Under One Tent -- U.S. & Israel Wage War On Iran
U.S. and Israel launch major attack on Iran
President Donald Trump urged Iranians to “take over your government” when the strikes are over. Tehran responded by targeting American bases and other targets throughout the region.
ThoughsMy thoughts…..
So, now the man who blamed Biden for immersing us in too many wars, launches his own Blitzkrieg? This is aggression on the part of the United States and the world can see it for what it is. This will raise the concern of other nations both friend and foe.
I really hopes he fails and America finds itself in another quagmire of its own making. Trump might find that dropping bombs from the sky may not be enough to subdue the Iranian regime. It may well require ground troops and American casualties. If i were the Iranian leader, i would not volunteer to disarm myself, not without a fight, anyway. I was a tad too young for Vietnam, but I will grab a ringside seat for this show.
Obama had it right in 2015 with a win-win proposal to control Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Trump simply tore it up as he could not live with anything Obama did just because he was Obama.
The penalty will be rising casualties, how are people going to react to that in the face of an ever rising cost of living crisis?"I really hopes he fails and America finds itself in another quagmire of its own making. "
That is bullshit. So far, the rest of the world is cheering, but you're such an ideological zealot that you want your country to fail, and people to die ("... require ground troops and American casualties.") simply so you can point an 'Aha!' finger.
Damn Cred, you should hear what you sound like. You've been beyond conversation for a while now, but this remark was more than even I expected from you.
You are the dangerous one, not the "right-wingers you 'abhor and detest.'
Here, your ilk likes emphasis, look in the mirror and watch yourself repeating this: "I really hopes he fails and America finds itself in another quagmire of its own making."
and
"It may well require ground troops and American casualties."
What a jerk thing to say!
Damn, seeing you cross that line blew my top.
GAThank you --- His comment left me speechless.
Well, Sharlee, you asked for thoughts. One of mine is that we reign in this War Powers Act, preventing this kind of military adventurism around the globe. We can get on the way of getting that done once the Dems can obtain the gavel next year.
I did ask for thoughts, and you shared, just as I responded to what you shared. As for the idea of Democrats taking back the gavel, I think that’s a pretty ambitious prediction. From where I stand, given how they’re being perceived right now, they may be fortunate just to hold onto the seats they currently have.
In my view, what I see as anti-American positions within the Democratic Party have become more visible, and they seem to grow more pronounced over time. The party feels very different from what it once was. I believe it has drifted away from what many people consider traditional values and practical common sense, and I don’t see it offering much that feels constructive in Washington. Instead, I see messaging and policies that come across as divisive and, at times, hostile to the country’s core principles, an impression I felt was reinforced by your comments as well.Well, Sharlee, I don’t think that the idea of the Dems taking back the House is so far fetched. I see no reason to believe that a trend that has been solid over decades with rare exception is going to alter this time, that is wishful thinking. Again, we will see… Experts say that the state of the economy in 1991 was a contributing factor to Bush, Sr. Defeat in 1992. Even though i tend to think that Ross Perot as a third party candidate had something to do with that. So, it did not matter that Bush came home as a conquering Caesar after “Desert Storm”.
What you see as anti-American, I see as just criticism. I hear the ideas of two wrongs don’t make a right, but it is only applicable against Democrats and the left. I see this administration as the epitome of the “ends justifies the means”. I see conservatives as tossing out law and appropriate protocol, I don’t go for that. Because if you will ignore the “process” it opens the door to taking more liberties and stretching the law to its breaking point. That is Ok for conservatives, but not for me. Because without the guardrails of the law, we invite tyranny in its stead.
Everything is different than it was, Sharlee. You have always been against the Democratic Party in principle. Trump is the catalyst that takes much of the blame for the extreme partisan divisiveness we see today. I see the Republicans as accommodating the uglier side of American life and giving permission for the formally unpalatable to now be extolled as virtue. Your idea of what is core and essential to America and my ideas are quite different.
Well, GA, look what the cat dragged in
Does the peanut gallery decide to weigh in now?
The rightwingers have probe their antenna above the floor boards and can see that now the “coast is clear”?
I don’t recognize an unanimous cheer for the unprovoked Iran attack
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yj9kr31y7o
It is never “my country right or wrong” you had better be right or prepare for condemnation and criticism. I don’t accept aggression on the international stage whether this country does it or anyone else.
YOU were the one that insisted that I don sackcloth over the passing of Charlie Kirk, an avowed racist, misogynist and xenophobe. How ridiculous was that?
I am not beyond conversation, you simply stopped up your ears to ideas and concepts that obviously you cannot understand, nor wish to appreciate. That’s on you.
Yes, when it comes to eliminating rightwingers in control of our society, I am dangerous and will give no quarter. I will do whatever is in my power.
don’t sound so shocked, GA, Rush Limbaugh basically said the same thing about Obama and his agenda back in 2009. I have the same attitude about this current “man” and his agenda.
I don’t like aggression anywhere and I won’t excuse it even when conducted by the country in which I live. This is a lesson Trump and his administration need to learn and it will exact a price. The possibility for American casualties can not be eliminated, Iran is no Venezuela or Iraq.
My world is obviously not your world, hiding, waiting to pounce like a buzzard on a barnyard fence does not do you credit…..Now I'm torn ... Peoplepower had a legitimate claim to his charge (only popping up to criticize), but you don't. We have enough history for you to know that.
Your reply doesn't relate to my comment: the condemnation of your quoted statements; it just lists why you made them.
GA
Thank you GA, I cannot...
I cannot deal with such hate, and spitefulness!Its not the first time, or the worst time...
He's been there for a long while now...pretty much anyone that is still supporting the Democrats in their positions and/or still defending Biden is essentially well past that line...
One more example of how far gone the Democratic Party is was brought to light for all to see during the SOTU... I hear/see a lot of people say Trump "tricked them"... no... he did not... he merely spotlighted what they really believe and stand for...
The Democratic Party is anti-American... anti-Citizen... they represent all those factions and ideologies that want to do HARM to America and its people. Letting criminals walk the streets, letting children be preyed upon, letting foreign governments abuse our generosity and freedoms.Nope, it's not 'anyone still supporting Democrats,' it's the zealots, and the Republicans have them too.
All this talk about "peanut galleries,' and 'popping up from the floorboards,' misses the point. The "cryptic" one he couldn't figure out. The reason for the change in participation. All ya'll gone off the rails.
GAAll Americans will have to choose which extreme they want in control...
Because "the Left" aka the Democrats, have made what was once agreed upon by all politicians on both sides, now "extremists" on the Right.
Things that Bill Clinton or Obama ran on...are now considered hate speech or racist or evil by those controlling the Democratic Party today.
Open Borders VS Controlled Immigration and Controlled Borders
No ID and Mail In Ballots to everyone/anyone VS Citizen only verified voting
Trans men treated as women VS only Women considered women
DEI racism VS Merit based system
And on and on... You cannot be a Democrat today and say you love America, believe in Nationhood, and believe in equality and merit (earning what you get VS being assigned it due to race or religion)... because Democrats today stand for NONE of those things.
Its not like they hide their intentions anymore... if anything they are bolder than ever:
Victor Davis Hanson: Susan Rice Signals Retribution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmtuEmsP5zsSomehow, this is all Cred's fault. Now I'm disagreeing with everybody.
Nope, 'all Americans' don't have to pick an extreme. That's what got us here. We have the mechanisms and ability to force moderation, and we have the history to show the dangers of extremism.
GAI have to push back hard on that. Yes, moderation is nice in theory, but history shows that when people try to “force” moderation, it often leads to stagnation or worse, a powerless government that can’t act decisively when crisis hits. Extremes exist because people feel real threats or see real failures in the system. To say Americans don’t have to pick an extreme ignores that, at critical moments, compromise is often impossible without sacrificing core principles. Extremism isn’t inherently dangerous; it’s how societies respond to it that matters. The real danger comes when moderation becomes a cover for indecision, weakness, or letting bad actors run unchecked. Forcing everyone into a middle ground isn’t a safeguard; it’s often the breeding ground for the very chaos moderation is supposed to prevent.
One of the best examples is the Weimar Republic in Germany after World War I. The political system was designed for moderation and coalition-building, but extreme economic pressures, national humiliation, and social unrest created a vacuum that centrists couldn’t fill. Moderates tried to appease both sides, but they lacked the decisiveness to confront the extremists. This allowed radical ideologies, most notably the Nazis, to gain power legally, step by step. By the time people realized the danger, it was too late; moderation had failed not because extremism was inevitable, but because attempts to force a “middle ground” left the country vulnerable to those willing to take decisive, extreme action.
Let's stay closer to home, American examples is the rise of the Know-Nothing Party and the tensions before the Civil War. In the 1850s, moderates tried to maintain compromise between free and slave states, hoping to avoid conflict over slavery. The Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were all designed to preserve a “middle ground.”
But forcing moderation didn’t solve the moral and economic tensions—on the contrary, it created frustration and empowered extremists on both sides. Anti-immigrant and pro-slavery factions grew more radical because the moderate solutions failed to address the underlying issues. By the time the nation could no longer ignore the conflict, extremism had escalated into the Civil War.
It’s a perfect example of how insisting on moderation can give extremists room to maneuver, while the people trying to “stay in the middle” lack the ability to prevent disaster.Sound comparison...
Yes, I would tend to agree, we are faced with issues today where there should be no compromise, there can be no compromise...
Citizen's voting vs Anyone voting...
Show ID vs... letting everyone vote and making it illegal to ask for ID as California has in place today.
It is a black and white issue... and which-ever is enforced will change forever what this country is, who it really belongs to... its Citizens or the Global Elites.
Children being abused...
The right to own Arms...
The right to free speech...
If the Democrats return to power anytime soon, the course corrections Trump has made will be undone and our special rights and privileges granted to us as Citizens will be washed away... living in America will become intolerable, the Democrats will be for America what the Nazis were to Germany and the Communists were to Russia, they showed the difference in beliefs during Covid... how California treated people vs Florida... only it will be on steroids... the Democrats want blood in the streets for real now.I understand the sense of urgency behind what you're saying. A lot of people feel like we’re no longer debating small policy tweaks but fundamentally different visions of what America should be.
From my perspective, many positions coming from the left do feel incompatible with long-standing American principles — particularly around voting integrity, the Second Amendment, free speech, and parental rights. When policies move in the direction of loosening voter ID standards, restricting lawful gun ownership, or policing speech in new ways, it doesn’t feel like minor reform. It feels like a shift in the foundation.
That’s why for some of us this isn’t a “both sides have good points” moment. It feels like a defining period where core constitutional principles are either reinforced or steadily eroded. When you believe the stakes are that high, compromise can feel less like moderation and more like surrender.
In my view, President Trump has laid, and can continue to lay, a strong foundation for the country. I believe many Americans will ultimately recognize the strides he made not only in strengthening America but also in influencing global stability and economic momentum.
No, extremism is dangerous because neither side will be able to live with the other peacefully, then the whole she-bang will fall. At that point, we just as well all return to Plymouth Rock and start over. What would a post apocalypse America look like?
Yes. In my view, extremism becomes truly dangerous when someone can openly hope for military casualties or for America to fail in stopping a terrorist nation from achieving its goal of developing nuclear weapons, simply to score a political point or protect a preferred narrative. When we reach a place where national security and human lives are secondary to ideology, we are at the pinnacle of extremism.
I can offer great respect to anyone who is willing to step back from such a dangerous narrative. It takes humility and strength to reassess one’s position and put country and human life above partisan aims. My hope is that more people return to common-sense thinking and recognize that values turned upside down in this way are not only extreme but genuinely dangerous.
Trump IS the moderation... the EXTREME anti-American left has too many convinced he is the extreme!
Putting Citizens first is not extreme... its the LAW... its in the Constitution... its what those losers in Congress are there to do, not enrich themselves selling us out (which is exactly how Pelosi and all the others became rich while there for 30 - 40+ years).
Putting American interests ahead of UN or Global interests...
Putting America's wellbeing ahead of some BS excuse to start a war with Russia... IN Russia...
The Democrats... at one point in time pretty much the entire body politic, UNTIL Trump... have acted AGAINST the best interests of the American Citizens, Law and Order, economic stability, for DECADES now.
Trump is the American people saying FU... enough is enough... this is OUR country.... NOT the country of millions of illegal migrants... NOT the country of the UN or WEF or other foreign/international bodies.
America 1st
Citizens 1st
If you are a Democrat today... you are standing AGAINST America... AGAINST Law and Order... AGAINST Citizenship... you are standing with the deranged, delusional, ill-informed, and out-right traitors to the Nation."Trump IS the moderation... "
Yep, Trump was the Conservatives' (Republicans and Independents) moderation of the Biden Democrats' extremes. If we're right, does that affirm my point?
GACould you refresh your point, that you would like affirmation on?
And... I would add an ask: do you see how the Democrats (Progressive or Socialist) view America and the direction they want to move it (support of WEF's 'you will own nothing' and Soros Foundation's Open Border Society) vs. the Trump efforts... and how the agendas they have for the nation that are not compatible?The point was that we have the mechanism to moderate extremism. It isn't the only choice.
Broadly considered, I agree with most of your Democrat condemnations. The Woke stuff, the borders stuff, the welfare stuff, etc.
Their policies were extreme enough to get Trump elected.
As you said, he was the moderation of their power.
The same thing could happen to Trump in 2026, and the Republican Party in 2028.
I like the path we are on now. The new "Western Hemisphere" thing, the Venezuela action (et al.), not being the world's credit card, almost all of it makes sense to me. But that's the stuff of a paradigm shift — not extremism.
Extremism is what was done to Anthropic, or the school moms pulled from their cars in school lines, or many of the hundreds of examples the Democrats would offer.
That is extremism, and agreeing with one doesn't demand agreeing with the other. That was the Democrats' 2024 lesson.
GA"The point was that we have the mechanism to moderate extremism. It isn't the only choice."
And this has been negated, or COULD be negated, as we see in CA today... No ID required to vote... it is illegal to ASK someone for ID.
Then Citizenship becomes worse than worthless... as a Citizen you will be subject to taxation and prosecution... but your voice in elections is negated by the millions of non-citizens allowed to vote, millions of votes that cannot be verified, cannot be proven to have been made by a real person, because ID is not needed and cannot be asked for.
If Democrats... today's cabal of criminals and deviants...return to power, this will become the reality.
---
The extremism you mention... on the Democrat side it is institutional and if put into effect, it becomes near irreversible... VS what you are speaking of, single incidents where individuals go beyond what should be done... after much effort by 'protestors' to create those tragic examples, of course.
Again... this is really simple stuff when you don't listen to the noise of a useless, hyperbolic news media.
Open Borders ... Controlled Borders.
Criminals walk free... vs Criminals are jailed and/or deported
Voter ID... vs. letting elections be stolen
Insurrection like we see in Minnesota ... vs. Federal law and authority being enforced equally throughout the nation.
Defund the police... you have no right to private property... or free speech. The Democrats today represent nothing of value... only more oppression, taxation, and constant fearmongering against American Citizens.
I certainly see the direction Trump and the rightwingers are driving America toward and i resist the course.
It is you, yourself, that said that you wanted Trump to take over the country…..America, by definition, cannot be taken over by one man. What sort of tyrannical idea is opposed to that basic concept.
Oh yeah, I guess i am to blame. Your so called new-parodyme is extremism by definition and just an excuse for Trump’s aggression world wide. No, there is no room for me to compromise with such thinking, we just as well go back to the cowboys and Indians. Just because i may no longer be the target of intimidation doesn’t mean i am going to support it when applied to anyone else. To speak of most of the western hemisphere as under your control and dominion is not extremist?
It is only conservatives that cower in the face of adversity
Again so much rubbish, Ken. But if the majority chooses against you, what then?
Then America will pay the price for such terrible decision making...
Like we paid with the Biden Administration... only worse...
How many millions of migrants... how high will inflation go when they fleece America again... DEI on steroids... States able to snatch children from their families to protect their sex-changes... whatever insanity they can think up... before Biden the idea that men would compete against women as a woman would have been laughed at by all sane Americans...
So, I have no idea how bad things would get in America for Americans... but it will be worse than what Biden gave us, that much I am sure of.Not "like we paid" Ken, "like we are paying", because of a Biden Administration!!
The terrorist who shot up Austin, took lives and injured many more, wore 'Property of Allah' clothing and an Iranian flag emblem. I wonder... do all of the sleeper cells and lone wolves who illegally crossed our southern border have the same type apparel? Is the line mass produced like USA t-shirts and MAGA hats? Are they saving them for their big day? I pray, not!!
I cannot read half of the comments on this thread (or the majority of recent threads) they make me ill! Too many Americans just don't get it; will never get it. They are too full of hate, and a loathing of Donald Trump.
This is my goodbye to HubPages. Sorry that the parting couldn't be sweeter!I think more Americans get it than most haters would imagine.
Despite the lies propagated by the very left leaning media, most Americans are fed up with the "Progressive Left's" BS... and in the States where there are fraud free elections (not CA or NY and a couple of others lost completely to corruption) ... I think we will see how fed up they are in the next couple of elections.I feel social media offers a window into how quickly mindsets can shift in America. It seems to me that many on the far left have begun turning their frustration inward, directing criticism at their own allies. From my perspective, we may be witnessing a decline in some of the more radical elements, with their influence narrowing rather than expanding. What remains appears to be a smaller, more entrenched minority, along with some who either haven’t recognized the shift or are unwilling to reconsider their positions.
Well, you have to keep in mind that the "Progressive Left" are deeply entwined in Universities, Corporate Board Rooms, and in large swaths of well-off elites in the North East and West Coast States...
It is these well-off elites, that paid for speakers to come into their homes and have someone preach to them about how racist they are... like Race2Dinner, this organization charges for two-hour dinner conversations where the facilitators confront white women about their role in upholding white supremacy and racism.
Only the well off, well taken care of, nothing better to do with their lives, would waste tens of thousands of dollars to pay some snobbish racist to come into their home, eat their food, and pay for them to insult and humiliate them.
The problem is deep, it is imbedded in other problems we see in society... it is why men are checking out of higher education and women are dominating a system geared toward Social Justice and the destruction of every pillar of society.
Until we see major, substantial changes to our education system, universities, media, and the majority of our government agencies this will only be a temporary fix... if we start to see those institutions changed, or eradicated all together, then real positive change for America may indeed occur.I do see your point, and I won’t pretend there hasn’t been a strong progressive influence in universities, corporate culture, and parts of elite society, especially in places like the Northeast and West Coast. Programs like Race2Dinner are an example of something that many Americans look at and think, “How did this become normal?” I understand why that frustrates people.
That said, I think we’re looking at something even bigger than just elite activism. What concerns me most is how deeply divided our country feels right now. This isn’t the normal back-and-forth we’ve seen before. It feels more foundational, like we’re arguing over what America is at its core. That’s new, and yes, it can be dangerous.
But I also try to remember something important: as a rule, Americans have always had pretty solid, almost instinctive values when it comes to what we expect from our government and what we want for this country. We may argue loudly, but most people, left, right, or independent, still believe in fairness, opportunity, safety, and a functioning society. I don’t think that disappears just because certain ideologies get loud or dominant in certain institutions.
Where I do agree with you is that some parts of the modern left have pushed ideas so far that they feel disconnected from long-standing American norms. When basic concepts start to feel inverted, where common sense gets labeled harmful and criticism gets labeled hate, it creates backlash. That backlash is part of what we’re seeing now.
But I’m cautious about framing this as something that requires institutions to be eradicated. Reform? Yes. Accountability? Absolutely. But if we lose confidence in every university, every corporation, every agency, then we risk deepening the divide even further.
I think the real question isn’t whether progressive ideology exists in elite spaces, it clearly does. The bigger question is whether the broader American public ultimately accepts it. Historically, when ideas move too far from the center of American life, the country corrects. That correction can be messy, but it does happen.
So I share the concern about cultural drift. I just don’t believe the story ends with permanent institutional capture. Americans tend to recalibrate when things go too far. That’s one of our strengths.
Cheering, really? If you mean Canada, Ukraine, and Israel, you are spot on. But if you mean:
UN Secretary-General: condemns the escalation and calls for cessation/de-escalation and return to negotiations.
France/Germany/UK (joint statement per Reuters): condemn Iranian attacks and push for protection of civilians and renewed negotiations—not a cheer for U.S. strikes.
Spain: demanded de-escalation and “full respect for international law.”
Norway: explicitly questioned legality of “preventive” attacks absent an imminent threat.
Oman (mediator): said negotiations were undermined; urged U.S. not to get pulled in further.
China: urged an end to the attacks and stressed force isn’t a solution.
Russia: condemned the U.S. action and framed it as a false-pretext assault/regime-change attempt.
Not so muchConsider what happened in Venezuela. Trump righteously, yet illegally, kidnaps Maduro only to get in bed with his supporters.
In Iran, UNLESS he puts boots on the ground, he will do the same thing at the cost of BILLIONS of dollars and an unknown number greater then the current SIX American lives lost.
Sooner or later the 45% if Americans who voted for Trump will figure out they made a huge mistake by selling their soles to the devil.I think its more likely that many of the 35% of Americans that voted against him will find that their lives are doing much better, by as soon as the end of the year, and will begin to recognize they listened to the wrong talking-heads about him... that they sold "their soles to the devil" by following the ideology that has taken hold of the Democrats and left-leaning media.
My reply was to Cred's quoted statements. Instead of diverting to criticism of Trump's actions, why not address the topic of my comment?
*The "world is cheering" comment was relative to clips and comments from both BBC and CNN in the early morning hours of the coverage. You should forward your Russia, China, et al. list to them.
GA
Actions have consequences....
The Biden Administration gleefully walked America into a war with Russia.
They froze and then stole Russian assets... the world watched... many nations are now aligned with BRICS (Russia and China) that were not before this insane gamble to destabilize Russia and overthrow Putin.
The Biden Administration ALSO reversed on day one the position developed by Trump with Iran, Biden released billions back to Iran, Biden allowed unrestricted trade to Iran (China bought up and had shipped a years worth of oil in the first couple of months of Biden taking Office).
The Trump Administration is reversing or contending with all the traitorous decisions made by those in the Biden Administration that did more to harm America on the global stage, here at home, its trade... while strengthening China and pushing nations into its arms.
Obama had nothing right... Biden had nothing right... unless the goal was the capitulation of America to Chinese and other foreign national interests at the expense of America and its Citizens.
With Administrations like those running things... who needs foreign enemies?Thank you, I agree completely. When Trump returned to the White House, we avoided a truly massive disaster. He’s doing an outstanding job, and it’s driving the left absolutely nuts. Nothing they try seems to make a difference; all they’re doing is digging themselves an even deeper hole. Honestly, it’s hard to imagine them looking any more ridiculous. I think most Democrats in Congress have finally realized just how deep that hole has become. And Ken, he’s already solved one of the world’s biggest problems. What do you even do after that? He is literally on track to bring peace to the Middle East.
And we provoked Venezuela and Iran with war, why is Biden the boogie-man?
But we have had this conversation before and we simply are not going to agree, but God help you, if Trump loses control of any chamber of Congress next November, you’re through, what then?
As I see it, this is no different than Putin invading Ukraine. The main difference is that Ukraine are the good guys and Iran is the bad guys. Republican motto - MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
And “you know who” had the temerity or nerve to get indignant about what is before his or hers very face.
Republicans prove that they are both hypocrites and devoid of any real principles outside of what it is that they want.
The question for the man in the streets as the midterms approach is he really going to understand and support Trump’s bloodletting in the Middle East, while the economy deteriorates here at home?
I am determined to give “these people” absolutely nothing!!!
To change the subject as more evidence of ideological idiocy from the right, here is an interesting article…..
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/sup … 00018.htmlWhat the SC struck down was another of CA's insane laws...
That simple, frame that 'Progressive' nonsense any ways you like... the State was trying to steal parent's rights away from them, the SC said no.
No... the sick, twisted, mentally deranged Transmen who want to imprint their beliefs and ideology onto innocent children without their parents being aware of what is going on, and being powerless to stop it, was struck down by the 6 sane Justices on the Supreme Court.
Amen... hallelujah... Sanity wins! Insanity loses... the struggle continues.
As to the elections... I am seeing positive signs, the American people aren't sated yet, as seen in the recent elections... primarily Jasmine Crockett DEFEATED in Texas Senate primary race... seems people are still craving sanity and rejecting those agents propagating the insane, like Crockett did.Your closing comment was deflating. Always the optimist, I continue to scan the forums daily for conversations to join. It's hard to just drop 16 years of interaction.
But damn Cred ... your 'idiocy' is that you think it is "idiocy" that parents have a right to know if their child plans to change sexes is so wrong.
What's to discuss?
I think you once said you weren't comfortable with the trans issue—as symbolized by the Glamour magazine 'Pregnant Man' cover.
If, as an admitted Progressive, you aren't comfortable with it, consider how 'not comfortable' a Conservative would be. Then scale that thought to a conservative parent. What picture of America do you have?
I could (and did) argue about zealotry and such relative to your 'quagmire and death' comments, but that's just two dogs yakking; your agreement with that article is something else.
On issues as life-impacting as this, do you really think parents shouldn't have the right to know what's going on in their kids' lives?
GADid you read the whole article, what does that mean for educators are they now to take on parochial roles? This is impossible to enforce or even determine by a public school staff. I am not always comfortable with everything Trans, but that does not mean they are to be battered into non-existence because of my lack of understanding or approval. Only progressives think reasonably in this way, conservatives cannot.
—
“This first part of the Court’s decision is likely to impose impossible obligations on public schools and their employees — are teachers now required to tell parents any time a student does something that their parents might object to on religious grounds, such as eating non-Kosher food, removing a hijab, or dating a classmate? But this first aspect of the Court’s decision in Mirabelli is at least consistent with the Republican justices’ prior cases interpreting the Free Exercise Clause.”
——
How reasonable is all of this?
I am beginning to appreciate why I do not like conservatives and why I will always find myself always at odds with them.
But, This belongs in another thread, sorry….Yep, I read the entire article.
As I read about "... the legal equivalent of grabbing J.R.R. Tolkien’s One Ring, placing it on their collective fingers, and dancing around singing, “I just can’t wait to become a Nazgûl.”," I knew it would be a serious dissertation.
Then, as I read through a compilation of conservative court decision complaints—going back to FDR's time, I was sure of it.
What about you? Would you want to know if one of your kids was secretly transitioning—with assistance and without your knowledge?
Do you suppose (guess?) a Progressive parent wouldn't want to know? Do you suppose human ideology trumps nature's instinct?
GAAs I read about "... the legal equivalent of grabbing J.R.R. Tolkien’s One Ring, placing it on their collective fingers, and dancing around singing, “I just can’t wait to become a Nazgûl.”," I knew it would be a serious dissertation.
No lies... I'm going to miss that wit.
Because you can't read with a cynical or analytical mind...
"is likely to impose impossible obligations"
Total rubbish... an interpretation or opinion... of what hardships it "likely" causes...
How about the schools stop peddling that crap to kids all together... how about schools make sure their teaches can pass a basic psyche exam and don't have a history on social media of questionable child interaction...?I am, by definition cynical, and analytical otherwise i would have been duped by right wing crap long ago, Ken.
So is it teaching and educating or is it indoctrination? I am talking about the idea of teachers being compelled to monitor kids from a standpoint that should be left to parents.The CA law went beyond that, it twisted the arm of the schools to HIDE the transition of children from their parents and actively aid children in achieving it.
“California is requiring public schools to hide children’s expressed transgender status at school from their own parents—including religious parents—and to actively facilitate those children’s ‘social transition’ over their parents’ express objections."
Whatever twisted version of it Salon or who-ever is selling you is biased 'Progressive' crap... which the sane people in America are trying to put an end to.... children should not be encouraged to "transition" in their schools and it certainly should not be hidden by the school from their Parents.
If you can't see the common sense of that...well... that is why you are coming across to myself, Gus, and others I am sure, more as a raving lunatic than a rational, reasonable, individual that has sound critical thinking skills.The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a California law that prevented school districts from notifying parents if their child identifies as transgender or requests to change their name or pronouns. The ruling allows school staff to inform parents, siding with claims that the state policy violated parental rights and religious liberty
The Conflict: The case arose from policies in some California school districts that instructed teachers to conceal a student's social transition from parents, aimed at protecting students from potentially unsafe home environments.
Opponents' Position: Critics, including parents and teachers, argued this violated their right to direct the upbringing of their children and infringed on free speech/religious liberties
===========
You and “Gus” are right and I am wrong. A neutral investigation of this shows me that the state has no right to conceal such information deliberately, which is what this is all about. Then the schools are going beyond their obligation to teach and maintain order, it is not for them to involve themselves in concern about the student’s reception at their respective homes. I was more concerned about teachers being compelled to seek out for these aberrations deliberately turning them into some sort of police over matters that should not be their concern.
I neither like nor trust conservatives generally and take a negative tack to everything they propose, sometimes in a reflex action. This is one of those times where I step back and realize that I expect parents to be ultimately responsible for their children and the state should not interfere with that obligation.
I agree with the court as long as that ruling remains a narrow interpretation and doesn’t cross over anymore lines in the state verses religious proselytizing in public schools controversy.
So, my apologies to you both, THIS TIME. We will clash again and perhaps I will have grounds not to be so gracious…..I wish I had seen this before my last reply. I offered the 'question' of your summation for discussion, but you beat me to it. Kudos to you.
And props to me for not giving up on you. ;-)
GABravo!
I accept with humility that apology... but really I am just glad that you can see that the "other side" can be guilty of going overboard as well...
Do we really want the State... local school board... or anything in between, being able to decide what our children are exposed to, while also being able to lie to parents about it?Do you see what the title of this forum is?: Under One Tent -- U.S. & Israel Wage War On Iran Let's get back on track.
Trump always takes action first and then tries to figure out the consequences later. He has done that with tariffs, Venezuela, and now Iran,
We are in a proxy war for Netanyahu. (Bibi). He said he has waited 40 years for this moment. There was no imminent danger for us from Iran. According to experts, it will take at least 10 years for them to develop an ICBM weapon system that will be able to reach America. Trump lied, as he always does, and made this an emergency without going to congress first. He did that with tariffs, Venezuela, and now Iran.
Bibi right now is attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon. He has turned Gaza into rubble and killed millions of Palestinian men women and children with the excuse that he was looking for Hamas. Trump and Bibi are partners in taking out the Supreme Leader and their staff. It appears, Bibi’s goal can now proceed without interference from the Supreme Leader, Hamas, and Hezbollah. He can now proceed to expand his Israeli settlements into Gaza. Who knows what he is going to do with the remaining Palestinians.
Pete Hegseth, a former Fox New host is now the head of the Department of War (formally known as the Department of Defense). Why would Trump change it to war, if he didn't want any wars? I don't think Trump or Hegseth have a clue as to the geopolitical complexity of the mid-east. They probably don't even know the difference between Iranian Shia's and Saudi Arabia, Sunni's. They have been bitter enemies, since biblical times.
They hate each other, but there are more Sunni’s than Shia. It turns out all our military bases are in Sunni countries. Therefore, when Iran retaliates, it attacks our bases in Sunni Countries.
Iran has blocked the movement of oil and gas in the Strait of Hormuz. In geopolitical parlance, this is known as strategic choke point because it is a very narrow crossing point. Trump says he is sending the navy there to unblock it. In his infinite wisdom, I don’t think he knows that more than likely Iran has already laid mines in the strait. It will be interesting to see how he deals with this.
So, what do I care about magazine covers? Donahue, late talk show host, once wore an appendage mimicking a pregnant woman. I am to have a cow over this?
Yes, parents have the right to know, your idiocy is to actually believe that they are transgender at school and yet normal at home,,,,,
I don’t care for the direction this is leading in and it can be applied beyond just the transgender stuff. I don’t like your religion, my religion or anyone else religion imposed on students in a public school. Are teachers suppose to follow students around to make sure that they do not remove their skull cap or kippah? The teacher is there to teach and maintain order in the classroom, these other matters are for the parents to get control of. What religious adherence are we chasing after regarding student compliance?
What is it about conservatives that they must insist that we all believe and think identically? They are determined to put their noses in everyone’s private affairs that are best dealt with at home or at their respective churches.
I say it puts an unwarranted burden on teachers and the school administrative staff... and I thought the closing on your last comment was deflating ... This one snuffs the flame.
I reread your comment before replying. The first aftertaste was that you were trying to be snidely insulting. If not, then you're just blindly arguing about things in your mind, not in the discussion. That's zealotry.
The Glamour magazine reference wasn't a jab about whether you cared or not, or about the complete idiocy of someone even entertaining the idea of going along with that magazine's thought as a reality, it was simply a marker of where the discussion was (in the past thread I mentioned) when you noted your 'discomfort.' Simply a memory jogger. Your "Donahue" reference misses the point.
Your simple answer was good: "Yes, parents have the right to know ..." We agree. Yippee!
But then you messed it up by calling me an idiot for thinking kids were transitioning, secretly, in school.
Where did that come from? My only comment was about the parents having a right to know—in the context of the court decision. A right you now say you agree with.
(wait 'til the club hears about that; agreeing with a Right-winger—again.)
You're calling me an idiot for something I didn't say. You have diatribes and talking points locked & loaded, but you don't have anything else. That's zealotry.
Consider your tirade that you '... don’t care for the direction this is leading in ..." I know the feeling. I felt it years ago, during the national bathroom debate. PrettyPanther asked why I was so concerned. Your answer mimicked mine. That's the feeling.
Except ... my posts weren't about that, they were only about a parent's right to know. All this other stuff you're throwing out is on you.
And, even with multiple clarifying replies, sometimes two or three clarifying replies (this is the 2nd of this thread), you're still stuck arguing what's in your head instead of what was said.
You don't want discussions, you want arguments and affirmations.
Now, I'm sure I kept 'the cap on the bottle.' No acid, no intentional snide or insults. Not even a crack about choir rooms. The tables are turned bud. Don't be insulting. Don't be like those Instagram 'yapper dogs' at the gate.
GA“But damn Cred ... your 'idiocy' is that you think it is "idiocy" that parents have a right to know if their child plans to change sexes is so wrong.”
I give back as good as I get…… your position is idiocy, i am not calling you an idiot. So, let’s not get touchy.
My discomfort does not mean that i will throttle back on everyone else’s rights.
I ask parents to not ask me or my secular teachers to follow after the religious preferences of every child.
How do kids hide stuff like this from families and their home? Why are teachers involved?
I am all for discussions, make your point, i have always been fair game.Your 'giving back as good as you get' doesn't work. My "position" was that your "idiocy" was in thinking parents don't have a Right to know what's going on with their kids.
You called that thought 'ideological idiocy of the Right' and proclaimed you are "... determined to give “these people” absolutely nothing!!!
When braced about it, you agree that parents do have that Right. It doesn't make sense to agree with a thought and then call me an idiot for holding it (my position).
On this point—which is the crux of the matter of our exchange, you are agreeing with the folks you are calling idiots. That's not 'giving as good as you get,' that's a flailing "I know you are, but what am I" response.
The "discomfort" reference was only to make the point that if a Progressive wasn't comfortable with the idea, imagine how 'uncomfortable' a Conservative is with it. It wasn't to imply that you support the idea of throttling Rights. It was a reference to the idiocy label.
Here's a discussion point: Why did this become a Right-winger issue? And the false claims by the idiots and trolls on the internet aren't the answer.
What was the genesis of their wild claims? The actions of a good-hearted teacher, or of a concept-promoting teacher, or the actions of a Bible-thumping Right-winger parent, or of a concerned and directly impacted parent? Was there a specific incident, or was it the actions of activists (either side)?
GA
"I am determined to give “these people” absolutely nothing!!!"
Assuming that "these people" mean the man in the street addressed in preceding paragraph, you will hide the truth of Iran from them? You will hide the reasoning for the attack? You are determined to keep them in the dark, always, in order to proceed against that terrible "you know who" that dares disagree with the losing ideology of the far left?When i speak of “these people” I speak of Trump, the Republicans and right wingers, your kindred, Wilderness, in general. Sorry if you were confused.
Republicans will keep the man in the street in the dark as to why military adventurism abroad can excuse a tottering economy at home.
This “man in the street” will vote this fall. At least this one will……
You’re also overlooking the brutality of Iran’s leadership toward its own people. Tens of thousands have reportedly been killed or imprisoned in crackdowns against opposition in recent years. This isn’t a peaceful government minding its own business, it’s a regime that has used violence both internally and through proxies abroad. The argument being made by the administration is deterrence: act now to prevent something much worse later.
Voters are capable of understanding that national security and the economy are not mutually exclusive concerns. Presidents don’t get to ignore external threats simply because domestic economic challenges exist. In fact, allowing a hostile regime to develop nuclear weapons would likely create economic instability on a much larger scale through energy shocks, global market panic, and potential wider war.
You can disagree with the strategy. That’s fair. But reducing it to “bloodletting” suggests there’s no strategic objective, when the clear goal is preventing a larger, far deadlier conflict down the road. In my view, you are clearly only looking at this issue with a narrow outlook.Well, Sharlee, not everyone has the luxury of taking holiday in Mexico at the appropriate season.
People like me know what Trump represents and wont give him an inch.
But you Trumpers will follow him off of the Grand Canyon if he so directs.
However, the middle that put Trump over the top, the independents and not politically aligned may have a different take on events. They elected Trump with the idea that their concerns and interests were to come first. Trump’s promise of eliminating international obligations and entanglements was seen as devoting more attention to domestic concerns. So, do these people really see a threat beyond what it is that Trump and Right present? There is not a bomb in their backyard, how is waging a war on the other side of the world relevant to them?
You say voters will understand, I say that this action from the administration would not be well understood nor appreciated especially as the body count mount, and it probably will.
Yes, I disagree with the strategy and appreciating the fact that you are politically savvy does not detract from the fact that many who took a chance on Trump will be disappointed. Your explanations and justifications we have been hearing for the last 50 years and it wont hold much water with them.
Just waiting until November…..I believe that the majority of Americans who voted for Trump are willing to examine the facts. President Trump was willing to tackle problems that have been festering for decades, and he did so with urgency. I am deeply pleased to see a serious effort to finally end Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Because of that, I genuinely feel we are moving toward a safer world to hand down to our grandchildren.
I believe many people will ultimately benefit from Trump’s willingness to endure the relentless and often ridiculous rhetoric directed at him. When I look down the road, I am willing to accept some discomfort if it means confronting a regime that oppresses and kills its own people. In my view, if such a regime were to obtain nuclear weapons, there is little doubt about how dangerous that could become.
There was a time when Americans had the fortitude to withstand hardship for the greater good, not only for our own nation, but for our neighbors as well. We did not stand by in the face of genocide. After October 7th, I watched as some in our own country chose to side with terrorists. They have that right, freedom allows them to express those views. but it does make me wonder whether we have begun to lose sight of who we are and what we stand for.
Not long ago, many on the left were criticizing Trump for being an isolationist. Now that he has stepped into serious global conflicts and is attempting to address dangerous problems abroad, they criticize him for that as well. It seems that no matter which direction he takes, the objection remains the same.
I would have been deeply disappointed if he had ignored what I view as genocide in Iran, tens of thousands reportedly killed for refusing to submit to a regime that controls nearly every aspect of their lives. I would feel a sense of shame as an American if we simply looked away from that level of brutality. Are those lives somehow less valuable than others? When atrocities happen elsewhere, we often see protests in the streets. So why the silence here? That is a question people should be willing to ask themselves honestly.
I don’t believe Trump was eager to enter another conflict. In fact, he warned Iran’s leaders to stop harming their own people. When that warning was ignored, he stated clearly that there would be consequences. From my perspective, he did not abandon the line he drew.
I see a man who may not always be polished or eloquent in his delivery, but who is fully equipped to handle the job before him. Over the years, I have watched many presidents who were gifted speakers — skilled at delivering beautiful speeches and engaging banter. But eloquence alone does not equal effectiveness. What stands out to me is a willingness to act decisively and take on difficult challenges.
When it comes to foreign policy, his approach seems straightforward: he believes he is standing on the side of what he views as right and just. Whether people agree with him or not, that clarity of conviction is something I recognize and respect.
Cred, he will be president for three more years. When he does something noble or positive, why not give him the credit he deserves? he is juggling many issues, and perhaps give him a bit more than a year to fix all that was handed to him.I believe the majority of Americans who didn't vote for Trump are willing to examine the facts. I am not so sure the opposite is true since Trump tells those people what they can and cannot think.
An initial poll by Reuters came up with this snapshot (Trump started the war in the middle of the polling window):
Reuters/Ipsos (fielded Feb 28–Mar 1, 2026)
Approve U.S. strikes: 27%
Disapprove: 43%
Not sure: 29%
By party: 45% of Republicans disapprove while 81% of independents disapprove and 93% of Democrats disapprove. Keep in mind, independents are generally split evenly between right and left-leaning.
Yes — CBS actually gives quite a bit of detail (it’s a CBS News/YouGov recontact survey done Mar 2–3, 2026,
n=1,399, MOE ±3.2).
Here are the key toplines from the graphics in that CBS piece:
Support vs. oppose the military action
Approve: 44%
Disapprove: 56%
By party
Democrats: 10% approve / 90% disapprove
Independents: 37% approve / 63% disapprove
Republicans: 85% approve / 15% disapprove (In the previous poll, Trump hadn't had the chance yet to tell his followers how to think. In this poll he did - what a difference!
Does it make the U.S. safer?
Less safe: 45%; More safe: 31%; No difference: 24%
“Has the Trump administration clearly explained U.S. goals?”
Clearly explained: 38%; Not done that yet: 62%
How long do people think it will last?
Days/weeks: 25%
Months: 27%
Years: 22%
Not sure: 25%
And CBS shows how “expected duration” links to support:
If people think days/weeks: 76% approve / 24% disapprove
If months: 46% / 54%
If years: 13% / 87%
If not sure: 37% / 63%
What people think the goals are (top answers)
Percent saying each is a goal:
Change Iran’s leadership: 80%
Stop Iran’s missile/military capabilities: 79%
Prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons: 78%
Reduce the threat of terrorism: 64%I can’t say that i share the view of a “safer world”, rather than a world brought closer to the “precipice”.
There is a quite a difference between “dissing” our traditional allies as an isolationist policy and starting WWIII.
I certainly am not going the take the side of Netanyahu or the Trump Administration on this matter. Many of us believe the Palestinians and their concerns have been short circuited. We have more than accommodated levels of brutality elsewhere, this is just a political response supporting an alliance that has always been questionable on its face, in my opinion. It is not anti-Semitic to recognize that the Israeli Government is the source of my opposition.
Trump could not care less about the Iranian people, this is all a ruse to exert greater control in the region, which I consider unwarranted. It is all the standard playbook of sticking your nose in the affairs of others, and that is usually quite selective. This is still much of the same stuff I was hearing to justify the attack on Iraq almost 25 years ago. So, I have seen that movie too, Sharlee and I am not impressed.
Not being polished or eloquent is saying it likely, he is non-descriptive and coarse. Being the bull in the China shop is not my idea of effectiveness.
I don’t care about Trump’s idea of right and just, it has to be a clear oxymoron to even believe that the man has any principles beyond exploitation and coercion, that of any bully. You respect him, while I have deep distrust for anything he says or does. I am still vexed about his coarse attacks on Obama and his wife. My disdain for Trump is multidimensional and goes far beyond this particular issue or the broader one of foreign policy.
When he does something noble and positive, i will make note. I will balance that against all of the negative things , he may remain well below zero, but not as far. I am not going to give him an infinite amount of time, the pressure is on, he will have to make good on promises or face the people at the polls next fall. Then we will see if the voters are willing to offer him the patience that you say that he deserves.I'm sorry... but... I told you so.
We have been in a World War since the Ukraine war started.
Venezuela is part of that... Iran is part of that...
Iran was supplying drones and other support to Russia almost from the beginning.
When you accept this fact... that we are in a World War...
Then the stance we against China makes sense, whether our own involvement or the involvement of EU nations... China is supporting Russia... China depends on Iran... China was getting knee deep involved with Venezuela... with Panama ... with Mexico (sending all the chemicals that the cartels need to make Fentanyl) they were building factories in Mexico to take advantage of NAFTA.
We are in a global war... these issues are not isolated... they are connected.Yikes! Your comment raises a number of issues, but I think you’re overlooking the central security question in all of this.
You say the world is being pushed toward a “precipice.” But that assumes the situation before was stable. It wasn’t. Iran has been steadily advancing toward nuclear capability for years while simultaneously funding and arming proxy groups across the region. The risk isn’t theoretical; it’s a regime that openly calls for the destruction of Israel while moving closer to nuclear weapons capability.
So let me ask you a very direct question: Do you believe it would be acceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons?
Because that’s really the core issue here.
We already see how the world behaves around nuclear-armed states. Look at Russia. Much of the reason the West handles Russia cautiously is precisely because they have one of the largest nuclear arsenals on earth. Nuclear weapons change the rules of engagement. They give regimes leverage and protection they otherwise would not have.
So the obvious follow-up question is: Can the world realistically afford to allow Iran, a state that sponsors militant groups and destabilizes multiple countries, to gain that same leverage?
You compare this situation to Iraq in 2003. That comparison gets made a lot, but it ignores a major difference: Iraq’s WMD capability turned out to be largely nonexistent. Iran’s nuclear program, however, is well documented and actively monitored by international inspectors. Their enrichment levels and nuclear infrastructure are not hypothetical.
You frame this entirely as support for Netanyahu or Israeli politics. But the nuclear question isn’t just about Israel. A nuclear Iran would affect Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE, Europe, and the United States. It could trigger a regional nuclear arms race. Once one country crosses that threshold, others will follow.
Criticizing Israeli government policies is fair, many people do. But opposing Iran’s nuclear ambitions doesn’t require taking Netanyahu’s side. Those are two separate issues. You can question Israeli policy and still recognize that a nuclear-armed Iranian regime would make the Middle East far more dangerous.
On Trump himself: whether someone likes his style or not doesn’t really answer the strategic question. Foreign policy decisions shouldn’t be judged purely on personality. The real issue is whether preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons makes the world safer or more dangerous.
So again, the real question isn’t about Trump, Netanyahu, or personalities.
It’s this: Do you truly believe the world would be safer if Iran had nuclear weapons?
Because if the answer is no, then preventing that outcome becomes a serious strategic priority, regardless of who happens to be sitting in the White House.
In an earlier comment, you essentially framed the situation as if Trump failing would validate your position. That reads less like concern about the outcome and more like hoping to be proven right. When the stakes involve war and global security, is rooting for failure really a responsible position?
To me, the common-sense answer is obvious. A regime that already destabilizes the region, becoming nuclear-armed, does not reduce the risk of conflict; it multiplies it.
It's clear we can now just keep the peace and agree to disagree.That is certainly all true... but not all encompasing:
Prospects and Complexities of China-Iran Relations, Implications for the US, and Regional & Global Repercussions
https://nesa-center.org/dev/wp-content/ … ations.pdf
Going back to a 10+ year old article:
China-Iran Military Relations at a Crossroads
https://jamestown.org/china-iran-milita … rossroads/
Recognizing what was started between the start of the Ukraine war, and the decision to walk away from negotiations shortly after it started:
A New CRINK Axis of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea
https://www.csis.org/special-initiatives/CRINK-Axis
Not that I haven't connected the dots before... regarding CRINK and how BRICS became the de-facto global agency for those nations wanting to part ways from America and the SWIFT/Dollar-Reserve system... how that was advanced by a decade, at least, due to the Ukraine war (or more particular the sanctions and confiscation of Russian assets), etc.Ken, you make some excellent points, and the links you shared illustrate just how complex the global picture really is. I agree that the China-Iran-Russia-North Korea axis (CRINK) and BRICS developments are important considerations; they reflect real shifts in global power and the desire of some nations to bypass the U.S.-led financial and strategic systems.
That said, I think it’s important to distinguish between long-term structural trends and the immediate question of preventing nuclear proliferation in volatile regions. Under previous administrations, some of these moves might have accelerated toward the worst-case scenarios you describe. But with Trump’s no-nonsense, common-sense approach to foreign policy, demanding accountability, leveraging negotiations, and projecting strength, I’m less convinced that the trajectory is as dire as it might have been under inaction. I can honestly say that, in my view, we were teetering on the edge of a much worse situation under Biden, and because Trump won, we’ve gotten a reprieve. One can hope more will see what we see.
