Mulberry Heel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,439
Yeah, it said another part of their government would make the final decision. It does seem as if they're going to be compelled to respond in some fashion, and this would certainly fit.
Israel launches attack on Iran | US bombs Iran nuke sites
- Thread starter Carolina Fever
- Start date
- Replies: 2K
- Views: 42K
- Politics
- Messages
- 2,259
It’s not strange, at all.
I presume they have a well articulated and prepared plan to execute. They’re not idiots. They’ve long known Homuz is one of the substantial geopolitical and economic leverage points on the planet. Will Trump ramp up the violence at economic warfare?
ETA: I could also see the supreme leader sidestep the issue with US assurances that regime change will not occur.
theel4life
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,552
This is gonna get ugly isn’t it?
You're right. Unfortunate would have been the better word. Further confirmation that some people only see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.
- Messages
- 2,259
It’s not confirmation. It’s credibility.
MendotoManteo
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 546
If Iran has truly decided to close the Strait of Hormuz, and is serious about enforcing it, this will lead to a call for regime change, no matter what the administration currently states.
And perhaps this was the goal all along? Because they suspected Iran would respond as such.
I don't know, obviously.
But this isn't going to just end here.
As with practically everything Trump does: make a dumb decision, fuck things up, then take it back and claim victory when disaster somehow doesn't occur.
We had an agreement with Iran that he "nuked" during his first administration.
None of this would probably be happening had he not done that.
And perhaps this was the goal all along? Because they suspected Iran would respond as such.
I don't know, obviously.
But this isn't going to just end here.
As with practically everything Trump does: make a dumb decision, fuck things up, then take it back and claim victory when disaster somehow doesn't occur.
We had an agreement with Iran that he "nuked" during his first administration.
None of this would probably be happening had he not done that.
Disagree. It shows an astounding lack of credibility, actually.
Centerpiece
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,297
Probably.
Repercussions could be far and wide… With many not felt for months, perhaps years to come.
- Messages
- 942
Our main board contrarian seems conspicuously absent from posting today.
Or is he?
Or is he?
RaiGuy
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 658
Regime change has been Israel’s goal from the start. It was never about the nuclear capabilities. Just like Gaza was never about the hostages.
This is false. It has always been about the nuclear capabilities, which represent an existential threat to Israel's existence. Regime change would just be an added benefit for the Israelis.
MendotoManteo
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 546
I try not to be too conspiratorial, despite the appeal it has for us all. But I think there's a more than probable chance that this was the goal for Israel all along.
What I mean is that, while American media has been mostly hush-hush about it (because you can't be "anti-Semitic"), we know for a fact that Israel knew Hamas was plotting the Oct. 7th event. Maybe they didn't know exactly what date, but they knew.
Given the capabilities the IDF and Mossad have demonstrated with taking out Hezbollah and Iranian leadership (I saw the 60 Minutes episode couple weeks ago, where two Israeli IDF figures, who were almost certainly approved by Israeli leadership to appear there, said the Hezbollah beeper and walkie-talkie thing was a 10 year operation), there's no way they did not know Hamas was going to attack.
They allowed it to happen. The people killed in the process and the hostages be damned.
I think they allowed it to happen precisely for this moment.
MendotoManteo
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 546
I think allowing Oct. 7th to happen was always a long-game for annexing Gaza (and the West Bank) and potentially regime change in Iran.
A sign of bad-faith arguing is conspiratorially believing that everyone who disagrees with you is somehow the same poster. That, combined with your intentional misreading or disregarding of articles that other posters have provided to us is your second strike here. Truly a horrible outing for you today, and I expected better. That's my bad.
WaynetheDrain
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,227
Russia: Other nations ready to supply Iran with nukes after U.S. strike
In the wake of President Donald Trump's strike on Iran's nuclear sites, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Sunday that "a number of countries" are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear weapons.
"What have the Americans accomplished with their nighttime strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran?" Medvedev questioned in a post on social media. "The enrichment of nuclear material -- and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons -- will continue. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads."
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,789
Did that person highlight that part of the article? I wasn't watching this thread 10 pages ago and I don't know who linked what and I don't have time to check. But when you quote an article approvingly, as you did, you are responsible for what you quote, even if it isn't your link.
The person posted the article without further comment as an attempt to bolster an argument that they had made previously. It turned out that the article actually did the opposite. That was one of my reasons for highlighting that portion of the article, as it directly contradicted the point that the poster had been trying to make when they posted it.
Duke Mu
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,275
Bibi sat on the intelligence for months that a terrorist attack by Hamas was imminent. Deliberately.