• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

Thank you, I did not know all that. My broader point was that post-revolution Iran - the leadership - has relied on having external enemies to shore up its identity. Israel itself was not founded on colonialism. The fading colonial power of Great Britain desperately wanted Jews NOT to settle in Israel. But the more extreme Zionists were not against terrorism when it suited their purposes and they *won*. It was a little bit of a war, and they won, and they kept winning, militarily. Attacking Israel has never worked. The other side suffers ten times or a hundredfold the damage done to Israel.

How much of Gaza or the West Bank could you simply buy for the amount of treasure spent in the obviously losing strategy of try to getting Israel to move somewhere else?

TBH I have absolutely no idea who holds the right to what land. Does anybody? And does it matter? Israel conquered it. They've done some very shady stuff, but defending yourself when you are attacked is legit and it's not unusual to pick up land.

But they've done a lot of just messed-up things. I learned a few days ago they'd replaced any Palestinian they could with migrant labor from Thailand or India. See, I think that is low-key its own kind of genocide. Making lives worse and worse, choking off opportunity. This is not the way to treat a whole ethnicity. I figured out that mathematically, the maximum number of Palestinians that actually voted for Hamas could not be greater than 6 percent of the current population.

Anyway. I hope not many Iranians were killed.

It is a complicated country that fascinates and baffles me. I visited in 2003. The people were great. Iran was even low-key a U.S. ally at the time.

I am relieved that (I hope) we did not hit any cultural targets.

Which ... why on Earth was Trump telling them to evacuate Tehran?!
To some extent whether you or I think zionism and the creation of Israel as a Jewish state is colonialism or neo-colonialism is irrelevant. It is what Palestinians and the Iranian government believe that is important. One has to understand other's motives, both to predict their actions, and to be able to negotiate. One doesn't have to agree, but one shouldn't ignore.
 
A Key, fundamental aspect of the Madman Theory, as used by Nixon, JFK and Trump, is that it is always only the US that might do a crazy thing, so you better just capitulate.
The time is running out when the world starts to realize that two or more can play that game.
 
It's served it's main purpose. Donald thinks he's as big as he thinks his dictator heroes and everyone has forgotten the Big Beautiful Bill and ICE.
 
Iran's a lot more peacable than most of its neighbours.
Worth remembering who Iran's neighbours are before dismissing this statement. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Russia (across the Caspian), and most of the gulf states as maritime borders. Iran has been subject to attacks across its borders from Iraq (the latter being the only mass use of WMD since WW2 by Iraq on Iran), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan (probably one of the main routes of entry of Mossad into Iran). US forces have been based on the borders of Iran in Afghanistan (now gone) and Iraq (still present). Israel has been arming and supporting terrorist groups on Iran's borders and carrying out terrorist attacks in Iran, in addition to conventional military attacks, including on Iranian diplomats. The association of Saudi with Sunni extremist groups ISIS, Al Qaeda, and others is well known, and these Saudi associated groups have carried terrorist attacks in Iran and on Shias elsewhere.

Iran has developed better relations with the Sunni gulf states recently and was moving to deconfliction with Saudi. Iran had agreed not to enrich Uranium more than 4% and agreed to inspections that validated this agreement. The US terminated this agreement not Iran.

The reality as we are now hearing is that Israel's real immediate concern was not nuclear weapons (this was the casus belli), but Iran's conventional ballistic missiles. This why Israel's main attacks were on conventional weapon systems not nuclear systems. Whish they knew they couldn't destroy, but had to get the US to attack.
 
Worth remembering who Iran's neighbours are before dismissing this statement. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Russia (across the Caspian), and most of the gulf states as maritime borders. Iran has been subject to attacks across its borders from Iraq (the latter being the only mass use of WMD since WW2 by Iraq on Iran), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan (probably one of the main routes of entry of Mossad into Iran). US forces have been based on the borders of Iran in Afghanistan (now gone) and Iraq (still present). Israel has been arming and supporting terrorist groups on Iran's borders and carrying out terrorist attacks in Iran, in addition to conventional military attacks, including on Iranian diplomats. The association of Saudi with Sunni extremist groups ISIS, Al Qaeda, and others is well known, and these Saudi associated groups have carried terrorist attacks in Iran and on Shias elsewhere.

Iran has developed better relations with the Sunni gulf states recently and was moving to deconfliction with Saudi. Iran had agreed not to enrich Uranium more than 4% and agreed to inspections that validated this agreement. The US terminated this agreement not Iran.

The reality as we are now hearing is that Israel's real immediate concern was not nuclear weapons (this was the casus belli), but Iran's conventional ballistic missiles. This why Israel's main attacks were on conventional weapon systems not nuclear systems. Whish they knew they couldn't destroy, but had to get the US to attack.
While I agree with you on practically everything here, I would point out that being under attack does not automatically make the defender 'peaceable'. And many of the attacks (Iraq excluded) were in response to Iran's support of belligerence in other countries.

Iran's wish to be seen as defender of Shi'ism may be justified, but it does not make Iran 'peaceable'. Nor does Iran's support to Shia militants justify persecution of Shias.
 