Yes, global alliances and economic maneuvers matter, but when it comes to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, the strategic priority remains clear: a nuclear-armed Iran would increase the risk of conflict exponentially. I can agree that the world is interconnected in ways that make these issues more complex, yet strong, decisive U.S. leadership can still mitigate the threats before they reach the tipping point.
In short, while the CRINK axis and BRICS show the potential for geopolitical shifts, I’m cautiously optimistic that with smart policy and clear red lines, the worst outcomes can still be avoided.CRINK the actions collectively of these nations has to be considered when considering the actions we are taking against Iran now.
Attempting to isolate Iran, what stage its nuclear weapons capability is at, is NOT the real issue.
Iran alone, isolated... or even with its terror groups Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and their actions in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan... would not be a serious enough issue to exact this type of response.
So... we have to look at the bigger picture.
What nations are supporting and strengthening Russia in its efforts in Ukraine and elsewhere?
Syria... we destroyed that connection...
Venezuela... we destroyed that connection...
Iran... we are now destroying that connection...
We are in the process of isolating China, Russia and North Korea from any other nations that would support them militarily.
This is one of the reasons why the Trump is so irate with our idiotic "allies" that are getting in bed with China... like Canada and Germany have done...
The arrogant, idiotic, leaders of those nations want to talk about defeating Russia, ridding themselves of that threat... while they continue to buy Russian oil and gas and get in bed with the one nation keeping Russia afloat... China.
It would be like Ally nations in 1940 getting into a trade agreement with Japan or Germany ... their decisions to wed themselves to China, while expecting America to do their bidding, fight their wars... the Trump Administration has been too patient and too willing to negotiate with them in good faith IMO.
If you look at it as if we are in a global war... then our actions make complete sense. If you try and isolate any one issue/conflict... be it Venezuela or Iran or who-ever... then you miss what is really transpiring.
My biggest fear right now... is that China is sitting on the sidelines letting us show all our military cards... letting the US wear itself down in all these wars... while it sits there continuing to build new battleships and bombers every month, ten times faster than we are producing such today.I think you make some very solid points here, and honestly it’s hard to dismiss the bigger picture the way you laid it out. When people try to isolate Iran by itself, it does miss the broader strategic reality. Iran isn’t just acting alone, it’s part of a network of relationships that connect back to Russia, China, and others who benefit from instability or from weakening the West. Looking at it through that wider lens makes a lot of the current moves make more sense.
Your analogy about looking at this like a global conflict rather than a bunch of separate regional problems is probably the most important point. If you treat each issue, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, and Ukraine, as completely unrelated, the responses can seem excessive or confusing. But when you start seeing the connections between them, it starts to look more like positioning in a long-term geopolitical struggle.
I also understand your concern about China sitting back and watching while everyone else exhausts themselves. That’s something a lot of analysts worry about as well. China already dominates global shipbuilding and has a massive industrial base behind its military expansion, which gives it a long-term advantage in producing naval capacity.
At the end of the day, I think your main point is right: if people only look at one conflict at a time, they’re going to miss what may actually be the larger strategic game being played.
Another thing worth mentioning is that the administration just took steps to speed up weapons production here in the United States. Just this week, President Donald Trump met with leaders from major defense companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, RTX Corporation (Raytheon), BAE Systems, Honeywell, and L3Harris Technologies and pushed them to accelerate the production of advanced weapons and precision munitions. From what was reported, several companies agreed to ramp up output dramatically, in some cases as much as four times current production levels, mainly to rebuild U.S. stockpiles that have been drawn down and to strengthen long-term readiness. When you add that into the bigger strategic picture you were describing, it reinforces the idea that the administration may be looking at this as part of a much broader global positioning effort rather than reacting to any one conflict by itself.Absolutely...
China today is what America was in 1940...
They have the industry ...the ability to churn out ships, tanks, jets faster than anyone else.
If they were to take Taiwan tomorrow we wouldn't last six months without that supply of chips... Heck they just need to cut off shipping, not even a full occupation necessary.
The urgency to repatriate everything... From steel production to ship building to chips... Needs to increase, the process needs to be sped up.
The alternative is quick decline in standards of living... subjugating ourselves to foreign or international bodies of authority all controlled by China.
America needs to secure its own interests in a world and that is going to see a lot more unrest.
PrometheanAction is putting out great info:
https://youtu.be/C8tv3bZOC5Y?si=uSrHiR0rP4sik77eI appreciate you sharing the video. I’ve been thinking about this issue more and more myself. When you look at how much manufacturing capacity has moved overseas over the last few decades, it’s hard not to see the strategic risk that creates for the United States.
Your comparison is interesting too. In many ways, China has built the kind of industrial engine that the U.S. had around World War II, the ability to scale production quickly. Meanwhile, we’ve allowed critical supply chains to become concentrated in places like Taiwan, especially when it comes to advanced semiconductors. If anything disrupted that flow, even temporarily, it would ripple through everything from automobiles to defense systems.
Honestly, one doesn’t have to look very hard to see the progress Trump has been pushing toward bringing manufacturing back. From efforts to secure the minerals needed to build semiconductors here in the U.S., to cutting the kinds of stifling regulations that drove so many businesses overseas in the first place, there seems to be a real focus on rebuilding our industrial base. Policies that encourage companies to return, and even attract foreign businesses to set up operations here, are a big part of that picture.
I spend time looking around at what is currently being done and what investments are planned for the future, and there is a lot happening that people don’t always hear about. When you put those pieces together, it really does feel like we could be heading toward one of the most successful industrial rebirths in our history.
Here are a few Semiconductor projects actively being built or Operating Now
Intel – Ohio “Silicon Heartland” fabs
Foundations and major structures are being built now.
Production timeline pushed to 2030-2031, but the site is still actively under construction.
Built Recently or Expanding
Intel – Arizona fabs (Chandler)
Two new fabs (Fab 52 & Fab 62) were built as part of a $30+ billion expansion.
These are part of Intel’s current advanced chip manufacturing operations.
Major Manufacturing Projects Being Built in the United States Right Now
Samsung Semiconductor Plant – Taylor, Texas
Samsung is building a major semiconductor manufacturing facility expected to produce advanced chips used in electronics, defense systems, and automobiles.
Ford “BlueOval City” – Tennessee
A huge automotive manufacturing complex being built to produce the next generation of Ford trucks along with battery production facilities.
.Ford & SK On Battery Plants – Kentucky
Three large battery manufacturing plants are under construction to supply batteries for Ford vehicles.
Toyota Battery Manufacturing – North Carolina
A massive battery manufacturing plant producing batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles with continued expansion underway.
Hyundai Steel Mill – Louisiana
A new large steel manufacturing plant being developed to supply steel for the American automotive industry.
SeAH Specialty Alloy Plant – Texas
An advanced alloy manufacturing facility producing specialized metals for aerospace and defense manufacturing.
Additional Major Manufacturing Projects Being Built
Hyundai Motor Group EV Plant – Georgia
A massive $12.6 billion vehicle manufacturing plant producing electric and hybrid vehicles.
Expected capacity around 500,000 vehicles per year and thousands of jobs.
Tesla Semi-Truck & Battery Factory – Nevada
New facilities being built to manufacture Tesla electric semi-trucks and battery cells.
About 4 million square feet of factory space.
Texas Instruments Semiconductor Fabs – Texas & Utah
One of the largest chip manufacturing expansions in the U.S.
Up to seven semiconductor fabs planned with tens of billions in investment.
Scout Motors Vehicle Factory – South Carolina
$2 billion plant under construction to produce electric SUVs and trucks.
Expected production of 200,000 vehicles per year.
Nvidia AI Supercomputer Factories – Texas
Two factories being built in Houston and Dallas to manufacture AI supercomputer systems.
Toyota Rear Axle Manufacturing Plant – Texas
$531 million manufacturing plant currently under construction in San Antonio producing axles for Toyota trucks and SUVs.
Merck Vaccine Manufacturing Expansion – North Carolina
$1 billion pharmaceutical manufacturing facility expanding domestic vaccine production.
Gilead Sciences Manufacturing Hub – California
New pharmaceutical development and manufacturing complex under construction as part of a $32 billion U.S. investment program.
The American manufacturing comeback from 2017 to now, showing how tariffs, supply-chain shocks, and national-security concerns all pushed companies to start bringing industry back. It actually explains why this wave of construction is happening now.Exactly...
I listened to this round table talk (link below), the ex-CIA operative has an interesting and antiquated take...
https://youtu.be/k37xv3wczZw?si=4RJdXYgVLmqn8cCx
The Trump administration went to Davos and told the world leaders the old ways... the globalist agendas where America faded away slowly and quietly are over and done with.
America is not going down that road of decay and deconstruction anymore, that we are not opening borders and not tolerating foreign enemies to interfere with what is best for America and it's Citizens.
You see what happens as soon as America becomes weak... tried to just become another nation amongst many...an effort which started during the Obama Administration and his world apology tour and was fast tracked during Biden's time.
A weak America just means someone else moves in to take over... Russia or China...
China would not be building the world's biggest ground, navy and Air Force, unless it was planning on using it...
That would be a massive waste...it has a nuclear deterrent ... you don't put that much effort into building the world's largest military force unless you plan on using it.
If it wasn't a threat it would be like the EU is... Not building a military that will soon be larger and superior to our own.
We are in the midst of a global war ...it just hasn't been declared... that is to our benefit as we still have years to go before we have rebuilt and reshored our technological and industrial capabilities to American shores.Why do you keep asserting that others and not Trump are responsible for letting China and Russia advance. That is EXACTLY what Trump 1.0 and 2.0 has and is doing - he is handing them the world on a silver platter as he fools you he is not.
What's the latest? Oh yes, Russia give Iran intelligence on American troop positions. In return, Trump lets India buy oil from Russia. Exactly who is Trump working for, America or Russia? My money is on Russia.Deleted
What were you responding to? It certainly wasn't what you referenced that I posted.
The idea that a weak America invites pressure from other powers is something history has shown again and again. When the U.S. signals uncertainty or hesitation on the world stage, it absolutely creates an opening for countries like China or Russia to expand their influence. Your point about China building the world’s largest military is especially important. Nations simply don’t invest that kind of money, manpower, and long-term planning unless they expect it to matter strategically at some point.
Another thing you touched on that I think often gets overlooked is the industrial side of the issue. Military strength isn’t just about troops and weapons, it’s about the manufacturing base behind them. For decades the U.S. allowed large portions of its industrial and technological production to move overseas. Re-shoring those capabilities isn’t just an economic issue; it’s a national security issue. If supply chains, semiconductors, rare earth processing, and key manufacturing stay outside the country, it limits how quickly we can respond in a real crisis.
One thing I would add to your point about the “undeclared global war” is that a lot of it is being fought in ways that don’t look like traditional warfare. Economic pressure, technology competition, control of supply chains, cyber operations, and influence campaigns are all part of the modern battlefield. China’s Belt and Road investments, control of key minerals, and expansion in the South China Sea are examples of power projection that don’t require firing a shot but still reshape the balance of power.
That’s why the time you mentioned, rebuilding industry and strengthening our position, is so critical. If the U.S. can restore manufacturing capacity, protect technological leadership, and maintain strong alliances, it makes the chances of an actual shooting war much lower. Strength and preparedness have always been the best deterrent.Unfortunately, as I proved to you, Trump isn't doing what you think he is. You are being conned.
You don’t have to look very far to see that Trump’s manufacturing promises are not turning into reality.
A lot of the projects being cited as proof of a Trump-led industrial revival were actually announced years earlier, mostly in 2021–2024 under President Biden, and many were driven by the CHIPS Act, the Inflation Reduction Act (all Biden initiatives), or company decisions made before Trump returned to office.
* Ford’s BlueOval City was announced in September 2021.
* Samsung’s Taylor, Texas fab was announced in November 2021.
* Toyota’s North Carolina battery plant was announced in December 2021.
* Hyundai’s Georgia metaplant traces back to a 2022 agreement.
*TSMC’s Arizona expansion was directly tied to CHIPS Act funding, including up to $6.6 billion in federal support announced in 2024.
So yes, there is real factory construction in the United States—but much of it is not evidence that Trump’s current promises are producing new results. It is evidence of investment waves that were already underway.”
Even where projects are real, many are not unfolding the way his supporters, like you, imply.
* Intel’s Ohio fabs, often cited as a flagship symbol of manufacturing revival, have been pushed back dramatically: Intel now says completion of the first fab is expected in 2030, with operations beginning in 2030 or 2031.
* Samsung’s Texas project has faced long delays and reportedly struggled to line up major customers until much later.
* Ford’s BlueOval City has also been hit by product delays, with Reuters reporting that Ford pushed its next-generation electric pickup tied to the Tennessee site back to 2028.
In other words, these are not clean examples of Trump quickly bringing manufacturing back. They are examples of long, uncertain, capital-intensive projects, some of which are delayed, scaled back, or still looking for a viable business case.”
If the claim is that Trump is already producing a manufacturing boom, the current operating data do not really support that either.
* Reuters reported in January 2026 that U.S. manufacturing jobs had fallen by about 70,000 since April 2025, despite Trump’s promise of a factory boom.
* Reuters also reported in March 2025 that manufacturers were already warning that Trump’s tariff plans were raising costs, disrupting supply chains, and weakening new orders.
That matters because modern manufacturing depends heavily on imported inputs. When tariffs raise the cost of those inputs, they can hurt the very factories they are supposed to help.”
And that is not just a partisan talking point - in fact it is not partisan at all, it is just factual.
* Federal Reserve research on the 2018–2019 tariffs found that U.S. manufacturing industries more exposed to those tariffs experienced relative reductions in employment, because any gains from import protection were more than offset by higher input costs and retaliatory tariffs.
* Research published by the American Economic Association likewise found that the 2018 tariffs raised prices and total economic benefits to society go down, with much of the burden falling on U.S. importers and consumers.
So the historical evidence for Trump-style tariff policy is a lot weaker than the sales pitch.”
It seems to me the stronger argument is not that America should ignore manufacturing risk. On that point, there is a real issue. The stronger argument is that we should be honest about what is actually happening. America has seen a genuine surge in manufacturing construction, but Treasury explicitly tied that surge to the post-2021 investment wave associated with the IIJA, the CHIPS Act, and the IRA. Once again Trump is trying to take credit for the work of others.
Real manufacturing construction spending roughly doubled after the end of 2021, and that boom was concentrated in high-tech sectors like semiconductors and clean-energy manufacturing. So if someone wants to point to cranes, fabs, and battery plants as proof, you first need to explain why so many of those projects were announced before Trump’s current term and why so many depended on policies he did not create.”
Oh, then there is this - Trump lost 70,000 manufacturing jobs from April 2025 through Dec 2025 - Great Job Trump.
I do have to give you credit, however, for not giving up trying to make a silk purse out of sows earThat looks and sounds like a good argument until you consider:
Data from early 2026 indicates a significant decline in the foreign-born workforce, with over 120,000 to 1.4 million fewer immigrants in the labor force compared to 2025, driven by tighter immigration enforcement. While some reports attribute the overall job market downturn to this sharp decline in immigrant labor.
Key findings regarding job losses between 2025 and early 2026 include:
Shrinking Foreign-Born Labor Force: The number of foreign-born workers (both legal and illegal) dropped significantly, with one analysis indicating a reduction of 122,000 in the labor force as of early 2026.
As for acts passed during the Biden Administration... Funny how those efforts were stalled and delayed...until Trump arrived to fast track them.
Wonder how many billions went to fraudulent efforts, as occurred in Minnesota with the Somalis?And Trump is responsible for every bit of that, isn't he.
He sure is, that is what those who voted for him want.
If it keeps up, they will be forced to hire Americans, that will help move wages up, that will keep the money cycling within America not being shipped out of America to foreign families... its a win - win for everyone but the greedy corporations trying to squeeze out every dollar of profit rather than reinvesting into America by hiring Americans.I agree with you, Ken. For a long time it has felt like American workers were pushed to the back of the line while companies searched for the cheapest labor they could find, no matter where it came from. When businesses are required to hire Americans again, it naturally puts upward pressure on wages and keeps that income circulating in our own communities instead of being sent overseas. That helps local economies, small businesses, and families who are trying to get ahead. To me, it’s not about being against anyone else; it’s about finally putting American workers and the American economy first again. Trump is working diligently at doing just that, from many avenues.
Isn't that making a silk purse out of a sow's ear again. Those are overly broad and out of context claims that paint a rosy picture when it is not.
* Companies are not generally being “required to hire Americans again.” - they have to follow the law (you know, law and order and all that)
* The idea that less foreign labor automatically raises American wages is not supported as strongly as people claim. - Studies show that your claim is not true
* Instead of replacing native workers, Immigrants often complement them. Many studies have shown that right-wing claim to be false.
* I thought you knew this - Trump’s main “America First” tool — tariffs — does not mainly make foreigners pay. WHO PAYS? You do.
* The Truth is - Higher import costs get passed through to American firms and households, which can squeeze small businesses and families instead of helping them.
* Here is the sow's ear you are trying to turn into a silk purse - The latest labor data do not support the picture of a worker-centered boom. The February 2026 jobs report showed the U.S. lost 92,000 jobs, unemployment rose to 4.4%, and labor-force participation edged down to 62.0%.The combination of re-shoring critical industry and resources and exporting illegal workers so that businesses have to hire American Citizens is all a win for America the Nation and its Citizens.
None of which would be happening if not for Trump.
Had it been Harris... there would be millions more illegal migrants in the last year allowed in... and nothing would be getting done to reshore critical industry and resources (whether that be mining or drilling)... there would be more regulations than ever making it impossible.
Democrats should be labeled the anti-American party... because everything they want to do is against the best interests of American Citizens and the Nation.
And as Trump showed the country during the SOTU address, the Democrats don't even hide it anymore.For years people have talked about rebuilding American manufacturing and bringing critical industries back home, but very little was ever actually done about it. When supply chains started breaking down and we saw how dependent we were on other countries for things like energy, minerals, and manufacturing, it should have been a wake-up call. Re-shoring those industries isn’t just about jobs, it’s about national security and long-term economic stability.
I also think the labor issue you mentioned is something people don’t like to talk about honestly. If businesses rely on illegal labor to keep wages low, American workers are the ones who lose out. Enforcing immigration laws and making sure companies hire legally does force the system to correct itself. It pushes wages up and gives citizens a fair shot at those jobs again instead of being undercut.
Another point that often gets ignored is how regulation can quietly kill entire industries before they even get started again here. If we want mining, energy production, and manufacturing back in the United States, the government has to make it possible for companies to operate without drowning them in permits and rules that take years to get through. Otherwise those jobs just stay overseas where the regulations are lighter.
What frustrates a lot of people is that these issues used to be bipartisan concern: strong borders, domestic production, and energy independence. Now it feels like they’ve become ideological battles instead of common-sense policies that benefit the country as a whole. I think that’s why so many Americans responded to Trump’s message. Whether people like his style or not, he at least put those issues front and center and forced the conversation.
So you voted to destroy America. I understand it all now.
Only under Trump 1.0 did the move toward nuclear proliferation increase? Under Obama, it decreased significantly. Problem is, Trump didn't like he was getting credit for that and he tore up the agreement. As a consequence's of Trump's stupidity, Iran opened the floodgates on producing fissile material which led to Trump starting a shooting war with Iran.
That is the factual through-line.
Trump in his first attack said he decimated Iran's nuclear capability. Now in this attack, he is going to do it again. Trump framed this attack as imminent danger to the US. I have already told you according to our experts; it would be at least 10 years before the regime would have a delivery system that could reach the US.
It has to do with technology for a warhead reentry system that can sustain the reentry. Trump lied about that. He gave several reasons why he had to a attack: imminent danger to us, he had a feeling, and he wanted to beat Netanyahu to the punch.
Netanyahu is the one who went to the UN and complained about Iran crossing a red line because of increasing Iran's nuclear enrichment of yellow cake. He stated he has been waiting 47 years for this moment. Before this attack Iran had the capability to attack neighboring countries including Israel with their missiles, but not nuclear.
Obama and Biden had the nuclear situation under control with Iran and then he tore up those treaties and agreements.
Here is the real challenge and the mistake that the West makes. Arab countries are based on theology that is governed by the Koran. That is their constitution. They practice it daily.
We tried democratizing Afghanistan and Iraq and look where it got us. I'm sure we are going to try to democratize Iran. But let's just watch and see what happens,I have to strongly push back on several points here. First, Trump did not lie about Iran being an imminent danger. His warnings were rooted in real, verifiable threats: Iran had stockpiles of enriched uranium far above thresholds, advanced ballistic missiles capable of hitting U.S. allies, and a long record of supporting proxy militias and terrorism in the region. “Imminent” doesn’t mean they could strike the U.S. tomorrow; it refers to immediate strategic risk if left unchecked.
The claim that it would take Iran 10 years to have a delivery system ignores the fact that Trump’s actions set them back years. His maximum-pressure campaign, including sanctions, cyber operations, and covert strikes, deliberately delayed Iran’s nuclear progress. That’s why Trump said he “decimated” Iran’s nuclear capability: he actively destroyed, froze, or rolled back key elements of their program.
Now, we’re not talking theory anymore. Trump has authorized full military action against Iran, and the U.S. is actively engaged in strikes to degrade Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure. Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks, and Trump has publicly stated this could last weeks or even longer. This is not hypothetical; we are in a war where Trump is directly executing his strategy to neutralize Iran’s nuclear threat and regional destabilization. He is not fighting this war as Bush and Obama fought their wars, with hands tied--- he is being swift and destroying what needs to be destroyed with great force. I trust that when this mission is complete, he will, as he said, be in the middle of choosing the right leaders to hopefully ensure we never need to deal with Iran again.
As for Netanyahu, yes, he raised concerns at the UN, but Trump’s actions are consistent with U.S. strategic interests, not just Israel’s. Iran has long had missile capabilities threatening neighbors; Trump’s strikes go beyond that, targeting nuclear enrichment facilities and military infrastructure to prevent Iran from gaining leverage over the U.S. and its allies.
Regarding the JCPOA, the deal was originally signed in 2015 under Obama, intended to last 10–15 years, with key restrictions on uranium enrichment for 15 years, heavy water limits for 15 years, and inspections ongoing indefinitely. By the time Trump withdrew in 2018, the deal would have continued to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities through at least 2030, but it left significant stockpiles and enrichment capacity intact. Trump correctly recognized that this would allow Iran to advance its nuclear program once the restrictions expired and imposed maximum pressure to roll back those capabilities immediately.
The assertion that Obama and Biden “had it under control” is misleading. The JCPOA gave Iran sanctions relief while leaving significant enrichment capacity intact. Trump’s approach, leaving the deal and applying maximum pressure, bought real time, rolled back nuclear progress, and strengthened U.S. and allied security in the region.
Trump is not acting on whimsy; he’s fighting a real war against a real threat, and the facts show he is actively setting back Iran’s nuclear ambitions while protecting U.S. interests. In recent years, we have watched several genocides unfold around the world. Liberals screamed to the high heavens about genocide against the people of Gaza, but seemed to ignore the 32,000 Iranians killed while attempting to remove a rough, terror-supporting government. It sickens me to witness the mindsets of some Americans; it literally sickens me. I would say it is time to declare that we, as a world, will not permit genocide for any reason. In today’s world, I have come to demand peace through strength. We have progressed into a planet that requires it.
Trump is working to bring peace around the world, and I am pulling for him to succeed.Experts across U.S. intelligence, independent missile analysts, and regional specialists converge on a **single, consistent assessment**: **Iran is not close to fielding an operational ICBM**, and the **earliest credible timeline is around 2035**, based on the Defense Intelligence Agency’s standing estimate. This is reinforced directly by the content in your open tab from *Roic News*, which cites the DIA’s unchanged 2025–2026 assessment that **2035 is the earliest plausible date**, even with foreign assistance. [roic.ai](https://www.roic.ai/news/us-intelligenc … opilot.com)
Below is a structured breakdown of what experts actually say, why they say it, and what would need to change for Iran to accelerate that timeline.
---
What U.S. Intelligence Agencies Say
- **Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)** — Iran could develop an ICBM **“by 2035 at the earliest”**, and that projection has remained unchanged through 2025–2026. [roic.ai](https://www.roic.ai/news/us-intelligenc … opilot.com)
- **U.S. intelligence community consensus** — No evidence Iran is building or testing a missile that could strike the U.S. homeland in the near term. [roic.ai](https://www.roic.ai/news/us-intelligenc … opilot.com)
- **Current capability** — Iran’s longest‑range operational missiles reach **~2,000 km**, enough to hit Israel and parts of Europe, but nowhere near intercontinental range.
This is the most authoritative assessment available, and it directly contradicts political claims of an imminent Iranian ICBM threat.
---
What Independent Missile Experts Say
Across think tanks and missile‑technology specialists (e.g., CSIS Missile Defense Project, IISS, Middlebury Institute), the consensus aligns with U.S. intelligence:
1. **Iran lacks the hardest part: a tested re‑entry vehicle**
An ICBM must survive re‑entry at **7 km/s**. Iran has **never demonstrated** this technology.
Experts consistently say this is the single biggest missing piece.
2. **Iran’s space‑launch vehicles are not ICBMs**
Iran’s space program (e.g., *Zuljanah*) shows multi‑stage capability, but:
- They are **not militarized**.
- They use **inefficient staging** for weapons purposes.
- They have **never flown a re‑entry test**.
Analysts emphasize that **space launch ≠ ICBM**, though it provides some foundational knowledge.
3. **Solid‑fuel production was heavily damaged**
Israel’s 2025 strikes destroyed mixers and production infrastructure, slowing Iran’s transition to solid‑fuel long‑range systems.
Your open tab confirms Iran is still rebuilding this capacity in 2026. [roic.ai](https://www.roic.ai/news/us-intelligenc … opilot.com)
4. **Foreign help could shorten the timeline—but only so much**
Even with Russian or North Korean assistance, experts estimate **8–10 years** to field a credible ICBM, assuming Iran started today.
This aligns with the DIA’s 2035 projection.
---
What Regional and Iranian Sources Claim
Your other open tab (Iran International) contains Iranian political claims of an “intercontinental missile test,” but the page content is filtered and cannot be reviewed directly. However, independent analysts and Western intelligence agencies have repeatedly stated:
- **No verified ICBM test has occurred.**
- Iranian officials often use political language rather than technical accuracy.
- Analysts inside Iran (quoted in Iranian media) have admitted **there is no evidence of an actual ICBM program**.
These claims are widely viewed as **rhetorical or political**, not technical.
---
What Would Need to Happen for Iran to Accelerate
Experts outline three milestones that would signal Iran is truly moving toward ICBMs:
- **A multi‑stage solid‑fuel booster test** (not yet seen).
- **A long‑range re‑entry vehicle test** (completely absent).
- **A space‑launch vehicle with military staging characteristics** (not yet demonstrated).
None of these have occurred.
---
Synthesis: What Experts Actually Agree On
Across intelligence agencies, think tanks, and missile‑technology specialists:
- **Iran does not have an ICBM program that is close to deployment.**
- **2035 remains the earliest credible date**, and even that assumes steady progress and no major setbacks. [roic.ai](https://www.roic.ai/news/us-intelligenc … opilot.com)
- **There is no evidence of a near‑term threat to the U.S. homeland.**
- **Political claims of “successful ICBM tests” are not supported by technical data.**
I rest my case
---"First, Trump did not lie about Iran being an imminent danger." - OF COURSE he lied, unless you define "imminent" as in the next five years.
IMMINENT - "Threatening to occur immediately; near at hand; impending; -- said especially of misfortune or peril"
There was nothing "imminent" about Iran's threat accept in your and Trump's mind. You simply do not start a shooting war based on an undefined "feeling" like Trump stupidly did.
The only national security threat is one created by Trump.
Iran was not going to get a nuke under the Obama treaty - that is accepted fact. Then Trump came along and made the world MUCH LESS SAFE by tearing that agreement up. THAT is also factual.
Face it - There was no IMMINENT threat that Iran posed to the US Trump said it himself - well Levittt said it for him - Trump had no intelligence supporting acting on his "FEELING".
Did you know everyone of his reasons to make war on Iran could be used to justify a preemptive strike on Russia? When will he do that.Yes, we can agree to disagree as we will this time.
—-
“In an earlier comment, you essentially framed the situation as if Trump failing would validate your position. That reads less like concern about the outcome and more like hoping to be proven right. When the stakes involve war and global security, is rooting for failure really a responsible position?
To me, the common-sense answer is obvious. A regime that already destabilizes the region, becoming nuclear-armed, does not reduce the risk of conflict; it multiplies it.”
—-
I would like to see many nations disregard nuclear arms, Israel has them, why would Iran be rendered defenseless against any adversary? Israel is not the innocent rose petal, the Right keeps saying that it is. If I were Iran, i would keep on fighting and make America exact a price. Nationalism is not always my preferred perspective on things, maybe i am one of those globalists, you conservatives always harp about?
Preventing a nuclear Iran will not be done on some sort of Pax-Americana, American and Israeli terms, as this society going to agree to unconditional surrender and that will mean troops on the ground. How is Trump going to get by with that? When you do things Trump’s way, failure is ultimately inevitable. I always wish that unsubstantiated aggression fail whether employed by this country,( I used to say my country, until Trump) or anyone else.
Is Trump the accelerant for a conflagration over the entire region? Neither he nor his associates strike me as knowledgeable and sophisticated as to the intricacies of politics in the region. Blunt military force may well not be the answer.
This article talks about an interesting differing between US and Israeli goals regarding Iran. Will Iran just capitulate or will flame continue to burn across the region
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation … aign=shareI think your reply actually illustrates the dilemma rather than resolving it.
You say you would like to see nations abandon nuclear weapons altogether. In theory, most people would agree with that. But that simply isn’t the world we live in. Nuclear weapons already exist in multiple countries, and they aren’t disappearing anytime soon. So the real policy question isn’t about an ideal world; it’s about managing risk in the world that actually exists.
Your argument that Iran should have nuclear weapons because Israel has them is essentially arguing for nuclear proliferation. If that logic is applied universally, then Saudi Arabia will want them, Turkey will want them, Egypt will want them, and suddenly the entire Middle East becomes a multi-nuclear theater. That doesn’t reduce the risk of war; it dramatically increases the chance that one conflict spirals into something catastrophic.
You also frame Iran as “defenseless,” which ignores reality. Iran already has one of the largest missile programs in the region, a large military, and a network of proxy forces operating in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Calling them defenseless doesn’t line up with the geopolitical facts.
As for Trump, whether someone likes him or not doesn’t change the core issue either. Preventing nuclear proliferation has been a bipartisan U.S. objective for decades, under Republicans and Democrats alike. Obama pursued it through the JCPOA. Trump pursued it through pressure and renegotiation. The methods differed, but the objective was the same: preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.
You also suggest that opposing Iran’s nuclear ambitions somehow equals supporting Israeli aggression or demanding “unconditional surrender.” That’s a false choice. Many people can criticize Israeli policy while still recognizing that a nuclear-armed Iranian regime, one that openly threatens another nation’s destruction, would fundamentally destabilize the region.
You say you hope “unsubstantiated aggression fails.” I think most people would agree with that. But hoping for failure when the outcome could involve nuclear proliferation, regional war, and global economic shock isn’t really a serious strategic position either.
At the end of the day the question still remains the same one I asked before:
Would the Middle East be more stable with a nuclear-armed Iran?
If the answer is no, and most of the world’s governments clearly believe it is no, then preventing that outcome remains a legitimate international priority regardless of who sits in the White House
I don't think tossing the Constitution into the garbage like Trump has done is either noble or positive - it is the opposite of that. Generally accepting the Ends Justify the Means is something a Putin lover does, not an American. When you take that view, you are also accepting a whole lot of law breaking. It is clear the Republican Party no longer represents the Law and Order Party.
So the Ayatollah Khomeini killed.
Is there any plan what to do next!
As the US has a terrible record of building democracies in the middle east.
Full in like Iraq en Afghanistan didn't create a democracy. ISIS and the Taliban had free reign afterwards.
Just eliminating the head of state, like Gaddafi in Libia also lead to a disaster for the people living there.
Basically, this is nothing but the ordinary Trump politics. Wanting to dominate the headlines. A big media stunt!
We still have to look at the deep friendship Trump had with the pedophile Epstein.
This war is just another red herring. As anyone who believes that Trump actually cares about the Iranian people is naive.
I think it's great that the dictator of Iran is dead, and I hope this will lead to a prosperous Iran with free elections etc. But I'm incredibly skeptical.Iraq failed in large part because of Syrian and Iranian interference...
Which should have been anticipated and recognized as unavoidable... back when plans were being made for our efforts in Iraq.
But... even back then the plans were to move on to Syria and Iran, and here we are, with both of them now defunct states.Perhaps they had great intentions, but completely wrong assessment...
Reality is not the same thing as stuff written on paper.In terms of doing what is right, humane, make the world a better place... you are definitely correct.
But if the goal were decades of war... military spending (which accounts for over 70% of our national debt) that enriches the MIC and the Congresspeople who continually trade on those companies making themselves wealthy and the decline of America on the global stage... then they did amazingly well.Yes, those decades of war, was it worth it?
Is the military power and maintaining it world wide better than soft power?
The films from Hollywood, the teaching of English worldwide, working together with nations in building infrastructure etc. the dollar as a world wide currency, is perhaps just as powerful than military presence.
Perhaps spending more money on soft power influence instead of guns is a better strategy. As today Facebook and X are almost more powerful than guns. Especially as you can destroy multi-million dollar war planes with some cheap drones. Is it worth spending so much money as the wars are changing in how they are fought?
Still, not having an army doesn't work either, as the European Union understands today...You'd have to ask the people who put these plans into place decades ago.
Former USSR allies... like Libya, Syria, Iraq...
Current Russian allies... like Venezuela and Iran...
Could be a theme here... that has been pretty consistent since sometime after the collapse of the USSR...
More food for thought on that... consider our efforts in Georgia and then Ukraine...
These efforts feel they have a sense of urgency to them... perhaps to finish these smaller conflicts before the bigger one kicks off?
Also, there is plenty of history between Iran and China... well over a decade ago a Chinese general openly threatened America stating an attack on Iran would be considered an attack on China...
China is heavily invested into Iran... the bulk of resources pulled out of Iran goes to China, and its been that way for a couple decades now.
Similar could be said to have been in the works with Venezuela.All missiles spend in Iran, can't be used in Ukraine.
Iran was not a thread anymore. (only to it's own people.)
I hope with all my heart that there will be a positive regime change, but I doubt it. As the US has a terrible track record with regime changes.
Your comment jumps all over the place and mixes legitimate geopolitical concerns with partisan insults.
Comparing Iran to Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya ignores the fact that every one of those situations was structurally different. Iraq involved a full-scale U.S. invasion and occupation. Afghanistan was a 20-year nation-building effort after 9/11. Libya was a NATO intervention without a stabilization plan after Muammar Gaddafi fell.
Simply removing a regime figure does not automatically equal “U.S. democracy-building.” Those are very different strategic choices.
It’s reasonable to ask, “What’s the plan?” That’s a fair question in any foreign policy decision. But assuming the only possible outcome is disaster ignores history as well. There have been regime collapses that did not result in permanent chaos. The Middle East is not one monolithic case study.
However, reducing everything to “Trump wanted headlines” isn’t analysis, it’s dismissal. You can criticize policy without turning it into a personality attack. If someone believes the removal of a hostile theocratic leader changes regional calculations, that’s a strategic argument, not automatically a “media stunt.”
Bringing up Jeffrey Epstein in a discussion about Iran is also a redirection. If you want to debate foreign policy, debate foreign policy. Mixing in unrelated allegations doesn’t strengthen your case; it weakens it because it suggests you don’t have confidence in your core argument.
You say you’re “incredibly skeptical.” That’s fair. Skepticism is healthy. But skepticism isn’t the same thing as assuming bad faith in every action. It’s possible to both:
Hope for a freer Iran
Question the long-term strategy
And still acknowledge that removing a brutal theocratic ruler changes the strategic landscape
You can doubt the outcome without dismissing every motive as cynical.
If we’re going to talk seriously about Iran, then let’s talk seriously about power vacuums, regional actors, internal resistance movements, economic pressure, and diplomatic leverage.
But let’s not pretend that every geopolitical move is just a headline stunt. That’s not analysis, that’s tribal politics. This conflict will most definitely destroy Iran's capability to create nuclear weapons, and work to show the US will not stand for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. It will be up to future administrations to make sure they do not ever stray from that path again.
I have seen nothing that convinces me that President Trump had anything more than a casual social acquaintance with Jeffrey Epstein. Like many public figures in New York and Palm Beach during that time, their paths crossed socially. That alone is not evidence of wrongdoing.
I’m willing to keep an open mind and see what, if anything, comes out of further investigation. If credible evidence ever emerges, I would evaluate it seriously. But as of now, I have not seen verified evidence showing that Trump abused women in connection with Epstein.
I am also aware that Trump reportedly distanced himself from Epstein years before Epstein’s first arrest and that he made calls to law enforcement bringing attention to Epstein’s behavior. Those facts matter in any fair assessment.
Until there is clear, substantiated evidence to the contrary, I’m not prepared to assume guilt based on association or headlines alone.Trump's name appeared more than 38,000 times in the Epstein files. A good man should not even be named 10 times. 2 times is perhaps is possible. But a 38.000 times, that's showing a very close relationship.
Trump knew who Epstein was and what he did. Still he kept him as a close friend. You don't want a pedophile and a sexual predator as a close friend!
These files are a political nightmare for him. Of course he is looking for a distraction. That's his behaviour. He is constantly putting up a show. The Tariffs, Venezuela, Immigrants eating cats and dogs. Distracting people from who he really is.
Setting aside the fact they are an evil regime, wouldn't you strike back if you were the target of an unprovoked war?
This is the Iranian people's opportunity to sink or swim!!
I pray that they will, once again, know freedom! Winning it back, comes at a cost and I pray for minimal casualties.
This attack has been a long time coming!!U.S. Senator John Fetterman
Operation Epic Fury.
President Trump has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region.
God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel.Fetterman supports violating the Constitution - SAD. As righteous as taking down the Iranian regime is, when we break the law to do it, we become as bad as they are. Let Law and Order Rule!
It is remarkable how you were able to find this and bring it to the forefront. I will have to add “Sherlock Holmes” to list of accomplishments.
Nah. Not my credit. It's everywhere. In fact, that's just one. Just for "fun", let's revisit some...
Context matters. When Trump made those earlier comments about Iran, he was a private citizen questioning what he believed could be politically timed military action during an election cycle. That’s very different from a sitting president making decisions based on classified intelligence, regional escalation, and direct threats to U.S. interests.
When he later authorized force against Iran, it was framed as a response to escalating aggression, proxy attacks on U.S. personnel and allies, and growing concerns over Iran’s military and nuclear ambitions. From his administration’s perspective, the action wasn’t about political timing; it was about deterrence and preventing a larger conflict. Whether someone agrees with that assessment or not, the justification given was rooted in national security concerns, not campaign optics.
It’s easy to line up old posts and claim hypocrisy, but that ignores the fact that circumstances, intelligence, and responsibilities change. There’s a major difference between speculating about a president’s motives from the outside and being the one accountable for real-time security decisions on the inside.
You can disagree with either position, but pretending the situations are identical oversimplifies a complex geopolitical reality. Serious discussions about war and deterrence deserve more than selective quotes and rhetorical comparisons.Come on,
Sharlee, you are equivocating and making excuses to attempt to differentiate between 6 and half a dozen….I mostly just shared my perspective, and I think it holds up pretty well from a common-sense standpoint.
Sharlee,
I had to say something.
Liberals have proven their blind dedication to illegal aliens and criminals over American people. Illegal aliens and criminals are their priorities. They made this clear during the state of the union address.
NOW...when you think the liberals couldn't get any lower...they start digging.
Liberals now have an ongoing love affair with brutal dictators. Have any of them taken the time to look exactly what Maduro did to his people in Venezuela or how he funded drug gangs in the United States that murdered many Americans among many other crimes.
Liberals also have a love affair with Iran's former leader. The brutality of this man is difficult to believe. It is estimated that over 36,000 peace protesters were murdered by the Iranian leadership. That is just a small example of their brutality.
They funded terrorist organizations around the world that killed many, many Americans.
So, liberals are as liberals always are, clueless, shallow, suffering from significant TDS. They are beyond anger and have plummeted down into the realm of deserving only pity.I totally see your points, and I have to say I agree. It’s unbelievable how often illegal aliens and criminals seem to be prioritized over American citizens. That’s exactly what’s been happening, and the State of the Union made it clear.
And you’re right, it gets worse when you look at their foreign policy. Their fascination with brutal dictators like Maduro in Venezuela or Iran’s past leaders is shocking. The atrocities, the killings, the funding of criminal activity, it’s horrifying.
Honestly, at this point, it feels like they’ve gone beyond politics and reason. It’s frustrating, and yes, they really do seem to deserve only pity.What you and RMN said is an insult to my intelligence. The real problem Trump is going to have to confront has to do with the history of the mid-east after WW! and the demise of the Ottoman Empire.
As soon as oil was discovered, The French and The British as victors, carved up the mid-east into zones without any regard for culture and religions. They did this to cause chaos so they could control the oil.
Saudi Arabia is mainly Sunni while Iran is mainly Shia. They don't like each other very much. Iraq was Shia and Saddam Husien was Sunni, but he ruled with an iron fist until he was taken out.
Iran is retaliating against the US by sending missiles into our military bases which are Sunni controlled countries. Because Trump is doing business with Saudi Arabia, he is literally shooting himself in the foot, while Iran continues its retaliation.
Liberals have proven their blind dedication to illegal aliens and criminals over American people. Illegal aliens and criminals are their priorities. They made this clear during the state of the union address.
You Trumpers delight in self-aggrandizing while putting down liberals as not even being American Citizens,You’re absolutely right that the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the arbitrary borders drawn by Britain and France contributed to long-term instability in the region. No serious person denies that history. But stopping the conversation there ignores what is happening right now.
The central issue today isn’t just Sunni vs. Shia tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It isn’t simply about oil politics. The most urgent strategic concern is preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. That changes everything.
A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically shift the balance of power in the Middle East. It would embolden Iran’s regional aggression, threaten Israel directly, intimidate Gulf states, and likely trigger a nuclear arms race. That’s not partisan rhetoric, that’s basic geopolitical reality.
Iran’s leadership has consistently projected power through proxies and missile programs. Giving that regime a nuclear umbrella makes deterrence far more complicated and dangerous. Whether someone supports Donald Trump or not, the objective of preventing Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold is a legitimate national security priority.
Where the frustration comes in is this: many debates drift into colonial history, immigration arguments, or partisan name-calling, while the core strategic threat, nuclear capability, doesn’t get the focus it deserves. You can argue about diplomacy versus pressure. You can debate sanctions versus negotiations. But ignoring the nuclear dimension while attacking “Trumpers” misses the root of the issue.
And on the domestic insult, saying conservatives delight in self-aggrandizing while putting down liberals cuts both ways. Political contempt is not owned by one side. Calling people unintelligent or un-American because they prioritize border security or national defense doesn’t elevate the discussion.
The Middle East is complex. U.S. policy is complex. But if we’re talking about the real stakes, preventing a nuclear Iran is not a distraction; it’s central. Everything else branches out from that.
I feel in the end, the world is benefiting from Trump's bold courage to take out Iran's nuclear capability. This is not about oil; this is about national security. My God, will liberals ever really see what is smack in front of them?
Liberals have proven their blind dedication to illegal aliens and criminals over American people. Illegal aliens and criminals are their priorities. They made this clear during the state of the union address.
You Trumpers delight in self-aggrandizing while putting down liberals as not even being American Citizens, Again the Us and Them mentality that is the seeds for fascism...Thanks to Trump and MAGA.
What you and RMN said is an insult to my intelligence. The real problem Trump is going to have to confront has to do with the history of the mid-east after WWI and the demise of the Ottoman Empire.
As soon as oil was discovered, The French and The British as victors, carved up the mid-east into zones without any regard for culture and religions. They did this to cause chaos so they could control the oil.
Saudi Arabia is mainly Sunni while Iran is mainly Shia. They don't like each other very much. Iraq was Shia and Saddam Husien was Sunni, but he ruled with an iron fist until he was taken out.
Iran is retaliating against the US by sending missiles into our military bases which are in Sunni controlled countries. Because Trump is doing business with Saudi Arabia, he is literally shooting himself in the foot, while Iran continues its retaliation.I don’t enjoy putting anyone down. That’s not something I take pride in. But at some point, when the same narratives keep dismissing real national security concerns, I feel compelled to speak plainly.
I genuinely believe there is a segment of the modern liberal movement that prioritizes global interests or ideological goals over American sovereignty and security. That concerns me. That doesn’t mean I’m putting every liberal under one tent. There are reasonable people across the political spectrum. But pretending that there isn’t a growing strain of anti-American sentiment within parts of the left would be dishonest.
Disagreeing with policies is one thing. Undermining the country’s security, dismissing border concerns, or downplaying threats like a nuclear Iran is another. My criticism isn’t about party labels, it’s about priorities.
I can safely say, I have no respect for the greater majority of today's liberal ideologies.Where is this nuclear threat from Iran to the US? Experts say it will be at least 10 years before Iran will have Intercontinental Ballistic missile (ICBM) capability that can reach the US.
Trump is providing a disservice to the American people and the world about lying about imminent danger of Iran's ICBMs attacking the US. He is just scaring the hell out people, including my daughter. Of course, fear is part of his MO to justify his actions.
Experts across U.S. intelligence, independent missile analysts, and regional specialists converge on a **single, consistent assessment**: **Iran is not close to fielding an operational ICBM**, and the **earliest credible timeline is around 2035**, based on the Defense Intelligence Agency’s standing estimate.
Below is a structured breakdown of what experts actually say, why they say it, and what would need to change for Iran to accelerate that timeline.
---What U.S. Intelligence Agencies Say
- **Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)** — Iran could develop an ICBM **“by 2035 at the earliest”**, and that projection has remained unchanged through 2025–2026.
- **U.S. intelligence community consensus** — No evidence Iran is building or testing a missile that could strike the U.S. homeland in the near term.
- **Current capability** — Iran’s longest‑range operational missiles reach **~2,000 km**, enough to hit Israel and parts of Europe, but nowhere near intercontinental range.
This is the most authoritative assessment available, and it directly contradicts political claims of an imminent Iranian ICBM threat.
What Independent Missile Experts Say
Across think tanks and missile‑technology specialists (e.g., CSIS Missile Defense Project, IISS, Middlebury Institute), the consensus aligns with U.S. intelligence:
1. **Iran lacks the hardest part: a tested re‑entry vehicle**
An ICBM must survive re‑entry at **7 km/s**. Iran has **never demonstrated** this technology.
Experts consistently say this is the single biggest missing piece.
2. **Iran’s space‑launch vehicles are not ICBMs**
Iran’s space program (e.g., *Zuljanah*) shows multi‑stage capability, but:
- They are **not militarized**.
- They use **inefficient staging** for weapons purposes.
- They have **never flown a re‑entry test**.
Analysts emphasize that **space launch ≠ ICBM**, though it provides some foundational knowledge.
3. **Solid‑fuel production was heavily damaged**
Israel’s 2025 strikes destroyed mixers and production infrastructure, slowing Iran’s transition to solid‑fuel long‑range systems.
Your open tab confirms Iran is still rebuilding this capacity in 2026.
4. **Foreign help could shorten the timeline—but only so much**
Even with Russian or North Korean assistance, experts estimate **8–10 years** to field a credible ICBM, assuming Iran started today.
This aligns with the DIA’s 2035 projection.
---What Regional and Iranian Sources Claim
Your other open tab (Iran International) contains Iranian political claims of an “intercontinental missile test,” but the page content is filtered and cannot be reviewed directly. However, independent analysts and Western intelligence agencies have repeatedly stated:
- **No verified ICBM test has occurred.**
- Iranian officials often use political language rather than technical accuracy.- Analysts inside Iran (quoted in Iranian media) have admitted **there is no evidence of an actual ICBM program**.
These claims are widely viewed as **rhetorical or political**, not technical.
