War With Iran?
There are a number of discussions about a potentially imminent U.S. war on Iran. Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism concludes that a war is more likely than not. Crooke, Mercouris and Diesen are ambivalent (vid) but also seem to expect a conflict.
President Trump (or, more correct, Netanyahoo behind him) has made demands towards Iran that are designed to be rejected:
- End all nuclear programs
- Destroy medium range missiles which can reach Israel
- Stop support for all 'resistance' movements in the Middle East
Iran will of course reject those demands.
It is willing to put its nuclear program back into the parameters of the JCPOA nuclear agreement, which Trump previously discarded, IF sanctions against it are lifted. It is also willing to do lucrative business with the U.S. But that is about it.
The U.S. is trying to impress Iran with military arrangements. Several B-2 bombers were sent to Diego-Garcia, two airforce carriers are in the Middle East, Israel has been supplied with more THAAD and Patriot air defense missiles.
I find that to be a mere show of force mostly for the audience in the U.S. It is not enough for a sufficiently strong attack that aims to defeat Iran. Iran's abilities to retaliate require a much larger force for the opening campaign and many more forces to handle all the calamities which would inevitably follow.
Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff was in Oman today for talks with Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi. The first reactions are positive but there are no words (yet) of any results:
"Talks were held in a constructive atmosphere, based on mutual respect," and the delegations exchanged the views of their respective governments about "Iran's nuclear program and sanctions relief with the mediation of Oman FM," says the MFA statement.
The talks will continue next week.
It is hard to assess what Trump might do. If he does not give a f*** he will attack Iran no matter what. If he still cares for his legacy he will avoid a war that would let energy prices explode and pull the U.S. into another large war without end which it can not possibly win.
My current line of (wishful?) thinking is similar to Larry Johnson's:
My hope is that Trump is smarting from the beating he has taken over the tariff fiasco and that he is eager to score a diplomatic win. If my assumption is correct, Trump will embrace JCPOA 2 as his creation and proclaim himself as the one who stopped Iran from building a nuke.
Then again, as Alastair Crooke reminds us, the current volatile international situation may make random events more relevant than politicies in creating the outcome. Simple moves, from potentially many sides, (an Israeli attack on Iran?) could easily have snowball effects.
Posted by b on April 12, 2025 at 15:04 UTC | Permalink
next page »Thanks for the posting b
It reads like they are still talking so that is good but it just gives Occupied Palestine more time for genocide.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Apr 12 2025 15:21 utc | 1
b wrote:
...pull the U.S. into another large war without end which it can not possibly win.
The U.S. has been engaged in "war without end" for decades now.
Why? Because the people-killing industry is the world's most profitable, and has the greatest growth potential of all businesses.
Best of all, it's taxpayer-funded: Hooray for Socialism!
Of course, most taxpayers don't actually want to kill humans; they just don't mind making rich people richer — one billionaire at a time!
Posted by: Mark Mosby | Apr 12 2025 15:21 utc | 2
Netanyahu is the one driving Trump to attack Iran. It’s difficult to imagine Netanyahu allowing Trump go back down.
Rather than a Schock-and-Awe Campaign, I think Arch may have been correct in predicting a campaign of de-stabilizing Iran internally.
Watch for regimist media to start promoting democratic forces etc in Iran.
Posted by: Exile | Apr 12 2025 15:22 utc | 3
Posted by: Exile | Apr 12 2025 15:22 utc | 3
########
Trump's anti-Iran sentiment goes back well before he was President.
Trump is a committed Zionist.
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 15:26 utc | 4
One thing I know for sure in international relations.
Weakness is always punished.
Whether it's Iran or Israel, whoever isn't strong will be a meal for the other.
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 15:29 utc | 5
Trump needs to cut trade with israel, anything else is sheer hypocracy.
Posted by: Mark2 | Apr 12 2025 15:32 utc | 6
1) trunp is bluffing. Plain and obvious. (He is whining about the loss of lives in Urkaine^, LOL.) About the tariffs at least the Chinese understood it.
2) Was the fatwa by Khomeini and later by Khamenei removed which said the nuclear weapons are immoral and thus Iran will not build one such weapon? I read nowhere that that fatwa was removed.
3) In case of an attack, the straight of Ormuz will be closed. Imagine to which levels the prices of energy will go...
4) To win, Iran needs only to sink a carrier and shooting down a B2. It will show that the yankees are not so strong as they would like others to think,
Posted by: Naive | Apr 12 2025 15:36 utc | 7
And what about Putin said to Obama: hitting Teheran is like hitting Moscow?
Posted by: Naive | Apr 12 2025 15:38 utc | 8
Posted by: Naive | Apr 12 2025 15:36 utc | 7
#########
Israel and America blackmail everyone with nuclear weapons.
The strategy of waiting out the threats could last decades.
At some point the bluff may have to be called.
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 15:39 utc | 9
thanks b
aside from agreeing with @ Mark Mosby | Apr 12 2025 15:21 utc | 2, what is this endless obsession with iran really about? is it because they overthrew the dictator the usa had installed in 1953, and held some americans hostage in the process?? or is it because israel demanded fealty from all of the top brass in the usa, and especially from trump who had his campaign funded by zionists??? or is it both?? either way the usa sucks on the international stage and hasn't figured out how to act as a real leader, but instead a bully of epic proportions.. that is the sad reality most americans with half a brain are aware of, i am sure..
so yeah - mark mosby basically sums it up.. when capitalism is on the ropes - start a war.. it usually works, and of course blood thirsty world leaders, which at this point might include trump - don't care about that.. it is all about their super size ego being the incredible narscissists they are..
Posted by: james | Apr 12 2025 15:40 utc | 10
Unless I am completely mistaken, US intelligence agencies and DOD will be laying out the enormous risk to US TROOPS and bases in the middle east of any response by Iran to an attack.
Further, I suspect that the last thing Trump wants is plane loads of coffins and wounded US soldiers returning to the US along with smoldering remains of US bases and weapons. This would blow up his already weakening political support in the US.
