Trump Takes the Off-Ramp From the Israeli-Iranian War
War with Iran was a risky, destructive gamble. But the worst outcome has been avoided, for now.

President Donald Trump expressed what every observer of the Middle East had been feeling on Tuesday morning. "I'm not happy with [Israel]. I'm not happy with Iran, either," he told reporters on the White House lawn. "We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing."
The Israeli-Iranian ceasefire that Trump had announced looked like it was going to unravel. In a post to Truth Social, he had given a confusing timeline for both sides to stop firing. As Israel launched one last massive air raid, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi denied that there was a ceasefire agreement but said Iran would consider the matter closed if Israel stopped shooting at 4 a.m. local time.
Three hours later, Iran launched its own final missile barrages at Israeli cities, and Iranian television announced that the ceasefire would actually take effect at 7:30 a.m., as Trump's original post had suggested. After Iran launched two additional missiles around 10 a.m. local time, Israeli warplanes attacked an Iranian radar station, at which point Trump had his outburst. And then it was over.
The ceasefire was a strange, theatrical, inconclusive ending to a strange, theatrical, inconclusive war. Israel attacked Iran—while Iran was negotiating with the United States over its nuclear program—and then immediately asked the United States to join in. Trump obliged by bombing Iranian nuclear sites through Operation Midnight Hammer, and began talking about regime change. But Iran more or less ignored the U.S. attack, continued to hit Israel for two days, and then launched a choreographed retaliation on a single U.S. base that caused no casualties.
Trump stopped short of the most catastrophic outcome, a full-on war with Iran, and was able to flex his strength with Operation Midnight Hammer. But the ceasefire doesn't resolve the fundamental cause of the war. While the United States finds the Iranian nuclear program unacceptable, Iran has watched other countries meet a terrible fate after giving up nuclear weapons, a fear that the war just confirmed. And Israel, which believes it is a much broader and more existential struggle with Iran, now sees that it can pull the U.S. directly into war.
The Iranian government has already promised to rebuild its nuclear program, despite Trump's assertion that it will not. Unlike before, when the program was under international supervision, the new Iranian nuclear facilities will be more secretive and better hardened against attack. On Tuesday, the Iranian parliament passed a bill to suspend oversight by the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, which had been the outside world's main source of information on Iranian nuclear work.
The obvious solution is a new deal over the nuclear program, which Trump had been trying to broker before the war. And Operation Midnight Hammer probably did give Trump some additional leverage in talks. But the fact that the U.S. used diplomatic signals as a "headfake" to prepare for an attack on Iran, and the fact that one of Israel's first targets was the chief Iranian negotiator, means that it will take a lot of trust-building from the American side now.
Meanwhile, Israeli leaders may look to replicate their "mowing the lawn" or "war between the wars" model, which calls for a steady stream of raids aimed at keeping the enemy weak. After signing a ceasefire in Lebanon in November 2024, the Israeli military has continued to attack Lebanon on an almost daily basis to prevent the militia Hezbollah from rearming. Israeli media have speculated about a similar outcome for Iran.
"Iran will not have to sign a nuclear agreement that amounts to surrender, but it will know that any nuclear component that moves there, even for a second, any centrifuge that starts spinning, any scientist who touches on a subject that might be related to weapons, will immediately be intercepted by a missile from the F-35, an attack that will be like a walk in the park for the Air Force pilots," the newspaper Yedioth Ahonroth noted.
Unlike the wars in Lebanon or the Palestinian territories, any Israeli campaign against Iran requires heavy American lifting, as the past week has demonstrated. So far, Trump has managed to keep both America First doves and neoconservative hawks in his coalition happy by selling Operation Midnight Hammer as a one-off success. Israeli attempts to keep fighting Iran will require Trump to either upset the America Firsters by committing to an indefinite war or upset the neoconservatives by saying no to Israel.
Of course, Trump may be able to thread the needle, coming to a lasting deal with Iran over its nuclear program and its conflict with Israel. (And as a feather in his cap, he can restore the Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire that he had allowed to collapse.) The Israeli-Iranian ceasefire is a necessary but not sufficient step on the way there.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So sorry this is happening to you, Reason.
Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will start a war yet.
It is funny how weirdly similar reason and the Neocons are. It is like some kind of opposites attract love story.
Trump is a cowardly piece of shit just trying to avoid impeachment after committing an impeachable offence.