---What Would Need to Happen for Iran to Accelerate
Experts outline three milestones that would signal Iran is truly moving toward ICBMs:
- **A multi‑stage solid‑fuel booster test** (not yet seen).
- **A long‑range re‑entry vehicle test** (completely absent).
- **A space‑launch vehicle with military staging characteristics** (not yet demonstrated).
None of these have occurred.
---Synthesis: What Experts Actually Agree On
Across intelligence agencies, think tanks, and missile‑technology specialists:
- **Iran does not have an ICBM program that is close to deployment.**
- **2035 remains the earliest credible date**, and even that assumes steady progress and no major setbacks.
- **There is no evidence of a near‑term threat to the U.S. homeland.**
- **Political claims of “successful ICBM tests” are not supported by technical data.**
---Given the political tension, the next useful angle is understanding **what specific technical breakthroughs would indicate Iran is actually shifting toward ICBM development**. Would you like a breakdown of those indicators so you can track them in real time?
https://www.roic.ai/news/us-intelligenc … alks-02-27
Context... facts... do not matter to the ideologically driven American hating 'Left' that is embodied by the Democratic Party today.
The Democratic Party today is filled with those wanting to burn the Nation down...They’re shrinking into a small minority. More and more people are waking up and realizing they have very little in common with the New Democratic Party, and they’re seeing just how extreme and distorted its ideology has become.
No, i just want to burn the rightwinged tyrants that infest it down…..
So, by being president negates all the things he said as a private citizen? I read that as excusing his actions.
So...what did he say 20 years ago as a private citizen about modern day Iran?
Yes, this man is the epitome of double standards and hypocrisy incarnate. He is all about expediency as he never really had any principles.
This man is bringing peace and freedom to the Middle East. Perhaps it’s time to focus on what’s happening now, rather than rehashing old rhetoric from before he entered politics. But by all means, go ahead and dig through the past, just don’t ignore the present. He’s making progress, even if some still can’t accept they were wrong about him.
Actually, he will be remembered as one of the very best presidents we have ever had... He is accomplishing what no other president came close to --- a path to peace in the Middle East. Hard to swallow, but we are seeing an end to Iran's push to have nuclear weapons.Here is what I think the real reason Trump and Netanyahu attacked Iran. If you look at this from each sides' perspective. Iran supports both Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of those entities served to protect the Palestinians from Netanyahu taking over Gaza for further settlements of Israelis into Gaza. Now since The Supreme leader is gone, the Palestinians have no one to protect them This is exactly what Netanyahu wants. It is his final solution to getting rid of the remaining Palestinians. He has already killed millions of men, women and children, under the guise of looking for Hamas and turned Gaza into rubble.
This now gives him the chance to rebuild Gaza into settlements for his people. Trump now has the chance to make Gaza, the Rivera of the East. (Hs words, not mine).
Trump on the other hand, has created a great distraction for the Epstein Files. Trump has a relationship with the Saudi Prince who is Sunni. Iran is primarily Shia. They don't like each other very much.
If you follow the money, the Sunni's have bestowed many gifts on to Trump, like the Air Force One Quatar is giving him, Plus the Saudi's are buying F-35's like they are going out of style, Israel is also a great customer of military equipment from us. Here is a question for you. Why do we have to give Israel 30 billion each year?I have to laugh—back to Epstein. Is this really all the Democrats have left? They’ve gone after Trump every way they could, and now Epstein? Mind you, Biden didn’t even try to bring this up against Trump. Honestly, it just looks so desperate on the Democrats’ part. At this point, it seems the only president they really threw under the bus was old Bill. In my view, time to say, this ploy is the silliest they have dug up.
Those too, are valid explanations. Trump is the kind of man whom i would not excuse from the motives that you provided.
Thanks
Save Face - now you hit on the REAL reason for Trump's aggression and not the other made up things he and his minions are saying.
Very well done, Island Bites. It shows the hypocrisy of the Right extremely well.
BRINGING PEACE TO THE MIDDLE EAST! Spreading freedom and Democracy with the Abraham Accords.
Here is my take on all of this. Trump always frames his action as emergencies first and then tries to figure out the consequences later. He has done that with tariffs, Venezuela, and now Iran,
Actually, that meme fits Netanyahu's (Bibi's) goal perfectly. In the news, he said he has waited 40 years for this moment. Whether we like it or not we are in a proxy war for Bibi.
There was no imminent danger for us from Iran. According to experts, it will take at least 10 years for them to develop an ICBM weapon system that will be able to reach America. Trump lied, as he always does, and made this an emergency without going to congress first. He did that with tariffs, Venezuela, and now Iran.
Bibi right now is attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon. He has turned Gaza into rubble and killed millions of Palestinian men women and children with the excuse that he was looking for Hamas. Trump and Bibi are partners in taking out the Supreme Leader and their staff.
It appears; Bibi’s goal can now proceed without interference from the Supreme Leader, Hamas, and Hezbollah. He can now expand his Israeli settlements into Gaza. Who knows what he is going to do with the remaining Palestinians.
Pete Hegseth, a former Fox New host is now the head of the Department of War (formally known as the Department of Defense). Why would Trump change it to war, if he didn't want any wars?
I don't think Trump or Hegseth have a clue as to the geopolitical complexity of the mid-east. They probably don't even know the difference between Iranian Shia's and Saudi Arabia, Sunni's. They have been bitter enemies, since biblical times.
They hate each other, but there are more Sunni’s than Shia. It turns out all our military bases are in Sunni countries. Therefore, when Iran retaliates, it attacks our bases in Sunni Countries.
Iran has blocked the movement of oil and gas in the Strait of Hormuz. In geopolitical parlance, this is known as a strategic choke point because it is a very narrow crossing point.
Trump says he is sending the navy there to unblock it. In his infinite wisdom, I don’t think he knows that Iran has probably already laid mines in the strait. It will be interesting to see how he deals with this. As far as the military execution of Epic Fury, it has been a Military success. It's the amateurs at the top that concern me, including Trump and Hegseth. I don't think they have an end game.And today, Caroline Levitt told us the REAL reason that Trump attacked is because "he had a 'feeling' that Iran was about to attack the US". Asked what that "feeling" was based on. Her answer was unspecified "facts". She had the chance to say HARD INTELLIGENCE, but she didn't. She is extremely careful with her words.
How do you interpret what she said? I interpret it is that Trump decided to start a war because 1) he felt like it and 2) he could since he has nullified Congress.
And that explains why there was almost no planning that has gone into this operation. Why those soldiers got killed because Trump didn't think about Iran's drones. Why all those nations got attacked because he was obviously surprised that Iran could actually do it.
He actually thought he could achieve regime change with bombs, what a stupid, stupid man. If he is committed to get Iran to change its ways, then he is also committed to invading with American soldiers. If he doesn't, then all this waste of money and lives is for naught.
Two reasons: Epstein and midterms.
And three Americans are dead.
America will be great again then Trump is only playing golf again.Speaking of " full of hate, and a loathing of ..."
A Homeland Security official told NBC News that Diagne first entered the U.S. entered on March 13, 2000, on a B-2 tourist visa. He became a lawful permanent resident in 2006 based on marriage to a U.S. citizen and a naturalized citizen in 2013, the official said.
The disinformation and xenophobia (here too) have been worse than ever this last year.
So... Bye?Gen. Dan Caine says 'we expect to take additional losses'
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said that the U.S. expects "additional losses." His comments come after four U.S. service members were killed.
"This not a single overnight operation," he told reporters during the briefing. "The objectives CENTCOM has been tasked with will be difficult and gritty work. We expect to take additional losses."What if ...
... there is a plan, and it isn't to 'democratize' Iran?
... a moderate regime emerges and agrees to Pres. Trump's (the world's) nuclear demands?
... Iranian society benefits from the new regime's new perspective?
... Iran doesn't support terrorists anymore?
Whoo eee. I can hear the stammering and stuttering now.
Just for giggles and grins, I hear the Cubans are in the streets asking to be next.
GAThe Shaw's son was interviewed on 60 Minutes last night. He said he and Trump have been talking and there is a possibility that Trump may use him as a diplomatic place holder to help bring some form of stability to the regime. It's important to note, the possibility of him becoming the next leader was mentioned, but nothing for certain.
I don't know beans about the issue, so I'm just talking.
I have seen him in the news recently. He looks presentable, but I don't know anything about him. I lean towards the idea of a more moderate theocratic regime emerging (like their new 3-person leadership arrangement). It would be a less seismic shock than jumping to a secular government.
GA
Let's hope so.
But I don't think it's very likely that it will happen that way.
I also heard that Russians are in the streets asking to be next.Those 'what if's' were serious thoughts—even if the "Whoo eee" was a joking jab.
But first a caveat: my sole authority is my access to a keyboard.
But ...
I like the Venezuela analogy. We didn't turn a country inside-out, we forced the influence to make changes without total disruption.
I think that is a real possibility for Iran. Their new 3-person leadership might be an opening for less fanatical rule.
I've heard several Trump quotes and responses that could be read as hinting at that outcome: a moderation instead of a replacement.
I also think the thought that Iran won't be a state sponsor of terrorism is a real possibility now.
In that same vein of optimism, I think that when the Iran and Gaza dust settles, we are going to end up with the majority of Middle East nations joining the Abraham Accords.
Peace in the Middle East. Whoo eee, the stuttering and stammering will turn into exploding heads. ;-)
GAWhat if's are always a bit difficult to judge..
I have my doubts about Venezuela. The gangs are still controlling the streets.
Iran is a different matter.
But... Look at what happened after Ghadafi was killed, and after Saddam Husein was killed. Did the situation really change. The Islamic State and many other religious fanatics are still killing and torturing people there.
Killing a head of state might seem a good thing, but if there isn't a good what's next plan you don't win much. And in Iran there is not really an organized opposition that can easily take over and change the political structure.
I don't think I know much more than you do about this all.
I'm just pessimistic if I look at all the good intentions the US (and Europe) had in the middle east the last 70 years... And what did it bring Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Palestine.
It's a horns nest. full of different religious sects, tribes, family feuds and a complete different mindset than we have in the west.
Yes, peace in the East... Now that would be a miracle.No, when Gadafi was killed things got worse. Does that mean you do not even try? Yes, the gangs are still in control of Caracas. The difference is that without Maduro the stooges there are a lot more hesitant about pulling people off the streets to torture them for a differing political view.Yes, it is still happening but a lot less.
I think that is all we can really hope for Iran. It will not be perfect when this is over but if the government does not kill all of the leftists protesting the government is that not an improvement?
I would expect all of those people that protested ICE in Minnesota and California to support this. Had they done that in Iran the government would have just killed them. (What happened to the Iranian worlds cup team from 2022?)
Just my view--- Do Middle East nations stand to benefit from Trump's bold action to end Iran's nuclear aspirations?
It’s important to separate facts from assumptions here. Several Gulf nations, including the UAE and Bahrain, which are formal Abraham Accords participants, and Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, which maintain pragmatic ties with Israel, have condemned Iranian missiles and drone attacks on their territories. They have taken steps to protect their people and U.S. personnel, showing that their interests align with the U.S. when it comes to defending sovereignty and security.
That said, this alignment is pragmatic, not full endorsement of U.S. military action. These nations are cautious about openly supporting strikes because escalation could make them targets or destabilize the region further. Their priority is peace, stability, and sovereignty, not taking sides in headline-grabbing campaigns.
At the same time, it’s reasonable to assume they would welcome any outcome that reduces Iranian aggression or nuclear threats, because a safer, more stable Middle East benefits everyone. But that doesn’t mean they’re cheering every U.S. or Israeli strike; they are focused on security and stability first.
So yes, while their interests often align with U.S. goals in this instance, it’s pragmatic alignment aimed at a peaceful Middle East, not formal military support. Their goal has always been regional stability, and any action that moves toward that, even indirectly, is likely seen as positive, but cautiously so.
Lots of jokes about Iran, Cuba, Russia on social media… ‘what’s next?’ Sure, laugh it off. Or maybe imagine if people actually dared to speak up against dictatorships and demand freedom. Shocking thought, right? Who knew liberty could be contagious? Not saying the U.S. has to save anyone, but mocking the desire to be free? That’s the real tragedy. And would it be so bad to see Democracy spread?This is a very powerful video.
IRANIANS Going Viral THANKING Pr Trump For Historic Actions Against Regime!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY2DON_-tu0This is sweet.
Iranian woman absolutely gives it to the ‘fake humanitarian’ Dems
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0zObqnlbTEThank you for posting this--- She gave it to them right between the eyes... Trump has become a hero to the majority of Iranians, especially the women.
Wow, your hero killed a 14 months old baby girl... I am amazed how he was nominated for globle peace award.
In the issue of Iran... China's involvement
One of my first articles some 12+ years ago was on the China - Iran relationship.
In there I quoted a Chinese general that threatened any attack on Iran by America would be considered an attack on China...
Good luck finding that quote today on the internet.
Anyways, here is the current:
China's foreign minister tells Israeli counterpart that attacks on Iran must end
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chi … 026-03-03/
And for AI lovers that go looking for the mentioned quote:
AI - " Similar, often more extreme, statements regarding China defending Iran have surfaced in geopolitical commentary and social media over the years, frequently in the context of rising tensions between the U.S. and Iran, but they are not official policy statements."
As I have stated many times... whether you recognize it or not... want to accept it or not... we are in the midst of a World War... in particular the BRICS nations against America (and what few allies it has that also recognize just what the heck is at stake).No regime change eh? Now our dictator wants to dictate to Iran who their new leader will be. I don't think even Nero had this much arrogance.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/ira … 65hyqxu0prWhat is he going to do hold a job interview to select the one he wants to replace the Supreme Leader? He is making himself the Supreme Leader of Iran. Netanyahu should also sit in on the interview.
This whole mess is happening because Netanyahu wanted to get rid of the Ayatollah because he supported Hezbollah and Hamas. This now allows Netanyahu to expand his settlements into Gaza. The hell with the Palestinians who are still left.
I’ve been hearing a lot of criticism lately about President Trump saying the U.S. should have some involvement in who leads Iran if the current regime falls. But I think people are misunderstanding what that really means.
For decades the Iranian people have lived under a radical dictatorship that suppresses protests, controls elections, and punishes anyone who challenges the regime. The world has seen the brutality of this government, including the reports that roughly 32,000 young Iranian citizens were murdered for standing up and demanding freedom. When a government is willing to slaughter its own youth to stay in power, it becomes very clear why so many Iranians have longed for real representation and democracy.
Trump has said before that he doesn’t want endless “regime change wars” or American nation-building like we saw in Iraq. But he has also made the point that the United States cannot allow another extremist government to simply take control again. That’s a legitimate concern, because history shows that when dictatorships fall, power vacuums can easily be filled by another radical faction.
That’s why some level of involvement from the U.S. and the international community could actually be important. Not to “pick” a leader for Iran, but to help ensure the process is fair, stable, and not hijacked by another terrorist-supporting regime. After decades of repression, the Iranian people will likely need support and oversight to hold elections that are truly free and transparent.
If the goal is to help create the conditions where the majority of Iranians can finally choose their own leaders and build the democracy they’ve longed for, then helping guide a stable transition isn’t interference, it’s responsible leadership. Ensuring that the next government represents the will of the Iranian people, rather than another dictatorship, is something the United States should absolutely care about.
It also feels strange that we are already discussing what the end of this war might look like. Many people expected something like this to drag on for years, yet in a matter of days, the balance of power seems to have shifted dramatically. Whether people agree with every decision or not, it is remarkable what has unfolded in such a short time. Sometimes history moves slowly, but with the right person in charge, it seems to change in the span of a single week.Here is my take: Our military is flawless in executing their missions. Trump on the other hand with his politics, like being the one who will select the next leader of Iran, is pure arrogance and is being done on Netanyahu's behalf. You Khow how I feel about the Palestinians and Netanyahu, so I'm not going to belabor that point.
I have a friend whose brother flew B-52's in the Persian Gulf war, here is what he says about the strategy they are using to execute their mission. It has nothing to do with Trump. CentCom comes up with these strategies.
First, they bring in B-2's because they are stealth. They takeout all the command-and-control structure because they are stealth and do not show up on radar.
Next, they bring in B-1's because they are fast and can fly low. They takeout all the aircraft and defensives weapons.
Then they bring in the B-52's they fly high and drop bunker buster bombs to take out underground installation.
Trump and Hegseth have nothing to do with those strategies. That has to do with Cent Com and their strategic planning. Trump comes in when all is said and done and does the dirty work for Netanyahu.
From what i understand, the regime is setup much like Al Queda and has many layers. According to their envoy, they are organized to survive. They also have sleeper cells here that can be activated. I don't think this is going to be a cake walk. There is no telling what Trump and company have unleashed, all in the name of Netanyahu.Not sure where you feel I shared the day to day militray actions run by Trump? I am aware of military command. My thought was that Trump appointed the right guy.
President Donald Trump appointed the head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) In June 2025, Trump nominated Navy Vice Admiral (now Admiral) Brad Cooper to be the commander of CENTCOM, which is the U.S. military’s unified combatant command responsible for operations across the Middle East.
I understand that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has constitutional authority over the military, including the power to declare war and approve large-scale military actions. I also know that in practice, the day-to-day operations of the military are handled by the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense, and combatant commanders like the head of CENTCOM.Sorry, it is now the Department of War.
"Trump has said before that he doesn’t want endless “regime change wars” or American nation-building like we saw in Iraq."
Trump always lies. He said we shouldn't attack Iran several times as well.
One day I hope you learn you can't trust a word that comes out of his mouth. That is just a fact.There is, in my opinion, no way a reasonable person can misunderstand "“They are wasting their time. Khamenei’s son is a lightweight. I have to be involved in the appointment, like with Delcy in Venezuela,” Trump told Axios, "
This YouGov poll was shown on BBC News yesterday — I snapped a quick photo because it neatly illustrates where British public opinion actually sits. Only 28% of the UK public support the recent USA strikes on Iran. The breakdown by party, of the 5 major political parties in Britain, is interesting too: from the Greens on the left through to Reform UK on the right, support only rises significantly at the far‑right end of the spectrum. It’s a clear sign that Sir Keir Starmer’s cautious approach has broad backing here.
Just my view--
The history of Iran’s nuclear program is far more complicated than the simplified version people often repeat. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) did place temporary limits on Iran’s nuclear activity, but it did not dismantle the program. Iran was still permitted to enrich uranium, maintain thousands of centrifuges, and continue operating nuclear facilities. Many of the agreement’s most important restrictions were also designed to expire after a number of years, meaning the deal slowed Iran’s program but did not permanently eliminate the pathway to nuclear capability.
It’s also important to remember that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was built long before Donald Trump entered office. By the time the agreement was signed, Iran had already developed a significant enrichment capacity and a large stockpile of enriched uranium. The deal reduced those levels but left the underlying structure of the program intact. When the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018, Iran responded by gradually exceeding the limits set by the deal and increasing enrichment levels beyond what had previously been allowed.
The claim that Trump “started a shooting war” with Iran is also a stretch. The United States and Iran never entered a declared war during that time. The most serious escalation was the 2020 strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, a top commander in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, following years of rising tensions and proxy attacks across the region.
What we are seeing now is a much stronger effort to address the problem directly. Trump has taken military and strategic steps aimed at ending Iran’s nuclear ambitions altogether and preventing the regime from obtaining the capability to build a nuclear weapon. Ultimately, it will be up to Iran’s future leadership to remain on that path, and it will be up to future U.S. presidents to ensure the pressure remains so the world does not return to the same dangerous cycle.
From my perspective, the bigger picture matters. If these actions truly succeed in stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, it could remove one of the most dangerous threats the world has faced for decades. As a grandparent, I’m honestly very grateful to think my grandchildren may grow up in a safer world because one president was willing to take a bold stand on a problem others only tried to ignore or manage.
What’s becoming clear is that some people seem to prefer the opposite outcome, and that says quite a bit about their mindset.I would like to remind you; we used nuclear weapons two times. Also, Trump withdrew from these Cold War treaties.
INF Treaty (1987) — U.S. withdrawal announced in 2019.
Open Skies Treaty (1992) — U.S. withdrawal in 2020.
New START (2011) — He did not withdraw, but he also did not extend it; the extension was done under President Biden in 2021.I think you may have missed the point I was making. My comment was specifically about Iran’s nuclear program and the effectiveness of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, not about Cold War arms treaties between the United States and Russia. Those are two very different issues with very different strategic purposes.
The treaties you mentioned, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Open Skies Treaty, and New START, were agreements designed to regulate nuclear weapons and military transparency between major nuclear powers, primarily the United States and Russia. Iran was never part of those treaties because it is not a recognized nuclear weapons state under those frameworks. Bringing them into this discussion doesn’t really address the question of whether the Iran deal actually prevented Iran from developing a nuclear capability.
My point was simply that the 2015 agreement did not dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It placed limits on it for a period of time but still allowed uranium enrichment, maintained thousands of centrifuges, and included sunset provisions where key restrictions would eventually expire. That’s why many analysts at the time described it as delaying the program rather than eliminating it.
You’re also right that nuclear weapons have been used twice in history. But that example actually highlights why so many people are concerned about preventing additional nuclear states from emerging, especially in unstable regions. The goal of international pressure on Iran has been to prevent exactly that scenario from developing.
Another important factor is Iran’s long-standing relationship with militant proxy groups. Through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Quds Force, Iran has supported groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and other regional militias. Because of that history, many people believe Iran simply should never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. The concern isn’t about opposing diplomacy or arms control in general; it’s about preventing a regime with well-documented ties to proxy militant groups from gaining that level of destructive capability.
Did Trump say not to start a war with Iran? YES, many times
Did Trump pull the trigger to start shooting at Iran without just cause to make it legal and with a rational that HE was responsible for in the first place? - YES
So, it is NOT a stretch to say Trump started the shooting war.
As to the treaty:
The JCPOA did place some temporary time limits on Iran’s nuclear program, but that was a deliberate design choice rooted in both diplomacy and nuclear-nonproliferation realities. Trump wants all or nothing and generally ends up with nothing. Real diplomats work toward a sustainable outcome, which is what JCPOA was until Trump shot it down and made the world much less safe.
First, it is true that the agreement did not dismantle Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure. Iran was allowed to retain a limited enrichment program, operate a reduced number of centrifuges, and maintain certain facilities under strict monitoring. - monitoring that WAS working. But that reflects an important legal and diplomatic constraint: under the Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Many people do not realized that countries that do not possess nuclear weapons are still permitted to pursue peaceful nuclear energy, including uranium enrichment under safeguards. Iran insisted on retaining that right, and the other negotiating parties—including the United States, the EU, Russia, and China—recognized that a deal requiring total dismantlement would likely have been rejected outright.
Second, the time limits (often called “sunset provisions”) were necessary to get an agreement at all. Negotiations were conducted between sovereign states with conflicting goals:
The United States and its partners wanted to push Iran’s “breakout time” (the time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb) to at least about one year.
Iran wanted sanctions relief and recognition of its civilian nuclear program.
The compromise was to impose very strict limits for a defined period—for example, caps on enrichment levels, stockpiles of uranium, and numbers of advanced centrifuges—combined with the most intrusive inspection regime ever negotiated, administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These limits gradually phased out over time because Iran would not accept permanent restrictions beyond those imposed on other NPT members. - It was essential to have some deal that worked rather than no deal at all.[b]
Third, the time limits were intended to buy time and reduce immediate risk, not permanently solve every future proliferation concern. [b]During the years the core restrictions were in force, Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile dropped by roughly 98%, enrichment levels were capped well below weapons grade, and inspectors had continuous monitoring of key facilities. The strategy was to prevent a near-term nuclear crisis while allowing diplomacy and political change to evolve over a longer horizon. And it was working until Trump took office and allowed Iran to restart their weapons program - this is ALL on Trump and his stupidity.
In other words, the JCPOA was structured less as a permanent abolition of Iran’s nuclear capability—something Iran would never have agreed to—and more as a risk-management agreement: stretch breakout time, impose unprecedented inspections, and reduce tensions long enough to stabilize the situation.
Whether that approach was sufficient or sustainable remains a matter of political debate, but the time limits were not accidental. They were the central diplomatic compromise that made the agreement possible in the first place.
But Trump had to be the Bully, didn't he.
A lot of voices putting it together... Recognizing what is really going on.
Go to the 13:15 mark for what I mean:
https://youtu.be/5NedzcS7R3o?si=UAUoBl8T68mqIvItYou don’t have to look very far to see the costs of Trump's unprovoked war with Iran are piling up.
* Tens of thousands of Americans left stranded having to dodge Iranian missiles.
* Oil has surged from roughly the low-$70s before the conflict to about $100 a barrel, and U.S. gas prices have jumped from about $2.30 to $3.60 a gallon.
* Global shipping and aviation routes are being disrupted, tankers are stranded and/or sunk
* Financial markets have been rattled by the instability, with the Dow down 739 points on March 12 alone and 2,700 points overall!
* The conflict is also reportedly burning through roughly $1 billion a day—Reuters reported the administration told lawmakers the first six days had already cost at least $11.3 billion—which is an enormous new burden on an already strained federal budget.
* Human cost is not abstract: seven U.S. service members have been killed so far and about 140 have been wounded, including several severely.
* Jews and military are under increased attack in America. Already, since Trump started this thing, there have a highly unusual 4 domestic attacks related to Iran in just the last 12 days!
Perhaps most troubling of all is that no one, especially Trump, seems able to clearly explain why this war started or what success is supposed to look like. Different officials have offered different, sometimes contradictory justifications—nuclear prevention, deterrence, regional stability, regime pressure—but none of that adds up to a clear end point. Even public opinion reflects that confusion: a Washington Post poll released today found that nearly two-thirds of Americans think the administration has failed to clearly communicate the war’s goals. That is how countries drift into expensive, open-ended conflicts: rising casualties, rising prices, rising instability, and no clearly defined destination.
Clearly, Trump, once again, had no clue what he is doing during his chest-thumping tantrum.We add on to the fact that the successor to the late Ayatollah is full of resolve not to allow the killing of his family to go unaddressed, it is now more than a military confrontation, its personal.
And “helter skelter” will be the outcome as none of it seemed to have been properly anticipated by this administration. You can expect the body count to rise, ripples in the economy starting with price at the pump that will attract the attention of those otherwise politically non-affiliated. Perhaps, then, people will ask the hard questions as to why we are there?Do you think that the body count will rise to the level of a nuke in NYC?
What is your fantasy, Wilderness, more of the false equivalency that you are world renowned in practicing?
I share your train of thought. It’s odd how some people refuse to listen to the reason Trump is working to remove the threat you’re talking about. The danger of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons isn’t just theoretical—it was becoming a very real possibility. When things get difficult, some people simply can’t face that reality. Instead, they try to downplay or soften it with rhetoric rather than confront the seriousness of the situation.
What I find odd is that people on the Right refuse to reason at all.
You seem to keep forgetting that it was Trump 1.0 who made the threat of Iran getting a nuclear bomb possible in the first place!It was Obama releasing hundreds of billions...
It was Biden releasing tens of billions...
To a terrorist rogue nation (Iran) that funded the Hamas, Houthis, and Hezbollah... that is what made Oct 7th possible... that is what made Iran getting nukes possible.
Two weak Administrations that let a terrorist nation go wild.Really? It was Trump that released billions of dollars to them? It was Trump that set up an agreement that they never followed and then failed to follow up and check on it? It was [i]Trump} that failed to enforce the agreement on no Nukes, ignoring it as Iran proceeded merrily along, doing their level best to produce both bombs and delivery systems?
I don't think so...Iran did not fully comply with the nuclear agreement it signed and agreed to uphold. While the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was meant to impose strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program and give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) broad inspection and verification access, Iran repeatedly limited or refused cooperation beyond the basic terms:
The deal was supposed to allow comprehensive access for the IAEA to inspect Iran’s nuclear facilities and verify that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons. However, Iran restricted inspections and cooperation with the IAEA over time, especially after 2018, including suspending cooperation under its own domestic laws and refusing to allow access that the Agency needed to verify activities and materials.
The IAEA itself reported that it had lost continuity of knowledge about Iran’s nuclear program because Iran did not provide full access for inspections and verification of nuclear material and facilities. This meant experts could not confirm what was happening at key sites.
Iran passed legislation that barred IAEA inspectors from entering many nuclear sites and required non‑routine inspections to be approved by Tehran’s own security council — not independent international oversight.
Even when there were efforts to resume inspections, Iran made cooperation contingent on political conditions, and then backed away from agreements that would have restored meaningful access for the IAEA.
• Ultimately, Iran officially ended its participation in the nuclear deal in October 2025 and rejected the restrictions and mechanisms it had previously agreed to, including inspection requirements.
So while the JCPOA set up limits and monitoring intended to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Iran repeatedly undermined the verification process by restricting or refusing full access to inspectors and by ultimately abandoning the framework it had agreed to. This wasn’t just a matter of negotiations; it was a failure to uphold the deal’s most critical accountability measures.
These are a few facts that it appears some do not want to realize. In my view, we were on the precipice of being blown to smithereens.When you tell me something that is factual, I can respond.
Here is what is factual - Iran and the West had an agreement that stopped them from enriching uranium and allowed inspections that were working. Trump ripped that up because 1) it was an Obama success and 2) he wanted to have a reason to act tough by imposing sanctions.
Trump is absolutely responsible for the mess we are in today which included letting Iran start enriching uranium again. There is no way you can overcome that factual with right-wing propaganda and lies.Do you understand that an agreement does NOT stop anything from happening? It can work ONLY if followed, and Iran most definitely did NOT follow it.
It was ripped up because Iran did not follow it, pure and simple. Nor did Iran start enriching uranium again - they never stopped! And there is no way you can overcome that factual with left-wing propaganda and lies.
But you know all of this - the question is why you are denying it now and putting everything on a man that had nothing to do with any of it. Certainly looks like TDS to me.
Its more than just that.
That regime just massacred between 30,000 and 40,000 of its own people.
So don't talk to me about a child that accidently was killed in an American attack or a school that accidentally got bombed.
We are trying to not only protect ourselves (America) and keep oil flowing through the strait (rather than be held hostage by Iran backed terrorists)... we are trying to rid the world of a regime that massacres its own people.
There you have it... anyone arguing against what we are doing is an idiot, I don't care how educated they are... this is 47 years past due... way, way, past due.
In fact if you are arguing against what Trump has done, here, with Iran or Venezuela, consider yourself a traitor to America and what is best for American citizens and the world... because that is exactly what you are.Absolutely, I agree with what you’re saying. Yes, innocent lives have tragically been lost in this conflict, and that’s heartbreaking. War always brings that horror, especially when regimes deliberately place military targets near schools, hospitals, and civilian areas, effectively using their own people as shields. That makes the loss of innocent life even more reprehensible.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the massive, decades‑long history of brutal repression by the Iranian regime against its own citizens, most recently the unprecedented massacre of protesters earlier this year. International human rights groups and U.N. bodies have documented mass killings, torture, forced disappearances, and efforts to conceal atrocities during nationwide protests that erupted in late 2025 and early 2026. Estimates from credible sources place the death toll in the tens of thousands, and the U.N. Human Rights Council has condemned these killings.
I am grateful we have a president who is willing to do the heavy lifting, facing the hard truth that this regime had to be stopped, not just for the U.S., but for the world. I am sick of haughty people from other nations criticizing Trump. They would benefit from our actions without lifting a finger, and most, if ever in a jam, would turn to the U.S. without blinking.
It sickens me to see some on the left excuse or downplay this genocide while focusing only on collateral damage elsewhere. Many of those same voices once defended groups like Hamas, so it’s sadly not surprising they’d turn a blind eye to Iran’s state terror. If we truly care about innocent life, we should condemn both indiscriminate attacks and the systemic, decades‑long slaughter and repression by tyrannical regimes.
At the end of the day, what we’re witnessing is more than a military conflict; it’s the world confronting a regime that has crushed its own people without accountability for years. That reality absolutely deserves attention and action, not excuses or moral equivalence.“I am grateful we have a president who is willing to do the heavy lifting, facing the hard truth that this regime had to be stopped, not just for the U.S., but for the world. I am sick of haughty people from other nations criticizing Trump. They would benefit from our actions without lifting a finger, and most, if ever in a jam, would turn to the U.S. without blinking.”
——————-
The point is that the ends does not justify the means…….I understand the philosophical point that “the ends don’t justify the means,” but that principle can’t exist in a vacuum when dealing with real-world threats. When a regime like Iran is moving closer to nuclear capability, the risk isn’t theoretical, it’s global.
Again---- The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that Iran has enriched uranium to 60% purity, which is just a short technical step away from weapons-grade. There is no civilian need for enrichment at that level. Intelligence assessments have also warned that Iran’s breakout time to produce weapons-grade material has shrunk to days, not the year it once was under previous agreements. Do you just choose to ignore the facts from the IAEA?
History has shown us that waiting for regimes with openly hostile intentions to cross the finish line can be catastrophic. The world learned that lesson the hard way more than once in the last century. Preventing a nuclear-armed Iran isn’t about politics, it’s about preventing a level of instability that could trigger nuclear proliferation across the Middle East.
So in this case, it isn’t simply about “ends versus means.” It’s about preventing a far greater danger before it becomes irreversible. Leadership sometimes requires making difficult decisions that others are unwilling to make, especially when the consequences of inaction could be far worse.
And frankly, my original point still stands: many of the countries criticizing the U.S. would quietly benefit from the threat being contained, while relying on America to shoulder the burden of confronting it. This is my view, and it’s not one I arrived at casually. It comes from taking the time to do careful research and looking closely at the facts.
The difference is Ken is that our munitions did this. I have no control over what goes on in within the Iranian regime, but all of this sounds much like the same “atrocities” used to support the Iraq war 23 years ago.
I say that it is foolish to allow one man unchecked and unilateral authority to wage these wars. It is the idiots that cannot see the danger clearly before them.
Sharlee, Israel has been saying that Iran has been on the brink of developing a nuclear weapons for 30 years. Does Chicken Little come into play here?
I understand the “Chicken Little” argument because we’ve heard warnings about Iran’s nuclear program for decades. But the difference now is that multiple international agencies and intelligence assessments say Iran is closer than it has ever been.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported that Iran has enriched uranium to 60% purity, which is just short of the 90% needed for weapons-grade material. That level of enrichment has no civilian purpose, and Iran is the only non-nuclear state producing it.
According to U.S. intelligence assessments and reports reviewed by Congress, Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear weapon in less than a week if it decided to enrich its existing stockpile further.
Other nuclear analysts estimate that Iran’s “breakout time”, the time required to produce enough fissile material for a bomb, has dropped to days or roughly a week, when under the 2015 nuclear deal it used to be about one year.
On top of that, the IAEA has warned that Iran has accumulated hundreds of kilograms of near-weapons-grade uranium, theoretically enough material for several nuclear bombs if enriched further.
So when people say Iran was “very close,” they’re not just repeating political talking points. Those warnings are coming from organizations like the IAEA, U.S. intelligence agencies, and nuclear proliferation experts who monitor the program.
As negotiator Steve Witkoff put it during discussions about Iran’s program: “The world cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon.” His point, and the point of many policymakers, is that once a regime with Iran’s history reaches that threshold, the risk to the region and the world changes dramatically.
That’s why many people, including me, believe strong action to stop Iran from reaching that capability is justified.
Agree to disagree.
This would require the existance of a nuclear bomb device from Iran.
Wasn´t it the Great Trump who had declared a couple of months ago that Irans nuclear program hat been bombed to oblivion?
A UAE diplomat stated: "We have contributed and joined Trumps Board of Peace to keep our region calm and peaceful. We did not invite the USA to start a war and destabilize our region."
As long as Iran is able to fire cheap drones at targets within a 1000 mile radius, the USA is loosing this war. No plan, no boots on the ground, no support for opposition groups in Iran, the Mullah regime adapting fast - there is no end to the war.A nice measured response to a wildly hyperbolic and fear-mongering question.
It is becoming less and less likely that Trump and Netanyahu will "win" the war they started as each day passes.
As far as I am concerned all Trump is doing is thumping his chest some more - unless he is will to use ground troops, after day three it became nearly impossible for him to "win".
What constitutes winning, you ask. Regime change the answer. Until Iran becomes incapable of reconstituting its nuclear, ballistic missile, and drone production capabilities - Trump has LOST. The ONLY way those goals can be achieved is through regime change that disavows the production of all those weapons.
Some think "winning" is simply blow a lot of things up and destroying a lot of buildings. That is naive and simplistic thinking. To win, Trump is going to have to go in and physically take out the revolutionary guard and replace the leadership - period.What constitutes winning, you ask. Regime change the answer. Until Iran becomes incapable of reconstituting its nuclear, ballistic missile, and drone production capabilities - Trump has LOST. The ONLY way those goals can be achieved is through regime change that disavows the production of all those weapons.
That will require boots on the ground and a gritty grimy ground war. Who is up to that possibility?
Now for a little sanity and reality check,
"Trump administration underestimated Iran war’s impact on Strait of Hormuz"
Duh, you think?
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/12/politics … mated-iranWOW, America finally gets it right!!
A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that a whopping 71% disapprove of Trump’s strikes on Iran, while 64% said he had not clearly explained the goals of the military action. The same poll found 60% expect U.S. military involvement to continue for a long time, and 67% expect higher gas prices as a result.
A Washington Post poll published yesterday found only 34% support continuing the strikes, while 42% want them halted and 24% are unsure. It also found 53% say the conflict will not improve long-term U.S. security, and nearly two-thirds said the administration has not clearly communicated its purpose.One question, what sort of stupid man as commander and chief would meet grieving families at Dover dressed in a baseball cap? Such a callous coward, having no respect for the fallen who does not even measure up to the very thumbnails of the men who gave their lives over his boondoggle. It was so bad that even Fox had to lie about the reality of the event.
Would you have preferred a top hat? And beanie? The pope's skull cap?
What made YOU the king of fashion?I would respond by pointing out that the hat itself is part of how Donald Trump often expresses pride in the country. He frequently wears hats that say “USA” or similar patriotic messages, and many supporters see that as a symbol of national pride rather than disrespect. Interpreting it as “callous” assumes the worst possible motive when it can just as easily be seen as the opposite.
The criticism also ignores the setting. When a president attends a dignified transfer at Dover Air Force Base, the important thing is that the commander-in-chief shows up to honor the fallen and meet the grieving families. Whether someone is wearing a suit, a jacket, or a hat with “USA” on it does not determine the level of respect shown. In fact, a hat that literally represents the country could reasonably be interpreted as honoring the nation those service members died serving.
I would also point out that the comment uses heavy insults, “stupid,” “coward,” “callous”, instead of making a factual argument. That kind of language tends to inflame political divisions rather than address what actually happened.
As of the most recent reporting, no Gold Star family members from that ceremony have publicly criticized the hat worn by Donald Trump during the dignified transfer at Dover Air Force Base.
Multiple reports noted that the criticism mainly came from politicians, commentators, and people on social media, not from the families themselves. One report specifically stated that “as of the time of publication, no Gold Star family from the March 7 ceremony has commented publicly on Trump’s attire.”Sharlee, it is a time for mourning not political posturing. I think that the President of the United States should have taken a more solemn tack to all of this.
What you wear does show the level of respect shown, should Trump had worn a t-shirt or polo shirt, could you see that as inappropriate?
It is a factual argument, Trump’s decorum here is unacceptable, why did Fox conceal this particular instance? Did they see what you obviously are not seeing?
https://apnews.com/article/baseball-cap … a2eb5109d9
Why apologize they did it deliberately….. it is true I have found no complaints from among the families who lost loved one.
In my opinion, of courseI shared my thoughts at length, and I understand that many Americans, including some in the military, took offense. Do you think he wore the hat to intentionally insult anyone, or could it have simply been an oversight?
And I agree, Fox did try to pull a fast one.Fox has made it clear that it has a clear partisan slant on its news coverage.
No, he did not intend to insult anyone, it was just indifference and that is just as bad. Even if he did not actually care about the fallen soldiers, as Commander and Chief, decorum would suggest that he at least make the appearance.
Face it Credence - Trump has no couth, no sense of decorum, no sense of propriety - he is an ugly, ugly man! Why would MAGA love him so much if not because they look up to those traits.
This is a great... very well produced... example of whatever you think you know... you don't really know:
A great look into Iran's past 100 years...
The True Story of the CIA Coup in Iran and the Islamic Revolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oIQD5bYqJMOn this we agree. Trump does not pander to social demands well, he is his own person and it shows. Very loudly.
Between that and a man (or woman) whose every move must be choreographed, whose dress is always a top priority that must fit with current fashion, whose every word has to be another meaningless platitude or exaggeration designed and intended to buy votes rather than impart information...between the two I know which I would choose. And I think I know which you would choose as well, for you have made that very, very clear.Every time Trump puts a positive spin on anything. He is lying. just yesterday, he said, we are winning and they are ready to make a deal. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I agree.
They have been our enemy for 50 years.
Its time we treat them like that... like a threat that wants to destroy America.
Treat them like we did Japan back in WWII.
Complete absolute unconditional surrender... and the removal of the terrorist theological regime completely and totally, every one of them dead or in jail.Your analogy fails, Ken, in one important respect - Japan started the shooting war with America. In this case, Trump started the shooting war with Iran.
So, for your analogy to work, you need to call for Iran to demand "complete absolute unconditional surrender" from Trump.
Further, given how afraid you are of WW III, why are you calling on Trump to drop nuclear bombs on Iran like we did on Japan?" In this case, Trump started the shooting war with Iran."
Total BS.
This started back in 1979...
It is time to end it... we see what 50 years of being 'understanding' and 'reasonable' has got us.
Time to hunt down and kill every member of the Iranian theocracy... every single one, dead or in jail until they die. Anyone, any organization that supports them as well, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis... every member dead.
That is how you win a war... otherwise... the only thing we are doing is losing in very slow fashion. Waiting for the next Oct 7th or 9/11.
Russia has been our enemy longer than 50 years. Why aren't you advocating for Trump to invade them?
Yeah, i am facing it, he is one individual well out of his element.
My Thoughts on the U.S. Strike today on Iran’s Key Oil Hub
I have been following the latest developments in the conflict with Iran, and one announcement from President Donald Trump stood out to me. According to the president, the United States carried out a major bombing raid on Iran’s Kharg Island, which is considered the heart of Iran’s oil export operations in the Persian Gulf.
From what I understand, Kharg Island handles the overwhelming majority of Iran’s oil shipments, making it one of the most strategically important locations in the region. Because of that, any military action there carries enormous economic and geopolitical implications.
President Trump described the strike in strong terms, saying the U.S. military had “totally obliterated every MILITARY target” on the island.
What struck me most about the statement was that the attack was reportedly focused on military targets rather than the oil infrastructure itself. Trump explained that decision clearly, writing that the United States intentionally chose not to destroy the oil facilities on the island “out of decency.”
At the same time, he issued a very direct warning. If Iran, or anyone else, tries to interfere with ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, that restraint could disappear. As he put it:
“Should Iran, or anyone else, do anything to interfere with the Free and Safe Passage of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz, I will immediately reconsider this decision.”
For anyone watching the region, the Strait of Hormuz is a critical piece of the puzzle. A significant portion of the world’s oil supply moves through that narrow waterway, and even the threat of disruption can send global energy markets into turmoil.
Reports say the strike comes amid a broader military campaign against Iranian forces, with thousands of targets already hit as the conflict continues to escalate. The Pentagon has indicated that U.S. forces are working to dismantle Iran’s ability to threaten shipping or launch attacks in the region.
At the same time, the broader situation remains tense. Iran has warned that attacks on its energy infrastructure could lead to retaliation against regional oil facilities and other targets aligned with the United States.
From my perspective, this strike represents a significant moment in the conflict. Hitting military targets at the center of Iran’s oil export system sends a powerful message without immediately destroying the oil infrastructure itself. It shows both capability and restraint, but also makes it clear that further escalation could change that balance quickly. A red line has been drawn...
What happens next will likely depend on whether Iran continues to challenge shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and how both sides respond in the days ahead.Don´t do much explaining if there is nothing to explain.
What was it that Trump said in a Foxnews interview: "The war is over, when i feel it, when i feel it in my bones". Just hilarious.
Why do much reasoning about this clueless war? Probably Trump had his breakfast with too much olive oil and he thought: "Oil , oil, we have to attack the crude oil storage of Iran".My Thoughts on the USA Strike Today on Iran’s Key Oil Hub:
Trump claimed that the USA deliberately chose not to destroy the island’s oil facilities “out of decency.” It’s a curious justification — and it naturally raises questions about what the real calculation might be.
He also issued a very direct warning: if Iran attempts to interfere with ships travelling through the Strait of Hormuz, that restraint may disappear. As he put it:
“Should Iran, or anyone else, do anything to interfere with the Free and Safe Passage of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz, I will immediately reconsider this decision.”
On 3 March, Trump announced that the USA Navy “will begin escorting commercial tankers through the Strait of Hormuz.” Yet eleven days have passed with no indication of if or when that promise will be carried out. It’s hard not to see a pattern.
Yesterday, Trump repeated his 3 March statement, saying the USA would escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz if needed. Surely it has been needed — and needed for nearly two weeks.
Today he added that “it will happen soon.” But how soon — and is that simply more rhetoric?
At this point, it seems increasingly likely that Trump is wary of the risk that Iran could ‘strike lucky’ and inflict serious damage on a vessel in the American fleet — a risk he may not be eager to test.I think the conclusion being drawn here is a bit premature. Announcing that the United States Navy will escort commercial tankers through the Strait of Hormuz doesn’t mean those escorts begin the next morning. Operations like that require positioning ships, coordinating with commercial carriers, working with allied navies, establishing rules of engagement, and making sure the threat environment is understood. That planning is exactly what responsible military leadership is supposed to do.
It’s also worth noting that the United States is already moving additional forces into the region. Amphibious ships such as the USS Tripoli (LHA‑7) and thousands of Marines have been deployed to strengthen the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf. Destroyers capable of escorting commercial vessels are also part of the planning. The strategy appears to be reducing the threat first—mines, drones, and anti-ship missiles, so that shipping can move through the strait safely rather than rushing ships into a volatile situation.
Suggesting that Donald Trump must be afraid Iran could “strike lucky” assumes that caution equals weakness. In reality, any president would weigh the risk of escalation before placing American sailors and commercial crews in harm’s way. Deterrence often works precisely because it signals capability while giving the other side room to back down without triggering an immediate confrontation with Iran.
A week or two between an announcement and the start of a complex naval operation doesn’t show a “pattern.” If anything, it shows that the military is doing what it should, moving assets into position and preparing properly so ships can pass through the strait safely rather than rushing into a headline-driven response.
I feel that, thus far, the operation appears to be well thought out and carefully planned. It seems the military is working through the objectives that have been laid out before moving into the next phase. The United States Navy has indicated that escort operations through the Strait of Hormuz would only begin once the threat level from mines, drones, and missile attacks is reduced, which suggests the focus right now is on preparing the environment so ships can pass safely.
From what I see, Donald Trump has been giving very clear warnings and setting firm red lines for Iran. At the same time, he appears to be leaving the leadership in Iran with options to step back and avoid further destruction or escalation. That combination, clear warnings while still leaving room for de-escalation, looks less like hesitation and more like an attempt to prevent a larger conflict while still protecting the free flow of energy through the region.You’ve written a long defence of what you think is happening behind the scenes, but none of it addresses the basic contradiction in Trump’s own statements — and that’s what my post was about.
On 8 March, Trump publicly said the USA “does not need the UK’s help” and mocked the UK for being “too late” to join the war.
Yet only days later, he posted that he hopes the UK, China, France, Japan, South Korea and others will send warships to help him in the Strait of Hormuz.
Those two positions cannot both be true. Either he doesn’t need help, or he’s asking half the world to send ships.
You mention coordination with allies. Trump didn’t consult allies before launching this war, and since becoming President he has repeatedly insulted, threatened, or undermined the very countries he now wants help from — whether it was personal attacks on UK leaders, tariff threats against the EU and UK, or even threatening Denmark over Greenland. The UK has already refused him permission to use British military bases for offensive operations, granting access only for defensive purposes. That distinction matters — and it shows clearly that this is not a coordinated allied effort. It’s Trump acting alone and then asking others to clean up the consequences.
