Trump's Second Term

dudalb said:
I still believe that when Iran strikes back, it will be with it/s terorrists proxies.
Click to expand...
... which would be the de-escalating strategy.
the US has tens of thousands of troops in far closer reach to Iran than Israel: in Qatar, Kuweit, Iran etc., and none have the level of protection that the Iron Dome provides.
The same people who call the Iranian Regime Religious Fanatics with a Death Wish think that the Iranians will use great restraint in their response, not even threatening shipping lanes "because it would be suicide".
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
... which would be the de-escalating strategy.
the US has tens of thousands of troops in far closer reach to Iran than Israel: in Qatar, Kuweit, Iran etc., and nonw have the level of protection that the Iron Dome provides.
The same people who call the Iranian Regime Religious Fanatics with a Death Wish think that the Iranians will use great restraint in their response, not even threatening shipping lanes.
Click to expand...
Iran is now threatening the shipping lanes, especially oil.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Iran is now threatening the shipping lanes, especially oil.
Click to expand...
..which is the responsible threat: even if Iran ends up doing nothing, just issuing it makes shipping more expensive, raising prices.
And overt action, like mines or limited attacks on tankers will make oil prices skyrocket - all without causing any casualties.

Honestly, I think the Gulf States, US and Israel all would prefer attacks on US bases than a blocking of the Strait of Hormuz.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
The same people who call the Iranian Regime Religious Fanatics with a Death Wish think that the Iranians will use great restraint in their response, not even threatening shipping lanes "because it would be suicide".
Click to expand...
'The enemy is both terribly strong and pitifully weak'. Fascism 101.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
..which is the responsible threat: even if Iran ends up doing nothing, just issuing it makes shipping more expensive, raising prices.
And overt action, like mines or limited attacks on tankers will make oil prices skyrocket - all without causing any casualties.

Honestly, I think the Gulf States, US and Israel all would prefer attacks on US bases than a blocking of the Strait of Hormuz.
Click to expand...
They only need to stop tanker traffic. Don't need to board them or sink anything. Just blockade.
 
Trump tore up the nuclear deal with Iran during his first term. But Joe Biden, who ran a consistent and even-keeled government, appears to have done nothing to negotiate a new deal or even try to get the old one back in place. Why was that?
 
Blue Mountain said:
Trump tore up the nuclear deal with Iran during his first term. But Joe Biden, who ran a consistent and even-keeled government, appears to have done nothing to negotiate a new deal or even try to get the old one back in place. Why was that?
Click to expand...
I wonder the same thing about why he did not remove the increased sanctions on Cuba especially once it became apparent they didn't have a secret energy weapon. I don't understand US politics enough to understand why Biden was so passive. By keeping so many Trump reversals of Obama policies in place he was effectively validating those decisions made when he was VP. I think Biden should have cleared as much Trump era policy out of the system ASAP.
 
Planigale said:
I wonder the same thing about why he did not remove the increased sanctions on Cuba especially once it became apparent they didn't have a secret energy weapon. I don't understand US politics enough to understand why Biden was so passive. By keeping so many Trump reversals of Obama policies in place he was effectively validating those decisions made when he was VP. I think Biden should have cleared as much Trump era policy out of the system ASAP.
Click to expand...
If and when the next Dem president comes in, they won't make that mistake.
 
Armitage72 said:
For decades, US foreign policy has been clear. If you don't have nukes, doing something that even mildly annoys us will get you bombed and/or invaded. If you have nukes, you can do whatever you want and you'll get little more than a firmly-worded letter.
If a nation is worried that the US may dislike them at some point, it's in their best interests to look into the possibility of nukes.
Click to expand...
There are two more criteria that'll get you put into category B; 1) sell the US lots of oil or other fossil fuels or 2) own large chunks of US real estate.
 
Dems have always, always felt that they are vulnerable to claims of not being sufficiently patriotic. Despite all evidence.
And instead of reframing the issue, they keep on chasing after pro-military, pro-law enforcement, anti-immigration cred they will never get because it has nothing to do with facts.
Biden and Harris didn't think they could win unless they out-hawked Trump.
Remember who called Iran America's enemy no.1.
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
All this . . . thing did was to guarantee the U.S. will experience a briefcase nuke somewhere in the future.

Or am I being too cynical?
Click to expand...
Or I think more likely a dirty bomb. And I think a real concern for the USA given the current regime's incompetence and ignorance is whether it has the necessary safeguards in place.
 