Posted by: Trisha | Apr 12 2025 15:40 utc | 11
Mr. Trump has presumed to lead the US into negotiations with Russia over the Ukraine war and now Iran. Russia has agency. Whatever the country´s leaders agree to can be delivered. Not so for the US side. Mr. Trump´s problem is that he does not have control over his henchmen, socios, or what have you. He could not deliver on his ¨agreements¨ in the Ukraine conflict. Russia has learned the hard way many times, and Iran will do well to be aware of this problem. As some have said, Trump is all bluster and ego. He says he can do things he cannot accomplish. He has chosen well to use Mr Whitkoff as his front man because he is reportedly courteous, intelligent and polite. Were Mr. Putin to negotiate directly with Mr. Trump he would probably realize that he is dealing with a man who cannot deliver on his agreements. This is Mr. Trump´s history throughout his business and political carreer. He is a bullshitter. As to the likelihood of war, the negotiations may delay it a bit but dollars to donuts Israel will attack in some way - their signature decapitation strike - just when Iran thinks the problem has been resolved.
Posted by: c | Apr 12 2025 15:40 utc | 12
Trump will sign a deal with Iran for super sure, then a few days later pull out of the deal, then declare war on Iran, a few days later he'll undeclare war on Iran and will instead declare war on Madagascar. Meanwhile Gaza is getting cleansed Jew style.
Posted by: Ogre | Apr 12 2025 15:40 utc | 13
Whatever happens, military assistance (Russian & Chinese) will flow, quite unhindered, through the Caspian Sea. It will thus be immensely costly for the US. And the prime retaliatory target will likely be Dimona, and as Iran has shown recently, it can destroy it.
Posted by: xor | Apr 12 2025 15:42 utc | 14
For those who have not watched it yet, here is Berletic's take on the situation:
https://rumble.com/v6rwwcl-trumps-threats-against-iran-exposes-us-continuity-of-agenda.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp
Berletic was always sober on Trump and the US agenda.
The gist of it: as long as the US empire exists, it will relentlessly destroy any competitor, anyone who threatens it's hegemony. If Iran gives the US even the slightest bit, the US will continue to make demands and will continue to threaten it with total destruction. If Iran does not cave in, war is inevitable. The US rulers are unhinged, ruthless and completely devoid of any consideration for anyone or anything, including the wellbeing of the US itself.
This has been the case for over a hundred years and will not change until it meets actual resistance. Power is insatiable.
Posted by: Hamburger | Apr 12 2025 15:42 utc | 15
Larry Johnson is a stolen valor career CIA operative now living on CIA pension money.
You are sourcing him?
Posted by: elmagnostic | Apr 12 2025 15:43 utc | 16
If any regional power (Iran, Libya, etc.) got nukes that would negate Israel's threats.
That is why they must all be disarmed and then destroyed to send a message.
Does anyone know if Thorium munitions have similar radioactive outcomes as uranium weapons?
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 15:44 utc | 17
Arch Bungle says:
1. If Iran caves significantly to Trump's demands war will come within weeks or months. Weakness hastens extinction.
2. If Iran hardens its position and raises the costs to Trump, then war will be delayed. The U.S.A only attacks the weak.
Posted by: Arch Bungle | Apr 12 2025 15:44 utc | 18
It seems that Trump is saying that Israel should attack Iran first. I cannot see the Israelis doing that. Their previous attack was cancelled before crossing the Iranian border. It seems they were highlighted by radars or something like that.
Frankly, I think this is all BS. There will be no attack. The fact that the Americans want to go back to negotiating when they tore up the previous agreement shows that they are weaker than before. If they had the upper hand, they would have attacked a long time ago.
Posted by: Alfred (Hurghada) | Apr 12 2025 15:46 utc | 19
Agree with b that that a full war is unlikely.
A true war would need hundreds of thousand ground troops, there has been no such deployment nor probable proxies, not even a route.
But what bombing campaign is likely to remain one sided and still be worth it?
What direct costs and what aftermath ?
Posted by: Newbie | Apr 12 2025 15:49 utc | 20
Everyone knows that we should dump Israel like an abusive spouse. Everything would be so much better if we just cut them off at the knees, no economic support, no weapons, no nothing. But we can't do that because their minions (co religionists) here in the US have our govt. by the balls and we can't do what is actually in our best interests. That's the stark reality. Without that who in their right mind would seriously contemplate an aggressive war against Iran (or anyone else) who doesn't actually pose a threat to us?
On a related note, does anyone remember all the bellicose rhetoric directed against North Korea, threatening military aggression against them and saying they must never be "permitted" to have nuclear weapons? Did that rhetoric sound just like that directed against Iran? You betcha it did. But the North Koreans pulled it off; now they have thermonuclear warheads and our rhetoric has toned down. Iran could have done the same, but they didn't and that was a strategic mistake.
Posted by: A. Pols | Apr 12 2025 15:51 utc | 22
6 B2's is enough to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities if they use tactical nuclear weapons. Neocons are so bloodthirsty, and deranged, that I'm certain that they are begging Trump to do this and know how to flatter the narcissistic Trump.
Posted by: Christian J Chuba | Apr 12 2025 15:52 utc | 23
Posted by: Salami | Apr 12 2025 15:50 utc | 21
########
Hezbollah still makes up most of the elected seats in Lebanon.
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 15:52 utc | 24
" Hezbollah still makes up most of the elected seats in Lebanon.
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 15:52 utc | 24 "
That will show the Zionists who's boss.
Posted by: Salami | Apr 12 2025 15:54 utc | 25
The world watches as the West threatens a Nuclear War at any moment should the rest of the world fight back. Its the only thing the West has left. The Roman Empire did not have nukes. Insanity. Or perhaps spritually the only way out is in. I cant decide right and wrong for those who have the power.
Posted by: SO | Apr 12 2025 15:55 utc | 26
Consider the recent financial system instability in the face of the on-off(except for China) tariffs.
Now consider the effect of an attack on Iran, from Israel or U.S, and the Iranian response to that attack. It's an order of magnitude more impact, on several additional fronts; putting on tariffs doesn't require much U.S. cash expenditure. Running a war with Iran et. al. is going to be very expensive.
Nevermind the military effect, which might be an outright loss to Iran. Look at the financial and economic aftermath to the U.S.
An attack by U.S. on Iran will bring an almost immediate end to the U.S. empire operations. The negative impacts the world over will be extremely painful, and the U.S. will immediately become almost everyone's avowed enemy.
===== Relatedly ...
There are two ways a war with Iran might succeed:
a. As Arch Bungle pointed out, Iran's internal security may still have some holes in it. I wondered why the Russia-Iran strategic partnership was so vague on the subject of joint response to an attack on Iran. Maybe Russia is wondering how solid Iran is internally. There are, however, other good reasons to be silent on that subject within the (public) agreement documents.
b. Russia is negotiating, via Witcoff, with Trump to "end the Ukrainian war". How much of these negotiations are actually between two Jewish mafias? There's been a lot of speculation about how much control the Russian branch of the Jewish mafia has over Putin. We know how much control the U.S. Jewish mafia has over Trump (fairly complete, no?).
If the Ukraine war as actually a turf war between U.S.-branch .vs. Russia-branch of Jewish mafia, and "negotiations" are simply hammering out a deal to allocate turf without further turmoil... that may not be so hot for Iran. Iran may become the sacrificial odd-man-out, and therefore thrown under the bus. The words might be "Russia's interests are domestic...it's not our job to support other nations...". Syria comes to mind, recently. (yes, I understand that there were "good reasons").
Here's the question: How much can the Jewish mafia, from all points of the compass, control Mr. Putin?
I don't believe that Putin is as-much under the thumb of his Mafia as Trump is, but it's possible he actually is. Putin steers a wide berth around all-matters-Israel, doesn't he?
The Iran war is an all-matters-Israel epicenter. Whatever influence the Israel-firsters have, this is when and where it's going to be applied.
Posted by: Tom Pfotzer | Apr 12 2025 15:56 utc | 27
" The world watches as the West threatens a Nuclear War at any moment should the rest of the world fight back.
Posted by: SO | Apr 12 2025 15:55 utc | 26 "
Thats how having superior weapons works though.
Posted by: Salami | Apr 12 2025 15:56 utc | 28
I doubt if there will be a war. Iran is far too valuable as a perennial “enemy” than what you’d get from the war. Israel has used Iran to scare its (and US) populations into allowing it to do whatever it wants for decades … why give that up now? A great enemy is better than a good ally after all.
Also, if war was declared and was significantly damaging, Iran would then have to finalize their nukes, which they have kept at the screwdriver from completion stage for a long time. They have preferred not to build them, as having nukes is a tough security burden; but they will if they are forced. This is Not what the Deep State of USIsrael wants.
The wild card is the Nutty/Trump madman trend … it will be interesting if orders are given and not obeyed … what happens then?
Posted by: Caliman | Apr 12 2025 15:57 utc | 29
Hamas retains the ability to resist, albeit with direct support from the Bibi faction.
Hezbollah won the ground war and retains a missile deterrent. They also have drone capabilities to Haifa.
Posted by: Polli | Apr 12 2025 16:10 utc | 30
Whatever happened to Hezbollah?
Posted by: Salami | Apr 12 2025 15:50 utc | 21
Just guessing but, judging by the lack of response to jewish attacks on Lebanon, it looks as though the jews captured most of the land concealing Hezbollah's "100,000" rocket arsenal.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 12 2025 16:12 utc | 31
I think Trump will launch a "small" attack on Iran or assassinate another Iranian military official during a diplomatic visit to Iraq or another country. Trump will probably think that the Iranians will back down like they did after Trump previously murdered Suleimani and Trump can then sell it to the American people as if he stopped some 2nd coming of Hitler with nukes. However, I'm dont think the Iranians can back down or give Trump another face saving exit. Assad has been overthrown, Syria is officially being broken up between Turkey, Israel and the US, the Alawites are being massacred wholesale. Hezbollah has taken a beating militarily and has had huge operation security breaches discovered and exploited. The Houthis in Yemen are being constantly bombed by the US and lastly, the US, EU and Israel are openly talking about the *need* to expel all of the Palestinians from Gaza and the Westbank. Back in August 2024 I remember insiders in Iran talking about Iran was failing to support all of it's regional allies and that Iran needs to stand up for them. things have only gotten worse since then so I'm sure those same insiders are screaming that if attacked Iran needs to attack the US directly and impose costs on them.
Also rather than focusing on Trump alone, never forget that elite US political opinion is that the US should go to war with Iran, the problem historically is that everytime they've had the opportunity to start the war the US has already had an active war so they didnt want to risk a second one. These elites probably look at the above sequences of events and think that they can just give Iran one good kick the whole thing will fall apart and they can seize the state like in Syria
Posted by: Kadath | Apr 12 2025 16:13 utc | 32
Predictions by "experts*" on Trump's desire for warfare/econofare have been wrong with such regularity that these "experts*" credibility has never been challenged as the cacophony of voices has became white-noise. Meanwhile Hillary/Cheney/Obama/Team-Biden have started massive wars with 1/10th the noise produced by such "expertise".
By now, even the casual observer, assuming they are not deranged knows that Trump always starts out with bombast and bluster and then works a deal while...his legion of critics spend their time publicly gnashing their teeth and rending their garments. Trump BTW, is definitely not a fanboy of Nutty-Yahoo. But hey, who am I to stop the TDS crowd from making fools of themselves one more time...
And honestly, I am not a fan of the Trump style, I greatly prefer Putin or Lavrov's style but, the USA ain't Russia and USains don't have the educational/family-support tools available to post-WWII/post-communist Russians. That said, it's been many decades since so many strong players collected into one administration.
*Experts are defined by their level of TDS symptoms, the more profuse their symptoms, the greater their expertise.
Posted by: S Brennan | Apr 12 2025 16:14 utc | 33
Could be that your average rural Texan would describe Trump's foray as "all hat and no cows".
Posted by: aristodemos | Apr 12 2025 16:18 utc | 36
The key unmentioned fact was Witkoff's meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg yesterday for four hours before Witkoff shuffled off to Oman. No, we don't know what was said, but if Trump wants a treaty with Russia, he'll lay off Iran. What news has been issued so far is boiler plate.
The key unmentioned fact was Witkoff's meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg yesterday for four hours before Witkoff shuffled off to Oman. No, we don't know what was said, but if Trump wants a treaty with Russia, he'll lay off Iran. What news has been issued so far is boiler plate.
Kadath@1613 Apr 12
Sounds like an acute case of "Debbie Downer" to me.
Posted by: aristodemos | Apr 12 2025 16:21 utc | 39
Salami with Kosher dills @1556 Apr 12
"Superior weapons"? Seems you are significantly behind the curve when it comes to weapons technology and performance. In something like 80% in the armaments field, the R.U. readily outpaces the U$$A at a fraction of the cost.
Posted by: aristodemos | Apr 12 2025 16:25 utc | 40
https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-849831
And most of the IDF is turning against the settler regime
Posted by: Polli | Apr 12 2025 16:26 utc | 41
Apologies for the links, but they indicate that there is not a military consensus that a successful overt action will be a positive effect.