You mention Marines being moved into the region — but that’s happening now, long after his public announcement that escort operations “will begin.” If this was part of a coherent plan, those assets would have been in place before he made the promise, not nearly two weeks after.
You say any president would weigh the risk of escalation before putting American sailors in harm’s way. Yet Trump is now asking the UK and others to put their sailors in harm’s way for a conflict they didn’t agree to. If this is his war, why is he asking others to absorb the risk?
You argue there’s no pattern. But the pattern is obvious: bold announcements, repeated promises, and then a scramble to catch up — if at all.
And none of your interpretation changes the basic fact: Trump set expectations with his own words. He hasn’t met them. Everything else is just narrative to fill the gap.I understand why you, as someone from the UK, might feel that Trump’s statements look contradictory, but that interpretation ignores the reality of both diplomacy and military strategy. Yes, he said the U.S. “does not need the UK’s help” and later welcomed allied support, but context matters. The war he is leading is just and necessary: it’s aimed at stopping a terrorist nation from acquiring nuclear weapons, a threat that has existed for decades and should have been resolved long ago. When you’re dealing with a nuclear-armed terrorist regime, you act decisively while leaving room for allies to join safely, not all at once and not at the risk of lives being wasted.
Coordination with allies doesn’t happen instantaneously, especially when past tensions exist. The U.S. moving Marines and positioning assets now is part of careful planning, not a “scramble to catch up.” Military operations take time to execute safely, and the goal is to protect American lives and commercial shipping, not to create a headline. Trump isn’t asking allies to “clean up the consequences”; he’s inviting them to contribute once the operational environment is secure. That is how alliances function in high-risk scenarios.
As for the UK’s restrictions on military bases, that doesn’t undermine the legitimacy of the operation—it simply reflects national sovereignty. The fact that the U.S. can still act independently in its own defense shows leadership and responsibility, not recklessness. And asking allies to contribute, once the environment is prepared, is not putting them at undue risk; it’s part of a coordinated defensive effort.
The so-called “pattern” of announcements followed by action isn’t a sign of weakness or mismanagement. It reflects strategic caution: a president signaling red lines to deter aggression while simultaneously ensuring that American forces are positioned safely. Common sense says you don’t throw Marines, ships, or sailors into a hot zone without preparation; that’s how disasters happen, and Trump is avoiding that.
Bottom line: this war is just, necessary, and long overdue. Criticizing timing or allied coordination without acknowledging the nuclear threat or the complexity of the operation misses the entire point. Trump is acting to protect not only the U.S., but the world, from a terrorist regime gaining nuclear power, and that is leadership, not indecision.You’re presenting this as if Trump’s shifting statements are simply “diplomacy” or “strategy,” but the contradictions are on video and they’re not a matter of interpretation. On 8 March he said the USA “does not need the UK’s help” and mocked the UK for being “too late.” Days later he said he hopes the UK, China, France, Japan, South Korea and others will send warships. Those two positions cannot both be true, and no amount of strategic language makes them consistent.
You describe this as “careful planning,” but the sequence of events doesn’t support that. If escort operations were part of a coherent plan, the assets would have been positioned before Trump publicly announced that they “will begin,” not nearly two weeks after. Moving Marines now isn’t evidence of foresight — it’s evidence that the planning wasn’t done beforehand.
You also frame this as a “team effort,” but Trump didn’t consult allies before launching the war, and since becoming President he has repeatedly insulted or threatened the very countries he now wants help from. The UK’s refusal to allow the use of British bases for offensive operations — while permitting defensive use — shows clearly that this isn’t a coordinated allied campaign. It’s Trump acting unilaterally and then asking others to join after the fact.
And now we’re seeing the consequences of that approach. Sir Keir Starmer has refused Trump’s request for the UK to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz. Other countries’ responses appear muted at best. And this morning, speaking from Air Force One, Trump was once again publicly pleading for help — pleas that don’t seem to be gaining much traction.
You say he’s “inviting allies to contribute once the environment is secure,” but if the environment were secure, escorts wouldn’t be needed. If it isn’t secure, then asking other nations to send their ships into a dangerous zone is asking them to absorb the risk for a conflict they didn’t initiate.
You argue that announcements followed by delays are “strategic caution.” But when the announcements are this bold, this specific, and this public, and the follow‑through is this slow, the pattern speaks for itself. The gap between what Trump says and what actually happens is the issue — not the justification you’re building around it.
And then there’s the line you quoted:
“We don’t need people that join wars after we’ve already won!”
Given the current state of affairs — tankers still unescorted, allies declining to send ships, and Trump repeatedly asking for help — the claim that “we’ve already won” looks less like strategy and more like wartime propaganda.You make valid observations about timing, statements, and coordination. It’s true that Trump’s words on different days may seem contradictory at first glance. But I think it’s important to consider context: the first statement about “not needing the UK’s help” could have reflected confidence in initial U.S. capabilities or a negotiating posture, while the later request for allied support doesn’t necessarily negate that, It reflects a dynamic situation where broader cooperation becomes advantageous once the operational picture changes.
Regarding planning and follow-through, yes, the timing of deployments isn’t instantaneous. Military logistics and international coordination take time. Announcing intent publicly can serve multiple purposes: sending signals to allies and adversaries alike, demonstrating resolve, and maintaining public confidence. That doesn’t automatically mean the plan was poorly conceived, it can simply reflect the realities of executing complex operations while communicating in real time.
On allies, it’s true Trump hasn’t always consulted them before making public statements, and there’s tension in some relationships. But inviting allies to assist after a unilateral action isn’t inherently reckless; it’s a way to share responsibility once the U.S. has secured its immediate objectives and wants to extend security collectively. Countries deciding to participate or not doesn’t invalidate the U.S.’s operational planning; it just highlights the limits of influence over independent allies.
Finally, regarding the “we’ve already won” line, I see it more as rhetorical framing than a literal claim. Leaders often use optimistic language to reassure domestic audiences and signal strength, even if risk still exists. That doesn’t erase the challenges, but it does contextualize why the statement was made.
In short, yes, there are gaps between statements and actions, and some of the rhetoric is bold. But I’d argue that these patterns are not necessarily failures, they reflect a combination of confidence, signaling, and real-world constraints rather than pure propaganda or inconsistency.You’re describing Trump’s approach to allies as if it’s some kind of mature “sharing responsibility” model. It isn’t. It’s a year of insults, threats and tariff wars followed by a demand that the same people he’s been attacking now line up behind his war of choice.
Since becoming President he has:
- Called NATO “obsolete” and repeatedly questioned whether the USA should honour Article 5.
- Branded the EU a “foe” on trade and treated it as an economic enemy rather than a partner.
- Launched tariff wars against the EU and the UK, and even threatened 10%–25% tariffs on eight European NATO allies — including the UK — over Greenland, simply because they opposed his attempt to assert control there.
- Publicly attacked Sir Keir Starmer’s “terrible” leadership over Iran and said he was “not happy with the UK” because Britain wouldn’t instantly fall into line.
- Warned that NATO faces a “very bad future” if allies don’t help secure the Strait of Hormuz, effectively trying to pressure the alliance into backing a conflict that, as UK ministers have pointed out, has nothing to do with NATO at all.
That’s not coalition‑building. It’s the behaviour of someone who assumes allies are vassals — and is now discovering they aren’t.
Before the WEF earlier this year, most European leaders and the UK did try to manage him: polite visits, careful language, a lot of teeth‑gritting in the hope he’d stay roughly within the lines. But there’s a limit. After a year of being treated as enemies, threatened with tariffs, lectured about NATO contributions, and now pressured to support a war they didn’t start and weren’t consulted on, it’s hardly surprising that EU leaders and Starmer are finally saying “no”.
And that’s the core problem with your paragraph. You talk about the USA “securing its immediate objectives” and then “inviting allies to assist”. But this isn’t a shared mission. Trump started this war unilaterally. He didn’t go through NATO, he didn’t build a coalition, he didn’t treat partners as equals. Now, when he finds himself short of ships and political cover, he suddenly wants the very people he’s been insulting and sanctioning to “share responsibility”.
Countries deciding not to participate doesn’t just “highlight the limits of influence over independent allies”; it highlights the cost of spending a year undermining, threatening and belittling them — and then expecting them to clean up after you.
If you treat allies like punching bags, don’t be surprised when, at the moment you most want them beside you, they fold their arms and stay put.
Sharlee - they look contradictory because they ARE contradictory. It is pretty simple really.
ChatGPT found a FEW examples out of many obvious contradictions.
* “This will end soon” vs. “wars can be fought forever.”
On March 11, Trump told Axios there was “practically nothing left” to target and that the war would end “soon,” adding, “Any time I want it to end, it will end.” But on March 3, he said the U.S. had a “virtually unlimited supply” of munitions and that wars can be fought “forever.”
* “Quick war” vs. rejecting ceasefire efforts.
Trump and his aides said the conflict would be over “pretty quick” or within “the next few weeks,” but Reuters then reported on March 14 that Trump had rejected efforts to launch Iran ceasefire talks, which cuts directly against the claim that he was urgently trying to end the war.
* “This is about nukes and missiles” vs. language implying regime change.
On March 2, Trump publicly framed the war as necessary to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and to stop its long-range missile program. But Reuters noted that just days earlier, when he announced the strikes, he urged Iranians to “take back your country,” which plainly implied regime change. Reuters also reported he told outlets he was open to talking with whoever emerged to lead Iran and cited the Venezuela operation as a model.
* “We need other countries’ warships” vs. “we don’t need this.”
Trump has pressed other countries to send warships to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and said he expected many countries to participate. But AP reported that he also argued the Strait is not really something the United States needs because America has its own oil access, and then insisted the U.S. didn’t need help because “we’re the strongest nation in the world.” That is a pretty direct tension: demanding allied help for something he says America itself does not need.
* “We’ll escort tankers” vs. shifting responsibility to others.
AP reported that in the early days of the conflict Trump said U.S. Navy vessels would escort oil tankers through Hormuz. Later, as costs and oil-price pressure rose, he shifted to asking other countries to send their own ships and warships instead.
“Not declaring it over yet” vs. “practically nothing left.”
On March 11, Trump said there was “practically nothing left” to target. But Reuters separately reported that on March 15 he said, “I’m still not declaring it over,” even while describing Iran as decimated. Those are hard to square cleanly: either the mission is basically finished, or it is not.
“Only military targets” vs. “we may hit it a few more times just for fun.”
Reuters reported Trump had previously said the U.S. was targeting only military sites on Kharg Island. Then Reuters quoted him telling NBC News, “We may hit it a few more times just for fun.” That is not just a tonal shift; it undercuts the earlier claim of a narrowly bounded military rationale.
* “Maybe I’d talk with Iran” vs. “we’re not interested in talks right now.”
On March 10, Trump said it was “possible” he would talk with Iran. By March 16, Reuters reported the White House was showing no interest in engaging through Omani channels, with Trump saying the problem was that “we don’t know” who is leading Iran.
* “We don’t really need the Strait” vs. asking other countries to help reopen it.
AP reported Trump argued the U.S. doesn’t really need the Strait of Hormuz the way other countries do because America has its own oil. At the same time, he said he had asked about seven countries to send warships to police and reopen the strait.
* “We’re the strongest nation in the world” vs. pleading for allied naval help.
Trump insisted the U.S. could handle things because it is the “strongest nation in the world,” yet Reuters and AP both reported that he was actively pressing allies such as Britain, France, Japan, South Korea, and others to contribute ships because the U.S. wanted a coalition to secure Hormuz.
“This was a limited strike on military targets” vs. floating seizure of Iran’s main oil hub.
Reuters reported Trump said U.S. strikes on Kharg Island hit military targets there. But Reuters also later reported he was eyeing seizure of Kharg Island, which is Iran’s main oil export hub. That is a big leap from a narrowly bounded military action to direct control over a major piece of Iran’s oil infrastructure.
* “We know what we’re doing” vs. “we don’t know if their new leader is even alive.”
Trump has projected confidence about the campaign and its goals, but Reuters reported him saying on March 16 that the U.S. did not even know whether Iran’s new leader was still alive. That is a remarkable admission of uncertainty in the middle of a war whose endgame he has claimed to control.
That is clearly the ramblings of an unstable mind.
...
Your logic ... your prioritization ... and definitely what information (intel) being used to make those decisions will be wildly different and will not apply to his decision making.
How much of what he says and presents is an act... good luck figuring out where the Mask starts and ends.
This is what I know... if I were smarter than he is... I would probably be a billionaire President with friends like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos too...
So... either he is smarter than all the highly educated and sophisticated minds that despise him, whose lives revolve around denigrating him every day (we have some on here that made every waking moment about him for over a decade now)... or we have a systemic failure in human society that allowed an imbecile to become both a billionaire and president of America... twice...
Either way you slice it... its damning to those who have spent a decade despising and denigrating his every move.So far, what I’ve observed is that the mission seems to be carried out with a strategy that would bring Iran to its knees if necessary, while still giving them a chance to back down. It feels like the real intent is to dismantle the current leadership if needed and create new leadership that is more willing to cooperate with neighboring countries. I think the plan of action is being followed to the letter and is working so far. Swift and complete destruction.
I know that I don't know enough to even guess at what the goals are and how much of what has occurred was anticipated...
With all I have written about these conflicts and the politics that seemed to lead us here...
Despite my projections years ago... when the negotiations were shut down shortly after the Ukraine war started... when we chose to walk away rather than negotiating a peace... stating it would lead to WWIII... that it was the beginning of WWIII right then...
Despite being able to connect the dots... Venezuela ... Iran .... Cuba...
China be pushed out of Panama ... Venezuela ... Greenland...
Or see the bigger picture... Libya, Syria, Iraq...
And how ALL these nations tie to Russia...
I can't see where what is going on with Iran is going... other than it is not over... the current leader of Iran will not survive... and that Isreal's part in this makes it that much harder to read where it is going and why.I appreciate the way you’re looking at the bigger picture instead of just the headlines. Most people tend to follow these conflicts one at a time, but when you step back and connect places like Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Libya, Syria, and Iraq, you start to see how many of these situations are tied into the same geopolitical web.
Another thing that makes this situation hard to read is that Iran has traditionally fought conflicts through patience and proxies rather than direct confrontation. Their strategy has usually been about endurance—stretching things out, using regional allies, and avoiding a straight-on fight with a major power.
But I also think there’s something different about the pressure they’re facing now. They’ve never really dealt with a campaign like the one Donald Trump has waged against them. It’s been unrelenting—economic pressure, diplomatic isolation, and targeted actions that keep hitting them over and over, and in places they haven’t been hit before. It isn’t the kind of slow, predictable pressure they’re used to navigating.
Right now it seems like they’re being hit on all fronts and blown to smithereens, militarily, economically, and strategically. Their networks and influence in the region are being challenged in ways we really haven’t seen before.
At some point they also have to realize that Trump has shown he’s willing to keep escalating pressure if they don’t relent, even going as far as targeting critical infrastructure if he believes it’s necessary. That kind of unpredictability changes the equation for a leadership that normally counts on opponents eventually backing off or settling into a stalemate.
So like you said, it’s hard to read where this goes. When you add Israel into the mix, and then consider how Russia and China are watching every move in the region, it really does start to feel less like one conflict and more like a much larger strategic shift that’s still unfolding.
That is your opinion. Here is my opinion. Trump assumed that attacking Iran was going to be the same as attacking Venezuela. It's apparent that he and his cohorts had no knowledge of the Mid-Eastern dynamics. Even a dumb shi*t like me knew about the choke point that could be caused by blocking the Strait of Hormuz.
It's obvious they had no knowledge of the difference between Sunni and Shia and how they hate each other and that our military is based in Sunni controlled countries. That's why Iran is bombing our military. It's interesting that a Sunni country like Saudi Arabia buys F-35's from us and yet Iran attacks them.
As far as regime change goes, we make the same mistake over and over again. We think we can democratize countries that our mainly governed by a theocrasy. The Koran is their Constitution and they use it daily. Iran's leadership has been organized to survive. They are organized much like Al Queda with cells that can take over when they are attacked.
Trump is Netanyahu's proxy. It's not Trump who said I've waited 47 years for this. It was Netanyahu. Our media picked it up and uses it as one of our excuses for going to war. What Netanyahu was referring to is that he has been waiting to eliminate Hezbollah and Hamas because they are both sponsored by Iran, Netanyahu's goal is to eliminate the Palestinians so that Netanyahu can continue his Israeli settlements into Gaza.
All one has to do is follow the money to understand the dynamics. Since 2016 we have been giving Israel 3.8 billion per year to buy our military equipment. In 2024 we gave them an additional 14.3 billion for their defense systems like the Iron Dome and F-35's. It's a closed loop, we give them money, they buy our military equipment. Israel and our defense contractors are the beneficiaries of these deals.
It was Eisenhower who said beware of the military industrial complex it can grow whether people like it or not. (This is not a direct quote, but I paraphrase it.)
As far as winning a war goes, in military parlance, you win when your enemy has given up the will to fight any more. Not when Trump declares it as a win. WWII was a win for the Allies. The rest the war we have been in were done by the Military War Powers Act, except Trump. He didn't even go to congress. His statement about Iran being imminent threat to our country was a lie. Experts say it will be at least 10 years before they could have an ICBM that can reach America. However, they could have sleeper cells here that could attack the West Coast with drones. I live in Southern California and they are taking extra precautions for the Oscars ceremony.I understand what you're saying, but a lot of what you're presenting assumes that everyone involved somehow didn’t understand Middle East dynamics, and that’s hard to believe. The U.S. military has been operating in that region for decades. The Strait of Hormuz isn’t some new discovery; it’s been a known strategic choke point for generations, and every serious military planner in the world understands its importance.
The Sunni vs. Shia divide is also something our military and intelligence agencies have studied for years. That’s actually one of the reasons Iran’s actions through proxy groups like Hezbollah have been such a major concern in the region. So the idea that American leadership suddenly didn’t understand that dynamic doesn’t really add up.
As far as the claim that Trump is simply Netanyahu’s proxy, that’s more of a political narrative than a fact. The United States and Israel have had a strategic alliance for decades, under both Republican and Democratic presidents. The military aid you mentioned, about $3.8 billion per year, was actually part of a 10-year agreement signed in 2016 and supported by both parties as part of U.S. foreign policy in the region.
The “follow the money” argument also leaves out why the relationship exists in the first place. Israel is one of the U.S.’s closest intelligence and military partners in a region that has been unstable for decades. Cooperation, technology sharing, and regional security are a big part of that relationship.
On the issue of regime change, I actually agree that it’s complicated. History has shown it doesn’t always work the way people hope. But at the same time, Iran’s current leadership has spent years funding militant groups and destabilizing neighboring countries. Ignoring that reality isn’t exactly a solution either.
And when it comes to Congress and war powers, presidents from both parties have used military authority without formal declarations of war many times over the last several decades. It didn’t start with Trump.
At the end of the day, people can disagree about strategy, but the idea that this was done out of ignorance or that the entire situation is just about money oversimplifies a very complicated geopolitical reality.
My money is on Trump. In my view, he is doing the right thing at the right time. The world should be thanking him.
I’ll go with your second option — the part where you said:
‘…or we have a systemic failure in human society that allowed an imbecile to become both a billionaire and President of America… twice.’Either way you slice it...
It doesn't bode well for the future...
As for this war... they need to fight it to FINISH it.
Kill them all... 50 years of this nonsense... they fund Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis... they kill tens of thousands of their own people....
Treat them like we treated the Nazi Regime and bomb the whole country into the stone age... kill every leader they have... finish them off.
That is how we fought WWII... no mercy... no concern for civilian casualties. That is the only way you win a war against a terrorist nation that considers you the root of all evils in the world.
What Iran has given the world for the last 50 years is a disease that has killed hundreds of thousands of people... until we rid the world of the disease, it will continue to kill, and we will live under the specter of its terrorist ideology.The way they won the war in WWII was by controlling the land mass. The wars since then have all been asymmetrical. There are no clear winners or losers. Korea was a police action. Viet Nam was the war powers act. Look at Afghanistan taken over by the Taliban, Iraq, taken over by the Sunni's.
I would say the difference is we did not declare war... and we did not commit to doing whatever was necessary to ensure their nation(s) and their political/religious belief system was eradicated.
In WWII we literally went in and took over those nations and made them do things our way... and we kept killing people until the surrender was absolute, until the government was completely under our control.
At this stage...after 50 years of this nonsense... after decades of Iran holding the strait hostage... its about damned time we do exactly that.
Our failures in Iraq tie directly to our weakness, our unwillingness to take out Iran as well, to ensure they could not spread their disease and continue to ratchet up terrorism throughout the world.
You said: “That is how we fought WWII… no mercy… no concern for civilian casualties. That is the only way you win a war against a terrorist nation…”
That isn’t how WWII was won. The decisive factor in defeating Nazi Germany wasn’t bombing alone — it was a full‑scale land invasion. The Allies put hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground across Europe. Air power weakened Germany, but it didn’t end the war. Infantry, armour, and ground occupation did.
The same applies here. You can’t win a war from the air alone. If someone genuinely believes in “finishing it,” then they’re talking about a land invasion of Iran — and I doubt very much that Trump has any intention of doing that.We did that AFTER we bombed the entire nation into the stone age.
And when we went into a village to physically take control of it, if ONE soldier was shot, they pulled back out and spent another day dropping artillery rounds on it.
This has been allowed to fester and spread for decades, time to treat it as life or death... we destroy the enemy completely or they eventually will destroy us... the Middle East... Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc. are a lot worse off for us not having a spine and doing what needed to be done back in the late 70s.
Drones make it easier than ever for them to continue this war, so we better start taking seriously how dangerous this threat is to both of our nations.So you’re openly advocating a ground invasion of Iran then — can’t wait to see how that Vietnam sequel plays out.
In a true invasion, the land mass has to be controlled from one end of the country to the other end. That is why Putin is having so much trouble in Ukraine. He is using asymmetrical war fare to invade a country, the same as Trump is doing in Iran.
In war time parlance, the only time a war is won, is when the enemy no longer has the will to fight the other side. Hence, WWII Japan, Italy, and Germany all surrendered. You don't get a country to surrender by making deals. Trump approaches everything like a used car salesman or a mafia boss, not a president of a country. He either makes deals or he fires people depending on the situation he is trying to win, HIs bombing of Iran is just like a mafia boss taking it out the other gang and he fires those who are not loyal to him.More like Afghanistan...
You said it right... we have not declared a war... we have not stood up as a nation and said, this enemy will be destroyed... here... there... wherever they go, we will hunt them down and kill every single one... until the job is done, since WWII.
And that is why all the West does not "win" these wars it gets involved in... whole bunch of corporations and billionaires got rich as these endless wars have been allowed to continue... but your nation and ours is in debt up to our eyeballs because of this.
We will declare war... we will defeat the enemy or your wonderful social security system in the UK and our social security system in America will soon come to an end... as our economies crater.
Iran cannot be allowed to control the strait... it cannot be allowed to be the primary funder or terrorism throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran... the Theocracy... must come to an end.. forever.Spoken like the true authoritarian you are. That is not an insult, just the recognition of the truth after reading your diatribes.
Ken, Afghanistan still isn’t the right comparison — Vietnam is.
Yes, most ordinary Iranians despise the regime. But that doesn’t make a ground invasion any easier. The USA wouldn’t be fighting the population; it would be fighting:
- Over a million Revolutionary Guards, heavily armed, ideologically committed, and trained specifically to repel a foreign invasion.
- A regime that has spent 40 years preparing for asymmetric warfare on its own soil.
- Terrain perfectly suited to guerrilla resistance — mountains, deserts, dense cities, chokepoints.
- A network of regional militias ready to open new fronts the moment American boots hit the ground.
That is not Afghanistan.
That is Vietnam with better equipment, better organisation, and far more prepared defenders.
And just like Vietnam, a ground invasion of Iran would mean:
- No clear front line.
- No clear exit strategy.
- No way to “destroy every single one” of anything.
- Endless casualties for no achievable political outcome.
- A war the USA starts but cannot finish.
You keep saying “we must declare war” as if that magically solves the problem.
Vietnam was declared. It still ended the same way.
If you’re advocating marching into Iran, then yes — you’re advocating Vietnam 2.0, just on a far larger and far bloodier scale.
And the result would be identical.Ken, the idea that the UK and Europe are “in debt up to our eyeballs” because we *haven’t* declared enough wars simply doesn’t match the actual numbers.
If anything, the data shows the opposite:
the countries that stabilised their debt after Covid are the ones NOT launching new wars.
Let’s look at the facts.
United Kingdom
Both the UK and the USA had healthy, manageable debt levels in 2010 — around 60% of GDP.
From there:
- UK debt rose steadily and peaked at 100% of GDP in 2020 due to Covid.
- Since then, it has been falling, not rising.
- It dropped to 96.4% in 2022.
- And it has continued to fall to 93.6%.
That is not a country “in debt up to its eyeballs.”
It’s a country stabilising after a global pandemic.
Germany
Germany is doing even better:
- 81% of GDP in 2010
- Steadily falling ever since
- Now at a very healthy 62.2%
If war were the answer to debt, Germany would be bankrupt.
Instead, it’s the most fiscally stable major economy in the West.
France
France’s debt is higher, but:
- It rose to 115% during Covid
- It has stabilised since then
- It is not spiralling out of control
Again: no war required.
United States
Now compare that with the USA:
- 60% of GDP in 2010
- 79% by 2019
- Then Covid hit and it jumped to 98.7% in a single year
- It kept rising
- It reached 99.6% in 2024
- And in the past year alone, it has surged to 134%
That is the only major Western economy where debt is exploding — and it’s happening under Trump, not because Europe isn’t fighting enough wars.
The Core Problem With Your Argument
You’re claiming:
> “We must declare war or our economies will crater.”
But the data shows:
- The UK stabilised its debt *without* war.
- Germany reduced its debt *without* war.
- France stabilised its debt *without* war.
- The USA’s debt exploded *with* war spending and aggressive foreign policy.
So the idea that war is some kind of economic rescue plan simply isn’t supported by reality.
If anything, the USA’s debt trajectory shows that war accelerates fiscal collapse — it doesn’t prevent it.
And On Iran
You’re talking about “declaring war” on a country with:
- Over a million Revolutionary Guards
- Decades of preparation for asymmetric warfare
- Mountain ranges, deserts, and dense cities
- A network of regional militias ready to open new fronts
- A population that hates the regime but would unite instantly against a foreign invasion
That isn’t Afghanistan.
That’s Vietnam 2.0 — just with better‑armed defenders.
And the USA’s debt numbers show clearly that it cannot afford another Vietnam.You are wrong about it becoming another Vietnam.
That was a choice, to start a war that wasn't a war... it was the first Corporate (MIC) over-reach that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars (billions in today's value) while making certain corporations wealthy... it wasn't the last.
Surreal War, Silent Media: Victor Davis Hanson Breaks It Down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLTuuiL9uYQI see you chose to ignore (or maybe you agreed with it) Nathanville's devastating debunking of your assertions.
Why did you deflect away from it?Rita Panahi TORCHES Politicians Against Voter ID
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ebKhXk26g
And for a bonus
Sharia Court FORCES Pakistani Teen To Marry Her Kidnapper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UCcdY4giN0to get you back on track on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0siRiXdTpA4
Top counterterrorism official Joe Kent resigns over Iran war
Sorry Ken, but you are wrong about an Iran ground war not becoming another Vietnam.
I’m not talking about the cost to the taxpayer — although that would be enormous. I’m talking about the military reality. A ground invasion of Iran wouldn’t look anything like Afghanistan or Iraq. Iran has over a million Revolutionary Guards, decades of preparation for asymmetric warfare, and terrain that overwhelmingly favours defenders. That’s not a quick operation. That’s a war that drags on for years, exactly as Vietnam did.
And just like Vietnam, there is no guarantee the United States could “win” such a war at all.
As for the video you posted — Victor Davis Hanson is presenting a narrative, not an analysis. The transcript is full of sweeping claims, selective framing, and confident assertions that simply don’t match the facts on the ground. It’s commentary, not evidence.We are seeing this in two different lights.
You are looking at Iran as a separate operation not connected to other things going on in the world.
And you are looking at things from a UK perspective.
If my OPINION is correct, this is part of a larger effort, this is the ongoing WWIII scenario that was brought into existence during the Biden Administration with the support, at that time, of the UK.
China and North Korea and Russia... Iran is certainly a part of that... which is why I have expressed my annoyance on here that the same countries that are crying for America to help defeat Russia are the ones getting in bed with China... who is supporting Russia.
And now they are complaining about America and Isreal tackling Iran, who was supporting Russia, and who was sponsoring Terrorists globally, the Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis in particular.
And the UK can't take the Jihadists in fast enough, using draconian laws against their own people to silence their outrage over children being kidnapped and groomed, or raped, or murdered by a collective belief that states openly we are going to kill you, replace you, and have no respect for your laws and beliefs.
So... I am happy to say the UK can get stuffed... and support Trump when he tells the UK they can get stuffed... or however he puts it.
It doesn't matter how tough it is... they ARE at war with the US... they ARE at war with the West... and they have made no bones about it, they have been chanting 'Death to America' for 50 years... I think they mean it.Ken, as I asked you two days ago — you’re openly advocating a ground invasion of Iran then? Even if it turns into another Vietnam that drags on for years with no guarantee America could win?
I see where you’re coming from, but I think your argument is built on a couple of assumptions that don’t really hold up once you dig into what’s actually driving these debt numbers.
In my view, I don’t think anyone serious is arguing that countries need to “declare war to fix their economy.” That’s a strawman. Historically, wartime spending (like during World War II) did coincide with massive industrial growth, but that’s not the same thing as saying modern economies depend on war to stay afloat. Those were unique, total-war conditions with completely different fiscal structures.
Where I think your argument misses the root issue is this: you’re pointing to outcomes (debt levels), but not the underlying causes of why some countries manage debt better than others.
Take Germany. Germany’s lower debt isn’t because it avoided war, it’s because it runs structurally different fiscal policies:
Strong export economy (huge trade surpluses)
Industrial base that consistently brings in external revenue
Long-standing political commitment to balanced budgets (“debt brake”)
That’s the real reason Germany sits around ~60% debt-to-GDP. It’s not about war—it’s about disciplined fiscal design and a manufacturing-driven economy.
Same thing with the United Kingdom. Yes, debt came down slightly after Covid, but calling that “stabilized” needs context:
Growth has been sluggish, has it not?
Productivity has been weak for over a decade
The pound has taken hits
Public services are under strain
That’s not exactly a picture of strength, it’s more like managed stagnation. Debt-to-GDP can fall simply because inflation props up nominal GDP, not because the underlying finances are healthy.
Now let’s talk about the United States, because this is where I think your argument really oversimplifies things.
You’re tying U.S. debt growth to “war spending,” but that’s not what the data shows at the root level. The biggest drivers of U.S. debt over the last 15–20 years have been:
Entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare)
Massive stimulus during Covid
Interest payments on existing debt
Structural deficits (spending consistently exceeding revenue)
Wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan absolutely cost trillions, but they’re still only one piece of a much larger fiscal picture. Even if you removed them entirely, the U.S. would still be running large deficits.
So I don’t buy the idea that U.S. debt is “exploding because of war,” just like I don’t buy the idea that Europe is stable because it avoided war. Both are oversimplifications.
Where I do agree with you is on Iran. A full-scale war with Iran would be wildly expensive and strategically messy. That’s not really debatable. Geography, regional proxies, and asymmetric warfare make it a completely different scenario than anything the U.S. has dealt with recently.
But tying that back to debt—and especially framing it as “this would cause a Vietnam-style financial collapse”, I think that stretches the argument too far. The U.S. economy today is fundamentally different from the Vietnam War era in terms of scale, monetary policy, and global reserve currency status.
At the end of the day, the real divide here is this:
You’re arguing that war worsens debt, and I agree it can.
But I’m saying the deeper truth is that debt is driven by structural policy choices, not whether a country is at war or not.
If you want to win this debate at the root level, that’s where the focus has to be, not on war as the cause, but on how different economies are fundamentally built to either control or expand debt over time.
If we’re talking about total wealth (overall economic size), the richest country in the world is the United States. It has the largest economy (GDP) and the most total national wealth by a wide margin.I appreciate your view, but disagree...
We have what... 35 Trillion dollars of debt?
We got to that point because of 30 years of endless wars, and the fleecing of the American economy... the Pandemic, I agree, was icing on the cake, Trillions were handed over to BlackRock and Vanguard at that time... few Americans know this:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/ … -lead-feds
Not the easiest information to track down, after reading that, try to find out how much went to them once the Biden Administration was in place, progressive as that Administration was.
But on to our endless-war expenditures...
Costs of the 20-year war on terror: $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths
https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar
and
https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/sit … 1-Wars.pdf
Throw in Ukraine and some of our other incursions and we are easily over 10 Trillion... then add the Pandemic, last I recall, was around 7 Trillion... throw in a few Trillion recently wasted on interest on that debt...
You could say at least 20 Trillion dollars of our debt is due exactly to our endless wars, and the shifting of Trillions to the biggest financial institutions we have during the Pandemic timeframe (making the rich much richer).I hear your point, and I agree wars have cost us a lot, but the numbers don’t support the idea that they’re the primary reason we’re sitting at $35 trillion in debt.
Even using the widely cited Brown University Watson Institute estimate of about $8 trillion for the War on Terror, that total is spread over 20+ years. That comes out to roughly $300–400 billion per year at peak, and much less in later years.
Now compare that to what we spend every single year on domestic programs:
Social Security Administration: about $1.3 trillion per year
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (Medicare & Medicaid combined): about $1.5–$1.7 trillion per year
Interest on the debt alone is now over $800 billion per year
That’s over $3–4 trillion annually—every year, ongoing.
So while wars added several trillion total, entitlement spending and mandatory programs are adding multiple trillions to the debt every single year. That’s the key difference.
On the pandemic point, yes, roughly $5–7 trillion was authorized across administrations, but that was a one-time emergency response. The bigger long-term issue is that even before COVID, the U.S. was already running $1 trillion annual deficits during peacetime, largely due to structural spending imbalances.
As for claims about money being “handed to BlackRock and Vanguard,” that’s a misunderstanding of how Federal Reserve programs worked. Firms like BlackRock were hired to administer bond-buying programs, they didn’t receive trillions as giveaways. The money largely went into stabilizing credit markets, buying corporate bonds, and backstopping the financial system.
If you zoom out, the real drivers of the debt are:
Long-term growth in entitlement spending
Persistent deficits (even without wars)
Rising interest costs
Wars contributed, no doubt, but they’re not the main engine behind $35 trillion. The math just doesn’t support that conclusion.
My research came from several articles on the subject.
https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwarI feel you have won your point; however, I was pointing out that wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan absolutely cost trillions, but they’re still only one piece of a much larger fiscal picture. Even if you removed them entirely, the U.S. would still be running large deficits. It is very clear and factual without picking up the tab on many wars, our deficit would be much smaller.
I did not support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point i support the Iranian war, due to feeling they are close to or have enough uranium to nuke pretty much who they please. I feel they need to be stopped, and their government taken over, and a democratic government put in place, and monitored for many years to come. It was just a matter of time before Iran would obtain the power of a nuclear weapon, and they have never made it a secret who they will point it at. I am grateful for Trump's all-out efforts to stop these maniacs from ever getting nukes. Needed to be done.
Sharlee, the connection between war and economic performance wasn’t my argument at all — I was pushing back against Ken’s claim that our economies are “in debt up to our eyeballs” because we haven’t declared enough wars, and his suggestion that the UK, Europe and the USA are all on the verge of total collapse.
If you look back, I opened my post with:
“Ken, the idea that the UK and Europe are ‘in debt up to our eyeballs’ because we haven’t declared enough wars simply doesn’t match the actual numbers.”
Everything that followed was just correcting that specific claim of his, nothing more.
And for what it’s worth, I don’t disagree with much of what you’ve said about the structural drivers of debt — your points there are perfectly reasonable.
Will your reach exceed your grasp? Your blood thirsty scenario is doomed to failure on its very face.
Current news --- Trump repeats calls for other countries to help with Strait of Hormuz
President Donald Trump is repeating his calls for other countries to step up and assist with the escalating crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that it "should have always been a team effort" and insisting that this will lead to "Everlasting Peace."
In a new post on his social media platform, Trump claimed that "the Countries of the World that receive Oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage" and that the United States will "help."
The president promised that the U.S. will "coordinate" with assisting countries.
The president’s previous post named the United Kingdom as one of the countries that he wishes to see send ships to the Strait. Exactly one week ago, the president appeared to reject possible assistance from the U.K. after they initially refused to allow the U.S. to use British military bases.
"That’s OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don’t need them any longer — But we will remember. We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!" Trump said last week.Good luck, after the way he has treated those countries with his tariffs. More than likely they will tell him to go pound sand. If Trump understood the strategic importance of Hormuz, why did he wait so long to take action to try to clear it? That should have been the first thing he did was to clear the shipping lanes. Now look at the mess he is in. He actually has to call on other countries to help him.
You give him way too much credit with your excuses to defend him. I still say he modeled this attack the way he attacked Venezuela and expected the same outcome. He even said, we should be out of there in a week or two.
What good does it do to send ships to a choke point that is heavily mined. If more ships are blown up, it will just clog that passage. He is between a rock and a hard spot and doesn't know how to get out of it...Of course, this is all my opinion.I think you’re missing a few important realities about this situation.
The Strait of Hormuz has never been just an American responsibility. Roughly 20% of the world’s oil passes through that narrow channel, and the biggest beneficiaries of that oil flow are countries in Asia and Europe, not the United States.
So when Trump says it should be a “team effort,” that isn’t weakness or desperation, it’s actually common sense. If countries like China, Japan, South Korea, and European nations depend heavily on that oil, why should the U.S. Navy be the only one risking ships and sailors to keep it open?
You say he waited too long to act. But clearing a mined choke point is not something you just “do immediately.” Minesweeping operations are extremely slow and dangerous by nature. Even historically, during the Iran-Iraq tanker war in the 1980s, mines damaged ships despite heavy naval protection.
Rushing ships into a potentially mined waterway without coordination would be reckless and could cause exactly what you mentioned, blocked shipping lanes.
This idea that Trump is “stuck” ignores the reality that other countries are already discussing sending ships or escorts because the global economy depends on it.
That’s not a failure, that’s exactly how international security operations normally work. We’ve seen the same thing in the Red Sea and other maritime crises: a coalition forms because the problem affects everyone.
And lastly, blaming tariffs for whether countries help secure one of the world’s most critical shipping routes doesn’t really hold up. When global energy supplies and economic stability are at stake, nations tend to act in their own interest regardless of trade disagreements.
In short, this isn’t a situation where one president “got himself into a mess.” It’s a geopolitical crisis in one of the most strategically important waterways on Earth. Expecting the United States to carry the entire burden alone would actually be the bigger mistake.
You’re presenting this as if Trump has been consistent and strategic, but the two videos posted here show the opposite.
In one, he says the USA “does not need the UK’s help” and mocks the UK for being “too late” https://youtu.be/k26Uw6f5mTE
In the other, he says he hopes the UK, China, France, Japan, South Korea and others will send warships to help him https://youtu.be/fZ8EP6P7sE4
Those two positions cannot both be true.
You say this “should have always been a team effort,” but Trump didn’t consult allies before starting this war. And since becoming President he has repeatedly insulted, threatened, or undermined the very countries he now wants help from — whether it was personal attacks on UK leaders, tariff threats against the EU and UK, or even threatening Denmark over Greenland. The UK has already refused him permission to use British military bases for offensive operations, granting access only for defensive purposes. That distinction matters. It shows clearly that this is not a coordinated allied effort — it’s Trump acting alone and then asking others to step in afterwards.
You talk about “coordination” and “team effort,” but Trump’s own words contradict that. One week he says he doesn’t need the UK. The next week he’s asking the UK, China, France, Japan, South Korea and others to send ships. That isn’t strategy — it’s improvisation.
You also repeat the idea that the USA will “help” and “coordinate,” but the reality is that Trump is asking other nations to put their sailors and warships in harm’s way for a conflict they didn’t agree to. If this is his war, why is he asking others to absorb the risk?
And then there’s the line you quoted:
“We don’t need people that join wars after we’ve already won!”
Given the current state of affairs — tankers still unescorted, the Strait of Hormuz still dangerous, and Trump still asking half the world to send ships — the claim that “we’ve already won” looks less like strategy and more like wartime propaganda.On the surface, Trump’s statements may look contradictory, but the reality is very different from what the videos suggest. Saying the U.S. “does not need the UK’s help” while later welcoming allied support doesn’t reflect improvisation, it reflects the difference between independence and partnership. This is a just and necessary war against a terrorist nation pursuing nuclear weapons. The U.S. must act decisively to protect itself while still giving allies the opportunity to contribute once the environment is secure. That is strategy, not inconsistency.
Yes, Trump has been tough on tariffs and sovereignty issues, but that does not diminish the legitimacy of this mission. Military operations of this scale don’t require perfect harmony with every nation beforehand. The U.S. taking the lead, positioning Marines, ships, and escorting commercial vessels, is exactly how a responsible commander defends national and global interests. Allies are invited in when they can safely participate; this is coordination on a timeline that minimizes risk, not asking others to “clean up after him.”
The Strait of Hormuz remains dangerous because mines, drones, and missiles are real threats. Escort operations are staged carefully to neutralize them first. Saying “we’ve already won” signals that American forces are prepared and escalation is unnecessary if Iran backs down—not propaganda. The war is long overdue. Waiting longer while a terrorist nation seeks nuclear weapons would be the true inconsistency.
History shows what happens when nations delay decisive action. Europe’s hesitation before World War II allowed a regional threat to escalate into a full-scale global war. That’s why decisive action now, before a nuclear-armed terrorist regime becomes stronger, is not only justified, it’s necessary. Common sense says: decisive action comes first, coordination follows, and lives are prioritized. Trump is acting to protect Americans and global commerce, and the UK and other nations should recognize that these efforts are making the world safer, rather than waiting until a catastrophe occurs. We should learn from the history of World War II. We watched the UK and Europe sit by while a regional conflict spiraled out of control and became a global war. But this war would be nuclear. We have no time to sit on our hands.How many times do I have to tell you there is no imminent nuclear threat from Iran to America. According to experts, it will be at least 10 years before they can develop an ICBM with nuclear war head that will reach us.
However, Netanyahu on the other hand is feeling the bombing of Iranian missiles loaded with cluster bombs, hitting Israel.
You can either trust what I posted below, or continue to spread the misinformation about imminent nuclear threat to us from Iran,.
Experts across U.S. intelligence, independent missile analysts, and regional specialists converge on a **single, consistent assessment**: **Iran is not close to fielding an operational ICBM**, and the **earliest credible timeline is around 2035**, based on the Defense Intelligence Agency’s standing estimate. This is reinforced directly by the content in your open tab from *Roic News*, which cites the DIA’s unchanged 2025–2026 assessment that **2035 is the earliest plausible date**, even with foreign assistance. [roic.ai](https://www.roic.ai/news/us-intelligenc … opilot.com)
Below is a structured breakdown of what experts actually say, why they say it, and what would need to change for Iran to accelerate that timeline.
---What U.S. Intelligence Agencies Say
- **Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)** — Iran could develop an ICBM **“by 2035 at the earliest”**, and that projection has remained unchanged through 2025–2026. [roic.ai](https://www.roic.ai/news/us-intelligenc … opilot.com)
-
**U.S. intelligence community consensus** — No evidence Iran is building or testing a missile that could strike the U.S. homeland in the near term. [roic.ai](https://www.roic.ai/news/us-intelligenc … opilot.com)
- **Current capability** — Iran’s longest‑range operational missiles reach **~2,000 km**, enough to hit Israel and parts of Europe, but nowhere near intercontinental range.
This is the most authoritative assessment available, and it directly contradicts political claims of an imminent Iranian ICBM threat.
--- What Independent Missile Experts Say
Across think tanks and missile‑technology specialists (e.g., CSIS Missile Defense Project, IISS, Middlebury Institute), the consensus aligns with U.S. intelligence:
1. **Iran lacks the hardest part: a tested re‑entry vehicle**
An ICBM must survive re‑entry at **7 km/s**. Iran has **never demonstrated** this technology.
Experts consistently say this is the single biggest missing piece.
2. **Iran’s space‑launch vehicles are not ICBMs**
Iran’s space program (e.g., *Zuljanah*) shows multi‑stage capability, but:
- They are **not militarized**.
- They use **inefficient staging** for weapons purposes.
- They have **never flown a re‑entry test**.
Analysts emphasize that **space launch ≠ ICBM**, though it provides some foundational knowledge.
3. **Solid‑fuel production was heavily damaged**
Israel’s 2025 strikes destroyed mixers and production infrastructure, slowing Iran’s transition to solid‑fuel long‑range systems.
4. **Foreign help could shorten the timeline—but only so much**
Even with Russian or North Korean assistance, experts estimate **8–10 years** to field a credible ICBM, assuming Iran started today.
This aligns with the DIA’s 2035 projection.
---
What Regional and Iranian Sources Claim
Your other open tab (Iran International) contains Iranian political claims of an “intercontinental missile test,” but the page content is filtered and cannot be reviewed directly. However, independent analysts and Western intelligence agencies have repeatedly stated:
- **No verified ICBM test has occurred.**
- Iranian officials often use political language rather than technical accuracy.
- Analysts inside Iran (quoted in Iranian media) have admitted **there is no evidence of an actual ICBM program**.
These claims are widely viewed as **rhetorical or political**, not technical.
---
What Would Need to Happen for Iran to Accelerate
Experts outline three milestones that would signal Iran is truly moving toward ICBMs:
- **A multi‑stage solid‑fuel booster test** (not yet seen).
- **A long‑range re‑entry vehicle test** (completely absent).
- **A space‑launch vehicle with military staging characteristics** (not yet demonstrated).Come on Mike ...
"How many times do I have to tell you ..."
"You can either trust what I posted below, or ..."
... you can't leave open doors like that and expect a free pass. Come on, be fair. I've been good, but that's too much temptation.
Bless your heart, they just won't listen, will they? And after all your cut & paste efforts too. You would think they'd rather use their AI themselves. ;-)
Wait, it's all fun, and I have a peace offering.
I stumbled across a quote/blurb that seemed like it could be a good speedbump to drop on a particular exchange in this thread, and I was headed back to it when I saw your comment.
Here, you can use it. It's a quote from a blurb in Cicero's justification of Caesar's assassination:
“Our tyrant deserved his death for having made an exception of the one thing that was the blackest crime of all. Why do we gather instances of petty crime - legacies criminally obtained and fraudulent buying and selling?
Behold, here you have a man who was ambitious to be king of the Roman People and master of the whole world; and he achieved it!"
It's a perfect fit. You should spot where it goes.
It came from this: https://x.com/Saganismm/status/2033290447683248589
GAYou remind me of those Clinton advisors from the late 90s "how many times do I have to tell you that Al Qaeda represents no threat to the United States".
I guess you do not understand how many of you people a dirty bomb could kill. You do NOT need a multi-stage rocket or a space launch vehicle to kill a few thousand people.We are talking nuclear, not a dirty bomb. Thank for trying to change the subject.
I thought you understood that a dirty bomb is made with the same type of fuel that the Iranians have been trying to develop for years. Sorry if you did not know that.
How many times did Clinton's advisors do that? About as many times as Bigfoot testified before Congress.
False equivalency, Doc, anyone of our adversaries could assault with a dirty bomb, but having the resources to launch nuclear warheads across continents to exact targets is something different. Iran does not have that capability as “People” has told you.
Not false at all. No, they do not have the capability at the moment. Are you saying that if they enrich some uranium though and the borders are open they could not get it into the US? Are you all really so naive that you think they cannot gain it? Are you telling me that you know that they will never be a threat and will never have the capacity to launch ICBMs?
Based on your fear-mongering, Trump should be bombing North Korea right now. They have more capability of sneaking a dirty bomb into the US and they hate us as much.
Iran was the same threat it was (less so after Trump totally destroyed their nuclear capability, according to him) in 2017 as it is today. What changed?
What changed is Trump wanted to thump his chest and look scary. Now he is in the process of letting Iran beat him.