Resume said:
All this . . . thing did was to guarantee the U.S. will experience a briefcase nuke somewhere in the future.

Or am I being too cynical?
Click to expand...
There is a new game in town, one which can ostensibly involve no weapons smuggling across borders. Namely, the use of a mass of drones launched from a truck or rail container, as per the recent Ukrainian non-terrorist example in wartime, to inflict very heavy damage by surprise, and at such a close range that warnings or even defense are impossible. No radioactive material means tracking is even harder; cardboard drones mean radar is useless.

We are witnessing the democratization of war, under which small state and non-state actors may now achieve not just tactical, but potentially strategic advantage by eliminating key weapons systems and facilities. Then there is simple arson, which used at scale via multiple simultaneous small attacks can be devastating. Done close to a military facility, it can be used to mask the type of attack above for even greater effect.

I think the USA is in for a world of hurt. For at least a generation. Its enemies have multiplied across the globe, especially now that the coming woes associated with crop failures and the like will, rightly or wrongly, be ascribed to the contemporary and belligerent loss of sanity in the West, which includes aggressive denial of climate change along with practices which greatly exacerbate it.

Not easy being the bad guy in today's world, not if everyone and his brother is out to get you. Not even Mr. Nice Guy and swell neighbor Canada likes the US anymore.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Forgot about intelligence.
Sums them up completely

Host: Are you saying the US did not see intelligence that the Supreme Leader had ordered weaponization?

Rubio: That’s irrelevant

Host: No, that’s a key point

Rubio: No it’s not… Forget about intelligence

https://twitter.com/x/status/1936819257565692256
Click to expand...
The stupid thing is... okay, one of the stupid things is he could have had a good point but he squandered the chance. The interviewer seems to think it implicit that what the supreme leader wants is what Iran does. Khameini is opposed to WMDs on principle, so a race to build a bomb in Iran would be going on behind his back.
 
Darat said:
Or I think more likely a dirty bomb. And I think a real concern for the USA given the current regime's incompetence and ignorance is whether it has the necessary safeguards in place
Click to expand...
Which Incompetent regime are you talking about?
As fro the Dirty Bomb, I hope that the Ayatollahe are not that crazy.
If a dirty bomb was used in the US the response, no matter who the President was, would be massive. It would be consisered a Nuclear Strike and we know what that means.
I fully expect Terrorist attacks, but a Dirty Bomb would be suicidal for Iran.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
To me "we trust our instincts" sounds like Trump's magical thinking.
Click to expand...
dudalb said:
Problem with Trump he has NOTHING but instincts.
Click to expand...

Perhaps more to the point, Trump's instincts are focused on very short-sighted self-aggrandizement and the like. I could believe it if his instincts were telling him that doing this would be an effective way to distract the American public from how extraordinarily dangerous and all around horrendous his big ugly debt bomb bill is, though.

Blue Mountain said:
Trump tore up the nuclear deal with Iran during his first term. But Joe Biden, who ran a consistent and even-keeled government, appears to have done nothing to negotiate a new deal or even try to get the old one back in place. Why was that?
Click to expand...
The Great Zaganza said:
Dems have always, always felt that they are vulnerable to claims of not being sufficiently patriotic. Despite all evidence.
And instead of reframing the issue, they keep on chasing after pro-military, pro-law enforcement, anti-immigration cred they will never get because it has nothing to do with facts.
Biden and Harris didn't think they could win unless they out-hawked Trump.
Remember who called Iran America's enemy no.1.
Click to expand...
It was somewhat similar to the China tariffs in that way, yes. More officially, the Biden Administration did seek to negotiate a new deal, but in the end, we were left with -
"We will judge Iran's leadership by their actions, not their words," a State Department spokesperson said Tuesday.

"If Iran wants to demonstrate seriousness or a new approach, they should stop nuclear escalations and start meaningfully cooperating with the IAEA," they added, referencing the International Atomic Energy Agency, an intergovernmental watchdog that Tehran has often subverted.
Click to expand...
 
Jack by the hedge said:
The stupid thing is... okay, one of the stupid things is he could have had a good point but he squandered the chance. The interviewer seems to think it implicit that what the supreme leader wants is what Iran does. Khameini is opposed to WMDs on principle, so a race to build a bomb in Iran would be going on behind his back.
Click to expand...
Of course he is going to say that in public.......what he says behind closed doors is something else.
 
