Israel launches attack on Iran | US bombs Iran nuke sites

  • Thread starter Thread starter C-Money
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 52K
  • Politics 
That's surprising. Normally, if you sleight Trump he never forgives you...and fires you if he can.
I don’t disagree — it is hard to explain his lasting embrace of Putin. But even after a few timid jabs at Putin over the last few months, Trump makes clear that he values his relationship with Putin and Putin’s view of world events over allied leaders and US intel.
 
As a member of the Arab League, hasn't Iran endorsed the Arab/Saudi Peace Plan with Israel (signed 2002, reratified in 2007 and 2017) ? The plan calls for peace and full duplomatic recognition of Israel once the Palestinians have their independnnce as part of a 2-state solution.
Iran isn’t a member of the Arab League, probably because Iranians aren’t Arabs. They are Persians.
 

Iran Raises Red Flag of Revenge​


Jamkaran (Qom): Iran has raised the symbolic red flag of revenge above the Jamkaran Mosque in Qom after deadly Israeli airstrikes. The red flag signals a call for justice and retaliation in Shia tradition, especially when blood has been unjustly spilled.


Watch out....here come the biplanes.
barstool-sports-kingpin.gif

Yes, I'm being a bit facetious.
Maybe they need a bigger flag....

Report: Iran urgently signaling to Israel and US that it wants talks, end to hostilities​


Iran has been urgently signaling that it seeks an end to hostilities and resumption of talks over its nuclear programs, sending messages to Israel and the United States via Arab intermediaries, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing officials.

The report quotes officials as saying that Tehran has told Arab officials they would be open to returning to the negotiating table as long as the US doesn’t join the hostilities.

They also sent messages to Israel saying it is in the interest of both sides to keep the violence contained.

 


People can be turned around quickly with a surge of patriotism but certainly Trump will need to do some convincing if he elects to join Israel’s attack.

I think this mess would be a no-win for any POTUS … maybe others would /could have restrained Israel to prevent the attack in the first place? I don’t know.

Iran has earned its pariah state status. And keeping this regime from having nukes is a rational goal. The dispute among American foreign policy experts over the last 25 years has been how to do that, not whether it needs to be done.
 


People can be turned around quickly with a surge of patriotism but certainly Trump will need to do some convincing if he elects to join Israel’s attack.

I think this mess would be a no-win for any POTUS … maybe others would /could have restrained Israel to prevent the attack in the first place? I don’t know.

Iran has earned its pariah state status. And keeping this regime from having nukes is a rational goal. The dispute among American foreign policy experts over the last 25 years has been how to do that, not whether it needs to be done.

These public opinion polls are meaningless. There were similar numbers in opposition to invading Iraq. And then as the reality of the invasion got closer and closer, the public got behind the war. During the initial phase, the public overwhelmingly supported the war.

Politics 101: the public always rallies around the troops. Now, when the war drags on for years with lots of military losses, the public eventually snaps out of their patriotic fog.
 
All signs currently point to the strong likelihood that US air forces (or, possibly, Israeli forces with US direct support and munitions) are going in in the next 48 hours.

<Edited to remove the Israeli forces reference - I'm skeptical whether any Israeli pilot is rated to fly a B-2>
 
Last edited:
All signs currently point to the strong likelihood that US air forces (or, possibly, Israeli forces with US direct support and munitions) are going in in the next 48 hours.
I fully expect that, for better or worse.
 
[oops: vestige of an earlier post that I didn't intend to include]
Iran has earned its pariah state status. And keeping this regime from having nukes is a rational goal. The dispute among American foreign policy experts over the last 25 years has been how to do that, not whether it needs to be done.
Those foreign policy experts know a hell of a lot more than me, but it seems to me that a nuclear-armed Iran might very well pose less of a threat to the stability of the region than it does now.

If we actually wanted regime change, dropping all sanctions would be the best bet, I think. It would also reduce Iran's need to fund proxies everywhere.
 
In a sane world, the President telling a city of over 10 million to “immediately evacuate” without further clarification would be a massive scandal. Think how much we debate evacuations in this country for approaching hurricanes … large scale evacuations are inherently dangerous and costly.

Anyway, he also started yesterday directing ICE and other federal law enforcement to target blue cities and “Democrat power centers” and to commence “Remigration” and … crickets.

The Administration’s mush-mouthed messaging on the Israeli strikes on Iran would be ruthlessly parsed by politicians and media alike if another administration were in charge, but here, in this reality, it’s just internalized while folks wait for the next contradictory or confusing statement. Trump chaos is disorienting.
And if anyone did raise an objection his acolytes would immediately and childishly characterize that person as having TDS.
 
I don’t disagree — it is hard to explain his lasting embrace of Putin. But even after a few timid jabs at Putin over the last few months, Trump makes clear that he values his relationship with Putin and Putin’s view of world events over allied leaders and US intel.
When something seems inexplicable, my experience has shown the answer is usually related to money.
 
Back
Top