Also, why did that MAGA on steroids Kent, the director of Counter-Intel, not see an IMMINANT danger?Yes, you are correct in that North Korea would be a good target. I am sure if a warmonger like Obama was still in office he would bomb them too. Remind me how many countries did Obama bomb?
Again, ESO expresses my opinion, there are any number of US adversaries that could access this material and make a “dirty bomb”. I believe that the Iran threat has been exaggerated for years just for political purposes. So, anyone can gain dangerous radioactive material for a bomb, why the focus on Iran exclusively? I simply saying that the experts are saying that the ability of Iran to launch ICBMs is not in the foreseeable future.
I’m going to respond to you very directly, because the way you frame your argument is not only condescending, it is misleading. When you say “How many times do I have to tell you…” you’re not presenting facts, you’re projecting certainty on an issue that even the U.S. government itself openly debates. There is no single uncontested consensus on Iran’s nuclear capability timeline. That’s simply not true, and presenting it that way is intellectually dishonest.
First, the question of Iran’s nuclear capability is not limited to whether they can hit the U.S. homeland with an ICBM tomorrow. That is a narrow framing that conveniently ignores the actual concern experts debate: Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon and deliver it regionally or through other means. According to assessments from the International Atomic Energy Agency and reporting based on U.S. intelligence briefings, Iran has enriched uranium to levels approaching weapons-grade purity. That dramatically shortens the “breakout time”, the time required to produce enough fissile material for a bomb, down to weeks or months, not decades. That point alone is why the issue remains one of the most serious global security concerns.
Second, even within the U.S. intelligence community there has never been a single uncontested timeline. Estimates about missile capability vary depending on assumptions about foreign assistance, technological breakthroughs, and political decisions. Agencies like the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency regularly present ranges and scenarios, not fixed dates carved in stone. Your claim that “experts converge on a single consistent assessment” is simply inaccurate. Analysts disagree all the time, that’s the nature of intelligence work.
Third, you’re also implying that because Iran may not have an operational ICBM today, the threat is irrelevant to Americans. That’s another misleading argument. Nuclear strategy has never been limited to one delivery system. Submarine deployment, proxy transfer, regional launch platforms, or technological assistance from other states can all change the equation rapidly. Intelligence agencies evaluate capability and intent, not just a single missile test.
Fourth, citing one AI-generated summary site like “roic” as if it represents the final word from U.S. intelligence is not the authoritative proof you think it is. Real intelligence assessments are far more nuanced and frequently classified. Public statements from analysts, think tanks, and agencies often disagree with one another, which is exactly why policymakers continue to debate the issue.
So when you accuse others of spreading misinformation, I would suggest you look at your own presentation first. You are taking one interpretation, presenting it as absolute fact, and dismissing every other credible concern. That’s not analysis, that’s confirmation bias.
In short, I’m not spreading misinformation. I’m acknowledging something you seem unwilling to admit: the threat assessment regarding Iran is actively debated by governments, intelligence agencies, and international watchdogs. Pretending the matter is settled just because it supports your argument is the real distortion here.
You’ve written a detailed defence of what you believe is happening behind the scenes, but none of it resolves the basic problem: Trump’s own statements contradict each other, and the timeline of events doesn’t match the narrative you’re building around them.
On 8 March he said the USA “does not need the UK’s help” and mocked the UK for being “too late.” Days later he said he hopes the UK, China, France, Japan, South Korea and others will send warships. Those aren’t two sides of the same strategic coin — they are mutually exclusive positions. You can’t simultaneously dismiss a country as unnecessary and then ask them to send warships. That isn’t “independence versus partnership.” It’s inconsistency.
You say tariffs and “sovereignty issues” don’t diminish the legitimacy of the mission, but that sidesteps the real point: Trump himself is the reason Europe is not lining up behind him. Before this war even began, he had already driven a wedge between the USA and Europe — attacking NATO, launching tariff wars, insulting European leaders (including Sir Keir Starmer), threatening Denmark over Greenland, and refusing to support Europe’s fight against Russia in Ukraine. Europe is already carrying the burden of a major war against a nuclear‑armed aggressor. Meanwhile, the USA declined to get directly involved. So from Europe’s perspective, the question is obvious: why should Europe now rush to help Trump fight his war, when he refused to help Europe fight Russia? Alliances work both ways, and Trump spent years treating Europe as an adversary. The current silence from European capitals reflects that reality.
You say the Strait of Hormuz remains dangerous because of mines, drones, and missiles. But that undermines your argument, not mine. If the environment is still dangerous, then Trump’s “we’ve already won” line cannot be taken literally. If the environment is secure, escorts wouldn’t be needed. If it isn’t secure, then asking allies to send ships is asking them to absorb the risk for a conflict they didn’t initiate. And nearly two weeks after Trump announced that escorts “will begin,” they still haven’t. Assets are still being moved. The UK has refused to send warships. Other countries remain silent. And Trump is now publicly pleading for help from Air Force One. That isn’t “careful staging.” It’s a gap between announcement and action — the exact pattern I’ve been pointing out.
And then there’s your use of WWII. If we’re going to invoke history, we need to use all of it, not just the parts that fit a narrative. Britain did not “hesitate” before WWII. Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. Britain declared war on 3 September — two days later. France the same day. The country that delayed was the United States, which didn’t enter the war until December 1941, more than two years after it began. The same pattern occurred in WWI. So if the lesson is that delayed action leads to escalation, the historical example actually points to the USA, not Europe. And if we’re comparing pre‑war behaviour, Germany’s annexation of Austria in 1938 was an early warning sign of expansionism — not unlike Trump’s attempt to acquire Greenland and his threats when Denmark refused.
You say “we have no time to sit on our hands,” but that contradicts Trump’s own behaviour. If there were truly no time, escorts would already be operating, the Strait would already be secure, and allies wouldn’t be declining to participate. Instead, we have tankers still unescorted, allies refusing to send ships, and Trump repeatedly asking for help. Against that backdrop, his line — “We don’t need people that join wars after we’ve already won!” — looks less like strategy and more like wartime rhetoric.
None of this changes the basic point: Trump set expectations with his own words. He hasn’t met them. Everything else is narrative layered on top of that simple fact.
Why This War is Different... and why we must commit to complete and total annihilation of the enemy
Political leadership, strategic command, traditionally is viewed as the nerve centers that need to be eliminated to win a war.
The opponent’s ability to organize, coordinate, and sustain war once eradicated was game over.
Iran appears to have built a military architecture specifically designed to withstand severe disruptions at the top of the state.
What a shock, a Terrorist regime that has preached decentralization to those terror groups it has funded (Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah) is itself designed to withstand the erasure of its leadership.
Iran's defense doctrine long assumes that technologically superior adversaries (US/Israel) will initiate conflicts with targeted "leadership decapitation" to trigger systemic collapse. To counter this, Iran has developed a "mosaic strategy" focusing on decentralized command, redundancy, and resilience against severe disruption, preparing for a long war of attrition.
So, you cannot just take out the leadership and expect a win... you have to take down the entire state... the military, banking, government apparatus... the entire nation... victory is not achievable with anything less.
Iran does not concentrate power within a rigid hierarchy, the system allocates responsibility across regional commands, military formations, and orgnazations. Each component is expected to maintain operational initiative even if communication with higher authority becomes limited or cut off.
In Iranian strategic literature this is known as mosaic defense.
This war will not stay within a single theatre. Maritime routes, energy infrastructure, regional bases, and proxy networks have all become part of an expanding operational landscape.
Terrorist cells allowed to flow freely into America during Biden's years will be activated and attack... schools, government buildings, nothing off limits, nothing safe.
The Biden Administration treated Iran as if it were our best buddy, while labeling Patriotic Americans 'domestic terrorists' and the biggest threat to democracy and America that existed.
With leadership like that, America didn't need enemies... its leadership was doing more harm to America than Iran ever could.
Iran's geographic dispersion itself becomes a tool of warfare.
By widening the arena of confrontation, the conflict forces America to defend multiple vulnerabilities at once. This complicates operational planning, raises the cost of defense and stretches military resources across a broader front.
The economic aspect of this strategy is just as important. Iran’s use of cheap drones and missile systems lets it impose high defensive costs on its enemies. Defending against these threats needs advanced systems and constant alertness, they can strike anywhere in the world.
It will be critical to now take down the entire regime... Iran must become the next Japan... anything short of completely annihilating the Iranian Islamic Regime will only mean continued escalation and continued Oct 7th attacks... not just on Israel, but America as well.
It is time to stop being nice and proper... and start eradicating enemies with extreme prejudice. No quarter given.The clearly incompetent Trump appears to be getting very desperate as he realizes he is losing this war he started.
"Trump’s allies noncommittal despite demand to help secure Strait of Hormuz"
"The president said he may delay his China summit and warned NATO of a ‘very bad’ future if it doesn’t assist"
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/ira … p-03-16-26When you trash-talk our allies and threaten them with invasion you should not expect anything else but this.
"Trump criticizes allies who rebuffed his calls to help secure Strait of Hormuz"
Trump is finding out again - you reap what you sow.Was Trump not the head of the Board of Peace?
Did President Trump not promise Not to go to War?
Did he not pressure the Norwegian Government to give him the peace price?
So the same man started a war with Iran.
I don't get it.Taken at face value, the man is off his rocker...
But the face value doesn't match what he has accomplished...
Billionaire... President, twice...
It doesn't add up.... unless you factor in he is playing a role of the fool...I get why it might seem confusing, but I have to ask, do you really believe there’s no threat of Iran getting nuclear weapons? And how do you feel about the fact that over 32,000 Iranians protesting their government were killed? Do you think it’s justified for the world to just stand by and watch that happen? I would be interested in your thoughts on my two questions.
From my perspective, President Trump’s actions weren’t about starting a war for the sake of war. They were about protecting Americans, our allies, and sending a clear message that tyranny and nuclear threats can’t be ignored. In my view, peace isn’t just about words or awards; it’s about preventing catastrophic threats and defending human life.Our outrage is always selective, is it not?
Between 500,000 and 1 million people were killed in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, which was the primary conflict between Hutu and Tutsi. While Rwanda's constitution cites over 1 million, most scholarly estimates range from 500,000 to over 660,000 Tutsi deaths, Wikipedia.
America is phony in concern about deaths, this is about politics, nothing more.How can one argue ----
You’re right—our outrage is often selective, and the Rwandan genocide is a perfect example of that. Between 500,000 and over 600,000 Tutsi were killed, yet the global response at the time was minimal. Please note, it was and is not only the U.S. that turned a blind eye; we are only one nation. Little was done, and by very few countries or leaders. Countries often act not purely out of moral concern but when it aligns with their strategic interests or public pressure.
That doesn’t make the tragedy any less real. The deaths, the suffering, and the aftermath in Rwanda were enormous, and it should weigh on the conscience of the international community. But your point hits home: much of the outrage we see in media and political discourse is often more about optics and political messaging than genuine concern for human life.
So yes, calling out selective outrage isn’t cynicism, it’s an important reminder that real concern should extend beyond what’s convenient or politically advantageous.Unfortunately, you are correct.
"much of the outrage we see in media and political discourse is often more about optics and political messaging than genuine concern for human life."
It has gone beyond that, to hyperbolic falsehoods as well as non-reporting of critical occurrences and real events.
This is part of the mistrust most Americans have today... they no longer trust the 'News' institutions, they do not trust Congress, and this is one of the key components to radical change occurring if/when the economy sinks into a depression. Touching on a discussion we had in another thread.Ken, I completely agree. It’s becoming more and more evident that some people are willing to step over the dead just to push their preferred narrative into the spotlight. And just as troubling, it feels like empathy is being redirected toward causes that should be far lower on the list of priorities.
Not enough to justify going into another forever war we will lose. Remember, Trump declared a short time ago that Iran had "no nuclear program left". What changed? Did he lie? Was he played?
First. About the over 30.000 Iranians killed.
Trump does not care about them. In Sudan last year between 30.000 and 60.000 people where killed. Why did Trump not liberate Sudan?
Why did Trump not stop the killing in the Gaza?
So it is selective.
The Nuclear weapons question.
Today Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, stepped down, as according to him there was no reason to go to war with Iran. There was no nuclear threat.
And according to Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, who attended the talks with Iran. He said, a deal was within reach.
Trump jumped into a war without notifying NATO or allies like Canada, UK, Europe etc.
It almost looks as if Trump started a war without properly thinking about the consequences.He jumped into a war while pissing off every ally he as save Israel.
He never thinks about the consequences, he has many times he only listens to his very fallible GUT.Here Is the information I've been waiting for.
In July 2025, under a reduction-in-force initiative, the department—led by Marco Rubio—laid off staff responsible for modeling worst-case scenarios tied to oil markets, including disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, where roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil typically passes.
This is what Trump said about Iran attacking other countries.
“They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East… Nobody expected that,” he said, referencing attacks on Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait.
It is a clear admission that he doesn't have a clue about the SunnI/Shia dynamics of the Mid-East. The other countries he is referring to are all Sunni's and that is where our military bases are. It's obvious he and his cohorts have no clue about how much Iranian Shia and Sunni (the other countries he mentioned) hate each other. Of Course Iran is making retaliation attacks against its enemies, including our bases.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets … ocialshareI gotta admit, if I was paying attention to everything Trump said... and constantly listening to CNN or reading Salon... like you guys do... I would have TDS...
I am typing that while laughing... some of the stuff that spills out of his mouth I could believe was straight out of a SNL skit it wasn't real.You can laugh your a** off but what I posted is very serious. I didn't have to listen to CNN or SNL. I knew about the Mid-East dynamics and the strait of Hormuz choke point years ago.
I do feel sorry for you because the only comment you can make is to downplay a very serious point where Trump is amazed by Iran attacking its adversaries. As far as TDS goes, that is tired slogan that is no longer effective. You are riding a dead horse and don't even know it.
Here is an article I wrote several years ago about the mid-east dynamics.
https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/ … ist-Groups
Unfortunately, as scary as that sounds, that he would jump into a war without thinking about the consequences....
I think you would find the truth of the matter scarier than that... what you are alluding to is an unbalanced individual making a spur of the moment decision.The comparisons you offered don’t line up once you separate what kind of violence we’re talking about.
Gaza and Israel are in an active war. That’s two sides engaged in ongoing conflict, right or wrong; it’s not a one-sided internal crackdown. The U.S. can influence that situation, but it doesn’t control it, and it certainly can’t just “step in and stop it” without triggering a much larger regional war.
Sudan is different again. What’s happening there is largely a civil war between rival military factions, and yes, tens of thousands have been killed. But again, that’s internal conflict and instability, not a regime with expanding regional influence and long-term strategic threats to the U.S.
Now compare that to Iran. You’re not just talking about deaths, you’re talking about a government that has a documented history of suppressing its own citizens, including killing protesters to maintain control, while also projecting power beyond its borders through proxy groups. That combination, internal repression plus external aggression, is what makes it a completely different category.
So the “why not Sudan?” or “why not Gaza?” argument misses the point. Those situations are tragic, but they don’t carry the same strategic implications. No president intervenes everywhere people are dying. They act where they believe U.S. interests and broader security risks are highest.
On the nuclear point, again, saying “there was no threat” based on one official or one near-deal ignores years of concern from multiple governments. Intelligence isn’t unanimous, and “a deal was close” doesn’t mean the threat disappears.
And the idea that Trump acted without allies, U.S. presidents have taken unilateral action many times when they believed it was necessary. That’s not unique, and it doesn’t automatically mean the decision was reckless.
If you want to argue it was the wrong move, that’s fair. But comparing completely different types of conflicts, war zones, civil wars, and a regime suppressing its own people while pursuing broader power, just isn’t an accurate way to make that case.
And I have to ask, why would Trump be expected to run his decisions through NATO or any other country before acting?
The President of the United States is elected to make decisions based on what’s best for America’s security, not to get permission from allies. Coordination can be valuable, sure, but it’s not a requirement, especially when timing, intelligence, or operational security are involved. You don’t broadcast or workshop sensitive military decisions with multiple countries and risk leaks or delays.
The idea that acting without prior NATO approval automatically makes a decision reckless just isn’t true. The U.S. has acted unilaterally under multiple presidents when they believed it was necessary. That’s part of maintaining sovereignty and the ability to respond quickly to threats.
Allies matter, but they don’t get veto power over U.S. actionAnd I have to ask, why would Trump be expected to run his decisions through NATO or any other country before acting?
———-
To answer that, why should NATO come to Trumps aid after the fact when he did not make his plans and intent known to them?
Then, You can expect each of the NATO members to be just as adamant about what is in their best interests regarding their own security matters and not committing resources on a wartime footing without justification just because America says so, and as of right now, they don’t have it….I understood that you gave as an argument to attack Iran were the 30.000+ deaths. So I countered with the argument that Sudan also had thousands of deaths but there was not an intervention.
In other words, the Iran deaths were not the motive to attack Iran.
It could be that the US attacked first and asked countries to help them later. Could you give examples that are equal on this scale?
But the fact that the US attacked Iran, does not mean the rest of the world has to help the US out.
The simple truth is that Europe and Canada have a different point of view. And that's there fair right. Trump started this war, so he has to finish it. If he want's to police the world he has to bare the consequences of doing so.
Today it looks that Iran is going to fight and never give up, like the Japanese in WWII.
In other words Trump created one big mess.
And Russia and China are the laughing bystanders.I think this is being framed a bit inaccurately. When I look at what Donald Trump actually asked other countries to do in the Strait of Hormuz, it wasn’t “we attacked, now come fight our war.” That’s not what happened.
What he asked for was very specific, he called on other nations to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most critical shipping lanes in the world. That meant things like sending naval ships, escorting oil tankers, helping with mine-clearing, and keeping the waterway open. In other words, a defensive, naval protection role, not joining some new ground war or offensive campaign.
And his reasoning was pretty straightforward: a huge portion of the world’s oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and countries like Japan, China, and European nations rely heavily on that supply. His position was basically — if your economy depends on that route, then you should help protect it.
So from my perspective, this wasn’t about the U.S. dragging allies into something after the fact. It was about asking other nations to share responsibility for protecting a global resource they benefit from. Those are two very different things.
I think this is being misunderstood. When I look at what Donald Trump actually asked other countries to do in the Strait of Hormuz, it was very limited and very specific.
He asked them to help secure the shipping lanes, send naval ships, escort oil tankers, help with mines, and keep the strait open. That’s a defensive, maritime role focused on protecting global trade, not launching attacks.
And this part really matters, he has not asked other nations to join in the military destruction of Iran. Even countries that pushed back made it clear their concern was being drawn into a wider war, not that they were being asked to go bomb Iran.
What he has said is pretty straightforward: if your country depends on that oil route, then you should help protect it. About 20% of the world’s oil moves through that strait, so this isn’t just a U.S. issue.
I also think people are ignoring another reality , a lot of NATO countries simply don’t have much to offer militarily in that specific situation. This isn’t a land war where you can just send troops. You need advanced naval capabilities, escort ships, mine-clearing, and the ability to operate in a high-risk, confined waterway. Some allies have even admitted they either lack the capacity or don’t see their involvement as meaningful.
So from my perspective, this wasn’t the U.S. saying “we started something, now come fight our war.” It was the U.S. saying:
“This is a global chokepoint that your economies rely on, help us keep it open.”
Those are two very different things.
I think this analogy falls apart pretty quickly when you actually look at the history. Comparing Japan in World War II to modern-day Iran ignores some major differences in both context and strategy.
Japan in the 1940s was an imperial power engaged in a full-scale global war, fighting nation-states across multiple continents with conventional armies, navies, and total war mobilization. Iran today is not in that position. What we’re seeing now is a much more limited, regional conflict shaped by proxy warfare, targeted strikes, and nuclear deterrence concerns—not anything close to a world war scenario.
Even the reasons behind the conflicts are completely different. Japan’s actions were driven by expansion, resource acquisition, and direct military confrontation with major powers. Iran’s situation is tied to long-running regional tensions, nuclear development disputes, and proxy conflicts with countries like Israel and the United States.
On top of that, modern warfare itself has changed. Today’s conflicts involve precision strikes, intelligence operations, cyber elements, and economic pressure—very different from the all-out industrial warfare of the 1940s.
I think it would be very hard to predict how long this war will last. I can say in my many years, I have not witnessed a president take off the gloves, untie the military’s hands, and hammer an opponent this hard. My guess would be it won’t last very long. The aftermath will be messy, trying to assure a suitable government is in place, but that would be my only concern at this point.
So when people try to draw a straight line between the two, it just doesn’t hold up. A few surface-level similarities don’t make them comparable in any meaningful way. If anything, it shows how important it is to actually look at the details instead of relying on broad analogies.
"The simple truth is that Europe and Canada have a different point of view. And that's there fair right. " I agree ---- as does the USAIf you look at this conflict from NATO countries point of view. What Iran has setup in the Strait of Hormuz is too dangerous for them to deploy their military assets there
---
Iran’s goal:** make the Strait *too dangerous to use*, not seize it.
1. Fast‑attack boat swarms**
- Hundreds of small IRGC boats
- Harass, board, or disable ships
2. Boarding & tanker seizures**
- Helicopter‑borne commandos + fast boats
- Force ships into Iranian waters
3. Naval mines**
- Thousands available
- Even rumors halt shipping
- Slow, dangerous to clear
4. Drones & loitering munitions**
- Surveillance + strike capability
- Tracks every ship in the Strait
5. Coastal anti‑ship missiles**
- Dozens of batteries in hardened sites
- Entire Strait within range
6. Submarines & mini‑subs**
- Mine‑laying and shadowing ships
- Dangerous in shallow water
7. Rockets & coastal artillery**
- Mobile launchers create no‑go zones
8. GPS spoofing & electronic warfare**
- Redirects or confuses ships
- Used to lure tankers into Iranian waters
9. Proxy forces**
- Houthis, Iraqi militias, Hezbollah
- Expand threat beyond the Strait
Bottom line**
Iran uses a **layered, overlapping threat network** designed to keep the Strait unstable and risky — not closed, just dangerous enough to pressure everyone.I can agree with the AI analysis you shared. It appears the U.S. will have some heavy lifting ahead to handle this situation, and I trust our military will do just that. At the same time, there’s always the possibility things don’t move as efficiently as expected.
I don’t doubt that Iran is all but done. And if it’s not, I would expect there won’t be much left of that nation when this is over.
In my view, the hope that everything goes badly just to check a box that says “Trump fails again” will go unanswered. I don’t see it playing out that way.
For me, I see this as a win—not just for the U.S., but also for the nations that won’t offer even a bit of help. But that’s nothing new. History has shown that’s often how it goes.
One important point the AI analysis missed: Trump does not fight a war with his hands tied behind his back. I don’t think this conflict will last long, but I do expect it to be devastating. Just my gut feeling. Right now, we’re only seeing the opening act of what’s coming—the grand finale is still ahead.His hands were not tied behind his back, but it is obvious that he and his advisors went into this without any in-depth research or analysis or they wouldn't be where they are now
Trump is a deal maker. So, he bombs the hell out of Iran, Then, he thinks he can make a deal and says, OK. now do you surrender. He says he is winning, but he needs to win more. What is his goal. Is it regime change, no nukes, or helping Israel? So, you think the grand finale is devastation of what or who?One key point I think the AI analysis missed is this: In my view, Trump doesn’t tend to fight with constraints; he goes all in. I believe he will win this war, and win it quickly. I don’t see it dragging out, but I do think it will be extremely devastating for Iran.
To me, what we’re seeing now feels like just the opening phase; the real decisive moment is still ahead. As for his goals, I’d point to regime change, stopping any nuclear capability, and supporting Israel while working toward broader stability in the Middle East. In the end, I think he’d want his legacy to be that he brought peace to a region that’s never truly had it.
He’s an unconventional figure—unlike any other president we’ve had. He seems unafraid to take on challenges that have troubled the United States for decades and to pursue solutions others have avoided. It only leaves me to ask --- what's next?Sharlee, I understand you’re looking at this through the lens of Trump’s personality and style, but everything you’ve said rests on assumptions about how quickly and easily a war with Iran could be won. Nothing in the region’s history, geography, or military reality supports that idea.
Iran isn’t a small, fractured state. It’s a nation of 90 million people with over a million Revolutionary Guards, difficult terrain, and decades of preparation for asymmetric warfare. That’s not the kind of conflict anyone “wins quickly,” no matter who is in the White House.I have to acknowledge that, in my view, I see Donald Trump through a very filtered lens, one shaped not only by his unique personality and style, but also by what he chooses to reveal publicly. The image we get is curated, highlighting certain strengths while keeping other aspects out of sight, and that naturally blurs the lens through which we interpret his actions and decisions.
That’s why I use the terminology I do (In my view). I also suspect that some of your points are coming from a similarly filtered perspective, shaped by assumptions about how a president “should” act.
I can see your point, and it might even hold under a different president. But right now, we have someone unlike any other I’ve observed. From what I can tell, this war will likely be fought quickly, and unfortunately, it will be devastating for Iran. At the same time, what we’ve seen from Trump is a leader who doesn’t fight with one hand tied behind his back. He negotiates, but on his own hardline terms.
I’m very aware of the terrain, which is often highlighted in left-leaning media. History shows it’s a region where ground wars are extremely difficult. But I doubt that’s what Trump has in mind, after watching past presidents stumble repeatedly in similar situations.
It seems clear that we have very different expectations for how this conflict will unfold. I can respect your perspective; it’s logical and well thought out. But I factor in a leader who is determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past.Sharlee, I appreciate your honesty about the filter through which you view Trump — that’s a rare admission in political discussions. But that’s precisely why I’m cautious about relying on personality as a predictor of military outcomes. Leaders can be unconventional, forceful, or determined, but none of that changes the hard realities of geography, population size, or the nature of asymmetric warfare.
Every president in modern history has entered conflicts believing they would be quick and decisive. None of them planned for long, grinding wars — yet that’s what they got, because the region itself dictates the pace, not the personality in the Oval Office.
Iran isn’t going to be “won quickly” because someone is bold or unfiltered. It’s a nation of 90 million, with difficult terrain and decades of preparation for exactly this kind of conflict. Those structural realities don’t bend to individual leadership styles, no matter how unconventional.
So while I respect that you see Trump through a particular lens, my perspective isn’t shaped by how a president “should” act — it’s shaped by what history shows actually happens when large, well‑armed nations are attacked.Point well taken, , but I think you’re oversimplifying this in a different way. You’re acting like leadership doesn’t meaningfully affect outcomes, and history just doesn’t support that.
Strategy, decision-making, and willingness to act absolutely matter. Different presidents have handled conflicts very differently, with very different results. Leadership doesn’t override geography or population, but it does shape how those factors are dealt with. Speed, escalation, deterrence, and objectives all come from the top.
Also, I think there’s a flaw in comparing this to past long wars. This isn’t Vietnam War or War in Afghanistan, where the U.S. was trying to occupy and rebuild entire nations while fighting insurgencies on the ground. That’s not what’s happening here.
No one is talking about invading and occupying Iran with millions of troops. This is largely about military capability, deterrence, and control of critical infrastructure and waterways. That’s a completely different type of conflict, and those can be decisive without turning into decades-long ground wars.
And on the “asymmetric warfare” point, yes, Iran can disrupt, harass, and drag things out. But that’s not the same as winning. Causing instability in the Strait of Hormuz isn’t a strategic victory; it’s a tactic to raise costs and pressure the global economy. There’s a difference.
I also don’t think it’s accurate to say this is about “personality.” It’s about posture. A president’s willingness to respond forcefully, set clear limits, and follow through changes how adversaries calculate risk. That’s not theoretical, that’s how deterrence works.
So I agree that geography and scale matter. But dismissing leadership as secondary misses a big part of the picture. Outcomes aren’t dictated by terrain alone, they’re shaped by decisions.Sharlee, I agree with you that leadership matters — strategy, escalation choices, and political posture all shape how conflicts unfold. But where we differ is in how much weight those factors can realistically carry when set against the fundamentals.
Leadership can influence tempo and tactics, but it can’t override geography, population size, or the basic limits of what airpower can achieve. Every president enters a conflict believing they can be decisive. None of them plan for long, grinding engagements — yet that’s what they get, because the structural realities assert themselves regardless of who is in the Oval Office.
And I don’t think the comparison to Vietnam or Afghanistan is about occupation. It’s about expectations. In every modern conflict, the USA believed it could achieve its objectives quickly through superior capability, deterrence, and targeted strikes. In practice, adversaries adapted, dispersed, and absorbed the blows. Capability didn’t translate into collapse.
That’s the point I’m making with Iran. It’s not about “winning” in the sense of occupying Tehran — it’s about whether airstrikes and infrastructure attacks can make a nation of 90 million people crumble. History suggests they can’t. Precision weapons can destroy facilities, but they don’t produce the kind of city‑wide devastation that breaks national cohesion. And as we’ve seen repeatedly, populations under attack tend to rally around the flag, even when they dislike their leaders.
On deterrence, I agree posture matters. But deterrence shapes behaviour before a conflict, not the resilience of a nation once the shooting starts. Once a country is under sustained attack, the calculus changes. At that point, geography, scale, and asymmetric capacity matter far more than presidential style.
So I’m not dismissing leadership — I’m just saying it can’t substitute for the hard limits of what air campaigns can achieve against large, well‑prepared states. Those limits don’t disappear because a president is forceful or unconventional. They’re built into the nature of modern warfare itself.There are only two instances ChatGPT found where bombing alone achieved the objective. One was the NATO bombing campaign against tiny little (size matters) Serbia to save Kosovo (so the objective is different than in Iran). The other was Japan where America nuked them into submission. Multiple years of unbelievably heavy bombing didn't do the job as Trump thinks it will here. We had to resort to nuclear weapons to get them to unconditionally surrender. Is that what Trump will decided to do here?
Exactly — those two cases highlight how rare it is for bombing alone to achieve strategic collapse. And neither of them resembles the situation with Iran. Thanks for adding that clarity.
"And I don’t think the comparison to Vietnam or Afghanistan is about occupation. It’s about expectations. In every modern conflict, the USA believed it could achieve its objectives quickly through superior capability, deterrence, and targeted strikes. In practice, adversaries adapted, dispersed, and absorbed the blows. Capability didn’t translate into collapse."
Lack of commitment...
Lack of will.
Your projections are fair, if Iran is taken in isolation, and not considered in the bigger quilt of actions the Trump Administration has taken.
AND
If nothing of significance changes.
But we don't know what is to come.
Imagine a successful terrorist attack on American soil, one that claims thousands of lives, that is traced back to Iran.
That would change opinions, shift the support for any actions taken...Attacking under THAT scenario falls well within legal and constitutional lines while the actions you are defending do not.
Ken, I understand what you’re saying about will and commitment, but that’s exactly why I keep bringing the discussion back to structural realities. Political will can change the intensity of a response, but it can’t change the limits of what airpower can achieve against a large, well‑prepared nation.
If “will” were enough to overcome geography and scale, then Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan would all have ended very differently. In each case, the USA had overwhelming capability, overwhelming public anger at the start, and overwhelming political support. None of that translated into the kind of decisive collapse people expected, because the fundamentals asserted themselves.
Your hypothetical about a major terrorist attack is emotionally understandable, but it doesn’t change those fundamentals. A surge in public anger doesn’t make Iran’s population smaller, its terrain easier, or its infrastructure more fragile. It doesn’t turn precision strikes into city‑flattening bombardment. And it doesn’t change the fact that large nations adapt, disperse, and harden under pressure.
In fact, history shows the opposite of what you’re suggesting:
when a country is attacked, even populations who dislike their government tend to rally around the flag. That’s not a moral judgement — it’s just how national psychology works under threat.
So yes, political will matters for how far a president is willing to go. But it doesn’t override the basic limits of what air campaigns can achieve. Those limits don’t disappear because a leader is determined, angry, or unconventional. They’re built into the nature of modern warfare itself.
I understand the original point — that airstrikes and infrastructure attacks don’t necessarily break a country’s cohesion on their own. But I think that argument misses something important with Iran specifically. This isn’t just another state with a population that “might rally around the flag.” Millions of Iranians have already been demonstrating for change, and the government’s response has been brutal. Countries don’t start from a blank slate: right now, Iranians have seen their own government kill thousands of civilians who went out to protest. Rights groups and U.N. experts say thousands have been killed in protest crackdowns in recent months, some estimates even put the figures far higher than official government claims.
That reality matters when you talk about how people react if they feel they might actually have a chance at freedom. You can’t assume Iranians will automatically rally behind the regime just because of bombing. These people are not abstract subjects whose only identity is “Iranian national.” Many have already risked everything trying to change their own government, and paid a horrific price for it.
So arguing that “air campaigns can’t make a nation crumble” without reckoning with the fact that the population has already shown significant dissent and been violently suppressed feels like it’s leaving out a huge part of the picture. You can look at the physical limits of military power, but you also have to reckon with who the people are now, what they’ve already endured, and what kinds of change they might actually fight for if given real hope and opportunity.So arguing that “air campaigns can’t make a nation crumble” without reckoning with the fact that the population has already shown significant dissent and been violently suppressed feels like it’s leaving out a huge part of the picture. You can look at the physical limits of military power, but you also have to reckon with who the people are now, what they’ve already endured, and what kinds of change they might actually fight for if given real hope and opportunity.
———-
All the same, it still can go either way. There is no certainly that the outcome that you foresee will come to fruition.I had hoped my comment conveyed that ultimately, the people of Iran will decide their own fate. They might continue to support the current government, or they could see an opportunity to challenge it. I’m not claiming to know what they will do. What I’ve shared is that I believe Trump will act according to what he thinks is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Beyond that, I have no way of knowing how Iranian citizens would respond, and I’m not suggesting otherwise.
The real question here is how much of the Iranian population wants what we define as peace under a new regime and how much of the population wants to keep the old regime. It is all based on which side views it as a direct threat to its existence.
WWII was a direct threat to the ally's existence, and we came together as a united front to defeat the enemy If we were attacked by aliens from outer space. The worlds' population would come together as one united front as well.
The missiles that targeted Diego Garcia, were not ICBM's. They were IRBM's (intermediate Range Missiles).
This is from Defense Security Asia
Iran’s attempted strike on Diego Garcia represents a significant development not because the missiles failed to hit the target, but because the launch demonstrated a potential expansion of range that challenges previous assumptions about the limits of Tehran’s intermediate-range ballistic missile capability.
The use of a Khorramshahr-class system in a configuration capable of reaching nearly 4,000 km suggests that payload adjustments or undisclosed modifications may allow Iran to threaten targets well beyond the Middle East, altering the strategic calculations of U.S., U.K., and allied planners.
The interception attempt by a U.S. Navy destroyer shows that current missile defence networks can respond to such threats, but the uncertainty surrounding the engagement outcome highlights the difficulty of defending widely dispersed bases.
By targeting a critical logistics hub rather than a frontline position, the launch emphasised the vulnerability of infrastructure that enables global military operations, making rear-area defence a central concern for future planning.
Although no damage occurred, the event carries strategic weight because it signals that the geographic scope of the conflict could expand, forcing policymakers to consider the protection of installations previously viewed as outside the threat envelope."The real question here is how much of the Iranian population wants what we define as peace under a new regime and how much of the population wants to keep the old regime. It is all based on which side views it as a direct threat to its existence." PP
I think my comment pretty much agrees with your sentiment.
"The missiles that targeted Diego Garcia, were not ICBM's. They were IRBM's (intermediate Range Missiles)." PP
I posted a comment this morning that shared that information, regarding your thoughts.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/370 … ost4396368
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/370 … ost4396360
It appears 22 nations thus far have now offered some form of assistance -- 22 countries voice 'readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts' to open Strait of Hormuz
Sharlee, I don’t disagree that many Iranians despise their government — that’s well‑documented. But that’s precisely why the structural factors matter so much. Popular anger doesn’t automatically translate into regime collapse, especially when the population is unarmed and the state’s coercive apparatus is intact.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is a million‑strong, heavily armed, and ideologically committed. They’ve already shown they’re willing to kill thousands of protesters to preserve the regime. That’s why the protests earlier this year didn’t succeed: the people had courage, but they had no weapons, no organisation, and no way to overcome a loyal, well‑equipped security force.
And that’s the key point. Even if 90% of the population hates the regime, the 10% who support it — combined with the Revolutionary Guard — are enough to suppress any uprising. The only scenario where the picture changes is if the Guard switches sides, and there’s no evidence of that. If anything, external attacks tend to harden their loyalty.
There’s also the psychological effect of foreign strikes. Many ordinary Iranians who dislike the regime still resent being bombed by the United States. We’ve already seen that dynamic: anger at Trump has, for some, overtaken anger at their own leaders. That doesn’t create the conditions for collapse — it creates the opposite.
So yes, dissent exists. But dissent under repression isn’t the same as a population capable of toppling a state under fire. Without weapons, without organisation, and facing a loyal, well‑armed security force, popular anger alone doesn’t overturn a regime — especially not in the middle of a foreign air campaign.
That’s why I keep coming back to the structural limits. Leadership matters, but it can’t substitute for the hard realities of scale, geography, and the regime’s coercive capacity.The other thing the dissidents are mission that is crucial to any successful uprising is 1) a strong internal organizational structure and 2) a leader they can rally around. They have neither and like each of the past times they bravely and honorably tried, they failed.
Absolutely — without organisation and a unifying leader, even widespread anger can’t translate into a successful uprising.
I really need to start reading what I write before clicking submit. Mission = Missing.
I understand the points you make regarding structural factors, the Revolutionary Guard is large, well-armed, and ideologically committed. But your argument misses the bigger picture: regimes aren’t just held together by weapons and loyalists; they rely on legitimacy and consent, even if coerced. When a population has already risked everything to protest and been violently crushed, that anger doesn’t disappear. It goes underground, becomes more resilient, and can be mobilized when circumstances shift. History is full of examples: authoritarian regimes with strong militaries have collapsed when popular dissent, even if initially suppressed, reached a tipping point. Look at Eastern Europe in the late 1980s or Iran’s own 1979 revolution, the Shah had security forces and loyal military units, yet the population, once organized and motivated, overwhelmed them.
Yes, the Guard is powerful, and foreign strikes can backfire psychologically. But ignoring the internal dynamics of a population already demonstrating massive dissent is a mistake. People aren’t static objects whose reaction is predetermined by force alone. Even under repression, motivation, organization, and opportunity can produce rapid change, especially if a government shows weakness, loses cohesion, or alienates key factions.
So while structural capacity matters, it isn’t the only factor. The question isn’t just how strong the regime looks today, but how fragile its support really is, and how the people already suffering under its rule could act if given even a sliver of hope or opportunity. Underestimating that ignores the human element, which is often the decisive one in regime change.
We just have no way of knowing what the people will or won't do.Sharlee, I’m not dismissing the human element at all — people matter, and dissent matters. But the examples you’re drawing on don’t map onto Iran’s current situation. Eastern Europe in the 1980s collapsed because the Soviet Union withdrew support, the militaries refused to fire on civilians, and the regimes had already lost internal cohesion. Iran today is the opposite: the Revolutionary Guard is loyal, heavily armed, ideologically committed, and has repeatedly shown it will kill civilians to preserve the state.
The 1979 revolution also isn’t a useful comparison. The Shah’s military fractured, key commanders defected, and the regime lost the will to fight. That’s the decisive factor in every successful uprising: the security forces stop defending the government. Without that, popular anger — no matter how widespread — can’t topple a regime.
And that’s the core point. Iran’s population is unarmed, unorganised, and facing a million‑strong force that has already demonstrated it will shoot protesters in the street. Nothing in the current situation suggests the Guard is wavering. If anything, foreign strikes tend to harden their loyalty, not weaken it.
You’re right that people aren’t static and that dissent can re‑emerge when conditions shift. But dissent under repression isn’t the same as a population capable of overthrowing a state in the middle of an external attack. Without weapons, without organisation, and without a split in the security forces, uprisings don’t succeed — and that’s not speculation, it’s the pattern across every modern case.
So yes, we can’t predict every human reaction. But we can look at the structural realities: a loyal, well‑armed coercive apparatus; an unarmed population; and a regime that has already shown it will use lethal force. Those factors don’t disappear because anger exists. They’re the reason anger hasn’t translated into collapse so far, and the reason external bombing doesn’t magically change the equation.
I actually agree with a lot of your breakdown. Iran has clearly built a layered, asymmetric threat network in the Strait of Hormuz. Fast boats, mines, drones, missiles, proxies… all of that is real, and the goal is exactly what you said: not to seize the Strait, but to make it risky and unpredictable.
But I think the conclusion goes a bit too far when you say it’s “too dangerous” for NATO countries to operate there.
The U.S. and its allies have dealt with these exact types of threats for decades. Mine countermeasures, carrier groups, surveillance, and constant naval presence in that region aren’t new. Risky? Yes. Off-limits? Clearly not, ships are still actively moving through the Strait of Hormuz right now. If it were truly “too dangerous to use,” global shipping, especially oil, would already be at a standstill, and it’s not.
And I think another key point is being overlooked, we’re not talking about a hypothetical situation anymore. There is already ongoing conflict and direct exchanges happening in the region.
The bigger issue that gets missed is that Iran is not just creating the risk, they’re also deeply dependent on that same Strait.
Around 90–96% of Iran’s oil exports move through Hormuz, and oil revenue has historically made up a huge portion of their government funding. A massive share of their total exports relies on that route as well.
So, while they can harass, disrupt, and raise costs, they can’t realistically shut it down or make it unusable without seriously damaging their own economy, an economy that is already struggling due to this war.
That’s why their strategy stays in that gray zone:
Create enough instability to gain leverage — but not so much that they choke off their own economic lifeline.
And right now, that constraint matters even more. Iran’s economy has already been under heavy strain from sanctions, especially after policies tied to Donald Trump significantly increased economic pressure. They’re not in a position where they can afford to cripple their own primary export route.
What I think more people should step back and recognize is the bigger picture. Iran wasn’t just sitting still, it was becoming a stronger and more aggressive military player in the region, while also strengthening ties with Russia and China, neither of which are soft adversaries. That kind of alignment should concern people.
From my perspective, that’s why pressure matters. You may disagree with the approach, and I know NATO and parts of Europe often have different ideals, but ideals alone don’t guarantee security. In fact, history shows time and again that lofty, unrealistic ideals encouraged aggressors to wage war.
At the end of the day, if a known terrorist nation such as Iran is moving toward greater military power and potentially nuclear capability, ignoring it isn’t a strategy. Confronting it economically, politically, and when necessary, militarily, is what is needed.
I’m thankful to see this horrific threat finally being confronted, after decades of being ignored.
Trump started a war without planning nor asking for advise. As the reaction of Iran, disrupting the oil industry was something they had warned about decades ago, and all the presidents before Donald Trump new this risk.
So If you attack Iran, you have to be absolutely sure beforehand that you can secure the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran basically has already won this war. As Trump now has two options, retreat and except defeat and let the oil through so the world economy can stabilize again. OR put boots on the ground and come back with thousands of body bags.
Either way Iran wins, as Iran now has shown the world how it controls the oil flow by destroying the Strait of Hamuz. Or Trump goes into a war that will cost the American economy and will show many body bags.
Trump is now in a position were he wants to share his political blunder.
Europe says No Thanks you, we have another war to fight against Russia together with Ukraine.
NATO is for defending not for attacking.
About Japan, thank you for your book. I know that. I was comparing the two as the US claimed that it dropped The Bomb as otherwise the Japanese soldiers would fight to the death. The crazy Iranian Guard, will do the same.
I was only comparing their spirit in fighting, not the situation.
And what is a "suitable government" - There is not really a opposition in Iran. Iran has had 70 years to structure their "government" so in times of war they could loose their head of state. It is not a pyramid power structure but a power structure build on pillars. It is not the same as Iraq. So it is not over in a couple of weeks. That's the same mistake Russia made with Ukraine.
I hope Trump can except defeat and retreat and does not go in with an army because that will be bloody on the US side too.
Trump made a complete cluster## out of it. And the politicians outside and inside the US understood this. They don't want to be dragged into this.
I bet that even politicians from the Republican party are slowly retreating from the Trump circle as they want to survive after Trump is gone.Your take assumes a lot of certainty that simply isn’t supported by facts. The claim that Trump “started a war without planning or asking for advice” ignores all the intelligence briefings, military assessments, and coordination that go into any U.S. action in the region. Presidents don’t make these decisions lightly, and Trump consulted his national security team and the Pentagon before authorizing targeted strikes. The US need not ask any other nation's permission or even advice to take action to protect our Nation. So, I don't entertain your concerns about speaking with other nations when it comes to protecting our shores or feeling that he is preventing genocide on innocent people.
The idea that Iran has already “won” because of temporary oil disruptions is an exaggeration. The Strait of Hormuz is heavily monitored and any disruption is countered by international shipping and military patrols. Iran’s actions are provocative, but they do not equate to total control or victory over global oil flow. History shows that temporary blockages don’t determine the outcome of a conflict.
The Strait of Hormuz is heavily monitored, and any disruption is immediately countered by international shipping and military patrols. Iran’s actions are provocative, but they do not give them total control or victory over global oil flow. History shows that temporary blockages do not determine the outcome of a conflict. In fact, by disrupting the strait, Iran has mostly shot itself in the foot; it cuts off crucial export revenue, undermines its own economy, and pushes buyers to look elsewhere. Even if Iran can technically sell oil, the risk of attacks, higher shipping and insurance costs, potential legal exposure from sanctions, reduced reliability of deliveries, and market perception of instability all make importers turn to safer, more predictable suppliers like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or the U.S.
The notion that Trump has only two choices, retreat or massive boots on the ground, is a false binary. Modern conflicts are rarely “all or nothing.” Precision strikes, economic sanctions, and international pressure are all tools available, and the U.S. has a wide range of options short of full-scale occupation. Framing it as thousands of body bags and guaranteed economic disaster is hyperbolic. Actually, he has talked about taking out their capacity to refine their oil and bring down their infrastructure.
Regarding Iran’s government, yes, it’s structured differently from Iraq, but that doesn’t mean it’s invulnerable. Disrupting leadership, command networks, and critical infrastructure is part of military strategy.
The idea that Trump’s actions are universally seen as a “cluster ##” and that Republicans are retreating from him is pure speculation. Political reactions are mixed, and many support a strong U.S. stance to protect allies and interests in the region. Assuming everyone is retreating without evidence is simply reading your own bias into the situation.
In short, the scenario you’re presenting is overly confident and alarmist. There are risks, yes, but there are also facts, options, and contingencies that your comment completely ignores. Painting this as a guaranteed disaster for the U.S. is misleading and not grounded in reality.
I have shared my view, as have you--- at this point, no need to beat a dead horse. I’m not a hand-wringer, but a watchful strategist.
Shar, I hear you — and I agree with the narrow framing you’re making as far as it goes.
Yes: asking allies to help escort shipping, clear mines, and keep the Strait open is not the same as saying “come bomb Iran.” That’s a real distinction, and it’s fair to say some people blur it.
But here’s where I think the real issue is being skipped: why is the U.S. the default insurer of that chokepoint in the first place, and what’s the standard for when we escalate versus when we simply contain? “It’s defensive” is not the end of the analysis — it’s the start.
A few questions that matter to me, regardless of which president is in office:
What exactly is the objective?
Keeping shipping lanes open is a clear goal. But if the larger policy is “hammer Iran until it collapses,” that’s a different goal — and it drags “defensive naval security” into a broader war strategy even if the ask to allies sounds limited.
What is the off-ramp and the limit?
If we “untie the military’s hands” and “hammer an opponent,” what is the defined stopping point? What tells you it’s done? History is full of wars that started “limited” and then grew legs.
What’s the evidence that this makes us safer rather than more exposed?
Even if the Strait is a global resource, the next question is: does tougher force posture reduce attacks, or does it raise the chance of retaliation, miscalculation, and escalation in a confined waterway where mistakes happen fast?
Would you support the same approach if Biden did it?
Same facts, same risks, same “defensive escort” language — would you still say he “took off the gloves” and praise it as smart? I’m asking because I’m trying to keep one standard for both teams.
On the “Europe and Canada have a different point of view” line — I completely agree. And that difference is actually an important signal. If our closest allies consistently worry they’re being pulled into escalation, that doesn’t automatically make them weak. It might mean they’re weighing the downside risks more heavily — the very risks we always pay when something goes sideways.