Now , accoding to CNN, Trump is talking about regime change.......which could not be done without boots at the ground.
And that worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I am not buying the massive distraction theory either.
 
dudalb said:
Which Incompetent regime are you talking about?
As fro the Dirty Bomb, I hope that the Ayatollahe are not that crazy.
If a dirty bomb was used in the US the response, no matter who the President was, would be massive. It would be consisered a Nuclear Strike and we know what that means.
I fully expect Terrorist attacks, but a Dirty Bomb would be suicidal for Iran.
Click to expand...
who knows what happened to the material buried under the rubble left by the attacks?
How would it be Iran's fault if some civic-minded individuals decided to safely dispose the radioactive material in the water supply of Tel Aviv ?

Also, given that both Israel and the US are demanding Regime Change (aka the death of the current government), what is supposed to hold them back from doing something suicidal?

What if they all step down and have open and fair elections, but as their very last act give all their radioactive material and bomb plans to their former terrorist allies, now disavowed? How would what happens next be the fault of the New Democratic Republic of Iran? And what would be the point of punishing it for what the previous regime did?

I really wish people would think the situation through instead of trusting that bombs are always the solution.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
who knows what happened to the material buried under the rubble left by the attacks?
How would it be Iran's fault if some civic-minded individuals decided to safely dispose the radioactive material in the water supply of Tel Aviv ?

Also, given that both Israel and the US are demanding Regime Change (aka the death of the current government), what is supposed to hold them back from doing something suicidal?

What if they all step down and have open and fair elections, but as their very last act give all their radioactive material and bomb plans to their former terrorist allies, now disavowed? How would what happens next be the fault of the New Democratic Republic of Iran? And what would be the point of punishing it for what the previous regime did?

I really wish people would think the situation through instead of trusting that bombs are always the solution.
Click to expand...
Well, water is not the thing to use. We have lots of natural uranium laying aroung in Asia, and uranium oxide does not dissolve much. The UF6 from centrifuge does hydrolyze in water, so it could get into water. And then eventually precipitate as UO2.
There have been several accidents involving uranium hexafluoride in the US, including a cylinder-filling accident and material release at the Sequoyah Fuels Corporation in 1986 where an estimated 29 500 pounds of gaseous UF6 escaped.[19][20] The US government has been converting DUF6 to solid uranium oxides for disposal.[21] Such disposal of the entire DUF6 stockpile could cost anywhere from $15 million to $450 million.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Uranium hexafluoride - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Of course he is going to say that in public.......what he says behind closed doors is something else.
Click to expand...
Who, Knamenei? What makes you say that? Just because he's your enemy doesn't mean he's only pretending to be religious. He doesn't think he's the baddie. He doesn't think Iran should have WMDs. Others in the regime have other views.
 
dudalb said:
Now , accoding to CNN, Trump is talking about regime change.......which could not be done without boots at the ground.
And that worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I am not buying the massive distraction theory either.
Click to expand...
Ugh. The first rule of regime change club is you don't talk about regime change. Not unless you intend to wade in and impose it yourself.

Now any potentially effective popular support that might exist for regime change within Iran is tainted with the treasonous smell of being in league with the country that's bombing them. There's a good reason dictators like wars; they get everyone onside.
 
In this moment, all eyes are focused on the fact that we have bombed Iran. We will not know what the long-term consequences of that action will be for some time. But two-week Don, the TACO president, sure showed them. The man who is too weak to take criticism and name-calling in stride, even though he does it relentlessly to others, the man who acts impulsively when challenged, remains in charge of the military and in control of the nuclear codes at this pivotal moment.
Click to expand...
www.threads.com

Joyce Vance (@joyce_white_vance) on Threads

There are both U.S. and international law aspects to Trump’s decision to bomb Iran. Here’s an overview. https://open.substack.com/pub/joycevance/p/the-week-ahead-38b?r=5n3e&utm_medium=ios
www.threads.com www.threads.com
 
dudalb said:
I really have problems with the Iran is an innocent party belief common in these threads.
Click to expand...
I have seen no one argue that Iran are the good guys, perhaps you need to understand there can be a situation where its all just bad guys. Just because they are an unpleasant regime whose nuclear program makes Washington uneasy is not a justification for this action, if it were parts of North Korea, South Africa and several other nations would have been smoking craters years ago. In fact its notable that the only time the USA actually bestirs itself to take direct action over the threat of nuclear proliferation is when its a Muslim country that might acquire them. Also if you are going to worry about a government full of religious zealots with actual nuclear weapons and a penchant for attacking its neighbours maybe you should worry more about Tel Aviv than Tehran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom