in the Ukraine region did not occur under his watch, he deserves no credit for simply not being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

        It is too early to speak of results. It still remains to be seen. Destroying the Palestinians and their concerns in the region does not make Trump a problem solver. I don’t recall Russia attempting to invade Ukraine during Obama’s term?

        The iAEC said that Iran was basically in compliance with the terms of Obama’s agreement. I don’t believe Trump in saying that it was inadequate. The whole point was to avoid having to drop bombs, realizing that forced capitulation will never yield a lasting peace, not in these times.

        Who was to say that the Soviet Union and China were rational actors? During much of the Cold War and the geopolitical struggle, the finger on the nuclear trigger was a characteristic of all sides.

        Pakistan and India have the “bomb”, under what duress would they use them? What is rational about their long running conflicts?

  2. IslandBites profile image69
    IslandBitesposted 5 weeks ago

    Is it a war that we, the US, will find itself in the middle of? I thought that Trump was speaking of reducing our involvement in international matters of this sort?

    So, apparently, the US is at war with Iran.




    https://hubstatic.com/17531829.jpg


    https://hubstatic.com/17531830.jpg

    1. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Yes, and what is the justification for it? Everybody is so certain that Iran will use its nuclear weapon if it acquires one. It just might need to have one to get Israel to stop its attacks, in fear of reprisal. Iran knows that it territory will be reduced to a large crater is they start anything like employ nuclear ordinance. We all know it.

    2. Readmikenow profile image84
      Readmikenowposted 5 weeks ago

      It is not just President Donald Trump who believes Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.

      It is all the leaders of the G7.  The wealthiest countries in the world.

      They made a unified statement at the recent G7 summit. 

      The statement reads: "We, the leaders of the G7, reiterate our commitment to peace and stability in the Middle East. In this context, we affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself. We reiterate our support for the security of Israel.

      "We also affirm the importance of the protection of civilians. Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror. We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon."

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        That is something I’m gonna have to read for myself. I’ll check it out.

        Yes, they did make such a statement but are any of them willing to go to war to prevent it?

      2. Willowarbor profile image60
        Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        "It is not just President Donald Trump who believes Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.

        LOL....you do realize that he withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal during his first term? A deal that by all accounts was working... Yes, the rest of the world has believed that Iran should not have nuclear weapons for quite a long time... I suppose that you could say we are in the current situation because of Trump's idiotic policy.  He came into the office the first time wanting to destroy as much of Obama's legacy as he could... And now look where we are.  We will probably be joining Israel in this war by this evening.

    3. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 5 weeks ago

      CBS reports that Trump is considering joining Israel's strikes of Iranian nuclear sites...

      Latest poll with
      YouGov conducted over the weekend, asked Americans if the US military should get involved in the war in Iran.

      Overall:
      60% no
      16% yes

      Republicans:
      53% no
      23% yes

      America first? No new wars?  Tell me how it's ok if he backtracks, maga...

    4. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 5 weeks ago

      Iran Is Preparing Missiles for Possible Retaliatory Strikes on U.S. Bases, Officials Say...

      Commanders put American troops on high alert at military bases throughout the region, including in the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The United States has more than 40,000 troops deployed in the Middle East.

      Two Iranian officials have acknowledged that the country would attack U.S. bases in the Middle East, starting with those in Iraq, if the United States joined Israel’s war.

      Who thinks we're joining tonight?

      https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/us/p … bases.html

    5. Ken Burgess profile image73
      Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks ago

      You are determined to keep yourself in a constant state of agitation, aren't you?

      Salon... that's like asking you to read a National Review article... just as biased, just in the other direction.

      1. Willowarbor profile image60
        Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        What parts of the article do you take issue with? Are you claiming that it isn't factual? 

        Let's be clear...
        This war is on TRUMP.

        This chaos traces directly back to his 2018 stunt pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal.

        He gave Iran the runway to enrich uranium and build weapons.

        Now the region is on fire. Everything he touches implodes.

        There is no individual more singlehandedly responsible for there being a war in Iran right now than  Trump. We literally had Iran's nuclear program contained by a deal that everyone admitted they were following until he unilaterally pulled out of it.

      2. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        You, the rightwinger community and Trump keeps me and thoughtful others in constant agitation. There is no point in shooting the messenger, Ken, that will get you nowhere. Is any of the parts of the article untrue?

        1. Ken Burgess profile image73
          Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Trump's way of communicating has never really been my cup of tea.

          I am not following either war... I have enough concerns... I don't need to add to them considering the probability that Biden has put us on the road to complete destruction... both these conflicts would NOT have occurred without Biden's funding and escalation efforts.

          And by Biden... I mean all the dirtbags behind the scenes that were making all these wonderful things happen while Stooge was President.

          1. Willowarbor profile image60
            Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Trump got  out of the Iran nuclear deal during his first circus.   By all accounts it was working but Trump, apparently just to spite obama, thought it'd be a good idea to let Iran enrich uranium to the point of being able to make nuclear weapons. He is a huge factor in why we are apparently on the brink of getting involved in this war.  And we've got this inept Administration.  Tulsi telling us there's no nuclear capability in Iran and Trump saying he doesn't care what she says... A real shit show.  Did she lie during her confirmation hearing? Or does Trump just not know what's really going on?

          2. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Well, Ken, I always worry about war and everything associated with it. It provides the Right an excuse to ration resources from domestic concerns. Biden may have taken us down the road of destruction, but Trump insures that we arrived there. It is all Biden and Trump is a pure as wind driven snow as to the cause? Yeah, right…

            1. Ken Burgess profile image73
              Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              We shall see... clearly the Administration that was insane enough to start and escalate war with Russia... then sabotage the peace negotiations that could have been had just weeks after the war started... I will always hold in contempt and consider outright evil.  That will never change.

              They were STARTED and FUNDED by the Biden Administration...

              And millions have died in them since.

          3. Willowarbor profile image60
            Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            It's interesting that one of your frequent complaints during the Biden administration was the idea that you felt he would "get  us into World war III".    but now you can't be bothered by Trump's crew leading us into war with Iran?   Lol ,  I'm pretty sure that Bibi started this war knowing we would come in to finish it.

    6. IslandBites profile image69
      IslandBitesposted 4 weeks ago

      https://youtube.com/shorts/JC56Ltg5zDE? … Czj9fhiEzt

      Iran: Weeks away from having nuclear weapons... since 1995

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Has it really been THAT long?

    7. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      Let's be perfectly clear. 

      Under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, Iran agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons and allow continuous monitoring of its compliance in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. The agreement was set to expire over 10 to 25 years.

      Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2018. He broke his 2016 campaign promise to renegotiate the agreement.

      After dropping out of the compact, the U.S. put economic sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. Iran reduced its compliance with the deal and stopped complying with international inspectors.

      This expanded Iranian enrichment activities, bringing it closer to the capability to produce a bomb, while reducing the visibility of those activities and making them harder to monitor.

      Trump and officials in his administration said they wanted a new deal, but that never happened...

      And because of Trump?  Iran is much closer to the bomb than it ever has been before.   

      Now the U.S. has very few options available to stop them other than war. We missed the chance to do it diplomatically because of the false hope we could get a better deal by forcing them to capitulate...

      The art of the deal fails yet again.

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yes, we all know who is responsible, It is just tough to get Ken to dispense with his crimson colored glasses and the see reality of this situation.

      2. peterstreep profile image82
        peterstreepposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Well said. In a nutshell.

        Trump walks away from the Paris accord
        Trump walks away from the Nuclear Deal with Iran
        Trump walks away from USAID
        Trump walks away from the G7


        Trump is only good at shouting but when it comes to it he runs away.

    8. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 4 weeks ago

      Man, right when you think that you have heard it all, we just have to admit that at times we all must simply concede to the absurd.

      https://www.salon.com/2025/06/18/couldv … n-lincoln/

      So, Trump in his imminent wisdom and 20/20 hindsight could have avoided the American Civil War? Now, I have heard everything….

      Abraham Lincoln verses Donald Trump? I can’t imagine any two people who are exact opposites of one another. One being, in my opinion, our greatest president and the other being our worst.

      Trump knows nothing about American History, and with his ham handed handling of our current international crises, what would possess him to say such things? Trump never tells us HOW he would have prevented the Civil War, would we refer to a chapter of his “Art of the Deal”?

      Lincoln was a great man, Trump, in just mentioning his name, soiles his memory.

      Only a stupid and ignorant person would utter things like this.

      1. Willowarbor profile image60
        Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Only a malignant narcissist would make such an idiotic claim.   And why is he connecting the Declaration of Independence to the civil war??  Apparently he doesn't understand when it was written.  He also previously stated that Andrew Jackson was really angry about the civil war and could have done something to prevent it.... The man died 16 years before the war even began. 

        I never want to hear about Biden's mental acuity again...

        1. Credence2 profile image82
          Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Trump is very simple, he made Andrew Jackson his poster boy because he saw Jackson as an outsider, like himself. Of course, he never bothered to read the man’s biography which revealed a strong Presidency will an above average ratings by historians. That was in his first term.

          In the second term, now his hero is President William McKinley, who during the late 19th century employed the use of the tariff in the ways Trump wants to now. Never mind the fact that 1895 is not 2025 by a long shot.

          It reminds me of teenage girls putting up posters of Elvis Presley or Frankie Avalon, or the old cheesecake pinup girls that GIs had posted during WWII, Betty Grable, being an example. Not a lot of thought or consideration involved in either circumstance. But that is Trump.

          Trumps thoughts never rise above his head, even if Jackson survived to see the Civil War, how was he going to prevent it? He, himself was a slaveowner and slavery was the cause of the civil war. Although he was strong on federal power against states attempt to nullify a national mandate, what would prompt him to negotiate a topic that he was already on the wrong side of?

          But Trump would know that already if he had simply read a high school level textbook.

    9. Readmikenow profile image84
      Readmikenowposted 4 weeks ago

      Lets believe in Myths and the Right holds onto facts when it comes to the Iran nuclear deal.

      Myth: The Agreement Contains Unprecedented Inspections and Verification

      “We will have installed an unprecedented inspections regime”… “That entire infrastructure that we know
      about, we will have sophisticated 24/7 monitoring of those facilities”… “the nature of nuclear programs and facilities is such -- this is not something you hide in a closet. This is not something you put on a dolly and kind of wheel off somewhere.” – President Obama
      The Facts
       Just a few months ago, the Secretary of Energy—himself a nuclear physicist—make it clear that “we expect
      to have anywhere, anytime access.”
       Yet after the Iranians boasted that “They will not even be permitted to inspect the most normal military site
      in their dreams,” we ended up with “managed access.”
       “Managed access” would be better called “manipulated access” as inspectors will get access to suspected
      sites only after consultations between the world powers and Iran, over as long as 24 days. China, Russia
      and Iran will have a say on the consultations as to who can go where.
       The former head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, testified in front of the Committee, “we never believed that
      the uranium at Iran’s declared facilities would ever make its way into a weapon. We always believed that
      that work would be done someplace else, in secret.” As a top State Department official has said, the Iranians
      have deception in their DNA.
       Hayden also explained that requiring consultations between the world powers and Iran takes inspections
      from the technical level and puts it at the political level, which he calls “a formula for chaos, obfuscation,
      ambiguity, doubt…”
       Former top weapons inspector Charles Duelfer explained to this Committee that after the First Gulf War—
      even with anytime, anywhere inspections; sanctions remaining on; and the burden of proof on the Iraqis—his team “could not do their job” and were stymied. Yet, the inspections process negotiated by the Obama Administration would have much less authority.

      Myth: Critics of the Agreement Do Not Want Iran To Have Peaceful Nuclear Program
      “I think the suggestion among a lot of the critics has been that a – a better deal, an acceptable deal would be
      one in which Iran has no nuclear capacity at all, peaceful or otherwise.” – President Obama
      The Facts
       Iran can have a peaceful nuclear program without the ability to enrich uranium. It is this key bomb-making
      technology that is so objectionable.
       Preventing the spread of this dangerous technology has been the foundation of U.S. nonproliferation policy
      for decades. As a result, over 20 countries have peaceful nuclear energy programs without a domestic enrichment program. In fact, buying fuel for nuclear power plants abroad, from countries like Russia, is much more cost effective than producing it domestically.

      Myth: The Agreement Is Permanent, With No “Sunset”

      The Facts

       The essential restrictions on Iran’s key bomb-making technology do expire, or “sunset” in 10 to 15 years.
      After these restrictions expire, Iran will be left with an internationally recognized, industrial scale nuclear
      program—just like Japan. Iran could even legitimately enrich to levels near weapons grade under the pretext
      of powering a nuclear navy—as Brazil is currently doing.
       All these activities are permissible under the NPT – and all would be endorsed by this agreement. Indeed, as President Obama said of his own agreement, in year “13, 14, 15,” Iran’s “breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”
       As a result, the U.S. and its allies will be left with no effective measures to prevent Iran from initiating an
      accelerated nuclear program to produce the materials needed for a nuclear weapon. And Iran surely would be able to speed toward a nuclear weapon faster than an international sanctions regime could be reestablished. One nonproliferation expert told the Committee that this sunset clause is “a disaster.”
       It is precisely this sunset clause that the Prime Minister is referring to when he notes that this agreement paves the way for a nuclear Iran.


      https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/ … 0Facts.pdf

      1. Willowarbor profile image60
        Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the International Atomic Energy Agency was responsible for inspecting Iran's nuclear sites.