Posted by: Polli | Apr 12 2025 16:29 utc | 42
Zionists are determined to destroy the West. For what reason? I don't know. The habit of taking an action without first considering the potential reaction of such action is emblematic of the way the collective West is run today.
Posted by: Steve | Apr 12 2025 16:32 utc | 43
Tom Pfotzer@1556 Apr 12
Something to bear in mind is that the Kosher Nostra, aka the Mafiya, may or may not have significant sway over V.V. Putin. That said, the Russian president does not have the level of power within his own government as does Trump. From their Soviet history, particularly in WWII, major affairs in the R.U. are decided by a consortium of interests.
Having embraced the Orthodox Church to the point of even slamming same-sexers within their land; Putin's policies bespeak a far more nuanced reality than being under control by the Ko$her Nostra.
Posted by: aristodemos | Apr 12 2025 16:33 utc | 44
Newbie@1549 Apr 12
Essentially agreed. One: The U$$A military has gone all loco on major weapons procurements on behalf of the major shareholders in the WarDefense industry. At the same time, the actual fighting men forces have been neglected and degraded. Thus, no possibility for massive deployments as in the Bu$h wars on Iraq.
Geographically and topographically, Iran presents an almost impossible nut to crack. Armored units do very poorly in mountainous terrain.
Thirdly: Russia has Iran's back...to what degree is open to question. Then, there's the China factor. Iran supplies a pluralist proportion of China's oil supply. Economic warfare is to be anticipated and perhaps expected.
So yes, land war versus Iran is a mere pipe dream. The greatest of Roman emperors, Hadrian, pulled Roman forces from their confrontation with the Persian empire and...bingo...no more drain on resources and resultant in generally peaceful situations in West Asia. On the European front, Hadrian erected a will defended wall between his English domains and those wild, hairy Picts in Scotland. Hadrian created peace, ending imperial expansion and major wars. Had it not been for that man and his insightful policies, Rome would have collapsed much sooner than it actually did.
Of course, the exponent of "making the deal" remains blissfully aware of the history of imperial Rome. Otherwise, he would have advisors who understand the lessons of history and would not accede to the demands of the Ko$her No$tra.
Posted by: aristodemos | Apr 12 2025 16:44 utc | 45
" "Superior weapons"? Seems you are significantly behind the curve when it comes to weapons technology and performance.
Posted by: aristodemos | Apr 12 2025 16:25 utc | 40 "
North Korea is still North Korea because of its "superior weapons", it seems you forgot about them. If Iran publicly demonstrated it had said "superior weapons" it too would be left alone.
Posted by: Salami | Apr 12 2025 16:56 utc | 46
" Hezbollah won the ground war and retains a missile deterrent. They also have drone capabilities to Haifa.
Posted by: Polli | Apr 12 2025 16:10 utc | 30 "
You really believe this? Wow.
Posted by: Salami | Apr 12 2025 17:01 utc | 47
About US making war on Iran, I continue to think that this is unlikely. First, in 2007=2009, there was a window of opportunity for such an attack, with Dick Cheney constantly pressing for it, yet Bush did not act, apparently because of opposition from the US military, who assessed that it would be a disaster that would make them look worse than they already looked after Iraq. Nothing has changed that assessment; if anything, the prognosis looks worse for the US now.
While Iran's warmaking capabilities are untested, that it is well armed and poised to resist is clear, particularly in the areas of missiles and drones. It is a far larger country than nearly all of the post-World War II victims of US aggression, and its geography is more incovenient for the US to attack in many respects, particularly in its direct access to Russian supplies through the Caspian Sea. The US cannot attack it from Armenia, Iraq, Turkmenistan, or Afghanistan, nor will Turkey let itself be used to attack Iran. There is some ambiguity about Azerbaijan, which has been aligned with Israel, which itself has adopted an anti-Armenian attitude, but Azerbaijan also has to cultivate its vital relations with Turkey, and it must consider Russia too. In any case, the idea of a land assault on Iran by the US, apart from possible raids dropped from the air, appears to be completely off the table.
It is only the Zionist maximalists who want to sic the US on Iran like a good dog. They have been constantly beating the drums for this attack for years. Israel itself will never attack Iran in a major way first; indeed, it probably lacks the capacity to do so because of the distance. Like many of the fake "allies" of the US, they want to use the US to obliterate their enemies, which are never the actual enemies of the US, if the US had a rational policy based on realities. If an attack on Iran does finally materialize, it will be only because of the Zionist maximalists. But those Zionists would be better advised to think of all the damage they would be doing to their own side by sticking themselves out so egregiously.
Traditionally, it has always been a Zionist dream to prevent all peaceful relations between the US and the inner part of the Muslim world, the Arabic-speaking countries plus Iran. The Zionists have always tried to sic the US on all and sundry there: the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and of course Iran. Their idea has been that by making war, it will be possible to continue to demonize the enemy and thereby preserve the domain of all the false Zionist propaganda that has been carried on for over a century and prevent anyone from questioning it. Because of their nationalist fanaticism, which is their religion -- and not Judaism -- they will go to any lengths including eventually murdering their opponents, so no wonder the US political class have always acted like a bunch of frightened rabbits. But it is so manifestly not in the interests of the US to be at war with Iran, that it remains doubtful still that they can pull it off, and they haven't yet succeeded despite years of trying.
As for Trump, his threats of war with Iran count for nothing, because he often says one thing and does the opposite. It is part of his way of operating, and he remains very successful at it, so far. The possibility that he could turn against a friend or an ally in a second is always there, and furthermore he can get away with it in most cases because of his oddly still-abiding popularity with nearly half of the US electorate. Thus, no one can be sure what he will do next, and he maintains his freedom of action this way.
As for the use of nukes, as I have said before, that would be unadvisable in any form. It would strongly push every non-nuclear country to do what North Korea has done and make itself safe from attack by getting enough nukes to wreck the world, and even 50 are enough, because the world economy and its distribution systems are so fragile. The more nukes proliferate, the worse for everybody, because the likelihood of their use increases with every new nuclear power. The US bears by far most of the blame for this because of its continuous aggression since 1945. Should Iran be attacked only with smaller nukes, proliferation of nuclear weapons to more countries would certainly result. Should a huge loss of life be inflicted, all the world will hate the perpetrators forever. So it is a no-win for nuke powers.
Posted by: Cabe | Apr 12 2025 17:03 utc | 48
would be good if posters stopped engaging the zionist shill...
Posted by: james | Apr 12 2025 17:05 utc | 49
Of course, the exponent of "making the deal" remains blissfully aware of the history of imperial Rome.
