Why President Trump Was Right to Target Iran’s Nuclear Sites
And Why the World Can't Afford to Keep Guessing at Ghosts
Iran’s Decades of Provocation
Iran has spent over four decades cultivating its status as a rogue regime. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has waged a slow, deliberate campaign of terror, subversion, and bloodshed, fueling proxy wars, funding militant groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis, and carrying out or sponsoring attacks on U.S. forces and allies across the globe. Their fingerprints are on countless conflicts and covert operations from Syria to Yemen to Iraq.
And the cost in American lives has been staggering. Iran, through its support of insurgents and provision of advanced IEDs known as EFPs, has been responsible for the deaths of more than 600 U.S. service members in Iraq alone. That number doesn’t account for civilians, allies, or victims of Iran-sponsored terrorism in other parts of the world. Simply put: Iran is not just a threat in theory, it’s a proven killer.
The Failure of Diplomacy and the Iran Nuclear Deal
For years, world leaders attempted to pacify Tehran with diplomacy. The Obama administration’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was the centerpiece of that strategy. It promised sanctions relief and economic reintegration in exchange for limits on Iran’s nuclear program. But Iran never truly played by the rules.
Inspections were obstructed. Military sites remained off-limits. Uranium enrichment exceeded agreed thresholds. Intelligence and watchdog reports consistently showed that Iran was not honoring the deal in full, and by the time President Trump reimposed sanctions, Iran was allegedly within months of acquiring enough enriched material for a nuclear weapon.
The deal didn’t slow their nuclear program, it gave them breathing room and billions in resources to continue developing it quietly while expanding their influence through proxy wars. Diplomacy had its chance. It failed.
Trump’s Strike Against a Looming Threat
Critics of President Trump’s bold stance toward Iran, especially the decision to target and eliminate nuclear facilities and key regime figures like Qassem Soleimani, argue that it could provoke war. But war, in many respects, was already being waged. What Trump did was send a message Iran hadn’t heard in years: there are consequences for threatening American lives and pursuing weapons of mass destruction.
And yes, Iran retaliated with the usual bluster and threats. But the real surprise? They didn’t escalate into full-scale war. In fact, their response was relatively restrained. They knew what any military strategist understands: a direct conflict with the United States is not one they could win.
The Strait of Hormuz: A Threat That Cuts Both Ways
Now, in an act of strategic brinkmanship, Iran’s parliament is reportedly preparing to vote on closing the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which roughly 30% of the world’s seaborne oil passes. On the surface, it looks like a power move. But in reality, this would hurt Iran more than it hurts anyone else.
Iran ships over 90% of its own oil exports through that same strait. Blocking it would effectively strangle its own economy, which is already teetering under the weight of sanctions and inflation. Without oil revenue, Iran's government would struggle to fund everything from military operations to domestic welfare programs. It's economic suicide wrapped in the illusion of defiance.
Who Else Relies on the Strait?
It’s not just Iran that needs the Strait of Hormuz. A wide range of nations depend on it for their energy security and economic stability:
Saudi Arabia: Ships millions of barrels of crude through the strait daily. It has pipelines, but Hormuz remains essential.
United Arab Emirates (UAE): Still relies heavily on the strait, despite building alternative pipelines.
Kuwait and Iraq: Virtually all oil exports go through Hormuz. These countries have no viable alternative routes.
Qatar: The world's largest LNG (liquefied natural gas) exporter. All shipments pass through the strait.
Bahrain: Entirely dependent on maritime exports and imports through this route.
And beyond the region:
China: A massive importer of Middle Eastern oil. Closure of Hormuz would directly threaten its energy security and industrial output.
India: Another energy-hungry nation that would be hit hard by oil price spikes.
Japan and South Korea: U.S. allies who rely heavily on Gulf oil for manufacturing and transportation.
United States: While less dependent today on Middle East oil due to increased domestic production, the U.S. still maintains strategic military and economic interests in ensuring free navigation.
If Iran dares to close the Strait, it will alienate its few remaining customers, enrage powerful nations like China, and provoke global military readiness, potentially accelerating its own downfall.
Predicting Disaster Before Action Is Taken: A Strategic Mistake
Too often, American foreign policy is paralyzed by the fear of what might happen. Critics of decisive action will always ask: What if this sparks a war? What if oil prices rise? What if we lose allies?