Yeah. Trump didn't invade and conquer Iran. What a coward. I assume you are being sarcastic. If not, have you considered becoming a Neo Conservative? You might fit in better than you think.
Misek would kill every Jew on earth given the chance. It wants to kill anyone/everyone who supports Israel.
I'm not being hyperbolic. This creature is broken.
And you're a sick antisemite, Misek.
Fuck off and die, Nazi shit.
I'm ashamed I didn't expect MAGA to become neocons after seeing the Tea Party convert, but here it is.
WMD risk eliminated! Peace in our time! Mission Accomplished! Ron Paul was a fool for talking about blowback and his comments should be stricken from the record!
"I'm ashamed I didn't expect MAGA to become neocons
Wut?
War provoking, victory declaring, this-will-be-easy, Israel-first-NeoCons.
My post yesterday. I don't think it was Neo-con, though I do support Israel 90% of the time:
Mother's Lament - (Sarc's a Nazi, not even joking) 1 day ago
Because the trolls are going to accuse me otherwise today, let me get this out of the way:
No. I don't support the US taking out the Iranian nuclear program bunkers. Israel and the Saudis could have done it, ostensibly separately.
No, I don't think it was illegal. It should be illegal, but Trump did adhere to the war powers act.
Yes, I think that the war powers act is unconstitutional.
Yes, Iran is an enemy of the US. They have chanted "Death to America" regularly in the Islamic Consultative Assembly for fifty years. They say that they are Americas enemies and have acted as such. If they tell you that they are, believe them.
Just calling yourself America's enemy isn't enough to justify an attack.
No, just because I've gone from supporting Trump on a dozen issues, to just eleven, doesn't mean I'm going to be "WTF, I hate Trump now".
This was a deal, but it's not yet a big deal.
https://reason.com/2025/06/23/just-dont-call-it-a-war/?comments=true#comment-11099991
We've all said this. Mike doesn't give a shit. But he also fell for world war 3 propaganda again and is now upset.
I did not intend it to refer to you specifically, but MAGA in general. I just used your post as a jumping off point.
I didn't see your comment that you have reposted here, but seeing it now, it looks like I chose poorly for jumping off point. Sorry.
Still, I stand by my comment for MAGA in general.
>> I didn't expect MAGA to become neocons
I did expect your misinterpretations and attempts at snark
Very good.
I mean, we don't know what was accomplished. We don't know what will be the cost. We do have a long history of seeing poor results and high costs for military strikes.
...but this time it's different...unless...
yes I also was listening to Welch make a fool of himself an hour ago
talk to Tucker about who the neocons are he's the fucking Kristol disciple.
edit: friendly-like ^^
I haven't seen/heard it. On tucker's show? I'll check it out.
megyn kelly
Thanks. That was a good listen.
Mike is a fucking idiot.
He has fallen for wvery leftist end of world prediction. It is amazing. Lashing out as he looks retarded again.
He knows the neocon solution would be going to an actual war and nation building like he wanted to do with Ukraine. So also part projection.
Congratulations on your Mission Accomplished prediction being correct 3 days later. Let's see how it holds up, eh?
So because they don't want war with Iran, they want war with Iran?
You know, it is possible that they think worse of Trump than is warranted, but still are happy to be wrong about some things. I know there are all kinds of things I'm hoping I'm wrong about.
No. They want war with Iran because it would confirm all of their claims about Trump and give them something to bitch about. The last thing either the Neocons or Reason wants is peace. They both need war just for different reasons. This being a success and not leading to a longer and bigger war is devastating to both.
Maybe I'm insufficiently cynical. Or just prefer to assume that people argue in good faith. But I have a hard time believing that of most of the Reason writers. I think people in the comments read too much into Reason's stuff. They (Reason) are pretty weak and lame as libertarians and some suffer from some bad TDS, but I don't think they are outright lying about their views or intents. I don't see anything in this piece anyway to indicate that they would prefer continuing escalations with Iran or that being right about Trump is more important than not escalating with Iran.
but I don't think they are outright lying
I'll give you a few recent examples. These are written as FACT, not opinion.
Trump's Unconstitutional Act of War
Damon Root
Anti-War President Starts New War. Again.
Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Matt Welch, and Nick Gillespie
Mass Deportations Are Putting America's Food Supply at Risk
Kelley Lester
The Attack on Iran Is Unlawful
Eric Boehm
I still wouldn't call that lying. Being wrong doesn't prove dishonesty. And maybe the acts of war are unconstitutional. I at least think it's pretty constitutionally questionable for the president to attack another country without specific authorization from congress.