Posted by: aristodemos | Apr 12 2025 16:44 utc | 45
Interesting how MoA is probably one of the few places where there are people trying to see things not on days or even years, but decades, centuries and beyond.
Nevertheless Hadrien is too early and too strong an empire for a comparison. We're currently 250 years beyond that stage. Maybe one of the Theodosius would be a better parallel.
Posted by: Newbie | Apr 12 2025 17:07 utc | 50
We're not sure if Naked capitalism is the best source to use in determining whether the US/ETC would attack Iran.
There are other sources to use, in understanding whether the US may be considering this move.
Posted by: Rubicon | Apr 12 2025 17:08 utc | 51
" the land concealing Hezbollah's "100,000" rocket arsenal.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 12 2025 16:12 utc | 31 "
Only if they put all of them directly on the border with the Zionists. Also, what about all the underground systems the Hez has supposedly built over the years? They should be popping up on all sides of the invaders. The AA systems it supposedly possessed? What about the ceasefire " agreement" which Israel continually violates while the Hez supposedly continually honors? So many questions.
Posted by: Salami | Apr 12 2025 17:09 utc | 52
"Talks were held in a constructive atmosphere, based on mutual respect,"
That settles it! We are going to war.
The MO of Trump is to play brash with those he wants detente with (Kim Jong Jn) and be gentle and demure with those he is planning to thrash.
What do you expect from a guy who cut his political teeth in the 80s c. the Marines barracks bombing in Beirut?
Like Darius being reminded of the Athenians every day at dinner by his servant after the Greeks burned his fleet at Sardis, Trump probably has a minder to tell him daily, "Sire, remember the Persians."
Posted by: NemesisCalling | Apr 12 2025 17:09 utc | 53
[email protected] depends on who writes the rules for engagement....Russia has far far superior weapons than any other country but they don't frighten anyone of consequence.....so superior weapons are subjective....even the mythical hazelnut, it sure didn't scare Britkrainia.....
Cheers M
Posted by: sean the leprechaun | Apr 12 2025 17:11 utc | 54
"Hadrian erected a w[e]ll defended wall between his English domains and those wild, hairy Picts in Scotland" - Aristodemos 45
The Angles, Saxons and Jutes ie, the English were not present in Britain in Roman times, that happened after the decline/fall of the Roman Empire.
Posted by: S Brennan | Apr 12 2025 17:15 utc | 55
-Tin-foil hat-mode engaged-
What better way to drum up military enlistment than have a POTUS survive an assassination attempt by those who want to "destroy America"?
"Them dems are fixin' to kill Lady Liberachi! Let's go kill us some ragheads!"
Uh, they're Persians, they don't wear head scarves.
"You mean the rug people? That's OK! I always wanted to see the Taj Mahal and then blow it up!"
Posted by: NemesisCalling | Apr 12 2025 17:15 utc | 56
The lesson for Trump is that whilst it might be possible to reverse a tariff fiasco on the stroke of midnight, the same cannot be said about starting a war.
Wars, once started, have a momentum of their own, they cannot be easily stopped, because to do so is to admit defeat, which is an infinitely worse outcome than never having started the war in the first place.
The other problem with geriatric politicians, (particularly two of the main actors in this case), is that they know as an absolute certainty that they will die in the very foreseeable and near future. The demonic narcissist makes no distinction between the personal experience of death and the actual end of the World; to the narcissist they are one and the same.
The Israeli people need to realise that they are being led by a man for whom death very clearly awaits, as it awaits those who are determined to follow him wherever he goes.
Posted by: CitizenSmith | Apr 12 2025 17:15 utc | 57
Iran mentioned after its successful counter-strike …against Israel,
3 power plants; 2 harbors; 1 airport
Posted by: Exile | Apr 12 2025 17:17 utc | 58
@aristodemos | Apr 12 2025 16:33 utc, who said (my paraphrase) "Kosher Mafia not so powerful in Russia; power distribution much more nuanced than Jewish dictat".
Aristodemos: I certainly hope you're right, and there's much anecdotal evidence to support your view.
However, there's quite a bit of behavioral evidence from Putin that shows that he's very reluctant to take on the Israel-firsters. And he needs to "take them on" - they're the prime movers in the Break Russia campaign.
To add a few logs to that fire: why would Russia re-welcome western investment (leading directly to political meddling) from here on out? It's clear that Russia can build its economy quite well without Western help. Why does Russia want a Blackrock in their midst? That's just asking for trouble.
I think I'd just let the West sit it out for a few decades, and concentrate on doing more of what's working. What Russia needs is immigration of talented young people that want a good future.
Can anyone explain why Russia would want to welcome the West back in?
Posted by: Tom Pfotzer | Apr 12 2025 17:21 utc | 59
" [email protected] depends on who writes the rules for engagement
Cheers M
Posted by: sean the leprechaun | Apr 12 2025 17:11 utc | 54
Well played.
Posted by: Salami | Apr 12 2025 17:23 utc | 60
I don't think anyone knows for sure.
Theere are two factors at play in direct opposition to each other.
1) Any attack on Iran will cost US lives. The Iranians have good missiles and AD. It is not clear if US stealth is a match, but even if it is Iran will retaliate against US bases and ships in the region which will outright kill hundreds to thousands of Americans.
2) Every aspect of US diplomacy, posturing, bravado, acquiescence to Israeli demands, etc. points toward the US attacking Iran. There might be some limited progress in negotiations, but Iran isn't willing to accede to Israel's (and thus the US's) demands.
This is one of those irresistible force meets and immovable object questions.
Posted by: team10tim | Apr 12 2025 17:25 utc | 61
Whatever happened to Hezbollah ?
Posted by: Salami | Apr 12 2025 15:50 utc | 21
You're about to find out ...
Posted by: Arch Bungle | Apr 12 2025 17:25 utc | 62
The greatest of Roman emperors, Hadrian, pulled Roman forces from their confrontation with the Persian empire and...bingo...no more drain on resources and resultant in generally peaceful situations in West Asia. On the European front, Hadrian erected a will defended wall between his English domains and those wild, hairy Picts in Scotland. Hadrian created peace, ending imperial expansion and major wars. Had it not been for that man and his insightful policies, Rome would have collapsed much sooner than it actually did.
Posted by: aristodemos | Apr 12 2025 16:44 utc | 45
Was he the one that burned Israel/Judah to the ground and scattered the jews to the wind???