But none of these predictions justify inaction when a known threat is gaining ground. Waiting for Iran to test a nuclear bomb before acting would be criminal negligence. We've been burned before by underestimating threats, think North Korea, think Afghanistan, think 9/11.
Preemptive strength is not aggression. It's deterrence.
And in this case, the real "what if" we should be asking is: What if Trump hadn’t acted? What if Iran had built a bomb and handed it off to a proxy militia? What if Tel Aviv or a U.S. base was the first test site?
The Bigger Picture: Strategic Stability vs. Weakness
Every time the U.S. shows weakness, Iran pushes harder. Every time we delay action out of fear, they interpret it as permission. President Trump’s approach was not reckless; it was a strategic reset. He understood that real peace comes from leverage, not appeasement.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions threaten the entire global order. If they gain nuclear capability, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt may follow suit, triggering a regional arms race in the most volatile corner of the planet.
Trump’s actions were a message to Iran, but also to the world: you do not get to build a nuclear weapon under the watch of the United States, not without consequence.During the JCPOA (2015-2018):
The JCPOA limited Iran to enriching uranium to 3.67%.
This was a significant reduction from previous levels.
Iran also agreed to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium and limit its centrifuges.
After the US Withdrawal (2018 onwards):
The US withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018.
Iran began to gradually violate the terms of the deal, including exceeding the enrichment limit.
By 2021, Iran was enriching uranium to 20%, and then to 60%.
In 2023, particles enriched to 83.7% were found....
The deal worked. Doesn't really matter though. This is about regime change not nuclear capabilities of Iran. Bibi wants change and Trump has been convinced to help provide it. look for the announcements of Trump Tower Tehran coming soon.
Trump’s Iran Deal pullout let Iran stockpile 9–10 bombs’ worth of nuclear material. Before Trump? Iran needed 1 year to ready a bomb. After he tore up the deal? Just 7–10 days.
The arsonist is now playing firefighter.Myth: Congress Has A Choice Between the President’s Deal or War.
“There really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved
diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war.” – President Obama
The Facts
The President offers a false choice between this agreement or war. Even a supporter of the deal testified
in front of the Committee that “I wouldn't say that if you are opposed to this deal that somehow leads to
war. I think that's false.”
As the President has said himself throughout these negotiations, “no deal is better than a bad deal.” This
is a bad deal. Congress should reject it.
But that doesn’t mean war. It means rolling-up our sleeves, turning-up the economic pressure on the
regime and its supporters, and negotiating a better agreement that advances the national security interests
of the United States, our allies and partners.
Those opposed to this agreement aren’t opposed to diplomacy – we are against bad diplomacy.
If Congress blocks this bad deal, the Administration will have no choice but to go back to the table and
negotiate from a position of strength. Despite its rhetoric, Iran will follow because it desperately needs
sanctions relief.
After Congress rejects this agreement, it should maintain its diplomacy while simultaneously turning up
the sanctions pressure, reaching out to Iranian dissidents, stirring opposition to the regime through
international broadcasting and enhancing our security cooperation with our partners in the region through
military sales and other exercises.
Myth: The Administration Negotiated From a Position of Strength
“[The agreement] shows what we can accomplish when we lead from a position of strength…” – President
Obama
The Facts
The Administration consistently negotiated from a position of weakness, blocking attempts in Congress to
pass sanctions that would have given Iran a choice between giving up its quest for nuclear weapons or
facing economic ruin—this is called “coercive diplomacy.”
Page 2 of 5
Additional tough, bipartisan sanctions passed the House last session by a vote of 400-20. The Obama
Administration worked with then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to kill the bill.
Instead, the Administration approached Iran as an equal partner. Iran—a regional power and state sponsor of
terrorism—is neither the moral nor geopolitical equal of the United States. We are the world’s only
superpower.
This weak approach resulted in concession after concession. Iran become emboldened and managed to gut
the conventional arms embargo at the 11th hour—something that has nothing to do with the nuclear
program.
Myth: U.S. Sanctions Cannot Work Without International Support.
“And so we could still maintain some of our unilateral sanctions, but it would be far less effective -- as it was
before we were able to put together these multilateral sanctions.” – President Obama
The Facts
The most effective sanctions against Iran have been those that give companies and countries a choice to
do business with Iran or the United States. When given such a choice – which would still be possible to if
Congress rejects this agreement – they have chosen the United States.