This seems pretty standard in opinion writing. You don't present it as could be right/could be wrong, you make your argument as strongly as you can and then other people can debate if they disagree. Some of it like the deportation food supply risk or starting a new war are premature or silly and overwrought. But there are potential difficulties that we have to deal with in the short term if a lot of farm labor gets disrupted.
Sullum literally posted an article after the courts disagreed with him on how the courts said Trump was wrong.
I'll also add that I think it's a fairly heavy accusation to say that someone wants us to get into a full on war with Iran just so they can continue criticizing a politician in the same way. And suggest that maybe we should all be a little less confident that we understand the motivations and true beliefs of people we don't know at all really.
That’s just crazy talk. If commenters here didn’t have unwarranted confidence, this place would be a ghost town.
Can only give someone the benefit of the doubt for so long until you become the naive fool.
Look at all the court cases where they end up being wrong.
They dont write the articles from a principled position, but an anti trump position. Especially the headlines.
I am not sure who is angrier and more disappointed about Trump destroying the Iranian nuclear program without being drug into another Iraq, the Neocon war mongers or the anti American left. They both seem to long for war and slaughter, although for slightly different reasons.
Um, you left out Reason and its ilk. (Unless you include them in the anti-American left, as some do.) He just bombed the shit out something that needed to have the shit bombed out of it, and he's doing his best to have it stop there. Kind of a having your cake and eating it too scenario if you're a war-adverse realist. But Reason just spent days telling you he was a neocon who started WWIII, and they're clearly disappointed their narrative isn't holding.
Trump is mercurial at best and half-retarded at worst, so it's entirely possible this could escalate in a major way that I don't like. But to his credit, he has always been anti-entanglement, unlike pretty much anyone else with power in US politics.
Or... stay with me Petti... this was always the plan and your end of the world belief system was wrong?
> But the fact that the U.S. used diplomatic signals as a "headfake" to prepare for an attack on Iran
That's certainly one interpretation of events. Another is that both diplomacy and military strategies were prepared, the latter in case the first failed. Of course the "problem" with such an interpretation is that it doesn't include an implication that the military strike was the intended action from the start, and diplomacy was just a cover.
Trump has always said the only thing he wants from Iran is for them to give up their nuclear program. Everything Trump has said and done is consistent with that. They let Israel start bombing allowing them to degrade the Iranian air defense and take out the above ground sites knowing that they were not taking out the below ground sites. They did this hoping Iran would make a deal and give up their nuclear program without the US intervening. When that didn't happen, Trump bombed the underground sites that the Israelis were unable to destroy and now has called for a ceasefire. He wanted to end the nuclear program. Not chase regime change windmills.
Yeah I think that's right and Trump reserves the option for a future one off US strike if the shit goes sideways. I don't like it much but if if if this leads to some kind of peace and US intervention is limited to non lethal strikes on nuclear facilities I have to admit it's better than the alternatives and the status quo. I think Trump is still committed to no new wars not just to keep his promise to MAGA but because he honestly doesn't like people getting killed. This is the guy that called back the bombers in flight in his first term because the death of civilians was too big a price in his eyes. This could all easily turn to shit and break out into a larger war. I hope at that point he'll say, Fuck off. We're going home. And I think he will.
He has to be committed to no new wars. The public won't stand for anything else.
A lot of it was the kitchen sink strategy against Biden which was just nonstop attack Biden for everything and hope some of it sticks like Biden is responsible for a woman looking like a man and winning an Olympic medal. The reality is more soldiers have died in accidents in Trump’s 4 months than died in combat in 4 years under Biden. Do you really want to be so careful with soldiers that fewer die in accidents than civilians dying in accidents?? Seems like soldiers enlist to make America safer and accept a higher level of risk than American civilians.
It's Trump. He supports all sides of an issue at various times then picks a lane so he can always point back to his previous comment. Regarding regime change; he had a whole post on making Iran great again. What other possible subject was he talking about? This is at the same time Rubio, Vance and Hegseth are disclaiming any desire for regime change and he himself in a different post says its not about regime change just stopping nuclear weapon production.
NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS he will have a fall back to say 'I've always supported x policy' no matter how many contradictory positions were in between.
He has been doing this on most any major topic for the last decade and its transparently obvious that he does this so its not a surprise that he did it again. This is why he 'truths' a 100x a day spouting all kinds of shit. And his brain damaged supporters just say he is doing 16dimensional chess.
Bull shit. Trump's record is that he is not in favor of US supported regime change. He made one off hand comment about the possibility of the Iranian people demanding it. These are two distinct issues. Canada is in need of regime change in my opinion but I don't favor the CIA engineering it. Trump is trying to convince the current regime to give up it's nuclear ambitions and see the potential end of sanctions and grow their economy in peace. And as a real estate developer he sees a huge potential for turning Iran into a huge resort destination.
His one off hand comment was on his official Truth social account which is apparently an official government proclamation. When it suits him at least. And the only real estate development he sees potential for is where Trump Org is directly making money from it. See e.g, that stupid AI video of the Gaza Riviera.
You might want to get your back checked out Gaer... carrying that much water for the president is going to lead to some serious arthritis.
Ha ha you can’t keep up.
You must of been looking in the mirror when the brain damaged name calling popped in, eh? Sad how folks like you think you are superior to over 50% of the population because the DNC said you were and you post stale regurgitated DNC talking points while seemingly acting like a hero when doing so.
it's been cliche all week but you are the tip of the horseshoe
Why does tReason keep talking about Trump? Just proves they're a bunch of leftists. Because if they weren't then they'd be complaining about Democrats.
They talked about Trump as much as Biden before. In any thread about Biden you talked about Trump instead.
What you are doing is projection.
You push leftist narratives and defend the left for more than you ever criticise them (but any number bigger than 0 would do that)
"DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS!!!"
Remember, Sarckles swears he is not a Democrat, just ask him.
Based upon what I've seen, this hit-and-run was the right call. This has three circumstantial pieces of evidence:
US nuke sniffing planes were launched weeks before the attack, and at some point an earthquake in Iran was detected (which was consistent with underground tests).
The second is China's 747s. We don't know what they brought (or took), but it is my belief that they provided the explosives for imploding the core. Iran had the material and delivery already, but they were stuck on the yield. This would explain why China lashed out after they threatened the straight of Hormuz. If China did provide the conventional explosives, then their tests would be in the Megaton range.
Which leads to the timing: This happened after Iran basically said that they were going to glass Israel, but also after Putin called Trump and they talked Iran. Putin was probably made aware of what was on the table, and it's likely that after Trump told him what Israel was planning, he cut ties with Iran.
The fact that China and Russia both said and did nothing about this is really telling. The Russians love Iran causing problems in the Middle East because it drives up the price of oil and makes them money. I don't think the Russians want the Iranians to get nuclear weapons. Trump likely assured China and Russia both that he had no intention of trying to force a regime change in Iran and just planned to take out their nuclear sites and make peace.
Don't worry. The BRICS are winning articles are merely delayed. Expect them again next week.
Reason loves to cheerlead for China. They are very libertarian like that.
The Iran earthquake ( 5.1 on Richter scale) is not at all consistent with a nuclear test. It was a normal fault earthquake, where the fault line is 20 degrees off north at a depth of roughly 10 km and p and s waves that are only consistent with an earthquake. There is literally zero chance that it's 'consistent' with a nuclear test.
What is consistent is that the media will find it very easy to activate every moron's war boner every time there's an earthquake in or near Iran
And the Chinese 747 is most consistent with them pulling their citizens out of Tehran in response to Israel warning that the city should be evacuated
Why you gotta crap all over the beautiful narrative with 'facts'?
What fact did he provide sarc?
You and sarc are literally retards. See you alberto!
Nuclear tests, like the one conducted by North Korea in 2016, have been recorded with magnitudes around 5.3 on the Richter scale.
LOL!
JewFree, Sarc and Tony certainly had that refutation locked and loaded. Like they were anticipating it. So much for the notion they don't get talking points.
US nuke sniffing planes were launched weeks before the attack, and at some point an earthquake in Iran was detected (which was consistent with underground tests).
That's simply not true. The quake was on a fault and it was way too deep to be caused by people. The fact that you believe it was caused by a nuclear test only proves that you'll gobble anything that fits the Trumpian narrative, no matter how stupid it is.
And your source for that analysis is what, precisely?
https://earthquaketrack.com/p/iran/recent
It was just another normal earthquake. Not a nuclear test. And while a 10km deep hole is technically possible, it's one of those things scientists do to set records, not test nuclear weapons.