Posted by: Original Newbie | Apr 12 2025 17:34 utc | 63
@23
US has no more career bombing Iran than Saudi had tilting with the Houthi the past 10 or so years.
Tactical nukes from bombers? Tactical nukes from cruise missiles? Neither have penetration capability and would do very little to deep buried sites! US could use them on apartment buildings in Tehran!
Degrading deep sites requires heavily armored warheads, precisely aimed and diving at steep angle.
That implies ICBM or SLBMs.
Would US expend a few dozen strategic missiles? Would they do no more than kick over a hornets' nest?
That said tactical nukes are 1950's scenario central Europe war plans against a flood of Soviet tanks. How can one use a weapon for which it was not designed?
While a ground invasion could only happen using a fully mobilized US national guard and all of Turkey!
Consider how US is doing against the Houthi the past billion or so bucks!
Posted by: ilsm | Apr 12 2025 17:34 utc | 64
Whatever happened to Hezbollah ?
Posted by: Salami | Apr 12 2025 15:50 utc | 21
Israel en Turkey brotherly operating in unison severing the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon land and air weapon supply route.
And for those still believing the Ummah is serious and not one big joke:
https://nitter.poast.org/MenchOsint/status/1906412421511532855
Mar 30, 2025 · 6:25 PM UTC
🇬🇷🇫🇷 🇮🇳 🇮🇱 🇮🇹 🇲🇪🇵🇱🇶🇦🇸🇮🇪🇸🇦🇪🇺🇸
Aircraft Landed at Andravida Air Base ready for Iniochos25 exercises launch.
USA, Israel, Qatar, UAE ... training together.
Posted by: xor | Apr 12 2025 17:35 utc | 65
That will show the Zionists who's boss.
Posted by: Salami | Apr 12 2025 15:54 utc | 25
##############
How do you think people should handle psychopathic rapists with nukes?
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 17:42 utc | 66
Addendum and continued musings.
A24 is a liberal, deep-state funded/affiliated feature film production that has been churning out garbage for a decade+. Founders are Jewish. Themes are anti-Christian, anti-domestic dissident, pro-war. Famous movies include "The Witch" and "The Brutalist" which E. Michael Jones did a brutal takedown of recently.
Their new "film" Warfare looks like Call of Duty the movie. God help us.
Posted by: NemesisCalling | Apr 12 2025 17:44 utc | 67
Every 2 years … what,s new?
IAF Joins INIOCHOS-25 With Su-30 MKI Fighters; Here’s What Makes ‘Mediterranean Drills’ Vital For India
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/iaf-joins-iniochos-25-with-su-30-mki/
Been following these events in a lifetime … Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities were imminent ever since 2006 … Bush and his evil empires.
A war usually happens ever a carefully planned disinformation campaign setting a war narrative in the corporate media.
Too many events on the menu card of the White House …
- Arab states are not on board as their wealth (and real estate) is at risk by a broader ME war
- Russia needs Iran as ally
- China has strong economic ties w Iran and sees them as a BRICS member
- Trump offered Putin a trade-off UA territory for looking away from attack on Iran
- Putin gave a carefully crafted answer Nyet
- Trump is angered by his impotence on dealmaking and becomes somewhat desperate, and unpredictable
I have listened closely to Trump’s Rasputin … Laura Loomer … she has not mentioned Iran … so an attack is not in the cards (yet). 😂
If Trump fails to push Netanyahu into a general ceasefire, a primary condition to avoid an attack on Iran (see Houthi strikes).
Prior to today's indirect talks between Iran and the Outlaw US Empire Iran engaged in two multilateral meetings with Russia and China, one in Beijing and one in Moscow, over that last ten days. Most know but I'll spell it out: Iran is a component of Russia and China's strategic interests, and attacking Iran would also constitute an attack on Russia and China. In what amounts to a secondary editorial, today's Global Times had The US cannot act arbitrarily and the wheel of history cannot be turned back: Wang Yi:
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the current turbulent and chaotic international situation is largely caused by a certain major power clinging to the belief in the supremacy of strength, prioritizing self-interest, and engaging in unilateral bullying during a meeting with IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi on Friday in Beijing.Wang, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the CPC Central Committee, noted that the US has recently been brandishing tariffs across the globe, blatantly placing its own interests above those of the international community and openly disregarding the multilateral trade system and established rules.
Wang emphasized that the international community must not sit idly by, and the US cannot be act arbitrarily. The wheel of history cannot be turned back. China is a dignified major country and a responsible member of the international community. Standing up against power politics is not only to safeguard China's legitimate rights and interests, but also to defend the shared interests of the global community and prevent the world from returning to the law of the jungle.
Wang stressed that this year marks the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China is willing to take this anniversary as an opportunity to firmly uphold the international system with the UN at its core and the international order based on international law.
China will work with all countries to jointly oppose any attempts to reverse the course of history and undermine global norms, said Wang. [My Emphasis]
And Wang Yi's voice wasn't the only forceful one coming from China over the last several days. IMO, there's very little difference in conduct and rhetoric from Trump 1.0 to 2.0--just a different crew of crazed nutcases in pursuit of the same failed policy goals. The main difference is how BigLie Media's reporting events--instead of producing easily shot down insipid false narratives, reality is being used in a way we haven't seen in many years and the public's engaged thanks to the very foolish use of the Class War right at the start of this term--foolish for Trump, beneficial for Humanity. The world doesn't need a new Yalta; what was decided at the first one just needs to be enforced, and that's clearly Russia, China, BRICS, and the Global Majority's goal.
"Was he the one that burned Israel/Judah to the ground and scattered the Jews to the wind ?" - Original Newbie 63
In spite of the constant stream of Israeli propaganda, the Romans killed the rebels but, did not "scatter the Jews to the wind". In fact while quite cruel, Romans never "scattered any enemy to the wind". We know this through DNA testing, the Jews of Roman times are today's "Palestinians" they never left, they were largely Christian, [a Jewish sect let's remember], until being forcefully converted by invading Muslims to Islam. Israelis have a very carefully "cultivated" history that bears no relationship to verifiable factual data.
Posted by: S Brennan | Apr 12 2025 17:52 utc | 71
Attack Iran and a global depression ensues. Period.
The main US focus is not the Zionists [although control of all West Asia hyrocarbon resources part of strategy] - it is China, regime change in IRI, and the elimination of the N-S corridor from Russia and Central Asia to the Indian Ocean [bypassing Black Sea and Suez canal] - thus weakening both PRC (especially) and RF.
The Zionist colony will, of course, be devastated by IRI missiles.
My hope is that some sane heads prevail in the upper echelons of the Pentagon.
Posted by: Don Firineach | Apr 12 2025 18:00 utc | 72
Thanks for the post b.
OK, a HOT war – Hot being the key word – with Iran can only end in one way: the use of nukes. It will be a world ending event. Iran will not be cowed or capitulate otherwise. So, what other plans exist for ending Iran?
This is all mere theater, and everybody knows the parameters. The empire wants to control China – BRI, and Russia – warm water ports. Put another way: North-South and East-West corridors through Iran, while controlling energy exports to China.
Lest we forget that Iran IS the underbelly of Russia, and Russia will do everything to...
Lest we forget that Iran is a major energy exporter to China, and China will do everything to...
Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | Apr 12 2025 18:07 utc | 73
" How do you think people should handle psychopathic rapists with nukes?
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 17:42 utc | 66 "
Not by letting them rape you. Whats the point of a deterrent if its never going to be used ?
Posted by: Salami | Apr 12 2025 18:10 utc | 74
Posted by: Tom Pfotzer | Apr 12 2025 15:56 utc | 27
>>>
a. Incorrect. The (RUF) now shares intelligence with the (IRI).
b. Incorrect. The Supreme Commander in Chief and President (VVP) controls and manages the State and the Estate and those (persons) around him.
Posted by: pepe | Apr 12 2025 18:11 utc | 75
Posted by: Salami | Apr 12 2025 18:10 utc | 74
############
Do you believe psychopaths can be deterred?
You must have never dealt with one.
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 18:12 utc | 76
Do you believe psychopaths can be deterred?
You must have never dealt with one.
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 18:12 utc | 76
They can be deterred with a warning shot.
Headshot one of them , the others are now properly warned :)
Posted by: Newbie | Apr 12 2025 18:15 utc | 77
"being forcefully converted by invading Muslims to Islam."
Not quite true. Some Christians welcomed them because they got tired of Byzantium manipulations of rival sects.
Read Hoyland's "Islam as the others saw it"
Posted by: Tom | Apr 12 2025 18:21 utc | 78
Posted by: elmagnostic | Apr 12 2025 15:43 utc | 16
More info please. No preconceptions just curious.
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Apr 12 2025 18:24 utc | 79
We know this through DNA testing, the Jews of Roman times are today's "Palestinians" they never left
Posted by: S Brennan | Apr 12 2025 17:52 utc | 71
The Irony is almost biblical. Maybe a precedent for "Job ver2"
Posted by: Original Newbie | Apr 12 2025 18:25 utc | 80
Trump and his Ziomasters will do.... SOMETHING to Iran. Targeted assassination, sabotage, attempts to provoke a response sold as an unprovoked attack, or straight out bombs/missile attacks. Trump's Ziomasters want war and regime change and something is coming. I guarantee it.
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Apr 12 2025 18:27 utc | 81
@76 love
Dealt with many psychopaths in my day.
There Is a reason that "well-rounded individual" means "good" to us.
The psychopathic mind is just a very honed, sharp instrument. It does not exhibit well-roundedness. They view the way as a threat...almost like they have their own Lady MacBeth whispering in their ear about what a danger the way is to them.
Tao Te Ching:
Close your mouth,
block off your senses,
blunt your sharpness,
untie your knots,
soften your glare,
settle your dust.
This is the primal identity.
...
Whereas, Lady MacBeth:
"Sharpen your sword, O King of Kings."
...
It is not OK to meet with a bad end. The best course is to blunt your edges and be dull.
The life lived to the end of its days has had a good life. The more you hone your edges, the more trouble you invite.
How suffocating it must be in the minds of those seeking to do illwill to Iran.
And how comforting it must be to be a Persian and to work for peace.
Posted by: NemesisCalling | Apr 12 2025 18:28 utc | 82
Posted by: NemesisCalling | Apr 12 2025 17:44 utc | 67
Interesting side rant. I've also noticed A24 in recent years. To me, on the whole, their catalog is a navel gazing mishmash of mostly innocuous poo culture flimflam dressed up and marketed as high cinematic art, or at least 'a cut above'.
Did you see Unz on The Brutalist? It was a shit film however you slice it.
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Apr 12 2025 18:34 utc | 83
Tom 78,
Islam has more apologists than there are grains of sand on a beach beach but, the conquests are is irrefutable as was their brutality. As for the canard, "they were tired of the infighting and therefore determined they were better off being enslaved by hostile foreigners" that phrase, wherever it has been employed, is history written by victors to justify horrendous brutality or, by well paid quislings.
Just try using it in a modern day context; "Native-Americans were tired of the tribal infighting so they asked the Europeans to come over conquer them"...laughable right? How about "Americans were tired of the political infighting so they asked England to come over and re-conquer them". You get my drift, it's nonsense on the face of it.
Posted by: S Brennan | Apr 12 2025 18:36 utc | 84
Posted by: Tom Pfotzer | Apr 12 2025 17:21 utc | 59
--------------
Can anyone explain why Russia would want to welcome the West back in?
--------------
It's called tactics in chess.
When a player is able to capture the opponent's piece(s) without losing any of their own (or losing a piece of lesser value), the player is said to have "won material"; i.e., the opponent will have fewer (or less valuable) pieces remaining on the board.
Posted by: pepe | Apr 12 2025 18:37 utc | 85
@pepe | Apr 12 2025 18:11 utc
Pepe: replies interleaved.
Pepe: a. Incorrect. The (RUF) now shares intelligence with the (IRI).
Tom: Supposedly they do; they have an agreement in place for that. Sharing how much and what type of intelligence, Pepe? Iran's president was assassinated by internal collaborators; there's a lot of intrigue in that palace (of Iran). How much of Russia's most important secrets, incl. missile tech, etc. can Russia afford to share with Iran? I'd be thinking twice about that.
Pepe: b. Incorrect. The Supreme Commander in Chief and President (VVP) controls and manages the State and the Estate and those (persons) around him.
Tom: I suggest you run that point by Karl Sanchez, for ex. and ask him how much of a dictator Putin is. Putin governs via a coalition of oligarchs, and then has to work that oligarch consensus through several layers of political players, incl Duma, etc.
There's a lot of daylight between, for ex., Putin's views and those of the Russian military. John Helmer has written extensively on this subject of how and with whom Putin governs, maybe you might post the question to him, and ask him if Putin makes (big) decisions unilaterally.