The Obama Administration has never liked sanctions, and fought vigorously to oppose sanctions targeting
Iran’s Central Bank in December 2011. Then – as they are now - the Obama Administration claimed that
imposing these sanctions would divide the international coalition, and leave the United States alone in the
world.
Businesses, and in particular banks, will be hesitate to put a premium on the Iranian market if that would
mean getting shut-out of the United States. As much as President Obama doesn’t like it, we are still
number one in the world.
While maintaining a united sanctions front after Congress rejects the nuclear agreement will be difficult,
it will be easier to do so today than five or so years down the line when Iran is caught cheating and a
sanctions regime must be reconstituted. There were no signs of the sanctions regime collapsing when the
Obama negotiations began.
Myth: The Agreement Is Permanent, With No “Sunset”
“Contrary to the assertions of some, this agreement has no sunset. It doesn’t terminate…some of the provisions
are in place for 10 years, others for 15 year, others for 25 years.” – Secretary Kerry
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
Page 3 of 5
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.
Myth: The Agreement Is Not Contingent On Iran Changing its Behavior
“So this deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior. It's not contingent on Iran suddenly operating like
a liberal democracy.” – President Obama
The Facts
At its core, the President’s deal is a bet—that in ten or fifteen years we will see a kinder, gentler Iran. That’s
because once key provisions expire Iran will have an industrial scale nuclear program capable of producing
fuel for dozens of nuclear weapons. Such a capability will dramatically increase the threat Iran poses in the
region.
At the same time, the agreement makes it less likely that Iran will change. Iran will receive $150 billion
dollars in sanctions relief and will end up with hundreds of billions more as its economy begins to grow.
Much of this funding will help secure the regime, taking pressure off its leaders. Billions will be spent
abroad, to continue to prop up the brutal Assad regime in Syria, fuel Sunni/Shia divisions in Iraq, support
the Houthi rebels who overthrew a U.S. partner in Yemen, and resupply Hamas and Hezbollah with the
rockets they use to threaten Israel.
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—
Page 4 of 5
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: Tough “Non-Nuclear” Sanctions Will Remain on Iran
“We will maintain our own sanctions related to Iran’s support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program,
and its human rights violations.” – President Obama
The Facts
If fully implemented, this agreement will destroy the Iran regime, which Congress has built up over decades
despite opposition from several administrations—including the Obama Administrations.
As 344 Members of Congress reminded the President in a letter last year, the concept of an exclusively
“nuclear-related” sanction does not exist in U.S. law. Almost all sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program
are also related to Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for international terrorism.
Many U.S. sanctions target Iranian banks, including Iran’s Central Bank, to prevent these banks from
funding Iran’s nuclear program—including the development of ballistic missiles—and its support for
terrorism. Removing sanctions on Iranian banks will allow the regime pump a significant part of the billions
it receives under this deal through these “bad banks” into developing true ICBMs and support for terrorism.
In a major, last minute concession the President agreed to lift the UN arms embargo on Iran. In 5 years, Iran
will be able to buy conventional weapons. In 8 years, ballistic missiles. Russia and China want to sell these
dangerous weapons to Iran—that’s why they pushed for the embargo to be lifted.
As Secretary of Defense Carter just testified: “The reason that we want to stop Iran from having an I.C.B.M.
program is that the ‘I’ in ICBM stands for ‘intercontinental,’ which means having the capability of flying
from Iran to the United States.” Remember, countries build ICBMs for one reason—to deliver nuclear
weapons.
Under the agreement, European sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the leader
of its elite Quds Force Qasem Soleimani are removed. Their job is to “export the revolution”—that means
support terrorism.
General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently testified that Iranian militias, such as
those trained and equipped by Soleimani, killed some 500 U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Removing sanctions on
Soleimani and the IRGC is so shocking that when the deal was first announced, many thought it was a
mistake.
Myth: If Iran Cheats, Sanctions Can Be “Snapped Back” Into Place
“With this deal, if Iran violates its commitments, there will be real consequences. Nuclear-related sanctions
that have helped to cripple the Iranian economy will snap back into place.” – President Obama
The Facts
Economic sanctions on Iran were built up over decades. They cannot be turned on and off at the flip of a
switch. That’s simply not how the global economy works—once foreign companies sign contracts in Iran,
those contracts will take years to unwind.
The nuclear deal with Iran will unleash economic forces that make it unenforceable. Iran is a large, resource
rich country with a young, educated population that sits at the center of historic trade routes. Lifting
sanctions will create an economic power committed to the destruction of Israel and the United States.
Page 5 of 5
While U.S. sanctions are powerful on their own, the UN is an important part of the Iran sanctions regime.
As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, told the Committee, “Nothing at the UN happens in a
snap.”
Congress built the Iran sanctions regime over the objections of several administrations. When Iran cheats,
will the Obama Administration have the will to admit their deal is failing and re-impose sanctions?
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 U.S. Could Not Demand the Release of American Hostages Because Iran Would Have
Demanded Non-Nuclear Concessions From The U.S.
“Now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that
creates. Suddenly, Iran realizes, you know what, maybe we can get additional [non-nuclear] concessions out
of the Americans by holding these individuals.” – President Obama
Iran demanded and received significant non-nuclear concessions anyway. These include an end to the UN
embargo on conventional weapons and ballistic missiles as well as an end to significant terrorism sanctions.
This is a perfect example of the poor job the Obama Administration did negotiating this agreement. This is a
bad deal for the U.S., our allies, and partners. Congress must vote it down.It’s striking how Democrats came out with hair-on-fire predictions of World War III, yet so far, there’s been little retaliation from Iran. Meanwhile, the majority of G7 nations have backed Trump’s action, recognizing the necessity of standing firm against threats to global security.
Under Biden, the enrichment levels kept rising, and the FACTS show they were pushing toward weapons-grade uranium, reaching as high as 60%, which is just a step away from what's needed for a nuclear bomb. What’s important to remember is that during Obama’s presidency and even throughout Trump’s first term, Iran wasn’t anywhere close to that. Under the original JCPOA, they were limited to 3.67% enrichment, and even after Trump pulled out in 2018, they didn’t immediately ramp things up. It wasn’t until Biden took office that Iran really started breaking the limits and accelerating their nuclear program. So when people act like the deal was working fine, the actual uranium stats tell a very different story. The facts are very hard to ignore.
President Trump’s bold decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear site was a strong, decisive move to protect American interests and prevent a hostile regime from gaining nuclear weapons. Since then, we’ve seen the aftermath, and importantly, Trump has now secured a ceasefire and is working toward bringing lasting peace to the Middle East, a goal everyone should support.
The fact that anyone could be against what Trump did, or his efforts to stabilize the region, is truly puzzling. We need a leader who isn’t afraid to act boldly when it counts, and then work hard to bring peace. Trump’s combination of strength and diplomacy is exactly what America, and the world, needs right now.
Biden was always great at creating problems, and even better at ignoring the ones he causes. Just look at how Iran was basically given free rein for four years while Biden stumbled around, completely floundering in confusion. Meanwhile, Trump took decisive action to stop the threat and bring real results.The only reason the uranium enrichment levels rose is because Trump left the agreement....his fault. He babbled and blustered about replacing it with something better, as usual, he had nothing...but a war.
Time to stop blaming Trump's failures on Biden. On another note, it's very interesting to see maga's globalist vision take shape."It wasn’t until Biden took office that Iran really started breaking the limits and accelerating their nuclear program. So when people act like the deal was working fine,
Lol.... You do realize that it was working UNTIL Trump left it out of spite toward Obama?
It's very curious that Maga folks always expect superior negotiation from others but NEVER from dear leader.... The fool breaks something, that was working, doesn't replace it as promised and Biden is blamed for not cleaning up the mess LOL"You do realize that it was working UNTIL Trump left it out of spite toward Obama?"