Last point: you said you haven’t seen a president “hammer an opponent” like this and that it “won’t last long.” Maybe. But that’s also the kind of confidence leaders often have right before long, messy aftermaths. So my question isn’t “Is Iran bad?” (we agree it is). My question is what standard are you using to decide this is necessary, bounded, and worth the predictable blowback?
If you can answer those standards clearly, I’ll respect the position even if I disagree with it. If the standard is basically “Trump is finally tough, therefore it’ll work,” that’s where I worry we’re substituting identity and emotion for analysis.I get the caution. But let’s be honest, some of these questions, while logical, are basically impossible to answer before action starts. In the real world, you don’t get a perfect blueprint for every escalation or retaliation before you make a move.
Here’s just my view: the Strait is vital, and allowing threats to dictate terms is exactly how conflicts snowball. Asking allies to help escort shipping and keep it open isn’t “hammering Iran”, it’s protecting global commerce, American interests, and our credibility. Waiting until everything is perfectly defined is how you lose the initiative and invite aggression.
As for “off-ramps” and “limits,” those exist in real time. Smart leadership adjusts dynamically, based on facts on the ground, not hypotheticals written in a think tank. History shows that a strong, clear posture prevents conflicts from spiraling. Hesitation and indecision is what invites them.
Would I support the same approach if Biden did it? Yes — if the facts and stakes were the same, and they were. I would have supported it under Obama. This isn’t about party; it’s about demonstrating that America protects its interests and allies. It is about a safer world.
At the end of the day, “toughness” isn’t just emotion; in my book, it’s strategy. It’s a necessary step to avoid the messy, drawn-out wars that come from weakness and indecision. I’d rather act decisively now and prevent escalation than pretend we can predict every twist and turn before moving.
Sharlee, I hear you. Iran is clearly dangerous and brutal. I’m not disputing that. I’m trying to understand your standard.
When a president uses force, what do you require before you support it? Imminent threat? Congressional approval? Clear objectives? An exit plan? I’m asking because I’d want the same guardrails no matter who’s in office
And just an added FYI...
To many outsiders, especially Western governments and media, the Shah's regime (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) appeared rock-solid in 1976. Iran was a key U.S. ally in the Cold War, bolstered by oil wealth, a modernizing economy, and a powerful military equipped with American arms. The Shah's "White Revolution" reforms had driven rapid industrialization, urbanization, and women's rights advancements, positioning Iran as a beacon of progress in the Middle East.
Economic growth was booming in the early 1970s due to high oil prices, with GDP per capita rising sharply. President Jimmy Carter, during a 1977 visit to Tehran, famously toasted Iran as "an island of stability in one of the most troubled areas of the world,"
Three years later, we had the Iranian Theocracy chanting 'Death to America".So, what is it that they say about “burning your bridges”?
https://www.theatlantic.com/national-se … aign=share"‘Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation’: Trump-appointed intelligence official resigns over Iran war"
This guy was a die-hard Trumper - fooled by the 2020 voter denial hoax.
It finally got too much for him as it should do for the Trump apologists on this site and he started telling the TRUTH!!!
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/17/politics … s-iran-warSome Americans seem to be under the impression that because Israel and the USA have dropped a lot of bombs on Iran, the country is about to crumble.
But if you compare the actual destructive power, the rough estimate so far is only about a tenth of the total tonnage Germany dropped on Britain during the Blitz — an eight‑month campaign that devastated cities across a much smaller country with a much smaller population.
And even after all that, Britain didn’t capitulate.
So the idea that Iran — a nation of 90 million with over a million Revolutionary Guards and decades of preparation for asymmetric warfare — is going to collapse quickly because of airstrikes simply doesn’t match what history tells us about how nations endure under bombardment.Well lets consider that comparison...
What would have happened to the UK if America hadn't entered the war on the side of the UK... if its Industrial capabilities weren't directed to supplying military equipment, not only to the UK, but the Russians as well?
So, not comparable at all...
Also, the population supported the government of the UK... I don't think the Theocracy of Iran enjoys such devotion from the totality of its populace.
I don't see a legitimate comparison.You deflected again. The comparison was - does dropping a lot of bombs force collapse. Based on Nathanville's example, no it does not - which history and common sense supports.
Yup... I can see how a direct response to his opinion is considered deflection.
And you wonder why only Sharlee has debated you seriously for the last three years.Sharlee defends Trump no matter what the situation is, Her perspective is that Trump's glass is half full, not half empty. And you do the same thing.
I support Trump’s agenda so far, it’s what I voted for. I voted for a man who promised to tackle the problems I’ve been complaining about for 40 years. I knew addressing them would take heavy lifting, and in my view, Trump has the guts and determination to do that. I’m reasonably satisfied with what I’ve seen so far, and I hope to see continued progress, particularly with economic improvement, over the next few years. In regard to Iran, which was at the top of my list, I have grandkids, and in my view, I’d like to think they can thrive under a planet where terrorists never got their hands on nukes. Shar
Shar — I appreciate that answer. It’s clear you’re not cheering chaos; you’re thinking like a grandmother who wants her grandkids safe and the country working again. I respect that.
Where I’m still hung up is the standard piece. I get “heavy lifting.” I even get “tough choices.” But “I voted for him” can’t become “therefore whatever he does is right.” That’s how any leader—right or left—starts operating without guardrails.
So can I ask you a few specific questions, not as a gotcha, but because I want to understand your line in the sand?
What would make you say, “That went too far”—even if the goal is something you support?
Is it lack of evidence? Civilian harm? Congress being bypassed? No exit plan?
On Iran: what exact outcome would convince you this is working?
For example: verified limits on enrichment, a durable inspection regime, reduced proxy attacks, a stable shipping lane, etc. What are your “checkpoints” that say your grandkids are actually safer and we’re not just in a new cycle?
If a Democratic president used the same “untie the military’s hands” approach—same evidence threshold, same risks—would you support it the same way?
I’m asking because the only way I can keep myself honest is to use the same yardstick for both teams.
And one more thought, gently: I’m 100% with you on “terrorists with nukes” being unacceptable. But there’s a difference between preventing a nuclear weapon and escalating in ways that increase retaliation and long-term instability. Sometimes “tough” looks like striking. Sometimes “tough” looks like disciplined containment, inspections, and coalitions that keep the program boxed in without widening the war.
I’m not asking you to abandon your vote. I’m asking you to help me understand: what are the guardrails and the measurable results that would make you say this was worth it?Let me be truthful: I’m not cheering chaos, but I am clear about my line in the sand.
Iran should never come close to a nuclear weapon again. That means no enrichment above civilian levels, no stockpiling of weapons‑usable material, and no secret nuclear infrastructure. We’ve seen them agree to limits before and break them, so my standard isn’t just talks or inspections, it’s real, verifiable outcomes.
For me, the only way this is “worth it” is if Iran’s leadership changes and the people can vote in a government that won’t threaten the region. Guardrails aren’t just paper promises; they’re dismantled weapons programs, no ability to weaponize uranium, and a move away from funding terror proxies. I think it's time to face the problem head-on, before we actually can't face it, due to these proven terrorist regimes blowing us sky high.
I’d hold any president to the same standard. It’s not about party loyalty — it’s about keeping Americans and our grandchildren safe from a regime that could threaten the world with nukes.Shar, thank you — that’s the clearest line-in-the-sand you’ve given yet, and I’m going to take it seriously.
But I need to separate three different standards you appear to be mixing together:
1. What you want (Iran never gets a weapon or proxies stop)
2. What’s effective (what actually achieves that)
3. What’s lawful (what a President is allowed to do without Congress)
You can be 100% right about (1) and still be wrong about (2) or (3).
The constitutional question: “Can a President do this on his own?”
In the U.S. system, starting or expanding a war is supposed to be Congress’s job, except in narrow circumstances where there’s a sudden/actual attack or a truly imminent threat that demands immediate defense. For example, satellites pick up that North Korea is getting ready to launch a nuke in a few hours or a day. What is not imminent is a threat that is six months or more away. I will argue that the threat Iran poses is not imminent.
That’s the whole point of having a Constitution isn't it, that no one person gets to decide, Don't you agree we can't have a president say “Trust me, it’s necessary,” and then pull the country into a war.?
And this is where I think your argument runs into trouble:
You’re describing a long-term policy goal e.g., “Iran should never come close again,” or "there must be a regime change,” or maybe “people need to be able to vote in a new government”).
Those clearly are not “imminent threat” scenarios. Those are open-ended war aims.
If that’s the aim, the honest approach is: make the case to Congress, vote, and take responsibility publicly.
The “President alone decides” argument is exactly what scares me
Think about it - when the DHS Director tells the world that only the President can judge imminence and the intelligence community can’t. If that’s the rule, then any President can start any war anytime by simply asserting, “I know things you don’t.” That’s not a conservative principle. That’s not even an American principle. That’s how countries slide into dictatorship.
So here’s the standards test you said you’d apply to any president:
If Biden (or Obama) launched major strikes based on “trust me, it’s imminent” while sidelining Congress and dismissing the intelligence community’s role, would you accept that?
Or would you demand: "show the evidence, come to Congress, and define limits?"
One more hard truth: regime change is not a “guardrail”
You called regime change the only way it’s worth it. But regime change is not a guardrail — it’s the most extreme objective, and historically it’s one of the most unpredictable. If that’s the goal, then the legal/constitutional case has to be even stronger, not weaker.
So I’ll ask you the cleanest question possible:
Do you believe a President has the constitutional authority to launch a regime-change war without a Congressional authorization, even if there’s no imminent attack?
If yes, then you’re effectively saying the President can start wars by personal judgment alone. If no, then we’re agreeing on the core issue: whatever the policy goal, it has to be lawful and accountable.
I’m not asking you to love Iran or to go soft on terrorists. I’m asking you to keep one principle intact: in America, no President gets a blank check to wage war because he says it’s necessary.I think you’re overcomplicating what I actually said and putting words into my position that I never argued.
I never said a President should have a “blank check” to start a war, and I never dismissed Congress or the Constitution. That’s your framework, not mine.
What I did say is very simple: Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, and we’ve already seen that agreements, inspections, and “guardrails on paper” have failed to stop them. That’s not a hypothetical concern; it’s based on their history.
You’re trying to separate “what I want” from “what’s effective,” but that’s exactly the point: doing nothing, delaying, or relying on agreements that Iran has already violated is not effective. Waiting until a threat meets your definition of “imminent” could mean waiting until it’s too late. A nuclear Iran isn’t a six-month problem; it’s a point-of-no-return problem.
And let’s be honest here, Presidents already have taken military action without formal declarations of war when U.S. security is at stake. That’s not new, and it’s not unique to one party. So framing this as some slippery slope into dictatorship feels more like fear-based argument than reality.
As for regime change, I didn’t present it as a casual objective. I said it’s the only reliable long-term solution if the goal is to eliminate the threat at its root. We’ve seen what happens when hostile regimes pursue power while negotiating in bad faith.
You’re asking me if I’d hold another President to the same standard, yes, I would. If there is credible evidence that a hostile regime is moving toward nuclear capability and poses a real threat, I expect action to protect this country. That doesn’t mean blind trust; it means recognizing that national security decisions sometimes can’t wait for perfect political consensus.
At the end of the day, this isn’t about giving anyone unchecked power. It’s about acknowledging reality: a regime that openly funds terror and has a track record of deception should never be allowed to get nuclear weapons.
That’s the line in the sand I’m talking about — and this is my opinion.
Better than the stance of Esoteric and yourself (along with a few others) that Trump's glass is not only empty but somehow far less that that.
Ken, you’re shifting the comparison to something I wasn’t talking about. My point was simply about the resilience of nations under heavy bombardment. Britain endured eight months of sustained attacks and didn’t collapse. That’s the relevant comparison — not whether America later entered the war.
And since you raised it, America entered both World War I and World War II roughly two years after the conflicts began. That didn’t make the Blitz any less devastating, nor did it change the fact that Britain held out long before American involvement. The comparison stands: bombing alone doesn’t make large nations crumble.
And the idea that Iran will collapse quickly because “the population doesn’t love the government” doesn’t match how these things work in practice. Countries under attack almost always rally around the flag, even when they dislike their leaders. History shows that over and over again.
So yes — the comparison is legitimate. Airstrikes alone don’t topple major states, and nothing happening in Iran contradicts that."Ken, you’re shifting the comparison to something I wasn’t talking about."
It isn't shifting it, at all.
You are trying to isolate ONE factor and say see... I prove my point.
Total BS... the grit of the British people wouldn't have gotten them anywhere if America had entered the war on the side of Germany.
The UK would have been wiped off the face of the planet, it wouldn't exist as a Kingdom today if that had happened.
So... who is coming to bail out Iran as we bomb them literally back into the stone age and wipe out every piece of military equipment they have bigger than a car?
Do they have an America coming to bail them out like the UK did?
China perhaps? They threatened to do so more than a decade ago... other than that, Iran is toast, they are no longer a functional Nation state, and will not be until America allows them to be... until the Theocracy is wiped from Iran hopefully.
Another key factor brought up by Wilderness, there was lack of accuracy in the bombing going on against the UK during WWII... well, that isn't the case now.
Its not comparable... your perspective is so wrong from a military/strategic comparison its not worth serious debate... you think you are making solid points, or your "facts" are infallible, but they aren't, they are just an opinion based on what information and experience you have.
The truth is WE DON'T KNOW what is going to happen... because we don't know what the Trump Admin is going to do.
If America cuts off Iran's ability to sell oil... what happens to their economy?
Britian was never cut off... America was always there to help it be supplied.
Who is going to help Iran?
Who is going to fund the economy?If you are uncomfortable with the UK stance in WWII, just explain why Nazi Germany withstood the entry of the USA into WWII for 4 years.
there is probably a more accurate comparison, if you put one totalitarian regime (Nazi Germany and WWI) aside the totalitarian regime of Iran today.
The point is: bombing a country with precision bombs today or carpet bombing (WWII) does not break a country, not the regime, and to some extent not the people.
Do you really think that war crimes like the school bombing in Teheran seperates the people from the regime. Historic examples show: the opposite is happening.
Iran is trying to apply as much damage as possible to all countries in the region and beyond, even if that damages Iran itself even more. This is the nature of a totalitarian regime.You jumped into the middle of a discussion... I have no idea what you are trying to give voice to... other than bombs alone won't work.
True... to a point... if we destroy in total Iran's ability to manufacture and use military equipment and weapons, and we choke their economy and keep other nations from providing them support...
How long do you think that Theocracy will remain in power, with millions of its people suffering and many people not happy with their government/theocracy before the war began?
Almost a half-century of "Death to America"... half a century of them funding those who want America and Israel wiped from the earth... Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis... time to stop being sympathetic and start putting everyone that holds such belief six feet underground... its time to accept we are at war and go and win that war. Defeating the Iranian Theocracy in its entirety and every terrorist organization it has ties to.
Lets get the War movement into full gear...
A full national effort would remove the threat and put the economy in great shape. Don't'cha Think?What I think is we follow the law and Constitution. Clearly, that is not on you radar.
I think it oversimplifies both history and the current situation. Nazi Germany in WWII and Iran today are not equivalent in ways that matter strategically. Germany in the 1940s was a fully industrialized, highly centralized military state, fighting a total war with vast resources and a massive conscripted population. Iran, by contrast, is heavily constrained economically, technologically, and militarily, especially after decades of sanctions. The stakes and capabilities are different, which changes the calculus entirely.
Also, precision strikes today aren’t meant to “break a country” or destroy the population; they’re about targeted military capability. Donald Trump has been clear that he does not want to devastate Iran’s civilian infrastructure, though he could if necessary. That shows caution and an understanding that the endgame should limit civilian suffering while neutralizing the threat. That’s fundamentally different from carpet bombing or indiscriminate attacks.
Regarding your point about war crimes: there is no evidence that the U.S. has targeted civilians in a way that would fuel popular support for the regime. Iran’s attempts to disrupt the region, attacking ships, harassing neighbors, or using terror tactics, are self-imposed constraints. The population is not rallying around the U.S.; they are already under a regime that has long suppressed dissent. History shows that precision, sustained pressure can change a regime’s behavior without needing to destroy entire cities or populations.
Yes, Iran acts aggressively even at cost to itself, but that’s exactly why a careful, targeted strategy works. Their economy, military production, and ability to project power are fragile relative to what the U.S. can do. The goal isn’t to “break the people” but to constrain the regime while minimizing collateral damage, and that’s precisely what Trump’s approach reflects.
America in 1941 is not America, today, Ken.
There are many great videos that speak of Nazi Germany and its one failing of not recognizing U.S industrial capacity which based on sheer logistics had to lead to its eventual defeat.
We are at the point where all of this will stink and there are ever fewer avenues left to avoid the stench. You are a military man, do you really think that Iran will be subdued short of a land invasion of the country?
It could all become a morass like Vietnam or Korea. Trump’s blitzkrieg can well be considered to have fallen upon its face. Exorbitant military spending and many more American body bags could well be anticipated.Vietnam... North Korea... had the backing and support of China.
In the UK analogy they had America and other nations helping them.
Who is going to stand by Iran, supply them with food, resources, weapons and equipment to continue to fight this war?
How is Iran going to maintain its economy, its infrastructure, if we isolate it and do not allow it to sell Oil?
You think the unpopular in its own country Theocracy can keep its people from rising up and removing it?
How badly do they have to suffer before they try and do so?
How many CIA, Delta, etc. ops do we need within Iran to help facilitate that overthrow of the Theocracy?
I will be disappointed if the Trump Administration doesn't make sure that Theocracy ceases to exist and all its major leaders and operatives are dead. They all need to be hunted down and killed, not arrested, not negotiated with... killed, all of them.
... ...
Look at the bigger picture... in just over a year Trump has pushed China and Russia out of the Western Hemisphere. Venezuela, Panama... Mexico and Cuba are coming... the Western Hemisphere is off limits to those hostile to America.But, Ken, the theocracy is fundamentally what Iran is. I don’t think that even Trump wants to destroy that, just its potential as a military threat. What you are speaking of is more what the Israelis want and it could well be a schism in the objectives of America verses Israel in this war.
Are we really sure that those opposing the regime have the strength and wherewithal to do it? American attacks may well have the opposite effect on civilian populations who have had their school bombed.
You can either confirm or deny, but i have heard from more than one source that Putin is indirectly providing Iran aid.
Again, how patient will the American people be in this quest for empire? As prices rise, inflation becomes more intense are we to expect to come out the economic hardships imposed on Iran unscathed? People will have to ask what real stake do we have in affairs taken place in the other hemisphere?Iran before the Revolution - 1970s Life under the Shah == My Reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWrcP6ruJ6k
Another thing... following that logic... America is fundamentally a Christian nation... does that mean we should go back to a Christian based society suppressing all other non-Judeo religions?
If its not OK for ME then it shouldn't be OK for HE... don't tell me its OK to tolerate a "Death to America" cult to exist in Iran... but we can't have a Christian based society that doesn't apologize for being so.
Unless, what you are really supporting, is the continued assault on both Western and Christian norms of our society... by an extremist Islamic effort to destroy it, in which case, that is just another sign of how the Progressive Democrat today has become anti-American as well as anti-Christian.Christianity was specifically written OUT of the Constitution.
The Shaw was seen as an American ally, but forces were gathering there that regarding him as an American puppet, much like Bautista in Cuba before Castro. As with our civil war and such, we mind our own business and let these societies sort things out on their own.
No, America is a nation with those adhering to a Judeo-Christian faith as a majority.
This is America not Iran, there is freedom of religion, I will adhere to and worship as I see fit, no proselytizing or indoctrination allowed. So, a “Death to America” cult exists in Iran, so what of it? This has been there for almost 50 years, why have a “cow’ now? There are many places on earth where is America is not popular, do we go to war against them all? Nobody requires Christians, Muslims or anybody else to apologize for the faith that he or she may adhere to.
The “norms” you are referring to are right wing autocratic ideas and control, and they are not my norms. The extremism, if any, is coming from Trump and the saber-rattling right. How is extreme Islam destroying your right to worship as you choose? Here in America, not Iran.
Ken, you’re mixing together several unrelated points and treating them as if they answer the question I actually raised. My point was simply about the resilience of nations under bombardment. Britain endured eight months of sustained attacks and didn’t collapse. That remains true regardless of which side the USA eventually joined.
Saying “Britain would have fallen if the USA had sided with Germany” doesn’t change the historical fact that bombing alone didn’t break the UK, Germany, Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia, or any other major state. That’s the pattern I’m referring to.
And the idea that Iran will collapse because “no one will bail them out” doesn’t match how modern conflicts work. Countries don’t need a superpower patron to avoid collapse under airstrikes. They adapt, disperse, harden their infrastructure, and rally around the flag — even when they dislike their government. History shows that over and over again.
You also argue that modern accuracy makes the comparison invalid, but accuracy actually reduces the scale of destruction. Precision weapons hit specific targets; they don’t flatten entire districts the way blanket bombing did. That’s why, after three weeks of strikes, none of Iran’s major cities show anything remotely comparable to Blitz‑level devastation.
And you say with certainty that Iran is “toast,” then in the next breath say “we don’t know what will happen.” Those two positions can’t both be true.
Finally, cutting off Iran’s oil exports wouldn’t magically collapse the country. Iran has survived decades of sanctions, built alternative networks, and maintained domestic production. And any major disruption to global oil markets would hit the USA’s economy as well — recessions don’t stop at national borders.
My point remains the same: airstrikes alone don’t topple major states, and nothing happening in Iran contradicts that.Gotta give you that one "they are toast" is my projection, my disdain, the absolute loathing I have for the Iranian Theocracy... it's a shame such feelings aren't overwhelmingly reflected in all Americans... they should be.
The 'We don't know" is what is factual... we don't, projecting what we believe will occur is the best either of us can do.
They have not dealt with such direct confrontation before, sanctions are not the same as having your navy, airforce... and potentially all capability to produce and ship oil and gas products shut down.
Telling other nations not to buy Iranian oil... and physically making it impossible for them to sell it, or produce it, is another matter entirely.
It won't make a major impact on America... on China, Japan, even the EU is will be far more costly.
You see things from the UK lens... it appears the Trump Administration doesn't give much thought to what the UK needs or wants, be it Russia or Iran or anything really."Gotta give you that one "they are toast" is my projection, my disdain, the absolute loathing I have for the Iranian Theocracy... it's a shame such feelings aren't overwhelmingly reflected in all Americans... they should be." - I would wager they are. The difference is most of them aren't willing to break the law and violate our Constitution to eliminate them. We believe in American values.
Trump may not care about the UK, but he certainly does care what Putin thinks and needs.
Ken, I appreciate you acknowledging the difference between your projection and what we can actually know. That’s exactly why I’m trying to separate emotional reactions from the structural realities of how nations respond under pressure.
On the idea that the USA can shut down Iran’s entire ability to produce and ship oil and gas, that simply isn’t what’s happening. In fact, the opposite direction is where policy has been moving. The Trump administration has already relaxed some restrictions on Russian oil to stabilise global prices, and there have been clear signals that limited Iranian exports might also be tolerated for the same reason. That tells us something important: a total shutdown of Iranian oil isn’t the strategy, because it would spike prices for American consumers.
And Iranian oil is still moving. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, and even under sanctions it has consistently exported over a million barrels a day through a mix of reflagged tankers, ship‑to‑ship transfers, and sales to China. Stopping that flow would require a naval blockade or sinking tankers — which would escalate the conflict far beyond anything the USA has signalled it wants.
So yes, Iran would take damage from strikes. But destroying military assets isn’t the same as collapsing a nation. Iraq lost most of its air force in 1991 and again in the early 2000s and didn’t collapse from airpower alone. Serbia’s infrastructure was heavily degraded in 1999 and the state remained intact. Even Hamas has had tunnels, depots, and command sites hit repeatedly for years and still operates. Capability can be reduced; collapse is something else entirely.
And on the economic side, a major disruption in the Strait would hit the USA as well — higher fuel prices, higher transport costs, and higher inflation. Energy shocks don’t stop at national borders.
So I’m not looking at this through a “UK lens.” I’m looking at the historical pattern: air campaigns, even intense ones, don’t topple major states. And nothing happening in Iran contradicts that.
Comparing the dumb bombs of WWII to smart bombs and missiles today doesn't work well. It took many, many bombs to destroy just one target; today it takes just one, flying in the window of the building or whatever.
So, does that justify this war that Trump and Netanyahu started? There was no imminent threat for us. Netanyahu on the other hand wants to increase his settlement into Gaza. Iran supports both Hamas and Hezbollah, and they are a pain in the ass to his goal.
Hence, he attacks both Lebanon and Iran with our smart bombs and aircraft. Now Trump is between a rock and hard place, because he knew nothing about the strait of Hormuz and its fortifications. According to him, he wanted to beat Netanyahu to the punch because he had a feeling."There was no imminent threat for us."
You do understand that not everyone agrees that 40 years of declaring "DEATH TO AMERICA", violence and killing of Americans and building nuclear bombs constitutes "no imminent threat for us"?
Or does "imminent" mean in the next 5 minutes? Is that the excuse to deny the obvious, that Islamic radicals running Iran desire the end of Western civilization...and will work tirelessly to gain that goal?
All of which has exactly zero relevance to the question of "Will lots of bombs cause a country to fail?". That WAS the topic here, after all.
Wilderness, the comparison isn’t about whether bombs are “smart” or “dumb.” It’s about the scale of destructive power and how nations respond to sustained bombardment.
Modern bombs are more accurate, yes — but that’s exactly why they cause less widespread structural devastation. In WWII, the inaccuracy of dumb bombs was compensated for by blanket bombing that levelled entire districts. When Bristol was hit on 24 November 1940, the entire city centre was virtually flattened in a single night — the photographs and film from the following morning make that very clear.
After three weeks of strikes on Iran, nothing remotely comparable has happened in any major Iranian city. Accuracy doesn’t make a country of 90 million people “crumble.” History shows that airstrikes alone don’t topple major states, and nothing happening in Iran contradicts that.
I have to strongly push back on the Blitz analogy; it’s completely misleading. Britain endured the Blitz because bombs were imprecise, conventional, and spread over months. They didn’t have to worry about precision strikes, drones, cyber attacks, or coordinated multi-domain operations targeting every critical system simultaneously. That’s not 1940, that’s today.
Iran may have millions of Revolutionary Guards and decades of asymmetric planning, but modern warfare is on a completely different level. The U.S. could, in my view, systematically target and destroy Iran’s infrastructure, hitting energy networks, military command structures, communication systems, and essential economic hubs simultaneously. That kind of campaign could leave the nation without the infrastructure it needs to function, essentially dismantling its ability to sustain itself as a modern state.
The idea that Iran will “endure” under airstrikes like Britain did ignores the capabilities of today’s weapons. Precision, speed, and coordination make a rapid collapse not just possible, but plausible, especially when Iran faces a high-tech, multi-domain campaign. History from the Blitz era simply doesn’t dictate the outcome of a modern conflict with precision-guided munitions, drones, cyber operations, and long-range missile strikes.
Combine that with the fact that Iran is highly dependent on the Strait of Hormuz, with roughly 90–96% of its oil exports passing through it and oil revenues historically making up the majority of government funding. Even a partially disrupted Strait, combined with targeted strikes on infrastructure, would hit Iran’s economy and strategic flexibility hard. Right now, their economic capacity is already strained, in large part due to policies tied to Donald Trump.
In my view, Iran’s asymmetric preparations, Revolutionary Guards, and decades of planning only go so far. The U.S. has the ability to pressure Iran to the breaking point quickly, and the combination of modern weapons, strategic targeting, and economic leverage changes the calculus entirely. Anyone relying on WWII-era comparisons is ignoring the reality of today’s technological and strategic advantage.
I’m thankful to see this horrific threat finally being confronted after decades of being ignored. It’s a situation that demands action, and while NATO and parts of Europe may have different perspectives or ideals, the U.S. is taking the heavy lifting, ensuring that a nation that could have become far more dangerous is now being checked decisively.
From what I’ve read, President Trump has already drawn some very clear lines about what the U.S. will and won’t tolerate in this conflict. U.S. and allied forces have conducted precision strikes on Iranian military targets, including a major operation against Iran’s key oil export hub on Kharg Island, with more than 90 sites hit there as part of the ongoing campaign.
While energy infrastructure has largely been spared so far, Trump has said publicly that he would reconsider targeting Iranian energy assets if Iran continues actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz and threatening international shipping.
Given how escalatory this conflict has become, with thousands of targets struck and no set end date announced by U.S. defense officials, it wouldn’t surprise me if the U.S. begins to apply even greater pressure as soon as this weekend. U.S. strikes have already hit deeply into Iranian military infrastructure, and Trump has made it clear that the U.S. sees decisive action as necessary.
He certainly seems to understand that, at this point, the U.S. is largely acting on its own in this conflict, with NATO allies offering political support and some logistical cooperation but not the same level of direct involvement. This reality could indeed influence military options going forward, and accelerate warfare.Sharlee, I appreciate the thoughtful way you’ve laid out your view, and I respect that you’re trying to understand this through the lens of modern capabilities. But precision warfare doesn’t make nations collapse faster — it actually limits the scale of destruction. Modern weapons hit specific targets; they don’t level entire districts the way blanket bombing did.
During the Blitz, Britain lost over 40,000 civilians, more than two million homes were damaged or destroyed, and whole city centres — including Bristol, where I live — were flattened in single raids. The 24 November 1940 attack left the entire centre in ruins; the photographs and film from the following morning are astonishing. And yet, even under that level of devastation, Britain didn’t collapse.
For context, this short archival film shows the scale of destruction in Bristol the morning after that raid: Bristol Blitz – https://youtu.be/vIVaXQu5LUI
By contrast, Iran’s civilian casualties in this conflict are nowhere near that scale — not even in the same order of magnitude. There is no evidence of tens of thousands of civilian deaths, no evidence of entire districts being flattened, and no evidence of the kind of sustained, city‑wide destruction that breaks a nation’s ability to function.
That’s why WWII comparisons matter — not because the technology is the same, but because the underlying question is the same: how much destruction does it take to make a nation collapse?
And history shows the answer is: far more than precision strikes can deliver.
On the economic point, I understand what you’re saying about Iran being strained, but that cuts both ways. Large‑scale conflicts don’t just damage the target country — they send shockwaves through the global economy. Energy markets, shipping routes, insurance costs, and commodity prices all react instantly. If this conflict escalates further, the USA won’t be insulated from the consequences. A recession triggered by a major Middle Eastern war would hit American households and businesses just as hard as anyone else. That’s not a political point — it’s simply how interconnected the global economy is today.
And this isn’t about Trump personally. No leader — however unconventional — can change the basic realities of geography, population size, and national resilience. Iran is a country of 90 million with decades of preparation for asymmetric warfare. Air campaigns alone have never toppled a major state, and nothing happening now contradicts that.In my view, I think you’re making a compelling historical comparison, but you’re applying it in a way that doesn’t quite fit what’s actually happening here.
The Blitz is a powerful example of national resilience, no question. But it was also a strategy built around indiscriminate, mass civilian destruction, leveling cities in the hope of breaking morale. That’s not the objective here, and it’s not the benchmark for success.
In fact, you’re kind of proving the opposite point. If even that level of destruction didn’t collapse Britain, then clearly “flattening cities” isn’t the deciding factor in modern conflicts, and it’s not what the U.S. is trying to do.
What’s happening now with Iran is much more targeted: weapons depots, missile systems, drone infrastructure, production facilities, and command-and-control assets. That’s not about terror, it’s about systematically degrading a country’s ability to project force. Those are two very different strategies with two very different goals.
And I think this is where your argument misses something important: collapse doesn’t have to mean total societal breakdown like WWII. Modern conflicts are often about limiting capability, forcing strategic concessions, or reestablishing deterrence, not erasing a country from the map.
It’s also worth pointing out that Donald Trump has made it clear he has chosen not to devastate Iran’s broader infrastructure, even though the U.S. likely has the capability to do far more widespread damage. To me, that shows restraint. It suggests a deliberate effort to avoid leaving the Iranian people with a destroyed country when this is over, while still targeting the military capabilities that pose a threat.
On your point that “air campaigns alone have never toppled a major state”, that’s true in the context of occupation wars. But again, that’s not what’s being attempted. No one is suggesting a full-scale invasion of Iran or regime change through ground forces. This is about control of escalation, containment, and forcing limits on Iran’s actions, especially in places like the Strait of Hormuz.
And on the economic side, I actually agree with you, to a point. Yes, global markets will feel this. But that cuts both ways even more sharply for Iran. Their economy is far more vulnerable to sustained disruption, sanctions pressure, and loss of infrastructure than the U.S. economy is. The U.S. feels higher prices; Iran risks long-term degradation of its core capabilities.
So I don’t think this comes down to “how much destruction it takes to collapse a nation.” That’s a WWII framework being applied to a very different kind of conflict.
This is about whether targeted, sustained pressure can reduce Iran’s ability to threaten global trade and force a shift in behavior. And on that front, the results are still unfolding. But it’s not accurate to say that what we’re seeing “can’t work” simply because it doesn’t look like the wars of the 1940s.Wasn't the original claim made that Trump and Netanyahu's goal with their bombing campaign is to effect regime change and turn Iran from an enemy into at least a neutral? Then Nathanville posited that bombing alone won't achieve that goal and used the Blitz as an example of how any kind of bombing, precision or otherwise, won't do the job and therefore Trump and Netanyahu won't achieve their objective which is regime change.
I need to ask then, what is it specifically about precision bombing that will get the current gov't to give up or the populous to revolt that normal bombs won't accomplish?Sharlee, I think you’ve made some thoughtful distinctions here, and I agree with you that the Blitz and today’s conflict aren’t identical in aims or methods. But the reason I use that comparison isn’t to say the USA is trying to “flatten cities” — it’s to highlight the limits of what airpower can achieve against a large, cohesive nation, even when the bombing is far more destructive than anything happening today.
You’re right that the Blitz was indiscriminate and aimed at morale. But that’s precisely why it’s useful as a benchmark: if even that level of destruction didn’t collapse Britain, then the idea that Iran will collapse under far more limited, targeted strikes becomes even less plausible. The point isn’t that the USA is trying to replicate WWII — it’s that Iran is nowhere near the level of damage historically associated with national breakdown.
On the “targeted degradation” point, I agree that the USA can destroy facilities, depots, and command nodes. But that’s not the same as forcing strategic capitulation. We’ve seen this pattern repeatedly:
– Iraq’s air defenses were degraded for a decade, yet the regime remained intact.
– Serbia’s military infrastructure was hit hard in 1999, but the state didn’t collapse.
– Hamas has lost tunnels, depots, and command sites for years, yet still operates.
Capability can be reduced; collapse is something else entirely.
You’re also right that modern conflicts aren’t about occupation. But that actually strengthens my point. If the goal isn’t regime change or territorial control, then the question becomes: what is the mechanism by which Iran is supposed to “shift behaviour” under airstrikes alone?
History shows that states under pressure adapt, disperse, decentralise, and harden — especially those with decades of asymmetric planning behind them.
On Trump’s “restraint,” I think that’s a matter of interpretation. Choosing not to devastate civilian infrastructure isn’t necessarily strategic mercy; it’s also an acknowledgement that destroying cities doesn’t produce the political outcomes people imagine. The USA has learned that lesson the hard way over multiple administrations.
And on the economic point, I agree Iran is more vulnerable — but vulnerability isn’t the same as collapse. Iran has survived decades of sanctions, oil restrictions, and economic pressure. Meanwhile, global shocks hit everyone, including the USA. A major disruption in the Strait of Hormuz would push up global energy prices, raise shipping and insurance costs, and feed directly into inflation. American households would feel that through fuel, food, and transport costs, and the USA’s already high borrowing levels mean higher interest rates bite harder. Recessions don’t respect borders, and the USA isn’t insulated from the consequences of a prolonged conflict.
So I’m not applying a WWII framework to a modern conflict. I’m pointing out that the underlying question — how much pressure does it take to make a nation fundamentally change course? — hasn’t changed. And so far, nothing in Iran resembles the scale of damage historically associated with national collapse or forced capitulation.I see why you lean on history, like the Blitz or past air campaigns, but that perspective misses the reality of today. Comparing Iran to Britain in 1940 or Serbia in 1999 assumes that the dynamics of collapse are timeless, but they’re not. Technology, military strategy, and global interdependence have changed everything. Historical analogies are interesting, but they can mislead if used as a blueprint for modern expectations.
Targeted strikes today are fundamentally different from indiscriminate bombing. Hitting depots or command sites doesn’t just “degrade capability, it disrupts networks in ways that past states didn’t face. Iran’s regime is resilient, yes, but it also faces far greater economic, cyber, and diplomatic pressure than, say, Britain did under the Blitz. The U.S. has tools that weren’t available to previous military campaigns, and their effects are cumulative, not just destructive.
And on the point of “collapse”, that’s the wrong standard. Nobody is arguing that Iran will fold like a 1940s nation under total bombing. The question now is strategic adaptation: how much pressure does it take to constrain behavior, deny resources, and shape decision-making? That’s modern warfare, precise, measured, and integrated with sanctions, intelligence, and diplomacy. Historical examples of outright collapse are not relevant because the goal isn’t to flatten a country.
Even economic effects work differently today. Iran is more vulnerable than ever, but global shocks also hit the U.S. However, in the interconnected world, pressure on Iran can produce leverage without catastrophic consequences for the U.S, something WWII comparisons ignore. The Blitz didn’t have sanctions, cyber operations, or targeted precision strikes. Today, all of these make strategic impact far more nuanced than “bombing = collapse.”
Relying on WWII analogies oversimplifies the political reality. Iran isn’t standing still, it’s actively maneuvering to survive pressure, but that doesn’t mean it can resist indefinitely. Modern strategy isn’t about brute force; it’s about exploiting vulnerabilities and shaping behavior. That’s a very different conversation than historical “moral collapse” under indiscriminate bombing.
History informs, but it doesn’t dictate outcomes today. If we only see past wars, we miss how current tools, technologies, and pressures actually operate. That’s why comparing Iran to Britain or Serbia doesn’t tell us much about what’s possible now; it’s a completely different game.Sharlee, I take your point that modern tools — cyber operations, sanctions, precision strikes — add new layers to conflict. But the idea that past societies didn’t face comparable systemic pressure isn’t quite right. Britain’s networks were absolutely disrupted during the Blitz: docks, factories, rail hubs, warehouses, and power stations were all hit repeatedly. The German blockade also strangled imports, which is why Britain ended up with some of the harshest rationing in modern history.
Just to give a sense of scale, a typical weekly ration for one adult in Britain was:
Bacon & ham: 4 oz
Butter: 2 oz
Cheese: 2 oz
Margarine: 4 oz
Cooking fat: 4 oz
Sugar: 8 oz
Tea: 2 oz
Milk: 3 pints
Eggs: 1 fresh egg per week
Jam: 1 lb every two months
If you’re curious what that actually looked like in practice, this short video gives a surprisingly vivid sense of how little people had to live on:
https://youtu.be/ehM6s9rpZsE
And just to underline how stretched Britain really was: for the first couple of years of the war — before America entered — the Home Guard (“Dad’s Army”) had virtually no weapons at all. Many units were literally issued pitchforks, broom handles, and improvised farm tools. To maintain the illusion of readiness, propaganda photos even showed volunteers on beaches holding fake wooden rifles. That was the level of vulnerability Britain lived with, and yet the country still didn’t collapse under bombing or economic pressure.
And because imports were so restricted, the government had to mobilise the entire country into “Dig for Victory,” with Land Girls and home gardens producing vegetables on a national scale.
My point isn’t that Iran and Britain are identical — they’re not. It’s that Britain endured far deeper economic and logistical disruption than Iran is currently facing, and still didn’t collapse. Targeted strikes today degrade capability, yes, but they don’t produce the kind of society‑wide deprivation that historically leads to national breakdown.
So when I lean on history, it’s not to say “the Blitz = Iran.” It’s to show that even under extreme pressure — network disruption, economic strangulation, food shortages, and sustained bombing — large, cohesive nations don’t simply crumble. Modern tools add nuance, but they don’t erase the structural limits of what airpower and external pressure can achieve on their own.The British people endured incredible hardship and showed resilience. But I think leaning too heavily on historical analogies risks missing how fundamentally different the world is today. Iran in 2026 isn’t Britain in the 1940s, and the tools and dynamics at play are entirely different.
For one, the speed and reach of information today is unprecedented. Social media, encrypted messaging, and global news allow dissenting voices to organize and spread awareness almost instantly. Unlike wartime Britain, where communication was controlled and delayed, modern populations can mobilize quickly and even bypass state censorship. That changes the calculus for both internal dissent and the effectiveness of external pressure.
Modern sanctions, cyber operations, and precision strikes can target not just infrastructure but financial networks, energy distribution, and logistics in ways that Britain never experienced. Disruptions today can be instantaneous, nationwide, and highly visible, striking the economy, public services, and morale simultaneously. The psychological effect of knowing your government cannot protect you from multiple angles is far greater than rationing bacon and sugar.
Historical examples often assume a population rallying around a national cause; in Britain, the population largely united against an external enemy. In Iran, the population is already divided and has experienced brutal internal repression. Popular anger is already directed against their own government, which changes how society responds to both domestic and foreign pressure. A strong, cohesive state in 1940s Europe isn’t comparable to a state facing entrenched internal dissent, economic vulnerabilities, and global scrutiny in real time.
So yes, history provides lessons, but it can’t be used as a direct template for today. Modern tools, instantaneous communication, and the existing domestic instability in Iran make the situation far more volatile and far less predictable than simply saying “Britain survived the Blitz, so Iran won’t collapse.”
I am sure you are aware that Trump has laid down a red line and has now threatened to destroy cultural infrastructure if Iran does not cooperate with opening up the Strait of Hormuz. In my view, he is serious and will push until he gets what he has asked for. So, it is very well possible Iran will collapse.Sharlee, the difficulty with that specific point is that the tools you’re describing simply aren’t available to Iranians right now. Iran isn’t Libya or Syria — it has one of the most centralised and state‑controlled internet systems in the world. Since the start of the conflict, the government has shut down the international gateways, restricted mobile data, and blocked access to social media and encrypted messaging. Ordinary people can’t coordinate, can’t share information, and in many cases don’t even know what’s happening beyond their own district. In that environment, the idea of rapid, tech‑driven mobilisation by the population just isn’t possible. The population is effectively in the dark — the only thing they know for certain is that they are being bombed by the United States.
Modern sanctions, cyber operations, and precision strikes can certainly disrupt systems quickly, but disruption isn’t the same as collapse. Britain survived not because it lacked modern vulnerabilities, but because large, cohesive states with intact security forces don’t fall apart simply from external pressure. Iran today is facing far less systemic damage than Britain did, and its coercive institutions remain intact.
On the psychological point: yes, most Iranians resent the regime, but the small minority that supports it is the one that’s armed, organised, and embedded in the state’s coercive apparatus. Even Iranians who dislike their government don’t want to see their country bombed, and external attacks tend to harden the Revolutionary Guard’s loyalty, not fracture it. That’s why dissent hasn’t translated into collapse so far.
So I’m not saying “Britain survived the Blitz, therefore Iran will survive anything.” I’m saying that the underlying mechanics of regime survival haven’t changed: unless the security forces split, an unarmed population cannot overthrow a well‑armed, loyal coercive apparatus — especially not in the middle of a foreign air campaign. Modern tools add complexity, but they don’t erase those fundamentals.
And on your final point: I’m aware of the threat that’s been issued, but destroying Iran’s power plants wouldn’t create the conditions for collapse — it would trigger a regional catastrophe. Iran has already stated that if its energy infrastructure is hit, it will retaliate by targeting desalination plants and electricity grids across the Gulf. Countries like Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE rely on desalination for the overwhelming majority of their drinking water. Serious damage to those facilities would mean immediate humanitarian crises and long‑term ecological harm measured in years or decades. And the economic shock wouldn’t stop at the Gulf — it would hit global markets, including the United States. Escalation on that scale doesn’t produce compliance or regime failure; it produces regional destabilisation, hardened resistance, and consequences far beyond the battlefield.Nathanville, I would expand on one of your points - technology may change over time and not be comparable but people, by-and-large do not.
Sharlee's right that Iran in 2026 is not Britain in the 1940s. The governments, cultures, technologies, and strategic settings are obviously different. But that doesn’t make historical comparison useless. Historical analogy is not about saying two situations are identical; it is about asking whether the human and political dynamics are similar.
In my opinion, that is the relevant comparison here. The tools of war, surveillance, and suppression change over time, but the way people and states react to prolonged adversity is far more constant. I think that is bigger picture Sharlee is not understanding.
Populations still adapt, endure, fragment, rally, deny, or resist. [b]Governments still use crisis, real or manufactured, to consolidate power, enforce discipline, shape narrative, and demand sacrifice[/u[.
Recent reporting and analysis on Iran suggests exactly those kinds of dynamics are visible now: external attack has not simply produced collapse, but it has also produced also resilience, retaliation, and internal consolidation.My Esoteric, yes — that’s exactly it. The technology changes, but the underlying human and political dynamics don’t shift nearly as fast. States still consolidate under pressure, and populations still respond in broadly familiar ways when they’re under external threat. That’s the part of the analogy that matters, and you’ve captured it well.
You offer good food for thought...
I get what you’re saying about centralized control and the regime’s grip on information, but I think you’re overstating how absolute that control really is,and understating how different modern pressure actually behaves.
Even in highly restricted systems, information doesn’t just stop flowing. We’ve seen that repeatedly in Iran itself during past protests, people still find ways around blackouts, whether it’s satellite access, VPNs, or simply word-of-mouth scaling much faster than it ever could in the 1940s. It’s not perfect coordination, but it doesn’t need to be. The idea that the population is completely “in the dark” isn’t really how these environments function in practice.
More importantly, I think you’re separating disruption from collapse too cleanly. In modern systems, especially ones already under economic strain like Iran, disruption stacks fast. When you hit financial networks, energy distribution, and logistics at the same time, you’re not just creating inconvenience, you’re eroding the regime’s ability to function and project control. That’s a very different kind of pressure than what Britain faced.
On the security forces point, I agree that they’re the key, but that’s also where modern dynamics matter most. Loyalty isn’t static. It’s tied to pay, stability, and confidence in the system. If sanctions, cyber disruption, and internal strain start affecting those pillars, fractures don’t always happen all at once, they happen gradually, and then suddenly. We’ve seen that pattern in multiple regimes, not just in the Middle East.
And on the psychological side, I think you’re missing something important: people can oppose foreign intervention and still lose whatever remaining tolerance they have for their own government if that government can’t shield them from the consequences. That doesn’t automatically translate into open revolt, but it absolutely chips away at long-term stability.
As for escalation risks, I don’t disagree at all that it could spiral regionally. That’s a real concern. But I don’t think that risk cancels out the possibility of collapse; if anything, it shows how high the stakes are and how much pressure is actually being applied.
So I’m not arguing that collapse is guaranteed, but I do think the combination of modern tools, internal dissatisfaction, and sustained pressure creates a far more fragile situation than the traditional “coercive apparatus holds, therefore the regime holds” model suggests.Sharlee, I’m not arguing that information drops to zero — I’m saying Iran’s system is designed to prevent the kind of national‑scale coordination you’re describing. A few concrete points make the difference clear:
All international traffic runs through a handful of state‑controlled gateways. When they close them, the country is effectively isolated.
Iran’s national intranet (SHOMA) keeps internal services running while cutting off the outside world. Civilians lose global access, but the state doesn’t.
Mobile networks are state‑ or IRGC‑controlled. When mobile data is shut down, there’s no alternative carrier.
Satellite access is illegal and actively hunted. RF‑detection vans locate and confiscate dishes.
VPNs and circumvention tools are blocked with deep‑packet inspection. During the 2019 and 2022 shutdowns, success rates dropped to near zero.
Past shutdowns reduced international traffic by 95–100%. That’s not “information finding a way” — that’s near‑total blackout.
So yes, fragments of information survive, but nowhere near enough to organise a national uprising under bombardment.
On the security‑forces point, I agree loyalty can shift in some regimes — but the IRGC isn’t a conventional military whose cohesion depends on pay or comfort. It’s an ideological guard force:
Its identity is explicitly religious and political, not transactional.
Members are selected and trained for ideological commitment.
They are taught that sacrifice and martyrdom are virtues. This is a force that sees dying for the cause as honourable, not as a failure of the system.
They control their own economic networks, insulated from civilian hardship.
External attacks reinforce their worldview rather than weaken it.
They have remained unified through sanctions, assassinations, cyberattacks, and mass protests.
This is why the “loyalty isn’t static” model doesn’t map cleanly onto Iran. The IRGC’s cohesion is built on ideology and identity — including a culture of martyrdom — not on the fragile incentives that crack other militaries.
So I’m not denying that Iran is under pressure. I’m saying that pressure alone doesn’t override the fundamentals of regime survival. Modern tools change the texture of the situation, but they don’t erase the basic mechanics: unless the security forces split, the regime holds.I hear you, but at this point you’re just restating the same framework over and over without really engaging the distinction I’m making.
I’ve already agreed that pressure exists, that disruption can stack, and that dissatisfaction can grow. That’s not where we disagree. Where we disagree is on what actually breaks a system like Iran’s, and you keep circling back to pressure as if it automatically translates into collapse.
It doesn’t, in my view.
You’re describing conditions that can weaken a regime. I’m talking about what actually ends one. Those aren’t the same thing. History shows plenty of governments absorb massive pressure, economic strain, and internal frustration and still hold because their security apparatus stays intact.
And that’s the part you keep brushing past.
You say loyalty isn’t static, and in many cases that’s true. But Iran isn’t built like those cases. The IRGC isn’t just a paycheck structure; it’s ideological, insulated, and reinforced by the very pressure you’re pointing to. External strain doesn’t necessarily fracture it; in many ways it hardens it.
So we’re not really debating whether Iran can be stressed; we agree it can. The question is whether that stress translates into regime failure without a split in the security forces.
I haven’t seen anything in your argument that actually bridges that gap.
I’m going to leave this here. We clearly have different views, and neither of us is moving the other. Probably best to step back and see how this situation actually plays out.Sharlee, just to keep the thread tidy, here’s the short paper trail of the two points you’ve been making with me:
1. Coordination under shutdowns
• Sunday: you wrote: “Even in highly restricted systems, information doesn’t just stop flowing.”
• Monday: I responded with the concrete evidence — past shutdowns cutting traffic by 95–100%, SHOMA isolating the country, mobile networks under IRGC control, satellite access hunted, VPNs blocked, etc.
• Tuesday: in your reply, that entire line of argument quietly disappeared.
2. The IRGC switching sides
• Sunday: you argued: “Loyalty isn’t static… it’s tied to pay, stability, and confidence in the system.”
• Monday: I explained why that model doesn’t apply to an ideological guard force built on identity, martyrdom culture, and economic insulation.
• Tuesday: you wrote: “The IRGC isn’t just a paycheck structure; it’s ideological, insulated, and reinforced by pressure.” — which is exactly the point I made.
So yes — it does look as though we’ve arrived at the same conclusion: without a split in the security forces, the regime doesn’t fall, and the IRGC isn’t going to split.
Shar, I think you’re mixing up two different claims, and that’s why you’re calling the Blitz analogy “misleading.”
Claim A: “Modern war is different — precision strikes, drones, cyber, multi-domain.”
I agree. That’s true, and nobody serious thinks 2026 looks like 1940.
Claim B: “Because modern war is different, bombing can make a country collapse quickly.”
That’s the leap I’m not willing to make without evidence.
In my view, Nathanville’s point isn’t “today is identical to the Blitz.” The point is simpler and historically consistent: bombing alone rarely produces political capitulation, and it can just as easily harden resolve and strengthen authoritarian control. The Blitz is one example of “don’t confuse destruction with surrender.”
And the modern examples actually cut both ways. Precision often means you can break specific assets faster — but it also means:
* the targeted country disperses, hardens, and adapts, - which Iran is doing
* leadership goes underground, - which it has
* retaliation shifts to asymmetric channels, - which Iran is doing
* and civilians can rally around the flag while dissent gets crushed as “treason.” - we have seen plenty of evidence of that.
So the real question isn’t “was the Blitz imprecise?” It’s:
What’s the mechanism by which airstrikes produce regime collapse in Iran — and what are the measurable signs we’re actually achieving that, rather than just escalating?
If the goal is nuclear prevention, that’s different from regime collapse/change, and different again from deterrence. Which one are we claiming? And what’s the exit ramp?
One more standards test: if a Democratic president said “We can collapse Iran quickly because we have precision strikes and cyber,” would you accept that on faith — or would you demand clear objectives, evidence, and a realistic post-strike plan?
I’m not saying “do nothing.” I’m saying: don’t replace analysis with feelings. “Modern capability” isn’t proof of “quick collapse.” It’s just a different set of tools — and history says tools don’t automatically produce the political outcome people want.I see your point about needing clear objectives, evidence, and a post-strike plan — and honestly, I think Trump is following exactly that.
Look at Iran: his goal has been clear from the start, keep them from getting a nuclear weapon, stop missile programs, and pressure their proxies. He didn’t just act blindly; Iran was enriching uranium way past safe levels, and the administration used that as evidence to justify action. At the same time, they’ve kept up sanctions and targeted networks that fund the regime and its proxies, hitting them financially and militarily without just throwing bombs around.
Even after strikes on key nuclear sites like Natanz, Fordow, and Esfahan, the strategy wasn’t “hit and walk away.” Diplomacy and negotiations continued, and the goal remains keeping Iran’s nuclear program in check for the long term. That’s measurable action, not random escalation.
To me, that’s exactly the kind of guardrails you were talking about: objectives, evidence, and a plan that goes beyond the first strike. And yes, I’d hold any president to the same standard. But right now, Trump is following that playbook and doing more than most would have thought possible. I feel many may not realize what has been going on behind the scenes for some time.Ex-counterterrorism official says he wasn’t allowed to share concerns about Iran war with Trump
Speaking on Tucker Carlson’s show, Kent said the president relied on a small circle of advisers in making his decision to strike Iran. Kent claimed Israel forced Trump’s hand despite what he said was no evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat to the U.S.
“A good deal of key decision makers were not allowed to come and express their opinion to the president,” Kent told the prominent conservative commentator. “There wasn’t a robust debate.”
https://apnews.com/article/iran-joe-ken … 003cea4ba1I won’t question Kent for his view; I don’t know what information he had access to. That said, there’s another side to this. Trump wasn’t ignoring input; he just relied on a trusted circle for quick, high‑stakes decisions. And a lot of those people weren’t just random advisers; they were deeply involved in Iran and nuclear negotiations. People like Senator Marco Rubio, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff (who was directly involved in talks with Iran), experts such as Daryl Kimball from the Arms Control Association and Shawn Rostker from the Center for Arms Control and Non‑Proliferation, and officials from the CIA, DIA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence were all warning that Iran’s nuclear program was advancing quickly. U.S. intelligence has repeatedly assessed that Iran’s “breakout time”, the time needed to enrich enough uranium for a bomb, could be measured in weeks or months, and even Israel’s Mossad estimated it might be as short as about two weeks under certain assumptions.
In my view, I think these advisers should be listened to, and I have no reason not to believe them. The problem of Iran developing a nuclear weapon is major, and if we did not address it, we could very well find ourselves facing a day, and I think it’s obvious, they would use a nuclear weapon the moment they got it.
There is a reliable source indicating that Joe Kent was not fully involved in all the intelligence briefings that go to the president, which supports your point about him *not necessarily having access to every piece of information about Iran or nuclear assessments. According to reporting in The Wall Street Journal, Kent had been sidelined from the team responsible for producing and delivering the President’s Daily Brief in the final months of his tenure, meaning he wasn’t part of the core daily intelligence loop that feeds the most classified, up‑to‑date assessments.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-s … hatgpt.com
Regarding the rest of your post -
I understand your argument: modern precision + cyber + financial pressure can break systems faster than WWII bombing ever could. That’s a fair point about capability.
But in my experience, both as a retired infantry officer and as an Air Force/OSD analyst and graduate of the Air Force War College, capability isn’t the same thing as political collapse, and that’s the part you seem to be treating as automatic.
History has shown time and again that a country can be badly damaged and still not surrender; in fact, heavy attacks often tighten authoritarian control, strengthen “rally around the flag,” and push retaliation into asymmetric channels. “We can destroy infrastructure” doesn’t answer “and then what happens next?”
So I want to slow this down and put it under the same standards I’d apply to any president:
1) What is the actual objective?
You appear to be sliding between three different goals:
* stop a nuclear weapon,
* deter attacks / secure shipping lanes,
* collapse or “dismantle” Iran as a functioning state.
Those are not the same mission. Which one are you endorsing? Because “pressure to the breaking point quickly” sounds like regime-collapse/change language, and that’s a very different moral and strategic choice than “prevent nukes.” I was taught that any operation needs a single, clear, defined overarching goal to be successful. Do you see that here?
2) What’s the mechanism that guarantees “rapid collapse”?
You’re assuming that if we hit enough hard targets, the country “can’t function” and therefore collapses. But states have always adapted.
So what’s the specific pathway from “infrastructure damage” → “regime capitulation,” and what evidence do you have that Iran’s leadership is near that point rather than near a “fight harder” point? In fact, reporting has it that the former leader was holding back Iran's nuclear development. But after we killed him, his replacement is all for pushing forward to a bomb.
3) What’s the exit ramp and who governs after?
You said yourself: “the aftermath will be messy.” That’s the understatement. Even if you could cripple the state, who runs the country on Day 2? What prevents fragmentation, civil conflict, or a more radical successor? If we don’t have an answer, then “rapid collapse” isn’t a victory condition — it’s a gamble.
4) The Strait of Hormuz point cuts both ways
Yes, Iran’s oil revenues matter. But using the Strait as a lever also hits global energy prices and punishes allies and consumers. Even if you think that pressure helps, it’s still a cost that has to be justified—not hand-waved as “heavy lifting.” What is your “price limit” in terms of global economic shock?
5) A lot of your claims need sourcing before we build a whole war theory on them
You wrote that “a major operation hit Iran’s key oil export hub on Kharg Island with more than 90 sites hit” and that “thousands of targets” have been struck. Those are huge claims. Before I accept them as the basis for “Iran is collapsing,” I need credible sources, because it’s very easy for conflict reporting to become rumor, propaganda, or exaggerated “numbers.” For example, no oil infrastructure was hit, only military.
What evidence would make you say “I was wrong about quick collapse” or “this is going too far”?
If the answer is “nothing,” then this isn’t an analysis of Iran — it’s a loyalty position about Trump. And I don’t want any president to have that blank check.
Last: you keep framing this as “finally confronting a horrific threat that was ignored.” I don’t agree it was ignored; it’s been the central focus of U.S. policy for decades. It led to Obama's very effective cessation of Iran's push to a bomb. The real debate is which tools work without triggering worse outcomes. - clearly, the current outcome is worse.
If you want to continue, I’m happy to do it issue by issue, but I’m asking you to commit to the same standard you’d demand from a Democrat: clear objective, credible evidence, defined limits, and a realistic post-conflict plan.
Since Trump says he plans everything and forecast the future, then he must have seen this coming.
"Energy prices soar as attacks on Middle East gas facilities escalate
Trump threatens to "blow up" world's largest gas field, as Israeli strikes spark Iranian retaliation and fears of further economic shocks"
Trump is apparently set to put BOOTS ON THE GROUND in Iran as this cognitively impaired, mentally deficient Bull keeps crashing through the China shop.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/ira … p-03-19-26Trump calls NATO allies COWARDS. With the way he as treated them, I would turn my back on him as well. By saying NO to our dictator is proof they are not cowards.
Trump calls NATO allies ‘cowards’ for failing to help open Strait of Hormuz
" Trump lashes out at allies: President Donald Trump called NATO allies “cowards” for not helping the US secure the Strait of Hormuz, which remains effectively shut as global oil prices rise. US officials are furiously trying to avert a potential months-long closure of the strait, multiple sources say."
Trump just wants somebody to blame his loss to Iran on.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/ira … p-03-20-26I see it a little differently. Expecting NATO allies to step in on something like the Strait of Hormuz isn’t unreasonable, it’s one of the most critical global shipping routes in the world, and disruptions there impact everyone, not just the U.S. Energy prices, trade, and economic stability are all on the line.
From that perspective, I can understand why Donald Trump would be frustrated. The U.S. has historically carried a huge share of the burden when it comes to global security, especially in regions like this. Asking allies to contribute more, especially when they benefit from that stability, isn’t some new or extreme idea.
At the same time, I don’t agree with the idea that the U.S. is “losing to Iran.” That’s just not accurate. Iran has taken significant military damage—targets hit, infrastructure degraded, and capabilities reduced. What they’re doing now is more about disruption, mines, drones, and attacks on shipping—to drive up global costs and create instability. That’s not the same thing as winning.
I also think it’s fair to say the U.S. commitment to NATO could be reevaluated. That doesn’t mean pulling out, but looking at decades-old commitments, the cost, and whether the burden is being shared fairly. A recalibration isn’t extreme—it’s responsible, especially given how much the U.S. contributes compared to others.
The reality is, this situation is still ongoing. The Strait of Hormuz isn’t fully secure yet, and that’s where the frustration with allies comes in. But that’s also why some countries are hesitant, they don’t want to escalate things further or get pulled into a broader conflict.
So I don’t see this as “Trump blaming others for a loss.” I see it more as a clash of expectations. The U.S. is actively engaged and carrying a heavy load, and it’s reasonable to question whether that balance should shift. At the same time, allies have their own risks and priorities they’re weighing.
It’s not as simple as cowards vs. strong leaders, or winning vs. losing. It’s a complicated, still-unfolding situation.
"Inside Trump’s most difficult war decision yet: whether to put boots on the ground in Iran"
That is the clearest sign yet that Trump understands he is losing.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/21/politics … -us-troopsCurrent reports on the Iran war... Facts as reported by U.S. Central Command Commander Adm. Brad Cooper
U.S. Central Command Commander Adm. Brad Cooper revealed Saturday that American forces “launched the longest field artillery strike in Army combat history using precision strike missiles” against Iran.
The military effort, which happened two days ago, “took out Iranian military infrastructure, demonstrating the U.S. Military's unmatched reach and lethality,” Cooper said.
Cooper added that on day 22 of Operation Epic Fury, "U.S. forces continue to take bold action and remain on plan to eliminate Iran's ability to project meaningful power outside its borders.”
"So far, we've struck over 8,000 military targets, including 130 Iranian vessels, constituting the largest elimination of a Navy over a three-week period since World War II," Cooper said.
22 countries voice 'readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts' to open Strait of Hormuz
Twenty-two countries have now signed onto a joint statement signaling their "readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage" through the Strait of Hormuz.
The growing list, which includes NATO members, comes after President Donald Trump ripped NATO for acting like “cowards” Friday. The president said "they complain about the high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz."
The joint statement said, "We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait,” and, “We welcome the commitment of nations who are engaging in preparatory planning.”
The statement is attributed to the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Denmark, Latvia, Slovenia, Estonia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Czechia, Romania, Bahrain, Lithuania, Australia and the United Arab Emirates.
“We condemn in the strongest terms recent attacks by Iran on unarmed commercial vessels in the Gulf, attacks on civilian infrastructure including oil and gas installations, and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian forces,” the statement also said.
“We express our deep concern about the escalating conflict. We call on Iran to cease immediately its threats, laying of mines, drone and missile attacks and other attempts to block the Strait to commercial shipping, and to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 2817,” the statement continued, referencing a resolution passed last week that spoke out against Iran’s recent actions.
UK condemns 'Iran's reckless attacks' following attempted Diego Garcia strike
The United Kingdom ripped "Iran's reckless attacks" Saturday after the regime in Tehran reportedly fired two intermediate-range ballistic missiles toward Diego Garcia, a key U.S.-U.K. military base in the Indian Ocean.
“Iran’s reckless attacks, lashing out across the region and holding hostage the Strait of Hormuz, are a threat to British interests and British allies," the U.K. Ministry of Defence said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “RAF jets and other UK military assets are continuing to defend our people and personnel in the region."
“This government has given permission to the U.S. to use British bases for specific and limited defensive operations," it added.
Neither missile in the attempted attack on Diego Garcia struck the base. One missile failed in flight, while a U.S. warship launched an SM-3 interceptor at the other, officials told The Wall Street Journal.Current reIsrael’s ambassador to the United Nations accused Iran of misleading the world about the true range of its missile program, warning the threat now extends far beyond what Tehran previously claimed.
“For years they claimed their missiles were ‘for defensive purposes’ only,” Danny Danon wrote on X. “They promised the range was limited to 2,000 km [1,240 miles].”
“Today the truth is clear: everything they said about the nuclear program and missile production was a lie,” he added, warning Iran’s missiles are now capable of threatening large parts of Europe.
The remarks come as new reporting suggests Iran’s missile reach may extend thousands of miles, after The Wall Street Journal reported Tehran fired ballistic missiles toward the joint U.S.-U.K. base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.port --- "Breaking news --- Current breaking news--- RED LINE ---- President Donald Trump on Saturday issued a stark ultimatum to Iran, warning that the United States will launch strikes on the country’s power infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened within 48 hours.
“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” Trump wrote.
The threat marks a significant escalation in rhetoric as tensions surge over the strategically vital waterway.
Trump added, “Thank you for your attention to this matter,” signing the message “President DONALD J. TRUMP.”
It appears Trump is not willing to sit on his hands.I am observing the stock markets and something interesting is happening (locally and globally). Firstly the MSCI world maket capitalization took at hit of loosing some 5 to 6 trillion USD in the past 3 weeks.
Secondly (mostly on European markets) renewable energy surged.
Apparently markets start to react on fossile fuel scarcity on the long run, fossiles not being reliable any more.
Wasn´t it exactly the opposite of what this old man in the white house tried to achieve, no more wind turbines...?That’s a really interesting observation, Chris. Markets often react to fundamentals long before governments do, and what you’re describing fits that pattern. When a region becomes unstable, capital naturally looks for reliability — and right now, anything tied to fossil‑fuel chokepoints looks increasingly risky. Renewables, by contrast, aren’t exposed to blockades or shipping routes, so they tend to look more attractive whenever the fossil landscape becomes unpredictable.
What’s striking is how geopolitical pressure can end up accelerating transitions that some leaders try to resist. In Europe and the UK, the shift toward renewables has been underway for years — long before this crisis — and instability in the Gulf only makes that transition look more economically sensible.
And the contrast has become even clearer in recent days. While the UK and EU have been expanding renewables at pace, political resistance in the USA has been stronger — to the point where Trump has even publicly urged Keir Starmer to scrap offshore wind farms and reopen North Sea oil fields. Markets tend to look past that kind of rhetoric and focus on long‑term stability, which is why you often see renewables strengthen during periods of fossil‑fuel volatility.Arthur, stock markets worldwide are hit with a 10% plus downturn. It will be north of 16 Trillion USD within weeks.
I am sure this does not go unnoticed by most senior Americans who rely on stock return. It is a double impact: Rising inflation and lower returns.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out in the upcoming midterms. US stock capital of some 25% of GDP have vanished into thin air due to the war. Cost of the war is dwarfed by these numbers.Kalshi says there is an 85% chance the Ds take the House and a 50/50 chance they take the Senate.
Democrats have never been this unpopular.
Trump is experiencing 100% support from his MAGA base.
The percentage of Americans that identify as MAGA went from 28% in 2024 to 30% today (according to CNN no less).
Knowing how CNN works... that percentage is in reality probably a bit higher.
I suspect this won't be your typical mid-term election.There’s some controversy around Kalshi — several states, including Arizona, have recently charged Kalshi with operating illegal gambling because of political and sports markets. Not sure I would even trust what they project.
What does any of that have to do with Iran, Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Gaza, and the Palestinians?
Ask ECO--- he brought them up...
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/370 … ost4396435Well... Iran supports Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis...
If you want to defeat terrorism in the region, might want to start with the nation that is funding them.
If you are looking for what this is really all about...
Who is supporting Russia's war on Ukraine?
China.
Who was moving into Venezuela?
China.
Who was angling in on Greenland?
China.
Who was shipping all the chemicals needed for fentanyl to Mexican Cartels?
China.
Who supported Iran despite the funding they give to terrorists, despite sanctions?
China.
The companies kicked out of the Panama Canal were controlled by which nation?
China.
This is what is really going on... America is protecting its interests from a hostile nation that has grown to be very powerful and influential.
Trump is experiencing 100% support from his MAGA base.
Huh?! Where? You must live under a rock.
Chris, that’s exactly where the political impact becomes impossible to ignore. A 10% market drop isn’t just an abstract number — it hits pensions, 401(k)s, college funds, and the retirement plans of millions of ordinary Americans. When you combine that with rising inflation, people feel squeezed from both sides, and historically that kind of pressure shows up very quickly in midterm voting patterns.
Midterms are often a referendum on how secure people feel in their day‑to‑day lives. If households are watching their savings shrink while prices climb, they don’t need to follow foreign policy closely to know something has gone badly wrong. And the scale of this downturn means the economic conversation is going to dominate everything else. Even voters who normally don’t engage with international issues will feel the consequences directly in their wallets.
So yes — it will be fascinating to see how this plays out. Economic shocks of this size tend to reshape political landscapes, and the midterms are the first place where that reaction becomes visible.I did a little number crunch and determined that it would not be surprising if on April 10, that BLS didn't report a y/y 3% to 3.4% headline CPI or higher. If Trump doesn't TACO and the straights don't open, it may hit 5% - 6% by the July report.
If it gets that bad, then the Core CPI will follow along. Because of the lag effect of higher oil prices impacting the rest of the commodities, it would not be unexpected that this higher inflation will bill be present in some form come November.I just found this. It goes into more detail about what I just wrote.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/23/economy/ … mic-impactMy Esoteric, that’s really solid number‑crunching — and it fits perfectly with the broader point about how energy‑driven inflation filters through the system. Once those price shocks start feeding into transport, food, and manufacturing, the lag means households will still be feeling it months from now. And as we’ve seen in past cycles, that kind of sustained squeeze tends to show up very clearly in midterm voting behaviour.
I get your point about markets reacting sharply, but framing it as “$16 trillion vanished within weeks” doesn’t really hold up. First, market capitalization isn’t literal cash; it’s a reflection of valuations, expectations, and sentiment at a moment in time. A 10% drop is serious, yes, but it doesn’t mean that wealth literally disappeared into thin air. Markets move in fits and starts, and sharp declines are often followed by rebounds once uncertainty stabilizes.
Assuming the decline continues in a straight line to hit that $16 trillion figure ignores how markets actually behave. It’s more of a dramatic extrapolation than a reliable forecast. Global markets aren’t a single system moving uniformly; different regions and sectors respond differently to geopolitical shocks. And even if valuations drop sharply, that doesn’t automatically translate into lost economic output, jobs, or wages.
In my view, tying these swings directly to the war oversimplifies things. Market reactions reflect a mix of inflation concerns, interest rates, supply chain pressures, and geopolitical risk, not one single factor. The real impact on everyday Americans comes from tangible effects like rising costs and lower returns, not abstract market caps. So yes, there are risks, but the numbers thrown around don’t tell the full story.
I just placed an order for ICNL, a renewable energy EFT that ChatGPT recommended (although Morning Star hates). Recently, it bounded up when Trump attacked but then fell back a bit. It has had a very volatile history.
That sounds like a solid long‑term play, My Esoteric — renewables tend to be volatile in the short term but the direction of travel is unmistakably upward, so holding an ETF like ICNL makes a lot of sense over time.
I’ve never really been drawn to stocks and shares myself. I’m perfectly happy putting any savings into an ISA — tax‑free, government‑backed, high interest, and no stress. But I do technically own some shares, though only because they were handed to me for free back in the 1990s when my building society was forced by Thatcher’s legislation to convert into a bank. Under the rules, they had to give customers one share for every £100 of mortgage debt, so with a £10,000 mortgage I suddenly found myself with about 100 shares.
Thatcher pushed the conversions because building societies were owned by their members — which she considered far too close to socialism for her liking. I’ve still got those shares today. They’re worth a bit over $500 now and bring in about $20 a year in dividends. Not life‑changing, but it’s a free meal in a nice restaurant and an asset I never had to pay for, so I’m certainly not complaining.
February 10, 2026: DOW is at 50188
March 20,2026: DOW is at 45,593
You do the math.Your response feels like a complete diversion from the actual point. The issue here is a potential geopolitical crisis involving the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping lane, not a long-term debate about renewable energy trends.
Markets fluctuate for dozens of reasons, especially during instability. A short-term shift in market cap or a bump in renewables doesn’t somehow invalidate the strategic importance of keeping one of the world’s most vital oil transit routes open. If anything, it proves how sensitive global systems are to disruptions like this.
Also, framing this as “what this old man wanted” oversimplifies things to the point of being meaningless. Energy policy and national security aren’t the same conversation. Ensuring freedom of navigation and preventing choke points in global trade has been a U.S. priority under multiple administrations, Republican and Democrat.
If you want to debate energy policy, that’s fine. But this post is about a direct warning tied to international stability and deterrence. Changing the subject to stock market movements and wind turbines doesn’t really engage with that reality.
There’s truth in what you’re saying; markets do react to instability, and you might see shifts toward renewables during times like this. But that still doesn’t address the actual issue being discussed here. It shifts the focus away from a potential disruption of a critical global choke point to a broader, unrelated argument about long-term energy trends.It is this "positive feedback", this getting the oppositive of what someone tries to achieve, what characterises the old man over and over again.
Markets moving toward green energy is just one example.
MAGA and at the same time reducing the economic role of the USA on the world stage is another example.
There are many more examples to be seen, if you step out of your bubble, just saying...I think it’s worth unpacking your thoughts a bit more carefully. Keep in mind, I am sharing my opinion.
On the markets “moving toward green energy”: yes, markets fluctuate, and investors often shift toward perceived growth areas like renewables, but short-term market moves don’t prove that policies are failing or that a leader is causing the opposite effect of their intentions. Market behavior is influenced by dozens of factors, including global instability, supply disruptions, and technological trends—not solely by U.S. domestic policy. Using this as evidence of “negative feedback” oversimplifies a very complex system.
Regarding the idea that MAGA reduces the economic role of the U.S. on the world stage: there’s plenty of evidence showing the opposite. Policies that prioritize American manufacturing, energy independence, and fair trade agreements can strengthen the U.S. economy and its leverage globally. Economic influence isn’t measured only by rhetoric or appearances; it’s measured by outcomes like trade balances, energy exports, and GDP growth. By that standard, several MAGA-era policies increased the U.S.’s position.
It feels like the examples provided are generalizations rather than concrete proof of a pattern. It’s easy to claim “positive feedback” or “doing the opposite,” but without looking at measurable outcomes, it’s mostly opinion. Stepping out of one’s bubble is important, but so is stepping into the data.
It’s also interesting that you take this stand from the UK perspective. Almost makes it seem like you’re suggesting other nations can’t function or make progress without the “right” decisions coming from the U.S. Is that really your view? Because from my perspective, every country has its own agency, and while U.S. policy has influence, implying that the world can’t stand without American direction oversimplifies global dynamics.
In my view, your examples raise points worth discussing, but they don’t actually demonstrate that the policies in question failed or had the opposite effect. It’s more accurate to examine concrete results, trade, energy independence, and national security, rather than attributing market shifts or perceptions as automatic evidence of failure.People and leaders in other countries are not stupid.
They have been stunned in the beginning by Trump and his method of threatening, bullying and blackmailing the world. The world has learned to deal with the mobster.
As a South American politican put it: " Influence comes with carrots and sticks". From the USA we only get "sticks". This is why we go for Europe and China.
With every "stick", that Trump is showing the world, the USA is loosing influence. One of the "sticks" being the silly war with Iran.The one thing Trump is really, really good at is pushing friends away to make room for our enemies.
I don’t see it that way at all. I think it’s a pretty one-sided take to reduce everything to “bullying” or “mobster tactics” without acknowledging what the strategy actually is trying to accomplish.
Every country uses leverage, that’s not unique to Trump or even the U.S. Sanctions, tariffs, military pressure… those are the “sticks” in foreign policy, and they’ve been used by administrations on both sides for decades. The idea that the U.S. suddenly only offers “sticks” just doesn’t line up with reality. We still provide massive economic partnerships, security alliances, and aid around the world. Just this morning, Trump announced he would reopen a five day negociations period with Iran, to end this conflict. I have followed this issue, and in my view, from the begining Trump let his terms be known, and he let it be known he was open to negotiations. All negotiations failed.... Thus, he used the stick, and today the carrot. I appreciate his tactics.
On Iran specifically, calling it a “silly war” really downplays the concern. Preventing a regime that’s been openly hostile to the U.S. and its allies from getting a nuclear weapon isn’t some trivial objective. That’s been a consistent position across multiple presidents, not just Trump. You can disagree with the method, but the goal itself is widely shared. I must ask, do you feel that keeping a nuclear weapon out of the hands of Iran is a positive?
As for influence, I’d argue that strength and clarity matter too. When the U.S. is seen as unwilling to act or enforce its own red lines, that doesn’t build influence either. Other countries don’t just respond to “carrots,” they respond to credibility. If anything, showing you’re willing to act can reinforce that.
So I get the point about balance, carrots and sticks, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say the U.S. has abandoned one entirely or is somehow losing all influence because it’s willing to use the other.Sharlee, a quick question to ponder - Do you think being "openly hostile" to the US is sufficient grounds to single-handedly tale America into a shooting war with someone?
I wonder if the Iranians are thinking that Trump would blow up our infrastructure regardless - so screw him; we got him by the nuts anyway. That is why he is squealing like a stuck pig. We are winning.
And oh, btw, let's target America's industrial infrastructure 2,000 miles away."I wonder if the Iranians are thinking that Trump would blow up our infrastructure regardless - so screw him; we got him by the nuts anyway. That is why he is squealing like a stuck pig. We are winning.
And oh, btw, let's target America's industrial infrastructure 2,000 miles away."
It’s odd to talk about targeting U.S. infrastructure 2,000 miles away when armchair keyboard know-it-alls have been insisting Iran can’t even project force that far. And yet, in the past few days, they’ve hit a target about 2,500 miles away. That alone should prompt people to pause and reconsider their perceptions of Iran’s capabilities.
I have to smile at the flip-flopping I’m seeing today. It’s becoming increasingly clear, whether people want to admit it or not, that Iran does have longer-range missile capabilities. Hey, maybe they already have a nuclear weapon, maybe they have had one for some time. I am pleased to see the president handling this "what if'...Why do you think I used 2,000 miles? Also, it is one thing to miss (I assume our intel services missed it) a somewhat more powerful rocket and missing all the signs they actually enriched uranium to the point they could use it and actually possess a nuclear bomb. Besides - Trump told you he obliterated their nuke capability. Since he said it, it goes without saying they don't have one - yet he started this war anyway. Go figure.
"Treasury Secretary says "all options on the table" as threats to Middle East escalate"
I guess Trump is contemplating nuking Iran now."Trump delays strikes on Iranian power plants after ‘very good’ talks on ending war"
Is Trump setting the stage for TACOing again? For the world's sake, I hope so. He has caused way too much damage and death already.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/ira … p-03-23-26WHO IS LYING?
"Trump says US and Iran in talks after he postpones strikes on power plants"
Trump, who lies 90% of the time, when he says there were fruitful meetings between Iran and the US OR somebody in Iran. who veracity is as bad as Trumps, who says there was no meeting like Trump described.
I go with Trump LYING because he has more reason to after boxing himself into a corner with his ALL CAPITAL LETTER threat to bomb Iran's energy grid.
This is what you get when you elect a TOTAL INCOMETENT into the WH.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/ira … p-03-23-26
Can you spell TACO, lol
Today in our newspaper:
General: What is your Iran strategy today
Trump: Just a moment, i am at it...My Esoteric, I’m with you — if one side has a long track record of making things up on the spot, and the other side has absolutely no incentive to pretend they’ve been negotiating with him, it’s not exactly a mystery which version deserves the raised eyebrow. Trump shouting in all‑caps one day and claiming “fruitful talks” the next is classic face‑saving. Iran denying it is the least surprising thing in the whole saga.
At this point, “TACO” feels less like an acronym and more like a weekly ritual.I think another thing to keep in mind is that president Trump is a business man, he is trying to manipulate the market.
His announcements about negotiations, tariffs etc. are market driven.
An interesting small article in CNN shows his stock market timing of his announcements.
Trump’s suspiciously timed announcements on IranDoesn't leave much room for doubt, does it?
I bet Trump had dreams of tickertape parades as America celebrated his choice to go to war with Iran. Facing the reality that America thinks he is an unstable fool for knowingly raising their gas prices must be leaving him in a very sour mood.In short, Trump sees the presidency as a business.
A business from which the people around him can profit.
And for those at the top, nothing is better than a crisis, because during a crisis you can snap things up cheaply if you have the money. And during boom years, you can sell them on again.
That’s what you call disaster capitalism.
But I fear that this oil crisis is uncontrollable. And worse than in the 1970s.
One positive aspect might be that countries and companies are now looking even more urgently for alternatives to oil and plastic, now that prices are so high."But I fear that this oil crisis is uncontrollable. And worse than in the 1970s."
Other than attacks on American oil refineries (which may have already begun)... I don't see that happening, at least not for America.
Interesting video about alternative piping and shipping of oil that have been in the works for a while... and about global chokepoints in general:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFvv-zXx_H0Thank you for the video! It took me a while to get used to the populist presentation style, but the information was interesting.
It's interesting to see how all shipments are done (which still involves classic diesel and I don't see this changing in the near future) and where the bottlenecks are.
I can imagine that they are working on alternative routes to have more control. But those are not ready yet. It could then remove Iran’s means of blackmail. But today Iran shows it's power to disrupt the oil market.
I hope you are right and this war won't end up in a complete worldwide economic crack down.. But I’m not very optimistic about it.Unlike how Trump's commentary may make things appear to many...
If the American military is as capable (or more) as it was when I was in, the amount of planning, intelligence, and preparation for what is occurring against Iran is most likely far more than you could imagine.
This isn't some off the cuff whimsy attack, as it may appear, especially to those suffering from TDS.
Considering we are doing this in conjunction with Isreal, and their military intelligence is some of the best in the world... I suspect whatever goals they have in mind will not be obvious until they complete them.When I served my 24 years, we had Sec Defs and Chief's of Staff who weren't beholding to a president and in the former case were actually competent. That is not true today.
In the past, these kinds of decisions were made by the president only after grueling and thorough briefings that brought in all points of view.
Not so with Trump. He admits that only his gut and feelings are needed to make these weighty decisions - and it shows in the results. Unlike previous presidents, it doesn't look like the military and what was once upon a time a robust NSC was given enough time to do the job you suggest they did. It is not that they didn't try, I am sure they did, but you can only do so much in a 24-hour day with a staff that has been attrited away.Don't even talk to me about who is serving under Trump... January 2024, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was hospitalized in the ICU for complications following prostate cancer surgery, but did not inform President Biden or the White House for several days.
I guess he figured why bother, as the President and VP were mentally compromised and incompetent every damned day.Ken, so what are you thinking about the current strategy of this war?
I get why people ask “why not just blockade Iran’s oil?” because sanctions and blockades are supposed to choke off an adversary’s financial resources, but I don’t think Trump hasn’t thought about it, he’s playing strategic chess rather than checkers. Right now, tanker traffic in the Strait of Hormuz has already been severely disrupted by Iranian threats and attacks, and commercial carriers have been avoiding the area, effectively grounding one of the world’s most critical energy transit points and driving up global oil prices. A full U.S. blockade would immediately spike prices even further, risk major diplomatic fallout, and could trigger a broader conflict with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard or allied militias, which is why the strategy so far has focused on reopening the strait while degrading Iran’s military capabilities rather than shutting them down entirely. Trump appears to be balancing three things: keeping the strait open enough to avoid a global energy crisis, systematically dismantling Iran’s military and missile infrastructure, and clearly signaling that the next phase, striking their oil infrastructure and vital networks, is on the table if Tehran refuses to meet demands on nuclear enrichment and stockpiles. The movement of U.S. forces and firepower into the region over the past week has been deliberate, giving the administration the leverage to escalate if needed without provoking chaos. That’s why there may have been “red line” deadlines; we’re at the pivot point between Plan A (pressure and degradation while keeping Hormuz open) and Plan B (targeting the heart of Iran’s oil economy if they refuse to comply). In my view, he has offered Iran every out, and that was purposeful. He won’t settle for anything less than stopping Iran’s uranium enrichment program and surrendering what they’ve accumulated. In my view, I don't see Iran buckling... Do you?As I have said... Iran is a mere part of a bigger shift (game of chess) that is ongoing on the global stage, IMO.
I know we are not privy to the real reasons why it was started now, nor are we aware of what the ultimate goals and timelines for them are.
All we can do is sit back and watch the play unfold, sit tight in our theatre seats, and hope that we can get to the bathroom during the intermission before the line gets several people deep.“why not just blockade Iran’s oil?” because sanctions and blockades are supposed to choke off an adversary’s financial resources, but I don’t think Trump hasn’t thought about it, he’s playing strategic chess rather than checkers.
Trump can´t even think one move ahead. If he would be doing any think ahead strategy, he would never have attacked Iran in the first place.That is the most obvious sign he doesn't think tactically or strategically. Having the straights shut down clearly surprised him.
The other thing that surprised Trump is that Iran wasn't supposed to attack "their neighbors" He has no idea about the dynamics of the mid-east. He didn't know that Iran is Shia and that all our bases are in Sunni occupied countries and they hate each other. So, it's killing two birds with one stone when Iran attacks our basses.
I think the other thing he didn't know about was that the strait of Hormuz is a choke point.
I say get rid of Netanyahu and all this goes away. Netanyahu is playing Trump and he doesn't even know it.Have you noticed how all this plays into Putin's hands? I would be surprised that wasn't Trump's motive.
"If the American military is as capable (or more) as it was when I was in, the amount of planning, intelligence, and preparation for ..."
Yep.
I struggled with your first comment about taking oneself too seriously because I've said the same thing. I was still wondering about a cute non-emoji reply, something like a literal hand-over-mouth mmpht, mmpht ...
But, like MyEsoteric's first AI comment—I resisted. No buttting in.
And then I hit the above quote. And my first thought was "I know, can you believe it. etc. etc. yada, yada, yada ..."
I couldn't resist.
This one gets a big 'Amen.' It doesn't matter who the commander is; the military is going to plan every imaginable contingency, relative to the scale of the task.
The military doesn't go from capable to inept, overnight, with the flip of a political switch on Jan. 20. (except in political discussions). Smart people know that. And I couldn't resist the temptation to give a high-5 to show I am a smart people too.
GA ;-)
Peter, your comment is very timely — and as it happens, some rather striking reporting broke just after I read your post. It adds an extra layer to the market‑timing angle you mentioned.
As you may know, the breaking news yesterday highlighted an unusually large spike in oil futures trading about fifteen minutes before Trump announced he was delaying the strikes. From what’s been published, around six million barrels’ worth of Brent and WTI futures moved in a two‑minute window — roughly ten times normal activity — with a notional value in the hundreds of millions. Prices then plunged after the announcement, meaning whoever placed those trades would have made a very substantial profit.
What really stood out was that even Sky News and the BBC — who are normally extremely cautious with their language — highlighted how abnormal the timing was. They didn’t claim proof of wrongdoing, but they did point out that the pattern raises obvious questions about whether people close to Trump may have been tipped off. Their line was essentially: nothing is proven, but the facts speak for themselves.
And this is a textbook example of the very pattern you were describing. It fits hand‑in‑glove with the market‑timing behaviour you highlighted.
You made me ask ChatGPT to produce a timeline of Trump's reversals regarding the Trump War in Iran.
Timeline of Trump’s more significant Iran about-faces / course corrections
2011–2013: Trump repeatedly accused Obama of wanting to start a war with Iran for political reasons. Public roundups from that period document at least 10 such statements across tweets and a video appearance, including claims that Obama would attack Iran to look tough or win reelection.
May 2018: Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, replacing Obama-era diplomacy with a pressure-first approach. That was not a “flip” by itself, but it is the major policy turn that set up the later cycle of escalation and claimed off-ramps. This set the stage for Trump's War with Iran today.
June 2019: After Iran shot down a U.S. drone, Trump approved strikes and then called them off at the last minute, saying the expected casualties were not proportionate. That was one of the clearest early examples of him moving from brinkmanship to sudden restraint.
January 2020: Trump escalated dramatically by ordering the strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, then pivoted almost immediately to de-escalation language after Iran’s response, emphasizing sanctions and signaling no immediate broader war.
February 28, 2026: Trump launched the strikes that began the current war. AP notes that, from Iran’s perspective, the U.S. has now attacked during diplomatic contacts twice under Trump, including the Feb. 28 strikes that started the current war.
March 2, 2026: Trump publicly laid out four war objectives in an early White House statement: stopping Iran’s nuclear path, degrading its missile capability, crippling its navy/ability to threaten shipping, and hitting Iran-linked militant capacity. This is important because it shows that the war aims were already broader than a narrow one-off punitive strike.
By mid-March 2026: Trump was publicly saying he had no plans to send ground forces into Iran, while keeping “all options” open and as additional Marines and amphibious assets were moving toward the region. That is not a neat same-day verbal reversal, but it is a significant contradiction between reassurance and operational escalation. The AP article published March 24 states he had “no plans” for ground forces while thousands of Marines were on the way, and contemporaneous coverage reported additional Marine deployments by March 20–21.
March 19, 2026: Trump distanced himself from Israel’s strike on Iran’s South Pars gas field, saying he did not agree with it, had told Netanyahu “don’t do that,” (subtext: you were a bad boy, Bibi) and that “we’re not doing that anymore.” AP also reported that he had cooled on regime change, a notable shift from earlier rhetoric encouraging Iranians to rid themselves of clerical rule.
March 20, 2026: While talking about “winding down” the war, the administration lifted sanctions on about 140 million barrels of Iranian oil already at sea in an attempt to ease price pressure. That is one of the clearest mid-war course corrections: publicly talking de-escalation while also scrambling to manage the economic fallout of the war he had launched.
March 21–22, 2026: Trump then swung back toward overt escalation, issuing a 48-hour ultimatum that Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face U.S. attacks on Iranian power infrastructure. That represented a sharp turn from the “winding down” posture.
March 23, 2026: Trump abruptly paused those threatened strikes for five days, saying there had been productive talks or promising signs of a deal. Iran publicly denied that such negotiations were happening. So within about a day, the message moved from “open Hormuz or we hit your power plants” to “hold off, talks may be working,” even though Tehran denied the premise.
March 24, 2026: AP summarized the result as a war with a shifting list of objectives and continuing skepticism about Trump’s claimed diplomatic progress. In other words, even after the five-day reprieve, the war aim itself remained unstable: stop missiles, stop the nuclear program, secure Hormuz, avoid deeper war, maybe seek talks, maybe prepare Marines.
So the pattern is pretty clear: Trump spent years accusing Obama of wanting a politically useful war with Iran, then in his own Iran war moved repeatedly between escalation and restraint, between broadening objectives and hinting at off-ramps, and between direct threats and claimed negotiations that Iran itself denied.My Esoteric, that’s brilliant — I was pointing out the obvious wobble, and you’ve gone and produced the full archaeological record. Seeing it laid out like that really does show the pattern: bluster, retreat, threat, off‑ramp, repeat. No wonder Iran keeps denying the “talks” he insists are happening.
TACO really is becoming a weekly liturgy at this point.LOL, It gets worse. CNN came out with its own time line which I fed into ChatGPT which produced this testament to an unordered mind of an incompetent person:
On February 28, 2026, the Pentagon said Trump started the war to strike targets posing an “imminent threat” and to dismantle Iran’s security apparatus.
On March 1, 2026, the White House said Trump started the war to “eliminate the imminent nuclear threat”, destroy Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, degrade proxy terror networks, and cripple its naval forces.
On March 2, 2026, Trump said he thought the operation would take about four weeks and that it was already “ahead of schedule”.
On March 4, 2026, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump’s goals were to destroy Iran’s missile program, destroy its navy, degrade its combat capability, and prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
On March 6, 2026, Trump demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender”, turning the stated end state from military degradation into outright capitulation.
On March 7, 2026, Trump said, “We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!” In other words, about a week into the war, he was already talking as if victory had effectively been achieved.
In early March 2026, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers the United States was not pursuing regime change. That narrowed the mission compared with the broader rhetoric coming from Trump and others around him.
On March 9, 2026, Trump said the United States was making major strides toward completing its military objective and that some people could say the objectives were already “pretty well complete.”
On March 10, 2026, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the “end state” would be determined by Trump, while also insisting the war would not be endless or subject to mission creep.
On March 11, 2026, Trump said, “We’ve won… in the first hour, it was over.” That was one of his strongest declarations that the war had already been won, even though operations continued.
By mid-March 2026, Trump was saying he had no plans to send ground forces, while the administration kept all options open and military deployments kept expanding.
On March 16, 2026, Trump said he did not believe the war would last long, but he refused to give a timeline.
On March 19, 2026, Trump distanced himself from Israel’s strike on Iran’s South Pars gas field and cooled on regime change.
On March 20, 2026, Trump talked about “winding down” the war, even as his administration was still describing broad objectives and managing the fallout of a continuing conflict.
On March 22, 2026, Trump shifted the rationale again, giving Iran 48 hours to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and threatening to destroy Iranian power plants if it did not.
On March 23, 2026, Trump said he was pausing strikes for five days because of “productive” talks with Iran and suggested the war might end through a deal.
On March 24–25, 2026, Trump went back to saying the war had already been won, even as the United States prepared to send a 1,000 paratroopers to the region.
So the stated justification kept moving: imminent threat, nuclear threat, missile/navy destruction, no regime change, unconditional surrender, already won, not yet finished, reopen Hormuz, bomb power plants, maybe a deal, maybe more troops. That is not a stable mission. It is a rolling justification for an expanding war.
The sad fact is, Trump has already LOST his war of choice.
* He and his defenders have NO CLUE what the mission is
* He and his defenders have NO CLUE what the end-state is
* He and his defenders have NO CLUE what they are doing - classic Trump
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/25/politics … thing-iranWow, that is an impressive list — and thanks for the link. I especially loved the “How many times can you win a war?” clip with the three separate dates he claimed victory; seeing it all stitched together like that really does highlight the scale of Trump’s… madness. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.
Following the Iran situation today closely: On March 23, 2026, at 8:58 a.m. ET, Trump posted on Truth Social that the U.S. and Iran had “very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East” and that he had “instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five day period.”
Later today day, in the evening (around 9:56 p.m. local time), Iran denied any talks, saying there had been “no negotiations, no direct or indirect contact with the United States.” So Trump’s claim came first, Iran contradicted it later.
As of now, there’s been no further comment from Trump on Iran’s denial. Watching closely to see what happens next. Should be interesting.Video
"They're unable to talk to each other."
Erm.
I find it interesting those who are siding with Iran...
Which is really the closest thing we have to a true enemy that hates us...
They have been chanting 'Death to America" for 50 years now... consider us a 'Great Satan" and anything they do to harm Americans or America they consider a good thing.
This is a regime we should have gone to war against and removed from the face of the planet long ago.
Its a terrorist nation and always has been... it is responsible in part or whole for nearly every terrorist act in the Middle East for decades. It fought America in Iraq, Syria, and everywhere its influence could reach.
Many other nations we have fought for, or against, in the last 50 years were not as justifiable (or not at all justifiable)... but this war is... this is a threat that should be eliminated once and for all.I’m with you on this, and what really stands out to me is how some people are just ignoring the facts.
Iran has a long, well-documented history of funding and supporting terrorism around the world. That’s been established for years. They’ve also enriched uranium to levels that put them dangerously close to having a nuclear weapon, which has been a global concern for a long time. And just last week, they demonstrated they can deliver a missile payload at least 2,500 miles. That’s not speculation, that’s reality.
Given all of that, I don’t understand how anyone can side with Iran or seem to be rooting against the U.S. in a situation like this. It feels less about what’s actually happening and more about wanting a certain political outcome here at home.
You don’t have to agree with everything being done to recognize the level of risk involved. Ignoring terrorism, nuclear capability, and long-range missile development just doesn’t make sense to me, and honestly, it’s concerning.
Some seem to miss that their own nation could be in harm’s way. You’d think there’d be a bit more appreciation for the U.S. stepping in to try to deter what could become a much larger threat.As best I can tell, nobody is siding with Iran, name them if you think they are. That is not the issue.
The issue is very, very simple. You follow the law in your response or you break it, those are the only two alternatives that I can see. Can you see any others?Absolutely, on both points.
Also, the claim that Iran is responsible for virtually all terrorist attacks in the West is simply not supported by any credible data. Iran has certainly supported groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and various Shia militias in the region — largely because the regime is ideologically and strategically hostile to Israel. But that is very different from being behind “all” or even “most” attacks in Europe or the USA.
Iran and ISIS
As you may know, all serious sources agree that Iran viewed ISIS as a major enemy:
• Sectarian hostility: ISIS is a Sunni jihadist organisation that considers Shia Muslims heretics; Iran is a Shia theocracy.
• Threat to allies: ISIS directly threatened Iranian allies, especially the Assad government in Syria and Shia communities in Iraq and Syria.
• Open enmity: ISIS propaganda repeatedly vowed to attack Iran and Shia populations.
Because of this, Iran adopted a counter‑ISIS strategy, not a supportive one:
• Iraq (from 2014): Iranian Quds Force officers and Iran‑backed militias helped defend Baghdad and took part in major operations against ISIS in Tikrit, Baiji, and around Mosul.
• Syria (2012–2017): Iran provided troops, advisers, and militias to support Assad’s forces in battles against ISIS in Aleppo, Deir ez‑Zor, Palmyra, and along the Euphrates corridor.
Whatever one thinks of Iran more broadly, on ISIS they were on the opposite side.
Who actually carried out most terrorist attacks in the West?
If you look at the major attacks in Europe in recent decades, the pattern is very clear:
Europe (2014–2020)
• Paris, Nov 2015 – ISIS
• Brussels, Mar 2016 – ISIS
• Nice, Jul 2016 – ISIS‑inspired
• Berlin, Dec 2016 – ISIS‑inspired
• Manchester, May 2017 – ISIS‑inspired
• London Bridge, Jun 2017 – ISIS‑inspired
• Barcelona, Aug 2017 – ISIS‑inspired
No Iranian‑backed group was responsible for these.
United States of America
The deadliest jihadist attacks in the USA since 2001 have been:
• Orlando, 2016 – ISIS‑inspired
• San Bernardino, 2015 – ISIS‑inspired
• Boston Marathon, 2013 – jihadist‑inspired
• Numerous lone‑actor ISIS‑inspired attacks (2014–2020)
Alongside these, a large share of recent attacks and plots in the USA have come from:
• far‑right extremists
• domestic lone actors
Again, no connection to Iran.
The factual bottom line
Across Europe and the USA, terrorism databases and official threat assessments consistently show that:
• ISIS and Al‑Qaeda–linked actors, plus
• far‑right and other domestic extremists
account for the overwhelming majority of attacks and plots.
Iran‑linked groups barely register in comparison when it comes to actual executed attacks on Western soil.
So yes, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism in the region, and it backs groups many of us strongly oppose. But when it comes to terrorist attacks in the West in recent decades, the record is very clear:
It has been ISIS, Al‑Qaeda, and various domestic extremists who have predominately carried them out — not Iranian proxies.
I agree with you on this. Iran perhaps more than any other nation in the Middle East is a nation vile and the core of terrorism in the middle east for the last 50 years.
And you definitely don't want extreme Isalmists who have proven to use suicide bombers to have an atomic weapon.
I wish with all my heart that Iran would be a democracy where woman have the same rights as man. (Something still disputable in many Middle Eastern countries, including the Gaza strip.)
It is clear that extremists think completely different than western politicians. And this is not always understood in the west.
Their war is not so much with the US, but more with Israel. They want there holy land to be cleansed of Jews. (From the R to the S)
Now Iran was weaker than ever to attack it. But the US is also weaker than ever, with a president who has no patience and does not listen to advisers and who is highly impulsive.
The war was terribly ill-prepared. Just dropping bombs is not the answer. And hoping that the Iranian population or the Kurds will do the rest.
To much was improvised from day one without listening to the years of collected intel.
So to say that you are against the war, does not mean that you are pro Iran.
This war was, as you said probably the most justifiable war. But if you make a mess out of it, you do not solve the problem but make it worse for the years to come.
The road to hell is sometimes paved by the best intentions.I need to point out that women don't have the same rights as men in America anymore. Granted, they have many more rights than women in Iran or any Muslim nation, but it is false to think they are on equal footing in America.
According to ChatGPT:
In an important sense, no: women in the U.S. are not on equal civil-rights footing with women in Canada, the UK, and much of Western Europe when it comes to some foundational protections. The biggest reason is structural: the U.S. Constitution has no explicit sex-equality amendment in force and, after Dobbs, no federal constitutional abortion right. By contrast, Canada has Charter protections for life, liberty, and security of the person and equality, the UK incorporates Article 8 protection for private and family life through the Human Rights Act, and the EU Charter expressly says equality between women and men “must be ensured in all areas.”
While American women are far, far ahead of those in Iran, they are clearly behind to other developed nations. I find that very sad.Just as in the US, there is much work to be done in Europe. For example, abortion rights differ greatly between Sweden, which is at the top, and Poland and Malta, which are at the bottom. It's like comparing California and Texas.
This is again linked to religious views.
Generally speaking, the stronger a religion's influence on politics, the worse it is for women's freedoms."I need to point out that women don't have the same rights as men in America anymore. Granted, they have many more rights than women in Iran or any Muslim nation, but it is false to think they are on equal footing in America.
According to ChatGPT:"
LMFAO... GTFO...
Sometimes I really do believe what has been home grown is worse than the biggest Jihadist chanting "Death to America".When are you going to get serious. ChatGPT is much better than your YouTube for factual information.
I can't help it. I resisted the first time, then serendipity (this post) crashed the gate.
It's a cute story, just take it as that. We can chuckle together. And it fits with a previous brief tangent on AI responses.
Your use of "According to ChatGPT ...," or "I asked ChatGPT ..." prompted a thought, so off I ran to create a meme for you.
Made a good one too. Too good. The result totally sidetracked me.
But at least I resisted posting the meme.
Then I come back and see your reply comparing your ChatGPT to Ken's YouTube (et al?)
Irony and cuteness in one bundle. Who could resist? ;-)
So, your familiarity with "prompts" (a compliment) should quickly catch the point that stopped me.
To paraphrase, I asked CoPilot for a meme of strong opinions colliding, with simple caricature-type figure instructions, along with the quoted text.
That was it.
This was the result:
Look at the opposites: business/legislature/secular???? vs. clergy/religious. Message of the power of man in the hand vs. the power of god in the book. And down, and down ... false gods, battling gods ...
I didn't prompt for any of that. One of the early adjectives was cute. Hinting at false gods, or Idols isn't cute. The 'in the book' blurb came from an old Richard Pryor routine about sport stats, not the ultimate battle of tech vs. man.
Anyway, that was the story. It's a good meme, just for the reasons and circumstances I mentioned. The story is that the AI thought of it without prompting, and it was a great choice. It intuitively fits its intended use perfectly (there's the poke).
Try to caption that meme. I'm still thinking about it. I bet you will be too. But gimme a break, don't ask ChatGPT to do it for you.
So many legitimate directions.
GAI suppose we can say the same about "asking google" or "asking Siri" or "according to Britannica" (threw that in there for our friends across the pond), etc.
Hmmmm... well I am responding to this after reading GA's meme post above...
I use youtube as a means of making available an opinion or explanation of the information I am trying to present...
Sometimes it is to offer new information... sometimes it is to make you think, or see a different perspective.
Recently Cred watched a video where I said "this explains my perspective" and it did... it was 25 minutes of information condensed ... what would have taken 400 pages to explain in type.
Here... as an example... this is a short video, in 45 seconds it gives more insight into what I think is going on in Iran (or an extension of what I have said is going on in many recent posts)... than typing 30 pages could:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/RVnHWdgOYyc
I use the videos to convey information to others...
You are using CHAT to validate your position.
There is the difference.I use ChatGPT, Grok, and the others to gather information, just as I do Google, books, mainstream news, and the like. Then I convey information to others.
As to your example, I first look at who is providing this information. In your example, it is a self-described stand-up comedian. Then I look for what kind of information he seeks to convey. In your example, it is conspiracy-adjacent, sensational, and paranormal material: UFOs, Epstein, cults, “ancient tech,” “why everything you were taught was a lie,” etc. Basically, that tells me this is for entertainment value only and not to be taken seriously."Basically, that tells me this is for entertainment value only and not to be taken seriously."
As is everything in this forum
Some people take their opinions far too seriously... some even think they are experts on the matters they are commenting on.
It's OK, we all have days of delusion like that... some of us, however, live in a permanent state of delusion, or self-deception, sometimes its hard to tell which really.
Like people who constantly refer only to things like CNN and Salon, referencing CNN as their primary source of "good" and "reliable" information tells me all I need to know."Delusion" - that does describe Trump defenders to a 'T' - those are the 'us' you are referring to.
This should cheer your up:
Democrats Flip Florida State Seat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFhfJ0G1SV4To extrapolate on this a bit... the chances of the pendulum swinging severely to the Left, is entirely possible.
But the Left needs a new face and new voice... Newsom is not it, he is a snake oil salesman and the nation knows it.
AOC will never survive a real campaign, with debates and constant media scrutiny.
I don't know who you guys have hidden away... but it will have to be someone who can reach 'center' Americans.Although Florida has overall trended Republican, this specific area, which is represented by a state legislative seat, has long had a mix of moderate Republicans and Democrats. Just a very swing history. Factually, Republicans still hold a large majority in the chamber, so this doesn’t change control, but it’s politically symbolic for sure.
I can sense it... I can see the shift...
Its in the young people... they were a good part of the reason why Trump was elected for a second term...
They are disaffected with what Trump has done... and not done...
I do not at all think it has to do with the Deportations of criminal migrants... the media will push that, but it is false... that is what the extremists who watch CNN all the time believe...
It's the wars... not ending the Ukraine war as he PROMISED to do... why doesn't matter... he didn't end the war...
Then he started a 'new one' with Iran... which us 'old folks' know is not really true, this was allowed to fester since Carter, but they weren't alive for any of that, most young Americans have no clue what happened before the Obama years, the majority of the under-35 crew has no real perspective on Iran, other than we are now at war with another country.
If the economy was doing good and the wars had been ended, he would be more popular with the young people today than any President in our lifetimes, I believe.
But the economy is struggling in large part because we ARE in a global 'struggle'... and we have multiple wars going on... these things are a big concern for young people (especially the young men that supported him in the last election).I much agree with what you’re saying, and honestly, I think there’s a lot of truth in it, but I’d frame it more as frustration than some big political shift.
I can see why younger voters, especially the ones who showed up for Donald Trump, would feel let down on the war issue. Ending the Ukraine conflict was a big expectation, and when something like that doesn’t happen, it sticks, especially with people who are already skeptical of foreign involvement. Same with anything that even looks like another conflict starting. Even if there’s a long history behind Iran, like you said, a lot of younger people just see “another war” and react to that.
At the same time, I don’t think it’s as simple as them turning on him. A lot of it feels like impatience and high expectations more than a full rejection. Younger voters tend to want results fast, and when things like wars and the economy are tied up in bigger global issues, that doesn’t always line up with campaign promises, no matter who’s in office.
I also agree with you that the media probably oversimplifies it. They’ll latch onto one issue like deportations and run with it, when in reality most people, young or old, are looking at a mix of things: cost of living, stability, and whether the country feels like it’s on the right track.
To me, this feels less like a collapse in support and more like a “wait and see” moment. If things stabilize, especially economically and internationally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see that support come right back.No... It's deeper...
The young generations are not of that mindset...
They put Biden in... he starts WWIII ...he gives them 25% inflation while also giving them 8% interest ... those two things combined were a knock out blow to young workers trying to buy a new home or new car.
I don't think they were too keen on some other things, from Trans to forget Biden heeeerrees Harris... vote for her or your a racist sexist.
So yeah, the one guy who didn't start a war as president... The guy promising to end it on day one... Who will close the borders and make the economy great like he was doing last time...
We will give him another go... Anything is better than word salad Susan.
But the economy is not better... Had a chance to get there Maybe...but not likely with oil being a major issue...
The war with Russia is not only still going, it's literally spread to global war... and most people are becoming aware of it...it's creeping in there, especially the young people.
So yeah... There are a lot of young people without the perspective older people like you or I have... That are pissed right now.
They don't realize... Once this chain of events was set in motion under Biden ...there was no stopping it, once that genie was let out of the bottle.
At best... Trump and crew mitigate the damage that can be reversed, like with Venezuela... and cut ties with who you can do without.
Assert control over the Western Hemisphere the top priority... And whatever else can be salvaged, will be salvaged... But there is the real possibility of losing control over certain regions of the globe....around China ...Iran shutting down the strait...
Damn, you wrote something I can more or less agree with. Are you feeling OK?
True enough... if things are as chaotic as the media (and Trump) make them appear to be, then this is a mess indeed.
But knowing a little about the Pentagon and Israeli intelligence, I just don't see this as an operation being driven by "highly impulsive" reactions from Trump or anyone else.You can have a great army, but as the Commander-in-Chief (Trump) and his Secretary of Defense (Pete Hegseth) are both incompetent, it doesn't take much to believe that this war will end up in a complete chaos.
It already is, badly. I just read that one think-tank believes our inflation will reach 4%. Personally, I think it will go higher.
Trump has already lost this war. All he can do now is try to end it without too much more damage being done.It is a terrible mess. Not only for the world economy, as it takes months to get everything back in order again if the war stopped right now.
But for so many things, especially the Iranians.
If the US goes in, (Which I hope won't happen) than you will have thousands of refugees and deaths - A bigger catastrophe than the Iraq war.
If the war would stop now, nothing would have changed, only a couple of leaders and you will have a harsh regime punishing those who thought freedom had arrived.
If the US moves in, how does it retreat? Again Iraq as an example, all the extremists have taken over again.
It's a Catch 42 for Trump, either way he looses.
Yep, the US has already lost this war. As when the US retreats, which is the wisest thing to do, Iran has shown the world that it can not be attacked as it will disrupt the oil market. And so there won't be any near future attacks which gives Iran more freedom to develop nuclear weapons.
As all countries will understand now that unless you don't have nuclear weapons the US will attack you if they don't like you (Maduro was an example.)
In other words, this war has made a the world less safe, instead of saver what was I guess the intention...
Russia, loves it, as every missile that goes to Iran doesn't go to Ukraine.
And the oil price has sky rocketed, giving Putin even more money for his war in Ukraine.
Trump is using the war to enrich himself with oil stocks and shares.
I would have perhaps supported a war against the terrible regime in Iran, if it was well planned and really with the intention of bringing a democracy.
Problem is that I can not find any example in the history of the US doing this. All the wars they fought with a so called regime change in mind, was not about the population but to put a straw man in place that would obey Washington. The freedom and well fair of the population of the country was never seemed important.
"There is no such thing as a winnable war,
It is a lie we don't believe anymore."
As Sting phrases it...
Today, “They’re going to make a deal. They did something [Monday] that was amazing, actually. They gave us a present. The present arrived today, and it was a very big present worth a tremendous amount of money.” President Trump
Just my view. I’m honestly impressed by this development. Trump is painting this as a very significant move, a real olive branch from Iran that’s tied directly to the Strait of Hormuz and oil and gas flow, and that’s huge if true. He appears to clearly believe Tehran is ready to make a deal, and the fact that he says they followed through on what they promised is meaningful.
What stands out to me is that this isn’t just talk, it’s a tangible action connected to one of the most strategically vital waterways in the world. The Strait of Hormuz is the lifeline for global energy, and anything that helps stabilize that corridor has real economic and security implications.
Negotiations being led by Rubio and Vance also suggest this isn’t being taken lightly at the highest levels of government. I appreciate that Trump is saying we’re in a strong bargaining position - no nuclear weapons, no enrichment, and that he believes we can control our own fate in this.
Whether you agree with him or not, this is a bold moment in foreign policy. If this “present” truly signals willingness from Iran to strike a deal, it could be a game‑changer in easing tensions and protecting global energy markets.
Pulling for a quick solution to a decade-old huge problem.This morning Trump got up and spun his "what am I going to say wheel right now" wheel. It landed on this "President Donald Trump said it’s up to Iranian leaders to convince him to halt the war, saying he doesn’t care about making a deal"
That was different from yesterday evening, which was different from yesterday morning, which was different from Tuesday evening, which was different from Tuesday morning, which was ....
This afternoon, he will spin is wheel again t see what he will say Thursday night.
You elected him. I cast my ballot for sanity.Apparently T doesn´t have this option on his fortune spinning wheel:
"Blockade of strait of Hormus for all Tankers leaving with Iranian oil."
Instead there is only focus on lifting the Iranian blockade. Wasn´t it the idea of sanctions and blockades to go after the financial resources of an adversary? No revenues for Iran, drying up the swamp.
Will this insane administration listen to what their former advisor John Bolton suggests? ( .. and later sell it as their own idea..)?
Trump has a great record of removing smart guys from office and replacing them with dumb followers.To quote what President Trump shared in the meeting this morning.
"This morning Trump got up and spun his "what am I going to say wheel right now" wheel. It landed on this "President Donald Trump said it’s up to Iranian leaders to convince him to halt the war, saying he doesn’t care about making a deal"
That was different from yesterday evening, which was different from yesterday morning, which was different from Tuesday evening, which was different from Tuesday morning, which was ....
This afternoon, he will spin is wheel again t see what he will say Thursday night.
You elected him. I cast my ballot for sanity."ECO
"Trump said on March 26, 2026: “… Iran now has a chance to permanently abandon its nuclear ambitions and join a new diplomatic path. However, if Iran refuses, the U.S. will continue military action.”
That was during a Cabinet meeting as he urged Tehran to “accept a deal” to end bombings and negotiate an end to the conflict while warning the U.S. could “keep blowing them away” if they refuse. President Trump
Source Reuters
President Trump has stated his goals frequently, and he has not wavered.
This statement explicitly ties any potential peace to Iran giving up its nuclear program and abandoning nuclear ambitions — which is consistent with what you remembered about him saying Iran would not enrich uranium or obtain a nuclear weapon as part of the terms.
"March 23–24, 2026 – 15‑Point Plan Sent to Iran
U.S. sent a 15‑point proposal to Iran via mediators outlining terms to end the war. This proposal was widely reported though the exact text hasn’t been publicly released.
Reported contents include:
• Dismantling Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile
• Halting enrichment activities
• Limiting ballistic missile development
• Ending support for proxies (e.g., Hezbollah)
These are the core demands tied to ending the conflict." Reuters
This was not on your wheel... Odd, his goals were left off.
Trump will do what is needed to ensure his goals are met. It must be hard to watch such a strong leader do what so many have failed to do.
Something else, along with the closing of Hormuz, that your incompetent, senile president didn't think about
"War with Iran drives US mortgage rates higher for fourth-straight week"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/26/economy/ … t-iran-war"Dow on verge of correction as Iran war and inflation cloud outlook for markets"
MAGA must be patting Trump on the back telling him what a great job he is doing with markets down, gas up, and inflation up.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/27/investing/us-stocks-iranROFLMAO
"Iran-linked hackers have breached FBI Director Kash Patel’s personal emails"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/27/politics … ctor-patelA bit of current news --- https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/us-is … 03-27-2026
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio looks on as he speaks to the press following a G7 Foreign Ministers' meeting with Partner Countries before his departure at the Bourget airport in Le Bourget, outside Paris, on March 27, 2026.
Foreign ministers from the G7 will take part in a two-day meeting with European nations and allies seeking to narrow differences with the US on the Middle East war while keeping other crises like Ukraine and Gaza high on the agenda.
"Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Friday the U.S. expects its war against Iran to conclude in a matter of “weeks, not months,” arguing American forces are already ahead of schedule in achieving key objectives.
Speaking to reporters after meetings with G7 foreign ministers in France, Rubio said the U.S. has made significant progress in degrading Iran’s military capabilities, including its missile and drone programs, as well as its navy and air force, according to Reuters.
“We are ahead of schedule on most of them, and we can achieve them without any ground troops,” Rubio said.
His comments come as the Pentagon weighs additional troop deployments to the region, including up to 10,000 more forces, though Rubio said those moves are intended to give President Donald Trump flexibility if conditions change, Reuters reported.
“The president has to be prepared for multiple contingencies,” Rubio said.Ukraine and the Saudis sign a deal on drone expertise
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2r4wxdw3no
Apparently it is not only Saudi Arabia but also other countries in the Gulf region.
A true sign that these countries trust Ukraine more to help and meet their needs than the USA.
What a change in the worlds view of "America First".If you really think this one deal suddenly means every Gulf state, including Saudi Arabia, has declared Ukraine more trustworthy than the United States, you’re ignoring basic geopolitics.
This isn’t some emotional “America First vs everyone else” story; it’s a practical, transactional defense cooperation agreement, where Kyiv offers specialized drone-defense expertise that Gulf states value because of Iranian-style drone threats. Ukraine wants weapons, funding, and technology in return, it’s a mutually beneficial deal, not a global trust referendum.
Saudi Arabia and other GCC states balance relationships with the U.S., Russia, China, and others based on security interests, oil markets, and regional threats. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia remain strategic partners, and Washington continues to be central to Gulf defense policy.
Some research is required on the lucrative business the U.S. does: the United States is by far the world’s largest arms exporter, accounting for roughly 40–45% of global arms exports, selling not only the most advanced drones but also fighter jets, missile systems, naval vessels, and a wide array of weaponry to a long list of nations, including the U.K. and NATO allies.
So no — this deal doesn’t show the world “trusts Ukraine more than the U.S.” It shows that Ukraine has battlefield-tested expertise in drone warfare, and other countries see value in cooperating with them on specific technologies. That doesn’t diminish America’s role; it highlights that global security relationships are multidimensional, not zero-sum.
Example --- "As of now, the UK’s military drones are almost entirely sourced from the United States when it comes to high‑tech, armed or long-endurance systems. Here’s a breakdown:
U.S. Drones (Primary Source)
MQ‑9A Reaper – retired in 2025, originally purchased from General Atomics (U.S.)
MQ‑9B Protector – next-generation, 16+ drones ordered from General Atomics (U.S.)
These are the UK’s main armed surveillance and strike drones, used for both intelligence and operational combat missions.
Other Sources
The UK does operate smaller tactical or surveillance drones that are sometimes sourced from domestic manufacturers (UK companies like Thales UK, BAE Systems, or UAV Tactical Systems) or from European partners for training or reconnaissance purposes.
However, no other nation provides the UK with drones comparable in combat capability to the MQ‑9 series. So for high-end, operational drones, the U.S. remains the exclusive supplier.
In short, for armed, high-tech, long-endurance drones, the UK depends entirely on U.S. technology — nothing comparable is purchased from any other nation." ChatgptSharlee, your summary of the UK’s drone capability is out of date and far too narrow. Yes, the UK buys its high‑end, long‑endurance armed drones from the USA — the MQ‑9A Reaper (now retired) and the incoming MQ‑9B Protector. And just to be clear, the UK has ordered only 16 of those Protectors from the USA. That part is correct. But the idea that the UK “almost entirely” relies on the USA for drones is simply wrong.
The UK now produces drones at scale — and I mean actual scale. By 2025, British industry was manufacturing around 100,000 drones per year for Ukraine alone, and the UK military has been expanding procurement “by the thousands.” Compare that with the 16 Protectors bought from the USA and the picture looks rather different to the one you’re trying to paint.
On top of that, the UK operates a wide range of tactical, reconnaissance, naval, and counter‑drone systems sourced from British defence companies and European partners. These aren’t hobby toys — they’re operational military assets.
So yes, for the very top tier of armed, long‑endurance platforms, the UK buys American — all 16 of them. But for the broader drone ecosystem — tactical, naval, reconnaissance, and mass‑production systems — the UK is heavily invested in its own defence industry and is rapidly expanding it.
In short: the USA supplies a handful of specialised aircraft, not the entire UK drone capability. The reality is far more complex than the neat little narrative you’re trying to sell.She also starts off with the false premise that Trump's America is trustworthy - as any nation in the world will tell you, we, under Trump, are not.
In a June 2025 Pew survey across 24 countries, just 34% said they had confidence in Trump to do the right thing in world affairs. Smaller European studies through February 2026 suggests that sentiment has deteriorated a bit further.
In many of those more recent European surveys, large shares of respondents no longer view Trump’s America as a reliable ally, with a growing number even describing it as a potential threat. - That would have been unimaginable in January 2025.
Polling from late 2025 into early 2026 shows a growing shift toward seeing the U.S. as a more transactional or self-interested partner rather than a dependable one, reinforcing the broader pattern of persistent—and in some cases slightly worsening—distrust.Please have a look at this permalink. It will offer that I was responding to a very specific subject, regarding a drone deal that was recently made between Ukraine and Saudi Arabia. It should clarify my comment. https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/370 … ost4396665
I am not an expert on drones --- so I went to AI to confirm your comment, and found it factual. However, there is another side to this coin.
1. The “100,000 drones” number — mostly TRUE (with an important caveat)
The UK has pledged to deliver ~100,000 drones to Ukraine in a single year (2025–2026 timeframe).
The UK government explicitly said it’s ramping up from about 10,000 → 100,000 drones annually
This includes production + procurement + delivery, not just domestic factory output
Key nuance:
It does NOT mean the UK alone is building 100,000 high-end drones from scratch in traditional defense factories.
It’s a mix of:
UK-built drones
Ukrainian-designed drones built in the UK
Commercial/rapid-production systems sourced from industry
2. What kind of drones are these?
This is where the comparison in that comment falls apart.
Most of those 100,000 drones are:
✔ Low-cost, mass-produced battlefield drones
FPV (first-person view) attack drones
Small reconnaissance drones
“Drop” drones (grenade delivery)
Interceptor drones
Examples:
Cheap FPV drones responsible for 60–70% of battlefield damage
Systems like the Octopus-100 (Ukrainian design, UK-built in volume)
These are:
Often hundreds to a few thousand dollars each
Built quickly, sometimes by small companies or adapted commercial tech
Designed to be expendable
In other words:
Yes—these are much closer to the “Ukraine-style cheap drones” than U.S. high-end systems.
3. The “16 Protectors from the U.S.” — completely different category
The UK’s 16 Protector RG Mk1 drones are:
Based on the U.S. MQ-9B SkyGuardian
Built by General Atomics (U.S.)
Cost tens of millions each
Long-endurance (up to ~40 hours)
Used for:
Intelligence
Surveillance
Precision strike
These are:
Strategic, high-end assets
Comparable to aircraft—not disposable drones
The 16 drones the UK bought from the U.S.
The UK purchased 16 Protector RG Mk1, which are based on the American MQ-9B SkyGuardian made by General Atomics.
These are:
Top-tier, long-endurance drones
Satellite-controlled over global distances
Capable of precision strikes
Extremely expensive (tens of millions each)
These are among the most advanced drones in the world.
Does the UK build drones like this? Not independently at this level (right now)
The UK does not currently mass-produce an equivalent to the MQ-9B on its own.
It relies on the U.S. for this class of drone
That’s why it bought the Protector fleet instead of building its own from scratch
But the UK does have advanced drone programs
This is where nuance matters.
1. Collaborative high-end projects (not fully independent)
The UK has been involved in advanced drone development like:
BAE Systems Taranis
A stealth combat drone prototype
Very advanced—but never mass-produced
BAE Systems Tempest (with partners like Italy & Japan)
Includes “loyal wingman” drones
Still in development, not operational yet
These show capability—but not current production at scale.
2. Where the UK is strong right now
The UK is focusing heavily on:
Smaller tactical drones
Swarm and AI-enabled systems
Ukraine-style battlefield drones
Rapid, scalable production
Tens of thousands of drones are being produced/supplied
But mostly lower-cost, expendable systems." Chatgpt
"So yes, for the very top tier of armed, long‑endurance platforms, the UK buys American — all 16 of them. But for the broader drone ecosystem — tactical, naval, reconnaissance, and mass‑production systems — the UK is heavily invested in its own defence industry and is rapidly expanding it.
In short, the USA supplies a handful of specialised aircraft, not the entire UK drone capability. The reality is far more complex than the neat little narrative you’re trying to sell." Nathan
In my view, that’s good to hear, and honestly, it’s what they should be doing given how much the global landscape is shifting. With the number of conflicts and power dynamics changing right now, it makes sense for countries to strengthen and expand their own defense capabilities.Sharlee, none of this changes the basic point. You originally claimed the UK “almost entirely” relies on the USA for drones. That simply isn’t true. The UK buys 16 high‑end aircraft from America — and produces or procures tens of thousands of other operational drones from British and European defence companies. Whether those systems are high‑end, mid‑tier, or battlefield expendables doesn’t alter the fact that the UK’s drone capability is broad, diverse, and overwhelmingly sourced outside the USA.
You’re now shifting the discussion to categories and cost brackets, but that wasn’t your original claim. Your claim was about dependence — and the numbers speak for themselves. Sixteen from America versus tens of thousands from the UK and Europe. That’s the reality.
And just to clarify the numbers: before 2025, UK support to Ukraine was roughly 10,000 drones per year — that was the old level. In 2025, the UK government announced a ten‑fold expansion to 100,000 drones per year, and crucially:
* this is not a one‑year publicity stunt
* this is the new production target going forward
* this is explicitly tied to the duration of the war
* this includes UK‑built drones, UK‑based production of Ukrainian designs, and UK procurement from British industry
It’s also worth noting that the UK’s new 16 MQ‑9B Protectors from the USA haven’t been used in combat. The older MQ‑9A Reapers were used extensively in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, but those were very different kinds of conflicts. In Ukraine, the decisive systems are the cheap, expendable drones that can be produced in huge numbers. They dominate the battlefield because they’re low‑cost, fast to replace, hard to detect, and deployed in swarms. A £20,000 FPV that destroys a £3 million tank has far more impact in this kind of war than a single high‑end, long‑endurance aircraft. That’s why mass production — not a handful of expensive American platforms — is what actually shapes the battlefield today.It's a bit dated, but even as far back as 1998, I think, I was part of a NATO sponsored study to determine what Slovakia would have to do with their, in my case air force, to qualify to join NATO. I remember British aircraft from BAE played an important role in the results.
(My part was determining the operating and support costs of the systems the acquisition team settled on. I had a great two-weeks in Slovakia trying to learn how they support their air force. One thing I found is that they have great food and don't like to be tipped (its insulting). I have been trying to talk my with into going back to visit.)Thanks for sharing that, My Esoteric — it’s a fascinating bit of NATO history, and your Slovakia experience really brings it to life. BAE kit has been central to alliance modernisation for decades, and it’s always interesting to hear from someone who was directly involved in that work. And I enjoyed the travel detail — those little cultural discoveries stay with you.
The no‑tipping point made me smile; it’s much the same across most of Europe, and certainly here in the UK. Our service culture developed differently, so tipping isn’t generally expected — whereas I understand that in the USA it’s woven into the system because so many service jobs rely on it to make up low base wages.You are certainly correct about our low-paying service jobs in America.
For ages (given how old I am) I bought into the myth that English food was terrible (at least to Americans). Then on a trip to England (now we are in the early 2000s) to make presentations about a program I developed and managed called AFTOC at Lakenheath and Mildenhall,
It was in Mildenhall where I went to a real English pub for the first time (not those knock-offs in America). I don't remember what I ordered but it was authentic English and not a hamburger or something. It was delicious!
Interesting side-story, at least to me. We, I had somebody else who worked on the program with me, arrived early in the morning at Heathrow. I rented a car to drive up to Mildenhall and it was misty out. It was quite a feat figuring out how to drive on the wrong side of the car AND on the wrong side of the road AND having to deal with roundabouts. Of course I was immediately faced with UKs version of intercity freeways which was a trip in and of itself. Finally, we got out of London and settled down on a nice two-lane road for the rest of the trip. (In reality, it wasn't that hard getting used to following UKs driving rules. I only got really sideways with them once.Thanks, My Esoteric — I really enjoyed reading that. And yes, the wage point is exactly it: here even the lowest‑paid jobs are covered by a national legal minimum wage, so people aren’t dependent on tips to make ends meet. It’s one of those structural differences that shapes the whole service culture.
And I’m glad you had a good experience with English food. We’re rather modest about our cuisine and don’t promote it as loudly as some nations do, but there’s a lot of wholesome, traditional fare once you get past the old stereotypes. We’ve got plenty of regional favourites too — I always look forward to Welsh rarebit (a savoury cheese‑on‑toast dish) when we’re in Wales, and a proper cream tea in Cornwall or Devon (scones with clotted cream and jam) is hard to beat.
Your driving story made me smile. Roundabouts are everywhere here — and across most of Europe — and once you get used to them they’re far quicker and more intuitive than sitting at intersections. And yes, we have the same experience in reverse when we drive on the Continent: wrong side of the car, wrong side of the road, but you adapt surprisingly quickly.
One small update since your visit: as of January 2022, drivers, motorcyclists and cyclists must now give way to pedestrians who are crossing or waiting to cross any road they’re turning into or out of. Pedestrians have clear priority at junctions and side roads. And just for clarity, that applies everywhere — we don’t have jaywalking laws here, so people can cross wherever they like (motorways aside, of course).
Changes to Hierarchy of Road Users in the Highway Code in UK in 2022 https://youtu.be/MhWi-9NrJeU
This Ukraine deal is just the beginning.
It goes much deeper and is not related to technical capabilities of some weaponry.
There is serious discussion in the markets of the USA risking to loose the Petrodollar-Currency. Remember: It was Richard Nixon (Tricky Dick, a real chess player, not a moron like the current president), it was Nixon who made an agreement with the Saudi family: "We protect you militarily and you will trade your oil only in USD". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrocurrency
Until today this has worked out fine. But it is crumbling.
Gulf states start asking themselves, why stick to this agreement, if the USA is not able to protect us and starts wars without consultation? Why is the USA only teaming up with Israel and not willing to honour the Petrodollar agreement in the first place.
This is a very dangerous threat to the US economy, short term and long term. In the future China will buy with RMB and no more with USD.
Trumps halfbaked war demonstrates that the Petrodollar agreement is rendered worthless.Thank you for your reply. I read it carefully.
In my view, I think you’re speaking with a level of certainty that just isn’t supported by how global finance or geopolitics actually work.
I’m not buying the idea that a single Ukraine-related deal somehow signals the collapse of the petrodollar system. What came out of the era of Richard Nixon was never some fragile, one-layer agreement that can just be “rendered worthless” overnight. It’s a system that’s evolved over decades and is tied to far more than oil, it’s about the scale, liquidity, and trust in the U.S. financial system.
I see Gulf states like Saudi Arabia doing exactly what they’ve always done, balancing relationships to maximize their own leverage. That’s not new, and it’s not evidence that the U.S. suddenly can’t provide security. The U.S. is still the backbone of defense in that region, and no other country. including China, is replacing that in any meaningful way right now.
I think the assumption that China is just going to replace the dollar with the RMB ignores some basic realities. This isn’t about preference, it’s about trust and structure. The dollar dominates because it’s freely tradable, widely trusted, and backed by the deepest capital markets in the world. China’s system just doesn’t operate that way, at least not yet.
And tying all of this to one administration or calling it “Trump’s war” feels like another stretch to me. These kinds of global systems don’t pivot overnight based on one presidency. If anything, the fact that the U.S. dollar, defense relationships, and arms dominance have held through multiple administrations tells me how durable the system actually is.
At the end of the day, I’m not saying nothing is changing; clearly, it is. But I think you’re jumping way ahead of the facts and treating speculation like a foregone conclusion. There’s a big difference between acknowledging shifts and declaring that the foundation of the U.S. system is collapsing, and I’m just not seeing evidence for that right now.
If I take your prediction to its logical end, it doesn’t just weaken the U.S., it destabilizes the entire global economy. The dollar underpins global trade, reserves, and debt markets, so a sudden collapse wouldn’t create a smooth transition to something like China’s RMB, it would trigger massive volatility, credit shocks, and widespread financial instability. Countries like Saudi Arabia are deeply tied into that same system, so they have just as much to lose from disrupting it. That’s why shifts away from the dollar, if they happen, are typically slow and managed, not abrupt collapses, because no major player benefits from blowing up the system they’re still heavily invested in. And even in a worst-case scenario like the one you’re describing, I still think the U.S. is in a far stronger position to absorb that kind of shock than most other countries, because of the size of its economy, the depth of its financial markets, and the continued global demand for its assets. The U.S. could likely ride it out, while many other nations would feel the impact far more severely.The U.S. could likely ride it out, while many other nations would feel the impact far more severely.
——
But it wont be comfortable here and we will have to hold the incumbent politicians responsible for that discomfort.I do get your point, and I think this is where the situation becomes a lot more complicated than a typical “people vote with their wallet” scenario.
Normally, I’d agree that when the economy takes a hit, people tend to hold leadership accountable pretty directly. But when you factually introduce a war into the equation, it may change how people process that responsibility. It’s no longer just about gas prices, inflation, or market instability; it becomes a question of why those sacrifices are happening.
Some people are going to look at it and say, “If this was necessary to prevent something bigger, like Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, then the economic pain, while real, might be justified. ” Others are going to see it completely differently and feel that the economic consequences outweigh the reasoning behind the conflict, or that the threat itself is being viewed differently.
That’s why I think this moment is different. It’s not just about policy outcomes; it’s about how individuals weigh national security versus economic stability. Two people can look at the exact same situation and come to completely different conclusions about whether the hardship is acceptable.
So while I agree there will be discomfort and people will hold leadership accountable, I don’t think it will be as straightforward or unified as in a normal economic downturn. The presence of war adds a layer of judgment that goes beyond just the numbers.But, Sharlee,
Conservatives need to realize that this is not WW2 and the unanimous will of the public to make sacrifices to support the conflict then is not true today. There is no unified front in support of this war and that in itself will be why it will fail.
No rally round the flag boys, not this time.I fully support the war with Iran. I’m grateful to have a President willing to take decisive action to ensure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon. That objective has been clear, stop their nuclear capability and eliminate the threat before it ever reaches our shores.
This isn’t really about Trump personally; it’s about having a President who is willing to do what he believes is necessary to keep America safe. Leadership often requires making tough decisions, even when there isn’t unanimous public support. Unlike WWII, we don’t have a unified front today, and that makes the situation more complicated, but strong leadership doesn’t wait for everyone to agree. The goal here is security and preventing a nuclear threat from Iran, and that requires action, not just consensus.
I understand that every conflict carries risk, but I believe this is about long-term security and preventing a far greater threat in the future. I have confidence in Trump and our military, and I believe this will end in victory, whether through Iran's concession to the demands placed before them or through sustained military pressure that ultimately neutralizes their ability to pose a threat.
Get ready to see an Iran without the capability to create a nuke.According to Trump he obliterated their nuclear development capability - did you forget he said that? So why did he start a war he can't win? Or, are you finally admitting he lies?
What Sharlee apparently closes her mind to is that Americans Do Not support Trump's illegal war on Iran. They have every right and good reason to blame Trump and the Republicans for the pain they are suffering.
Pollyanna sophistry (yeah, I had to look it up to make sure I was using it right) to protect Trump's stupidity fall on deaf ears in this case.Totally correct.
This is not WW2 era...
That was a time when everyone shared a positive identity for being American.
That was a time when information could be controlled, there was no instant awareness of what was really going on, as there is today with the internet and cell-phones.
That was a time when identity politics was Catholic vs. Protestant.
Today that has become Man vs. Woman vs LGTBQ+ vs Non-Binary vs Race vs Citizen vs Migrant vs whatever... they have made Victimhood into a business worth billions to those who can peddle it... they injected the government with DEI where Quotas and Equity trumps merit and capability.
We literally have had government orders come down to say Suzie will graduate Ranger School, and eventually 100 Suzies will graduate Ranger School... regardless of how physically incapable they are of meeting the requirements, because Ideology trumps Reality.
Our extremes today have become unbridgeable...
Progressives/Democrat/Socialists today might as well be considered the Feminine... feelings over facts... empathy over safety or viability... insanity over normalcy.
Their willingness to break all the rules, use violence... use a belief system where lies don't matter because reality is subjective... there is no reasoning with the Progressive Left because there is no factual base to their beliefs... its an indulgence of insanity that our society, our civilization, is not going to survive...
This is why I see Islam and Sharia law eventually having a place in our society... in response to the insanity and inability to function that we see becoming the norms in America today... eventually there will be a flip, where order is restored and the insane is no longer tolerated, at all.
The struggles going on now... here in our country between the 'left' vs 'right' and the conflict we see going on globally... against Russia, China, Iran..will determine how much longer America has to be a leading economic power... and a liberal Republic Democracy.
We are in the process of the World diversifying away from the Dollar and away from American goods and services.
This has been going on for a couple of decades now, as China made inroads into parts of the world America never really had any presence in.
As China replaced America's entire Industrial base, for the most part... everything from Prescription drugs to car batteries is made in China.
When China is making everything the people of the world want, and America is not... it only makes sense that their currency becomes the primary currency the world uses for trade.
China has been making trade agreements with just about every nation in the world, most nations now trade directly with China in the Yuan, their digital currency, nations like Iran are dependent on them and trade almost everything they produce to China.
China is now building a Navy, Airforce, and overall military capable of challenging America... China has been working toward this goal since before there was ever a Trump in politics. Trump in his first term seemed to wake America up to just how far it had fallen...
It is possible we could be in a much better position as a Nation... however they got Trump out of office and put Biden in there... after setting off a global Pandemic... while Biden's Admin was in charge they took the boot off of Iran's neck and sent plenty of billions of dollars their way, to help them fund the Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, build up their military, support Russia in their efforts... and most of all, send cheap energy to China.
They flew in migrants as fast as they could, along with letting the millions of walkers cross the border uncontested, many from China, many from the Middle East...
They made trillions disappear, the total U.S. national debt was $26 trillion in 2020... its about $36 Trillion now... that is a big jump in 5 years.
The Ukraine (WWIII) war was started... Iran was allowed to do what it wanted and tens of billions that we know about was released to it, while they supported Russia... who we were sanctioning...
The crap that went on during the Biden Administration was one traitorous move against American interests after another... if China itself were making all the calls during those 4 years, it couldn't have gone better for them.
So here we are... as Americans... screwed... and if the Trump Administration fails in its efforts... the whole ship is going down... whether you are a Democrat or Republican... moderately well off, or flat broke...
If you aren't rich enough to just pack up and move to another nation, tomorrow, without a hiccup occurring, then you aren't rich enough to avoid the pain heading our way, if the Trump Administration fails in its efforts to save our economy and sphere of influence (at least in the Western Hemisphere).
Sharlee, just focusing on the paragraph where you say:
“Some research is required on the lucrative business the U.S. does: the United States is by far the world’s largest arms exporter, accounting for roughly 40–45% of global arms exports, selling not only the most advanced drones but also fighter jets, missile systems, naval vessels, and a wide array of weaponry to a long list of nations, including the U.K. and NATO allies.”
There’s no disputing that the USA is the world’s largest arms exporter. But for clarity:
The UK doesn’t buy most of its military equipment from the USA — it manufactures the vast majority of its own. And the USA doesn’t just export weapons; it also imports them from other countries, including the UK.
To give a sense of scale:
• The UK manufactures around 86% of its own weapons.
• Roughly 10% come from the USA.
• The remaining 6% come mainly from Europe and elsewhere.
And although the UK buys about $3 billion of military hardware from the USA, it also sells around $1 billion of equipment to the USA. It’s a two‑way trade, not a one‑direction dependency.
My point here is simply that the UK is not heavily dependent on the USA for its military capability — the data shows a predominantly domestic and European supply base.I think you’re reading a broader argument into my comment than what I actually said.
My point was specifically about drone capability and cooperation, not making a sweeping claim that Gulf states suddenly trust Ukraine more than the United States or turning it into an “America vs. everyone” argument.
I agree with you that these deals are transactional and based on specific needs, that was actually my point. Ukraine currently has battlefield-tested drone expertise, and that’s a niche other countries see value in. That doesn’t replace the U.S. role, and I didn’t suggest it did.
I also appreciate your synopsis of the UK’s defence industry, but I don’t feel my comment implied that the UK is dependent on the U.S. for weaponry. I was referring to a very narrow subset, high-end, combat-capable drones, where the U.S. has historically been a primary supplier.
I think we’re mostly aligned on the bigger picture; you just expanded my comment into a much wider geopolitical argument than I intended.
From what I understand, the UK primarily manufactures its own military equipment, while the U.S. is its largest foreign supplier. particularly in certain high-end systems like drones, which is the narrow area I was referring to.Thanks, Sharlee. I understand the narrower point you’re making now about high‑end, long‑endurance drones. I’m not disputing that the MQ‑9/Protector class comes from the USA. My earlier reply was addressing the broader framing in your previous comment, where you referenced American arms exports to the UK and NATO allies in general terms. That naturally reads as a wider claim about dependency, which is why I clarified the overall picture.
On the specific category you’re referring to — yes, the USA has been the supplier for that particular class of drone. But that sits within a much larger UK defence‑industrial base that is predominantly domestic and European, and that was the only distinction I was making.
So on the narrow drone point we’re aligned; my comments were simply addressing the broader scope implied in your earlier wording.
FBI says Iran-based hackers targeted Kash Patel's personal email, no government information involved
The FBI said Friday that "malicious actors" targeted Director Kash Patel's personal email, as an Iran-based hacking group claimed responsibility. The State Department is offering a reward of up to $10 million for information leading to the identification of the Handala Hack team in Iran.
"The FBI is aware of malicious actors targeting Director Patel’s personal email information, and we have taken all necessary steps to mitigate potential risks associated with this activity," an FBI spokesperson said in a statement to Fox News. "The information in question is historical in nature and involves no government information."
"The Department of State's Rewards for Justice program offers up to a $10 million reward for information leading to the identification of the Handala Hack Team out of Iran – a group that has frequently targeted U.S. government officials. Consistent with President Trump's Cyber Strategy for America, the FBI will continue to pursue the actors responsible, support victims, and share actionable intelligence in defense of networks," the statement added. "We encourage anyone who experiences a cyber breach, or has information related to malicious cyber activity, to contact their local FBI field office.”
The FBI noted that no government information was impacted and the investigation is ongoing. The Handala Hack Team is claiming responsibility.
This comes after the Department of Justice just seized domains part of the group's operation on March 19 during "an ongoing effort to disrupt hacking and transnational repression schemes conducted by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS)."
The DOJ said seized domains "were used by the MOIS in furtherance of attempted psychological operations targeting adversaries of the regime by claiming credit for hacking activity, posting sensitive data stolen during such hacks, and calling for the killing of journalists, regime dissidents, and Israeli persons.
Related Discussions
- 17
Why President Trump Was Right to Target Iran’s Nuclear Sites
by Sharlee 10 months ago
And Why the World Can't Afford to Keep Guessing at GhostsIran’s Decades of ProvocationIran has spent over four decades cultivating its status as a rogue regime. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has waged a slow, deliberate campaign of terror, subversion, and bloodshed, fueling proxy wars, funding...
- 129
Iranians terrorists funded by the US!
by Deforest 13 years ago
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The US administration just gave them the...
- 9
U.S. Moving Heavy Bombers To Middle East After Iran Vows Revenge
by Ken Burgess 18 months ago
As we near the election, military actions abroad are escalating at an alarming pace, from North Korean troops being deployed to battle Ukrainian troops along (and within) Russia's borders, to Iran (and China) heightening military efforts in Iran. The U.S. Department of Defense announced this week...
- 316
Is the World More or Less Safe Given Trump Killed an Iranian General?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Donald Trump, after some discussion with few of his top generals, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense as well as some of his advisors, over a two or three day period, decided to assassinate the second most powerful person in the Iranian government - General Qasem Soleimani, the leader...
- 4302
Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
by Sharlee 3 days ago
My post is a summary of an article I came across on Fox News. He is coming out running! Day one, President-elect Trump is set to sign over 200 executive actions, marking a major shift in U.S. policy across a range of areas, from border security to energy to cutting costs for...
- 22
Foreign Policies / 2024 Debate Issue.
by Kathryn L Hill 20 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...