        The JCPOA granted the IAEA greater access to Iranian nuclear sites than previously allowed, including the ability to install cameras and sensors, collect environmental samples, and conduct on-site inspections

        IAEA reported that Iran was complying with the deal's restrictions at the time the US withdrew from the deal.

    10. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      Trump is backtracking on what he ran and won on. No one voted for new wars.   It has to be so challenging to be a Maga follower...

      https://hubstatic.com/17536946_f1024.jpg

    11. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      https://hubstatic.com/17536950_f1024.jpg

    12. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      Trump.....

      "The war in Ukraine could be ended in as little as 24 hours, he said. He would knock heads to reach an agreement between Israel and Hamas to stop the fighting in Gaza. And he said he would strike a nuclear deal with Iran, ‘because the consequences are impossible. We have to make a deal.’

      How's this working out?   Revisiting trump’s prediction about stopping ‘all wars,’ five months later...

      Trump’s failed promises on resolving Russia’s war in Ukraine are an ongoing embarrassment, and the Republican’s latest position is, effectively, to stop trying. “Sometimes you’re better off letting them fight for a while,” he said a couple of weeks ago.

      Trump’s failed promises on resolving the crisis in Gaza follow his boasts in December about how much “easier” he saw the conflict, as compared to the war in Ukraine...the combat he said he’d end in one day.

      And Trump’s failed promises on reaching a new nuclear agreement with Iran now appear increasingly out of reach, in part because he directed Israel not to attack Iran ahead of the next round of diplomatic talks, and Israel IGNORED him. His new position related to Israel and Iran is, “Sometimes they have to fight it out,” which is nearly identical to the phrasing he used earlier this month about Russia’s offensive in Ukraine...go figure?

      five months into his term, Trump’s predictions about his administration’s ability to “stop all wars” and “bring a new spirit of unity” to the world lie in tatters. Conditions in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran are worse now than when he first made the comments.

    13. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      Maga, do you feel scammed?

      Trump said that he’ll be the one to decide what America First means: 

      “Well, considering that I’m the one that developed ‘America First’ and considering that the term wasn’t used until I came along, I think I’m the one that decides that.”

      And it looks like the "meaning" changes daily LOL.

    14. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      REPORTER QUESTION: 20 years ago you were skeptical of a GOP administration that attacked a Middle East country on the idea of questionable intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. How is this different?

      TRUMP: "That was somewhat pre-nuclear. It was the nuclear age but nothing like it is today. "

      He proceeds to lie about being opposed to the Iraq War...but also, "pre nuclear"?   What the hell is he talking about...Trump just said the Iraq War, which happened almost 60 years after we dropped atomic bombs on Japan, was “somewhat pre-nuclear” in terms of its timing in relation to the nuclear age...LOL

      https://x.com/LincolnSquareHQ/status/19 … 8657663029

      Trump supported the US invasion of Iraq in 2002 and turned against it in 2004. He first said the US should "keep the oil" not in 2003 but in 2011, when he told Bill O'Reilly: “I’ve never said this before. This is a first, on your show”

      Flip flopin his way through history.  Does he ever have a consistent view on anything

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv … 982823bb4e

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        What in the hell is a “pre nuclear” time? Mr. Peabody and Sherman’s rendering of history….

    15. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      For all those who talked up Tulsi... Who is  wrong here?

      https://x.com/RCPolitics/status/1935045679883153432

      https://x.com/AnalystNews_/status/1934981025920135613

      Trump doesn't care what his Director of National intelligence says

      Trump told reporters he believes Iran was “very close” to getting a nuclear weapon, dismissing DNI Gabbard’s testimony, saying, “I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having it.”

      He's concerned now???

      He abandoned & withdrew the deal  in 2018 because it was “a SIGNATURE FOREIGN POLICY ACHIEVEMENT of his predecessor” Obama

      The man always puts vengeance & his own pettiness  above anything, including our country's safety & security

    16. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      At least W went to trouble of making up some intelligence to claim Iraq was cooking up WMD. With Iran, Trump simply says 'because I said so' when it comes to how close Iran is to a nuke and his base?  WHATEVER YOU SAY, SIR! MAGA FOREVER!!!

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        I would take George W. Bush back, if I could….

    17. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      Trump’s “Iran has nuclear weapons” is Bush’s “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” 

      You can see the playbook now right?


      https://hubstatic.com/17536983_f1024.jpg

    18. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      Facts?  Obama's nuclear deal had limited enrichment to less than 5 percent.  Today, we have 60 percent enrichment in Fordo and high levels of enrichment scattered across Iran. Obama showed us how tough diplomacy actually is the best way to deny Iran a bomb....

    19. tsmog profile image76
      tsmogposted 4 weeks ago

      Breaking news if you haven't seen/heard yet.

      BREAKING: Trump Announces US Bombing Of Iran by the Daily Caller (June 21, 2025)
      https://dailycaller.com/2025/06/21/trum … n-bombing/

      Truth Details (From Truth Social Post)

      Donald J. Trump

      @realDonaldTrump

      We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter.

      Jun 21, 2025, 4:50 PM

    20. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      And just like that, the ‘No New Wars’ people are all-in on a new war. Proving yet again that they really believe in nothing other than what one man tells them to believe today. Which could be different tomorrow. The very definition of a cult.

      1. IslandBites profile image69
        IslandBitesposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        100%

    21. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 4 weeks ago

      So, now he has done it, the bastard has provoked WWIII. I despise the conservatives that beat on Biden during his term and yet have excuses justifying dropping bombs because it is Trump that does it. Does he really think that China and Russia are not going to help Iran, even if it is surreptitiously?

      And now he wants his hideous mug represented among great men on Mt. Rushmore?

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        I concur with you on this one.  Trump started World War III.   Iran isn't going to take this act of aggression passively.  They will retaliate, mark my word.

        1. Credence2 profile image82
          Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Yet, conservatives voted for this “peacemaker” with the MidASS touch, everything he touches turns to (fill in the blank) s_____

        2. DrMark1961 profile image100
          DrMark1961posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Very disappointing, as the whole point of MAGA was to focus on America. I hope that Iran does not retaliate but I do not see how they can sit and do nothing. Iraq and Bush taught them that they may as well.

    22. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      Iranian state TV  displayed a message saying “Mr. Trump, you started it, and we will end it.”

      There are around 40,000 troops active-duty troops and civilians working for the Pentagon in the Middle East. Trump has put all of them in danger.   Thousands of sitting ducks...

      For Israel.

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Thank you Willow.

    23. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      They think Iran will say, now that you have bombed us, there will be peace. The cluelessness in this regime is breathtaking....

      Whiskey Pete moments ago:

      “Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran’s nuclear program, and none could until President Trump.”

      This is garbage. Other Presidents could have done the same thing but they chose not too. Obama chose a nuclear deal that Iran was obeying until Trump tore it up.

      Trump got us here because of that.
      He has taken the US into a new war because his "art of the deal" is nothing but BS... How many will die because of this man's arrogance?

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yes Trump STARTED WW3.  There will be VERY DIRE consequences for America.

    24. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      International news saying Iran is going to shut down the Straight of Hormuz.

      Make sure y’all top off your gas tanks ASAP...

    25. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      Aged like fine milk....

      https://hubstatic.com/17537623_f1024.jpg

    26. IslandBites profile image69
      IslandBitesposted 4 weeks ago

      Israeli forces kill 51 Palestinians in Gaza
      As Israel’s conflict with Iran rages, the Israeli military also continues deadly attacks on Gaza.

      The Health Ministry said it registered the killing of at least 51 people in the past 24-hour reporting period, with another 104 wounded. At least six of those were killed while waiting for aid.

      SMH

      1. Willowarbor profile image60
        Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Bibi has the greenlight from trump.  I would expect that the atrocities will really ramp up. The world is absolutely on fire under trump, isn't it?

    27. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      “Do you have 100% confidence that Iran's nuclear sites were totally destroyed?” - Welker

      “I feel confident that we've substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon.” - JD Vance

      Doesn’t sound like Fordow was destroyed.

      Last night Trump said Iran's nuclear program was "completely and totally obliterated"

      And this morning we have Vance saying "we will permanently dismantle that nuclear program over the coming years"

      My God... Which one is it?

    28. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      JD Vance to Kristen Welker:

      “The president has clear authority to act to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”

      Tulsi testified before Congress UNDER OATH that Iran didn’t have nukes.

      Iraq War 2.0 thanks to Donald Trump.

      Was she lying? Should she be fired? Should she resign? Or is Trump just the liar?

      1. Readmikenow profile image84
        Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        She told the truth.

        They didn't HAVE nuclear weapons.

        They were close to being able to develop them.

        President Donald Trump made a move to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and having nuclear capability.

        Why is this so difficult to understand for people on the left?

        Newscasters are the biggest idiots.

        1. Willowarbor profile image60
          Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Trump clearly stated she was wrong and that he did not believe her LOL

          https://www.foxnews.com/politics/shes-w … pabilities

    29. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      https://hubstatic.com/17537820_f1024.jpg

      Look, I don’t trust Tulsi either. But then again I also didn’t nominate her to be the Director of National Intelligence. This is ridiculous.  So where did he get his Intel then??

    30. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      Trump bombs Iran and then asks China to prevent any consequences? I don't think it works that way

      U.S. calls on China to prevent Iran from closing Strait of Hormuz and disrupting global oil flows

      https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/bu … 046/?amp=1

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        I don't think that the Trump team has really evaluated the variety and levels of reciprocity that can be employed by Iran response to Trumps declaration of war. Who would trust a drunk with the nation's security?

        1. Willowarbor profile image60
          Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Oh it gets worse...God help us all': Trump's appointment of 22-year-old college grad to terrorism unit amid Iran crisis faces backlash..

          https://hubstatic.com/17539040.jpg

          Inspiring huh? Don't worry he used to be a grocery store assistant and a gardener!
          https://m.economictimes.com/news/intern … 023695.cms

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Maybe, its just me, but he looks older than 22.

          2. DrMark1961 profile image100
            DrMark1961posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Sorry but I have to compare him to the crossdresser that Biden appointed to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy who turned out to be a panty thief.
            Pretty terrible being that age. Are you familiar with he ages of the founding fathers of the US? I think people like Hamilton, Madison, and James Monroe may have felt they were old enough.

        2. GA Anderson profile image84
          GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          What if . . . ?

          Most news sources are talking about variants of this thought:
          https://hubstatic.com/17539071.jpg

          What if the thought is right and Iran's next move is diplomacy?

          What if that move is acceptable to Israel and the U.S and a temporary ceasefire happens?

          Woo eee, going for the brass ring, what if an acceptable diplomatic solution is found and Iran takes a new path?

          That may be wishful thinking, but it could happen if those thoughts (the blurb) are right. Looks like a reason for optimism to me.

          As a sidenote, if you look for it, you can find a lot of news from sources you trust, describing just how detailed, planned (for both pre and post Op), and far-reaching their 'war' evaluation was.

          The Qatar base was anticipated as a target and was prepared and ready. I bet a lot of other targets were similarly prepared.

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            It may well be that Iran’s next move will be a desire for a diplomatic solution.

            After 30 years of the threat of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon with the overriding threat being more useful to Iran than the weapon itself, the threat has been and will be used to extract concessions from both Israel and the West in return for standing down its nuclear weapon program. Obama played that card back in 2015.

            It seemed to me that if Iran was that intent in destroying Israel, Iran with their greater population and manpower, would have accomplished this long before now, even with conventional military tactics and weapons. There were plenty of opportunities for America’s enemies to assist Iran toward this end if only to derail American foreign policy in the region. Will Russia and China intervene in some way?

            To save face, I don’t believe that the threat of war and endless attacks will drive Iran to capitulate. They have to get something out of it besides the removal of the pistol from their head.

            I don’t see the possibility  of a “new Iran” or the mullahs giving up its power and authority. It is more realistic to work with them where they are.

            I have read that Iran had prepared for this possibility for many years, who is to say that all of the bases are covered by the US government regarding retaliation options that Iran could employ? Make a reasonable entreaty to Iran and we may not have to find out, is my opinion. 

            There will be no “unconditional surrender”, only first rate diplomacy and negotiation will do. I certainly would not capitulate in that way, if I were them.

            1. GA Anderson profile image84
              GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              The second step looks good too: an agreed-upon ceasefire.

              "Capitulate" is a negative word choice. Compromise would be a more positive one. Adapt (change something) or compromise were my choices. A win-win.

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                Capitulation is an accurate word when using military force, and speaking terms like "unconditional surrender". A "compromise" in this affair has yet to be realized.

                1. GA Anderson profile image84
                  GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Yeah, unconditional surrender was also a poor word choice — maybe.

                  This plan of action looks successful (relative to the moment) to me, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe the cease-fire fails and capitulation and unconditional surrender do become the final requirement. Maybe the smart folks were just skipping the obvious. *shrug*

                  GA

            2. peterstreep profile image82
              peterstreepposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              "It seemed to me that if Iran was that intent in destroying Israel, Iran with their greater population and manpower, would have accomplished this long before now, even with conventional military tactics and weapons."

              Iran was constantly in war with Israel through Hezbollah and Hamas. bus bombings, kidnapping, suicide bombings etc.
              Iran is not next to Israel and has to cross Iraq first!!!
              Israel's air defense and air power is far greater that that of Iran.
              So Iran had no other option than to fight against Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah. And did this over a 40 years time.
              Now that Hezbollah and Hamas are decapitated and very weak, plus the US has a more willing president to have an aggressive stand towards Iran, Israel finally can attack this fascist regime fully.
              Remember this is a war between a fascist theocracy and a democracy.

              1. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                Remember this is a war between a fascist theocracy and a democracy.
                ----
                I don't know, Peter, but the way the Israeli Goverment dealt with the Palestinian issue makes me wonder if Israel's commitment to democracy is based on merely expediency and convenience.

                I have said as much about the United States...

                1. peterstreep profile image82
                  peterstreepposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  You have many levels. It's easy to see that the freedom of speech in Israel is far greater than in Iran. No women wants to live in Iran. Israel had a couple of years back a queer singer at the Euro Song Festival. I can't imagine Iran doing so. (promoting it's country by a queer singer) (of course you also have the extreme Jewish sects where as a women you don't have all the freedom. But compared with living under Sharia it's peanuts.)
                  When looking at the Palestinian issues one should also look at how Hamas treats the Palestinians. They are sacrificed and used as human shields. Who does this with their own people?
                  But well, this is a big discussion.
                  Israels war against Hamas and against Hezbollah is the same war as the war against Iran. It's a survival war for Israel against extreme Islamists who pledge to eradicate the Jews from the face of the earth. (between the river and the see...) It's a sad story that will not end tomorrow or in a years time. But a regime change with the help of the Iranian people would help a lot. 60% of the Iranians want a regime change, they are sick of the Islamic state and the National Guard. Perhaps the destruction of the nuclear capabilities could be the final nudge for the people to revolt.
                  For the US going in would be a disaster, but I don't think Trump will do so. Also Israel is not interested to do so, and they certainly will not be seen as liberators. So it''s on the Iranians themselves to change the regime. Which will be pretty difficult as the Ayatollah and the National Guard have become experts in creating a dictatorship.

                  And yes, the US is slipping away into a dictatorship too. And democracy is not something self evident, we now notice in many democratic countries. You have to fight for it. And especially the free press is important in doing so. But with the influecers gaining more power in the public domain, democracy all over the world is becoming more fragile.

                  1. Credence2 profile image82
                    Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Well,I suppose, Peter, that everything outside of physical sciences and mathematics is relative. That is how I see things

                    I am all for the people in Iran revolting against the regime as long as it is them rather than the US as the instigators.  Then it could become a civil war, but you can bet that the Mullahs are going to keep a firm grip. I don’t want to see bullying from either side and I see every country as equal even if they do not have my preferred form of government. But, I would not want to live in other than a democratic based society. I don’t trust anything else.

                    Professed democracies with enough power and money could export corruption abroad, just as we do in America.

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image73
                    Ken Burgessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I believe it was Socrates that exposed Democracy...
                    The weakness when the uneducated and uninformed are allowed to determine the fate and direction...
                    The fall of Rome... when citizenship was given away to all, requiring none of the commitment, loyalty, or production that was expected from the many generations previously that had to earn citizenship.

                    1. peterstreep profile image82
                      peterstreepposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                      no, that's not it. Just the opposite.
                      It is about education and be capable of doing your job. If you have a senior function in a company or in the government and you got this through loyalty to your boss or position of birthright or bought yourself in... Things go wrong as you don't have the know how to do the job.
                      That's why it is a bad idea to put a businessman who worked all his life in business into a government position. Those are two different jobs with different educational background and requirements.
                      Same with proper journalism, journalists who do research and write after they have proper knowledge about something in contrast of an influencer who is just talking whatever gets the most likes.
                      In a good government people with know how organize a country. In a bad government people with a lack of education reign.
                      That' s why a kingdom or a dictatorship will not last. As the power is not gained by education but by birthright. So in the end a democracy is a far better system as it is build on a system where people with knowledge and education climb the ladder of governing.
                      And that's also why the elite prefers not to give education to everybody. And you have highly expensive elite universities. It is to consolidate this power.

    31. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      Trump has spoken no truer words...
      https://x.com/cmadsq/status/1936604230619385950

    32. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      Just hours after Vance goes on the Sunday shows and whiskey Pete does a presser saying that the U.S. isn't interested in a regime change...

      https://hubstatic.com/17537871_f1024.jpg

      What a sh*t show

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Hegseth says that Trumps wars are different because he says that the Presidents of the last 25 years were inept, but Trump knows what he is doing. Interesting excuse from the Trump team, breaking a campaign pledge of eliminating foreign entanglements.

    33. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 4 weeks ago

      Excerpt from a recent and poignant Atlantic Monthly article by David From.
      ——

      Now Americans face the consequences of Trump’s intervention to thwart Iran’s aggression.

      Some of those consequences may be welcome.

      The attack on Iran is perhaps the first time that President Trump has ever done anything Vladimir Putin did not want him to do. That’s one of the reasons I personally doubted he would act strongly against Iran. Maybe Trump can now make a habit of defying Putin—and at last provide the help and support that Ukraine’s embattled democracy needs to win its war of self-defense against Russian aggression.

      The strike on Iran was opposed by the reactionary faction within the Trump administration—and in MAGA media—that backs America’s enemies against America’s allies. It’s very wrong to call this faction “anti-war.” They want a war against Mexico. They have pushed the United States on the first steps to that war by flying drones over Mexican territory without Mexican permission. This faction is defined not by what it rejects, but by what it admires (Putin’s Russia above all) and by whom it blames for America’s troubles (those it euphemistically condemns as “globalists”). That reactionary faction lost this round of decision making. Perhaps now it will lose more rounds.

      But if some of the domestic consequences of this strike are welcome, others are very dangerous.

      Presidents have some unilateral war-making power. Barack Obama did not ask Congress to authorize his air campaign in Libya in 2011. The exact limits of that power are blurry, defined by politics, not law. But Trump’s strike on Iran has pushed that line further than it has been pushed since the end of the Vietnam War—and the pushing will become even more radical if Iranian retaliation provokes more U.S. strikes after the first wave.

      Trump has abused the president’s power to impose emergency tariffs, and created a permanent system of revenue-collection without Congress. He asserts that he can ignore rights of due process in immigration cases. He has defied judicial orders to repatriate persons wrongfully sent to a foreign prison paid for by U.S. taxpayer funds. He is ignoring ethics and conflict-of-interest laws to enrich himself and his family on a post-Soviet scale—much of that money flowing from undisclosed foreign sources. He has intimidated and punished news organizations for coverage he did not like by abusing regulatory powers over their corporate parents. He has deployed military units to police California over the objections of the elected authorities in that state.

      This is a president who wants and wields arbitrary power the way no U.S. president has ever done in peacetime. And now it’s wartime.

      Americans have a right and proper instinct to rally around their presidents in time of war. But in the past, that rallying has been met by the equal instincts of presidents to rise above party and faction when the whole nation must be defended. Trump’s decision to brief Republican leaders of Congress before the Iran strike, but not their Democratic counterparts, was not merely a petty discourtesy—it confirmed his divisive and authoritarian methods of leadership and warned of worse to come.

      It is not confidence-inspiring that Pete Hegseth leads the Pentagon. Or that Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and Kristi Noem are in charge of protecting Americans from Iranian retaliatory terrorism. Or that Tulsi Gabbard is coordinating national intelligence. Or that enemy-of-Ukraine J. D. Vance is poised to inherit all.

      Trump exercises national power, but he cannot and will not act as a national leader. He sees himself—and has always acted as—the leader of one part of a nation against the rest: the wartime leader of red America in its culture war against blue America, as my former Atlantic colleague Ron Brownstein has written. Now this president of half of America has commanded all of America into a global military conflict. With luck, that conflict will be decisive and brief. Let’s hope so.
      ———————
      I think that it is dastardly that Trump briefed Republican legislators and left Democrats in congress deliberately uninformed.  I still believe that Iran is more interested in concessions from Israel and the West than it is in building a bomb. This is what Obama attempted to accomplished before it was derailed by Trump out of sheer jealousy and spite.

    34. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      Regime change... Campaign Trump versus White House Trump:

      https://hubstatic.com/17537949_f1024.jpg

      Who voted to make Iran great again?

    35. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      Excuse me, but why is there always money  available for regime change around the world but not enough to fully fund Medicaid or food assistance?  I know maga voted for this but It is absurd.

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        I hope that this hapless people that are not billionaires who voted for Trump, get the shaft that they asked for and richly deserve.

    36. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      Anyone else notice that maga these days aren't going on record with positions on absolutely anything?  It's tough when your leader pushes out a bunch of platitudes in the morning and completely reverses them by evening LOL.

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        It's an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" scenario. Regular thinking people are decimated one by one and replace with obedient Trumpbots. The "Little Bo Peep" similarity with the sheep following a wolf in sheeps clothing. It is no longer about committing to adhere campaign promises but about hanging on and believing every word Trump says.

        This is the dangerous aspect of Trumpism and the biggest threat to our society to date.

    37. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      https://hubstatic.com/17538908_f1024.jpg

      Oh who is he kidding? His followers are absolutely okay with gas prices going through the roof, as long as he says it's okay... This is exactly what they voted for.

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Why should the oil producers artificially cut into their bottom line and hold down oil prices? Trump never did that with the businesses he owned. Patriotism be damned....

    38. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      On Sunday, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a top Putin ally, noted in a series of X posts that “a number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.” This news could have cataclysmic implications.

    39. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      “If Kamala wins, only death and destruction await because she is the candidate of endless wars. I am the candidate of peace. I am peace.”

      Donald J. Trump, 1 November, 2024, Warren, Michigan...

      You got what you voted for maga

      Iran has Retaliated. Missiles have been launched against multiple US Bases in the Middle East. It’s a shit show. Everyone is evacuating.

      “President of Peace” My Ass.

    40. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      https://hubstatic.com/17539122_f1024.jpg

      Is this a threat toward Russia?

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        So,the plot thickens. Will Putin now use American vulnerability in the Middle East  region to gain concessions in his war on the Ukraine? Instead of diplomacy are we again reduced to just threats?  Not exactly the 24 hour solution to the crisis in Ukraine that Trump boasted about.  We are not invincible, no one is.

    41. tsmog profile image76
      tsmogposted 4 weeks ago

      Reminds me of red light, green light. I'm keeping an eye on Saudi Arabia and UAE. Will they change course and align with Tehran via back doors? Which threat however that is defined is greatest?

    42. Readmikenow profile image84
      Readmikenowposted 4 weeks ago

      President Trump announced a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Iran that will begin at midnight.

      Why it matters: The ceasefire will end a 12-day war between Israel and Iran that led to the destruction of significant parts of Iran's nuclear program by Israel and the United States.

      Trump wrote on his Truth Social account that the ceasefire begins at 12 a.m. ET. Until then, Israel and Iran will complete their final military missions that are in progress, he said.
      Trump said Iran will begin the ceasefire for 12 hours, and then Israel will begin. After 24 hours, an official end to the war will be announced.
      Trump said that during each 12-hour ceasefire, the other side "will remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL."

      https://www.axios.com/2025/06/23/trump- … -ceasefire

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        We will see if it all works out as Trump says.....

      2. Willowarbor profile image60
        Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        How's that going?

        https://hubstatic.com/17540164.jpg

        1. IslandBites profile image69
          IslandBitesposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          He's so angry with Israel.

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Trump: “please anybody, cease fire. I thought that he said that he had arranged a truce?

    43. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 4 weeks ago

      So, now what?

      Excerpt from a recent Atlantic article:

      “By his own account, the military operation that Donald Trump mounted against Iran over the weekend was an unqualified success. Saturday’s covert raid, in which U.S. bombers dropped a series of massive, tailor-made bombs onto fortified Iranian sites, left Tehran’s nuclear capability “completely and totally obliterated,” the president proclaimed in a triumphant White House address late that night.