You need to read what I posted about myth and fact on the Iran deal.Mike, Trump had good reasons why he withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), calling it a deeply flawed and one-sided agreement. He argued that it merely delayed Iran's path to a nuclear weapon rather than stopping it entirely, especially because of the sunset provisions that allowed key restrictions to expire after a few years. He also criticized the deal for ignoring Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for terrorism and destabilizing activities throughout the region. Trump pointed to weaknesses in the inspection process, particularly the inability to inspect certain military sites, and condemned the large financial windfall Iran received in the form of unfrozen assets, money he claimed was used to fund terrorism. By withdrawing, Trump aimed to launch a “maximum pressure” campaign with renewed and expanded sanctions, hoping to force Iran into negotiating a broader and stronger deal that included not just nuclear restrictions, but also limits on missile development and regional aggression. His administration believed this strategy would restore U.S. leverage and demonstrate American strength, unlike what he considered President Obama’s overly conciliatory approach. Notably, actual uranium enrichment data show that during Trump’s term, Iran’s enrichment levels remained relatively low. It was only after Biden took office and attempted to re-engage Iran diplomatically that enrichment levels surged dramatically, evidence that Trump's pressure campaign, while controversial, was at least initially effective in holding Iran’s nuclear ambitions in check.
The proof is in the results 3% uranium enrichment during the deal and 60% after Trump killed it.. he should have replaced it with something stronger as he promised. LOL but he's not a great negotiator. This inept Administration doesn't even know how much uranium was moved by Iran before the strike... I mean it's laughable that the strike wasn't really even a surprise because Trump had been telegraphing it, shooting off his big mouth all over the place as per usual weeks before. Plenty of time to move the goods and the equipment.
Which nuclear program should he go after next lol? Now that we're the world's nuclear police"It was only after Biden took office and attempted to re-engage Iran diplomatically that enrichment levels surged"
You do realize that it takes time to enrich uranium? it doesn't happen instantaneously. These arguments to absolve Trump's ineptitude are quite a stretch
It would probably be better at this point if Maga would just make the simple statement that everything dear leader does and says is 100% correct...
There was a perfectly good and hard fought multinational JCPOA in place restricting Iran's nuclear program and making it subject to international inspection. Trump unilaterally withdrew from that (because he hated that it wasn't his deal). Trump is responsible for the current war
"He has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He is weak and ineffective"
https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1933570646744969737update ---
At this morning’s Pentagon press conference, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and General Dan Caine provided important details about the recent strike on Iran’s nuclear sites. Both emphasized that the mission was carefully planned and executed, describing it as a historic and decisive operation. They praised the skill and bravery of the pilots, who flew stealth B-2 bombers through hostile territory over a 36-hour mission, using powerful bunker-buster bombs to destroy key targets.
General Caine confirmed that the strike significantly damaged Iran’s nuclear facilities, backing up President Trump’s assertion that the operation “obliterated” those sites. While some early reports suggested only limited damage, the Pentagon officials called those claims “low-confidence” and politically motivated leaks intended to undermine the mission’s success.
The briefing also covered Iran’s missile retaliation, with General Caine revealing credible intelligence about planned strikes against U.S. bases and highlighting that U.S. missile defenses in Qatar engaged in the largest Patriot missile intercept operation in history.
Importantly, both men made it clear that the full assessment of the strike’s impact is still underway, but so far, the intelligence supports the conclusion that the mission achieved its goals. Defense Secretary Hegseth cautioned the public to wait for the complete after-action report and to be wary of early, misleading reports from certain media outlets.
Maybe it’s wiser to listen to those in charge who actually have access to the full picture, rather than someone who rushes out just hours after the operation to leak a one-sided story to CNN. When I heard that CNN report, I immediately questioned how someone could claim to know the full outcome of a precision bombing so quickly. What stood out most was the lack of time, common sense tells you that in every prior strike or military action, it always takes time to accurately assess the damage. That hasn’t changed, and this time is no different."What stood out most was the lack of time, common sense tells you that in every prior strike or military action, it always takes time to accurately assess the damage."
When we began to get damage reports (from both sides) this was my first reaction. Whether "we damaged them to the tune of a few weeks" or "we obliterated their ability to build nukes", there was not sufficient time or information to make the call. We don't even know for sure that we did any damage to the underground facility - we haven't been down there to look!
I finally decided that maybe, just maybe, the one side is saying that they got their "bomb fuel" (enriched Uranium) out in sufficient quantities to build a few bombs, which would not have been built at the facilities we destroyed anyway. And the other side ignores that possibility (or fact) and pretends that the entire process of building a bomb would take place inside a reactor building. Thus both sides are "right" - they can build a few, but then do not have the ability to make more "fuel".