Iran has developed better relations with the Sunni gulf states recently and was moving to deconfliction with Saudi. Iran had agreed not to enrich Uranium more than 4% and agreed to inspections that validated this agreement.
Do you seriously believe this? The IAEC finds that Iran is only weeks away from having the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. I know who I have more faith in.
 
Do you seriously believe this? The IAEC finds that Iran is only weeks away from having the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. I know who I have more faith in.
Do you mean the IAEA?

They certainly have reported that Iran has been in breach of their promises to not enrich uranium, and indeed have reported that Iran has enriched uranium to over 80% which is way outside of the amount allowed.

Did they say that Iran was only weeks away from a nuclear weapon though?

I thought that was Israel’s claim.

Either way they are almost certainly much further away now.

Still my hope was that the theocracy ruling Iran would be deposed before such strikes would be necessary. For me the negotiations were about running the clock down on the regime which was becoming more and more unpopular. I think that strikes like this could have a rallying effect.

I guess we will have to wait and see what happens…
 
Do you mean the IAEA?

They certainly have reported that Iran has been in breach of their promises to not enrich uranium, and indeed have reported that Iran has enriched uranium to over 80% which is way outside of the amount allowed.

Did they say that Iran was only weeks away from a nuclear weapon though?

I thought that was Israel’s claim.

Either way they are almost certainly much further away now.

Still my hope was that the theocracy ruling Iran would be deposed before such strikes would be necessary. For me the negotiations were about running the clock down on the regime which was becoming more and more unpopular. I think that strikes like this could have a rallying effect.

I guess we will have to wait and see what happens…
The odd thing is that the theocracy were probably a limiting factor on nuclear weapon development. Khamenei (religious supreme leader similar to a Shia pope) has said that use of nuclear weapons is haram.

We believe that besides nuclear weapons, other types of weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons also pose a serious threat to humanity. The Iranian nation which is itself a victim of chemical weapons* feels more than any other nation the danger that is caused by the production and stockpiling of such weapons and is prepared to make use of all its facilities to counter such threats. We consider the use of such weapons as haraam and believe that it is everyone's duty to make efforts to secure humanity against this great disaster.

This is while we are not after nuclear tests. We are not after nuclear weapons. And this is not because they are telling us not to pursue these things. Rather, we do not want these things for the sake of ourselves and our religion and because reason is telling us not to do so. Both shar'i and aqli [related to logic and reason] fatwas dictate that we do not pursue them. Our aqli fatwa is that we do not need a nuclear weapon either in the present time or in the future. A nuclear weapon is a source of trouble for a country like ours

Mohsen Rafighdoost the eight-year wartime minister of the IRGC disclosed how Khomeini had opposed his proposal for beginning working on both nuclear and chemical weapons by a fatwa.

The reason for no assassinating Khamenei may be because he is seen as break on the development of WMD not a driver.

* for those who may be unfamiliar with the background Iraq used massed poison gas attacks on Iran killing over 20,000 people and injuring 100,000. This ruling against developing WMD followed on from this forbidding Iran from responding in kind.
 
Last edited:
Trump may have an opportunity to refocus ICE efforts on Muslims. The voter knows nothing of culture, so makes no difference what they speak. "We are deporting terrorists" will be the message. But Miller is obsessed with taking ove Califorania right now.
 
While I agree with you on practically everything here, I would point out that being under attack does not automatically make the defender 'peaceable'. And many of the attacks (Iraq excluded) were in response to Iran's support of belligerence in other countries.

Iran's wish to be seen as defender of Shi'ism may be justified, but it does not make Iran 'peaceable'. Nor does Iran's support to Shia militants justify persecution of Shias.
I agree. I would never class Iran's action as non-militaristic, but they are not like the US with minimal military threat from neighbours, yet the US finds itself compelled to spend billions on up grading nuclear weapons, and on a military that is really only used to attack countries that offer no realistic threat to the US.
 
Do you seriously believe this? The IAEC finds that Iran is only weeks away from having the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. I know who I have more faith in.
When you quoted Planigale, you omitted the sentence I am highlighting below:
Iran has developed better relations with the Sunni gulf states recently and was moving to deconfliction with Saudi. Iran had agreed not to enrich Uranium more than 4% and agreed to inspections that validated this agreement. The US terminated this agreement not Iran.
What Planigale wrote is true. Iran did agree to limit its enrichment of uranium, and to allow verification by IAEA.

But that was years ago. After Trump unilaterally terminated that agreement, mostly because it had been negotiated by a Democratic president, Iran was free to enrich uranium far beyond 4%, and has done so. Trump is now using bunker-busting bombs to try to undo the disastrously failed foreign policy of his first term.
 
Last edited:
Well, it was free to do so under the no longer existing deal with the US, but not under the international Non-Proliferation treaty.
Of course, that treaty requires countries to help others build a civilian nuclear program, and the US is pretty much the top offender when it comes to sharing military nuclear tech and knowledge with whoever it pleases.

In any case, it's the height of hypocrisy to invoke the IAEA as a justification for these attacks
 
Last edited:
Not a cult

Q: The DNI concluded in March that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. So what new intelligence does the US have since then that Iran changed its position?

HEGSETH: The president has made it very clear that he's looked at all the intelligence and come to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear program is a threat

 

Back
Top Bottom