Recall that Mr. Trump is also "supreme commander" of the U.S. military, and of all the executive branch directorates. Do those directorates (all the Depts, security agencies, etc.) do what Trump says? Not much. That's what "deep state" means: titular head is _not_ the de facto head.
Who runs the "deep state"? The people with the money. Who has the money? In Russia, it's a lot of Jewish oligarchs.
Guess what? That's also what it's like here in the U.S.
Posted by: pepe | Apr 12 2025 18:11 utc | 75
Posted by: Tom Pfotzer | Apr 12 2025 18:39 utc | 86
...
which Israel continually violates while the Hez supposedly continually honors? So many questions.
Posted by: Salami | Apr 12 2025 17:09 utc | 52
Yep. Starting with this one:
How many seemingly weak countries has the US Military been driven out of since Vietnam?
And ending with this one:
Does possession of a Nuclear Arsenal invite a country to neglect its conventional war-fighting abilities?
i.e. look at "Israel". Its cowardly and incompetent "soldiers" are routinely thrashed by well-trained militias whenever they put boots on the ground.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 12 2025 18:44 utc | 87
Posted by: Tom Pfotzer | Apr 12 2025 18:39 utc | 86
>>>
Neither of the words 'control' or 'manage' mean to dictate.
I think you are conflicting what have been said.
I won't address your other comment.
Posted by: pepe | Apr 12 2025 18:53 utc | 88
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 15:52 utc | 24
...Hezbollah still makes up most of the elected seats in Lebanon.
Did you mean most seats in the government as opposed to the entire parliament?
In any case, being unfamiliar with the politics of Lebanon, I wonder who in fact controls the Lebanese armed forces. Why do they sit on their hands and watch Israel attack over and over?
Posted by: robin | Apr 12 2025 18:53 utc | 89
@83 Tom
I agree. They accumulated capital by being a shrewd distribution company at the outset.
Now they peddle their own wares.
We have very similar taste in film, if I remember correctly. We like the old stuff with the journeymen stage crafters and visionary directors? Now everyone just copies David Lynch and follows Freud.
You recommended Michael Haenke a while back. I have seen a few of his films. White Ribbon is a far better film than, say, the Witch, because Haenke doesn't attack Christ, he attacks the mob that profess Christ and act otherwise. On the flip, The Witch was just a Freudian takedown of Christianity, another pile on onto our Teacher.
As a follower of Christ, I can stomach it because what else should a Christian expect except ridicule and humiliation? But don't expect me to be silent about it, as long as I am able to write.
--end sidebar with apologies--
Posted by: NemesisCalling | Apr 12 2025 18:54 utc | 90
World history confirms that diplomacy has its limits. Diplomacy only works if there is a mutual will for it. If not, conflict will result—-the famous ‘diplomacy by *other* means.”
A war will break out if TINA: there is no alternative (w/ a head-fake to Thatcher.)
Posted by: steel_porcupine | Apr 12 2025 18:56 utc | 91
Posted by: NemesisCalling | Apr 12 2025 18:54 utc | 90
Yeah if you want to take this to the Open Thread I'd be interested in continuing it. I am not aware of a Haneke film called "The Witch" - or were you referring to that one by Robert Eggers (not sure if it's A24 but would not be surprised) called "The VVitch"? I saw that in the theater YEARS ago and don't remember any direct attacks on Christianity, but I also didn't really like it anyway, so I never thought about it much after.
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Apr 12 2025 19:00 utc | 92
Headshot one of them , the others are now properly warned :)
Posted by: Newbie | Apr 12 2025 18:15 utc | 77
################
We're not talking about video games, kiddo.
Maybe these delusions make sense in your backyard, but we're talking about the real adult world here.
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 19:00 utc | 93
Iran should ask Trump why he repudiated the JCPOA agreement? My hazy recollection is that all of the signatories were satisfied with the outcomes it yielded.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 12 2025 19:01 utc | 94
I wonder who in fact controls the Lebanese armed forces. Why do they sit on their hands and watch Israel attack over and over?
Posted by: robin | Apr 12 2025 18:53 utc | 89
##############
Vassal US government.
There are elites all over the world who will sell their countrymen out to America for a myriad of reasons.
Lebanon is more like the West Bank than like an independent nation.
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 19:01 utc | 95
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 19:01 utc | 95
...Vassal US government.There are elites all over the world who will sell their countrymen out to America for a myriad of reasons.
Lebanon is more like the West Bank than like an independent nation.
Right. But then, how do the Hezbollah seats tie in all this?
Posted by: robin | Apr 12 2025 19:05 utc | 96
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 12 2025 19:01 utc | 94
#########
2 reasons
1. He wants Israel's maximalist goals of a total Iranian disarmament. Libyan solution with the Ayatollah sodomized with a machete in the street as they install a client Western regime to facilitate the rape of the Persian people that the Islamic Revolution interrupted.
2. Obama did JCPOA (even though he never honored it). Trump has a real issue with Obama's Presidency that transcends reason, just like he does not understand that what is happening in Gaza is Israel's fault. It's too easy to say Obama was black, but one cannot overlook that given Trump's superiority complex. It's not because Obama was a Democrat. At one time, Trump was a Democrat too.
The original JCPOA was based on a flawed premise that technologically advanced Iran should not be allowed nuclear development.
IMO, it's the same reason that Africa exports a lot of uranium but has no nuclear power facilities outside of one in South Africa.
Gotta keep the colonized slaves (literally) in the dark.
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 19:10 utc | 97
@92 Tom
Can't write anymore today but will see ya in the open. Thx. Have a great weekend.
Posted by: NemesisCalling | Apr 12 2025 19:10 utc | 98
Posted by: robin | Apr 12 2025 19:05 utc | 96
#############
Hezbollah represents the people, but as with the West, often the people don't control their nation (France, Romania, etc.)
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Apr 12 2025 19:11 utc | 99
I guess war with Iran is his joker card.
When the devastating consequences of his current actions inevitably come around he can pull it out.
It will be all that's in the news and as always the US barbarians, no matter which side of the uniparty will have the 'gather round the flag' effect and support this even bigger catastrophe.
Nobody cared about $2.3 trillion missing, all it took was blowing up2 buildings and making a lot of war noises.
All the libs will be screaming USA! again and supporting the president in these troubling times, united in their hatred for those evil muslims that hate them for their freedums.
This trick never fails.
Posted by: Ed Bernays | Apr 12 2025 19:11 utc | 100
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Posted by: |