I don't know who has it right, and won't know for many years to come."I don't know who has it right, and won't know for many years to come.
Maybe Trump shouldn't throw around words like "obliterated"...Dan, In recent weeks, Israel has clearly shown it's not sitting back while Iran ramps up its nuclear ambitions. They've taken decisive action, hitting several key sites where nuclear weapons could potentially be produced. These strikes haven’t just targeted missile or military storage locations; they’ve gone after the heart of the operation, including scientific facilities and R&D hubs like SPND, where the actual design and development of bomb components takes place.
It would appear the operation was carefully planned between the US and Israel to hit all areas associated with building a nuclear weapon, even going as far as to eliminate key nuclear scientists. This shows both the US and Israel understand the full scope of the threat, not just where materials are stored, but where the real science of weaponization is happening. It's a smart, proactive strategy that sends a strong message: the free world won't wait for a mushroom cloud before it acts. I am grateful to see that, at best, the problem is being addressed.
Will more need to be done? Who knows. It does seem that the ceasefire is holding, and hopefully, Iran has felt the might and realizes that they could very easily lose the current regime and be easily destroyed.
I don’t believe we can continue shrugging our shoulders and maintaining the status quo on this issue. Iran has made it abundantly clear that their goal is to destroy Israel and America, and what concerns me most is that this isn’t just a political agenda, it’s a deeply religious mission for them. That makes the threat even more dangerous. Yet, it’s typical of the left media to focus on one of Trump's words, like “obliterated,” and completely miss the bigger picture.
In my view, what truly matters is that President Trump took bold and decisive action to confront the very real and horrific threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Dwelling on a single word only distracts from the critical mission at hand, stopping a hostile regime determined to bring harm to Israel and America. This kind of narrow, skewed mindset fails to see the courage it takes to face such a dangerous problem head-on and ultimately misses the point entirely.
Reporter asks Joint Chiefs Chair Gen Dan Caine why he’s confident Fordow was destroyed and whether he would use the term “obliterated” like Trump, given he said 3 days ago the battle damage assessment would take weeks
Caine sidesteps: “We don’t do BDA”
Absolutely no confirmation.
It's common sense the damage assessment takes time.. so why is Trump shooting off his mouth about total obliteration....
Related Discussions
- 6
Obama Paid, Trump Pressured, Biden Lost Control, Trump Solved
by Sharlee 3 weeks ago
The JCPOA was often praised as a diplomatic achievement, but in reality, it offered only temporary limits rather than lasting solutions. The deal imposed time-bound restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities, most of which begin expiring in the 2030s, meaning Iran could simply wait out the clock and...
- 104
War with Iran, will it really happen?
by mhope324 13 years ago
Many news outlets, like CNN, have posted that Leon Panetta is now suggesting Isreal will attack Iran in the spring. Is this a good idea? Should America get involved?
- 50
Trump Violated the Iran Nuclear Deal: Will Iran Start Building Nukes?
by Scott Belford 7 years ago
Since every authority, save a very biased Netanyahu, says Iran was complying with the terms of the Nuclear Pact, Trump's reinstating sanctions is a clear violation. Do you think:1. Iran will go it alone and start up their nuclear weaponization program again?2. Iran will continue working with...
- 49
Unelected Resistance: The Legal War Against President Trump’s Mandate
by Sharlee 2 days ago
Just a few months into President Trump’s second term, we’re witnessing an aggressive judicial campaign unlike anything in recent memory. Though elected by a majority of Americans hungry for change and committed to America First policies, President Trump’s ability to govern is being challenged not...
- 22
Foreign Policies / 2024 Debate Issue.
by Kathryn L Hill 10 months ago
Neither candidate has zeroed in on the best way to deal with current foreign affairs/wars. What will JDT do about Israel/Hamas/Iran?What will JDT do about Ukraine /Russia?What will Harris do about Israel/Hamas/Iran?What will Harris do about Ukraine/Russia?After all, "Before he/(she) enter on...
- 4
What Do You Think About Iran's Nuclear Program
by Thomas Byers 12 years ago
What Do You Think About Iran's Nuclear ProgramWhat do you think is going to happen with Iran's Nuclear Program. President Obama says that the US will never allow Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. Is the US getting ready to strike Iran. Possibly surgical strikes against Iran's Nuclear Facilities. If...