      The reality is more complex. Although the operation achieved an impressive level of tactical success, with a swarm of warplanes penetrating Iran unchallenged following a long, undetected flight from Missouri, it will be far harder than the president has suggested to reliably evaluate the damage inflicted on Iran’s ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon. The information that’s emerged so far suggests to experts that Iran’s nuclear capacities have been set back significantly but that the two-decade atomic standoff with Iran is by no means over.

      In the 48 hours since the strikes, Trump’s top advisers have given differing answers about the fate of Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium, which, satellite imagery suggests, Iranian authorities may have relocated prior to the strikes. Iranian leaders, meanwhile, have given no indication that they are ready to surrender the nuclear program. Facing the likelihood of ongoing U.S. and Israeli attacks, they may be more likely to make the long-feared decision to try to race toward a bomb.


      “This is probably not the end of the program, and certainly not the end of their aspirations,” Daniel Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and a top Pentagon official for the Middle East under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, told us.

      He said that, prior to Saturday’s strikes, Iran had been “days away” from being able to enrich to weapons-grade levels, and had been working to shorten the time required to turn its material into a bomb. “That means that absent the U.S. and Israeli strikes, we would be sitting on a knife’s edge, which was not acceptable,” said Shapiro, who is now a fellow at the Atlantic Council. Iranian leaders, however, may now judge it necessary to abandon United Nations restrictions and rush toward weaponization to survive. “And so there’s the other side of the knife’s edge, which has the potential to be even worse,” Shapiro said.”

      ——————
      Time for the rest of the story? Time for the hard part? Getting Iran to AGREE  to shelve its nuclear weapon ambitions, dropping bombs is no replacement for diplomacy or an agreement. If I were them, I would just move facilities and capabilities like peas under a shell. There will be no “regime change”, as the only sure way to neutralize Iran as a threat. That means boots on the ground and war, who is ready for that? Trump has no real knowledge of the extent of the damage from the attacks, snipping a weed does not prevent it from growing back.

      As the article implies, the Trump solution is half-assed and is wanting for a lasting resolution to the underlying issues which has yet to be accomplished.

    44. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

      Per the NYT, classified findings indicate that the US failed to collapse the underground buildings in Iran, and only set back the country's nuclear program by a few months....


      "the Defense Intelligence Agency report indicates that the sites were not damaged as much as some administration officials had hoped, and that Iran retains control of almost all of its nuclear material"

      And now they're pissed...OH WELL...

      Trump is going to be furious.. he's got himself a leaker.

    45. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 3 weeks ago

      "The attack on Iran] gives us a chance to have peace, chance to have a deal, and an opportunity to prevent a nuclear Iran, which President Trump talked about for 20 years and no other Presidents had the courage other actually do." -- Pete Hegseth

      FACT CHECK: Obama actually stopped a nuclear Iran, not with bombs, but with diplomacy. No airstrikes. No war. Just a signature on a deal that worked.
      That’s courage. Real leadership isn’t about blowing things up. It’s about knowing how to get results with words. Obama mastered that. It’s called 'the art of the deal.'

      The Iran Nuclear Deal capped uranium enrichment at 3.67%, enough for peaceful nuclear energy, not weapons.

      Iran will never give up enrichment entirely. No country with a serious energy future would. To think they should or could isn’t strategy. It’s ignorance.... This morning's performance by a hopped up whiskey Pete was simply to fluff up dear leaders ego...a pathetic display from a US Secretary of Defense. This guy needs rehab and a good therapist.

      Pete's performance this morning? Sweaty and clownish...nothing more than lectures to the press about the press from a media personality. 

      This is where we are now…

      1. peterstreep profile image82
        peterstreepposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Today we are in 2025. And to make a nuclear bomb is easier than it used to be. Just like with every technology. Things become cheaper and easier to make.
        On top of that you have the exponential growth of Artificial Intelligence. A thing that hardly existed in Obama's time.

        Those two things combined are incredibly dangerous in the hands of religious fanatics. Like Iran.

        -
        Iran has never been military wise so weak. But as it turns out the bomb that the US dropped was mere for show than that it really did some damage to the nuclear program. A PR stunt.

        I don't know how to solve this Iranian crisis. But not like the west has done for over the last 40 years. Iran has supported so many radical Islamist groups in the region like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthi Movement, Syrian's Bashar al-Assad's regime.
        It would be much more peaceful in the middle east without the Ayatollah that's for sure.

      2. GA Anderson profile image84
        GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Your perception of "this morning's performance" is the opposite of mine. I thought it was factually and historically supported by the 'back story', properly harsh in condemning the anti-Trump press, and properly supported the efforts of our military.

        You (generic for anti-Trump folks) hear an explanation of 15 years of mission planning, through multiple administrations, and paint it as a failure because Pres. Trump was the one who ordered the strike.

        What I heard in those 45 minutes made me proud. I think there are more of me this morning than there are of you.

        GA

      3. Readmikenow profile image84
        Readmikenowposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        "FACT CHECK: Obama actually stopped a nuclear Iran, not with bombs, but with diplomacy. No airstrikes. No war. Just a signature on a deal that worked."

        Obama gave Iran over a billion dollars in cash.

        Iran is a state sponsor of terror and used this money to build a proxy terrorist network.  They've killed countless numbers of people. Destroyed and damaged shipping.  They've even attempted to close shipping lanes.

        That is obama.  All bluster and no substance. A shameful decision for any president of the United States.

        "Obama should apologize for shameful cash payment to Iran

        Since the elimination of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani, much of the world has rightfully held its collective breath in fearful anticipation of what might be to come.

        Iran is indeed a dangerous terrorist state that not only has a powerful standing army, air force, navy and advanced weapons systems — including ballistic missiles and a growing space program — but also controls multiple proxy terrorist organizations responsible for killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

        Included on that list of victims are thousands of American military personnel and contractors.

        These were facts that former President Obama knew when he deliberately chose a policy of appeasement and cash payoffs instead of strength and accountability as the way to deal with Iran.

        President Trump spelled this out in no uncertain terms on Wednesday when he addressed the nation while seeking to dial down the imminent threat Iran may pose to our nation, the Middle East and the world.

        Said the president in part, “Iran’s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013 and they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash. … Then, Iran went on a terror spree, funded by the money from the deal and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.”

        As we have seen and heard, some — especially Democrats, their allies in the media and Obama supporters — chose to challenge or quibble with Trump’s statement. That said, I spoke with a former senior intelligence official who said that much of the $1.8 billion cash payoff from the Obama administration was used explicitly to fund terrorism as an additional “screw you” from the leaders of Iran — including Soleimani —  to the United States. The rest of the money, my source believes, ended up in the bank accounts of corrupt Iranian leaders and terrorists.

        The cash payment authorized by Obama is one of the most disgraceful and shameful “negotiations” in the history of our nation. It was a payment the Obama White House first denied, then ignored and then grudgingly acknowledged.

        We paid in cash, but not U.S. currency. Wary of using U.S. bills for a variety of reasons involving concealment, the Obama White House had the money converted to untraceable Euros, Swiss francs, and other foreign currencies. More troubling than those initial denials and deceptions was the fact that $400 million of that all-cash payment was used to pay a ransom to the government of Iran for the release of four American prisoners, in violation of standing U.S. policy.

        In a pathetic attempt to hide behind semantics, the Obama administration finally did acknowledge that $400 million was delayed as “leverage” until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran.

        While the Obama White House hid from the true definition of the word “leverage,” Iran’s state-run media was more than happy to brag that Iran had just forced the United States to pay a ransom.

        Former Congressman Ed Royce (R-Calif.), who chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee at that time, condemned the deal: “Sending the world’s leading state sponsor of terror pallets of untraceable cash isn’t just terrible policy. It’s incredibly reckless, and it only puts bigger targets on the backs of Americans.”

        Former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) seconded Royce’s warning: “Paying ransom to kidnappers puts Americans even more at risk. … The White House’s policy of appeasement has led Iran to illegally seize more American hostages.”

        Said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), “President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran was sweetened with an illicit ransom payment and billions of dollars for the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.”

        What many Americans don’t realize is that the Obama White House took the ransom money from something called the “Judgment Fund,” which is administered by the Treasury. That little-known account is entirely paid for by American taxpayers and was set up in such a way that Obama could bypass congressional approval to pay the cash to Iran.

        Those who continually praise and defend Obama often describe him as “brilliant.” There is no doubt the former president is an intelligent person, certainly bright enough to realize — and admit, at least to himself — that the cash he turned over to the murderous regime leading Iran to ruin was not used for altruistic purposes.

        Any honest assessment would conclude that at least part of that secretive, massive payment was used to finance terrorist attacks against Americans, our allies and innocent civilians. Trump is correct on that point.

        For that reason, Obama should apologize for the thousands wounded and killed in terrorist attacks since Iran took possession of that tainted cash. That is his debt to pay.

        1. Willowarbor profile image60
          Willowarborposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          Are you reading what you post? Where does this come from?

    46. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 3 weeks ago

      HEGSETH: The sources the CIA is seeing are highly credible. That's what Director Ratcliffe is basing it off

      REPORTER: Don't you think we need to see that?

      HEGSETH: Do you have a top secret clearance, sir?

      REPORTER: Eventually, the American public wants to see it

      They're going to hide it aren't they?

      What was not answered during this performance? WHERE DID THE HIGHLY  ENRICHED URANIUM GO??

      1. Readmikenow profile image84
        Readmikenowposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Anyone who has been on any high-level military missions know there are certain things that can't be released to the public as it can damage on-going missions and put military and other personnel in danger.

        I, personally, wouldn't release the uniform of the day information to the left wing media.

        1. Willowarbor profile image60
          Willowarborposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          Or they just want to conceal their lies LOL

        2. Credence2 profile image82
          Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          The Democrats in Congress are not “left wing media”. They should have been briefed as the Republicans were. I hold that behavior against Trump as being partisan buffoon operating outside of boundaries of decency and decorum.

          1. Readmikenow profile image84
            Readmikenowposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Congress was recently briefed on the Iran mission.

          2. DrMark1961 profile image100
            DrMark1961posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            So that they could leak it and get the pilots killed? Would never happen? Did you see the speech of the minority leader of congress telling everyone how they planned on DOXing the ICE agents that were wearing masks? they are the partisan buffoons operating outside of the boundaries of decency.

            1. Credence2 profile image82
              Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              That’s bullshyte, Doc. Are we saying that Democrats in Congress would risk National Security in a crisis that involves us all? The Executive is obligated to inform pertinent personal from BOTH parties as to what his intended strategy regarding Iran was.

              Otherwise, we have a one party rule and as much as you admire Trump he is just as I described. These approaches and attitudes are new and are pure Trump, I abhor that man. And if he disappeared tomorrow, I would not blink an eye. However, If the minority leader of Congress undermined ICE agents as you say, then they would be guilty.

              This is a bad trend and I see no good coming from it.

              1. DrMark1961 profile image100
                DrMark1961posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                The BS is all of those Dems who think their TDS is more important than their country standing united. You and I are both old enough to rememeber Reagen consulting Tip ONeil. That is never going to happen now since the libs are proving they are against whatever the WH does, even if it is in the best interests of the US, at least according to those in the WH.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                  Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Hi Doc,  I agree, but it’s important to recognize that so many positive things are coming from the Trump White House right now. It would take serious blindness not to notice it. More and more people are waking up from the confusion and realizing what’s really happening. Sure, some still get caught up in the word games and focus on what Trump said, like it’s just a “word of the day.” But I believe many will come to see the truth—that while words are tossed around, Trump is actually doing a good job making our country better.

                2. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  It is not “my country right or wrong”. when my country breaks international laws of behavior and decorum, it is not my country anymore. Because the values that it extols upon itself as a definition of America ceases to be, therefore there no longer is an America just a geographic designation. What has replaced it is far uglier. Trump has taken liberties not prescribed to the Executive, usurping Congress or ignoring court rulings. The White House is not free to do whatever it wants without being held accountable, that where the “libs” stand, the true libs and not the accomodationalists, who believe that co-existence and harmony with Trump and his administration can even be considered.

                  Reagan and Tip ONeill just as well have existed in another century and they did. The ideological and political extremes did not exist in the same way during the 1980s, even though I did not care for Reagan and his politics, he was no Trump and had characteristics that redeemed him. There was no chickensh!t Congress in the 1970s when both sides of the isle told Nixon that he was through.

    47. Willowarbor profile image60
      Willowarborposted 3 weeks ago

      What Pete Hegseth fails to understand is that literally no one is blaming the pilots for the failed mission in Iran. We are blaming him, trump and the entire administration for carelessly wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and putting the lives at risk. 

      And now??

      trump is now going to limit sharing classified information with Congress.

      Shared info will now be limited to trump's inner circle and Pete Hegseth's drinking buddies on Signal.

      1. Readmikenow profile image84
        Readmikenowposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        This is something that goes on in every administration.

        1. Willowarbor profile image60
          Willowarborposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          The lying?

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)