That's not evidence retard. That's just a list of quakes. Nothing in your post refutes it could have been a nuclear test.
What the fuck is wrong with you Iranian lovers?
I would still like to see some evidence that it was a nuclear test, not just that is was consistent with a nuclear test as well as with an earthquake in a pretty quake prone region of the world before we reach any conclusions.
Nuclear tests are typically done at a depth of 0.5 - 1.5 km. The quake was at a depth of 10km, along with almost every other quake in that region. Someone would have to convince me that Iran dug a 10km hole (which is a feat all by itself) just for a nuclear test before I'll believe the quake was anything other than a quake.
You are flailing much worse than the people you are arguing with. Quit trying to pretend you are an expert in seismology and just point at the YouTube geologist who explained it.
Not sure you can explain that voice he talks in though, it is super weird.
This one explains it clearly from an actual geologist. Although it's possible that Jesse and his girlfriends consider geology to be leftist. https://youtu.be/_J6odOCN1nw?si=Kmas8Rkxul7jebiI
Sarc, you make it too obvious this is your sarc with your obsession lol.
One random YouTube is your expert. Fucking. Hilarious.
Anything that contradicts the Trump narrative is leftist, so yes geology is leftist. Along with economics, history, US Geological Survey, the Constitution...
Lol you're replying to your own sock?
Here's the US Geological Survey for that particular earthquake
The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization also monitors all seismic events from 337 locations worldwide and provides the info to all signatories (or maybe only ratifying states).
Lol.
So sad...
Nuclear tests, like the one conducted by North Korea in 2016, have been recorded with magnitudes around 5.3 on the Richter scale.
Where do you think their testing areas are dumdum? Near a fault line by chance?
I think the point is that nuclear tests and earthquakes are usually distinguishable on seismographs. The fact that both can register with similar magnitudes doesn't mean they can't be distinguished.
Hence the nuke sniffers.
The earthquake happened after, and was used as confirmation.
I have no idea about the specifics here and I'm no expert on nuclear testing, so all I know is what other people say.
They are ALWAYS distinguishable using the mathematical calculations of how deformation occurred in the source region of the 'quake'. Visually, those calculations are resolved in what is called a beach-ball plot. Any explosion or compression force that might have caused such a quake is completely different from every type of fault system that might have caused such a quake.
Granted this is only taught in higher level critical race theory classes. So it remains a bit of a secret even within leftist circles. For example at the US Geological Survey, where they plot such 'beach balls', at least 4 courses in Critical Race Theory are required. And it is believed that only DEI hires are eligible for such courses.
Yes, that's what I thought.
What's with your second paragraph? Don't be a shit.
lol. nice
So your first claim is laughably wrong. Can't be because it was a 5.1. Now you claim another argument without providing the evidence, just an argument of how to do a calculation. All for sarcs sock to give you a kiss on the cheek lol.
Shorter Petti....Iran was utterly defeated, and is now the manyouk of the middle east.
...the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, which had been the outside world's main source of
informationbullshit on Iranian nuclear work.Fixed it.
The UN. UNinvolved. UNcapable. UNreliable. UNnecessary. UNuseful.
"it will take a lot of trust-building from the American side now."
And Iran? Since when have they ever been trustworthy? They're the ones in need of some trust-building.
Since when have they ever been trustworthy?
They were trustworthy until 1979 or so. Since then not so much.
Nothing screams nuclear research for peaceful purposes only like a uranium enrichment center ringed with antiaircraft batteries encased in reinforced concrete buried 300 feet below the base of a mountain.
It does speak to intent doesn't it?
Personally I think Iran was trying to play both sides. 60% enrichment is not close to the 90% required for bomb material, but way more than necessary for peaceful purposes. This allowed the regime to tell its people that they're making a bomb while also telling the IAEA that they're not.
It's not 'way more than necessary' for 'peaceful purposes'. It is the level that the French use for nuclear propulsion in subs. US uses 90% for that and Russia I think uses 50% (but they have excessively large subs too). It is roughly the level that was needed until recently to produce Molybdenum 99 (a medical isotope). The US had no problems subsidizing the Belgians and South Africans to convert their HEU medical isotope production to HALEU - but methinks the US has never been interested in subsidizing the Iranians for that same enrichment.
60% IS, I agree, a threshhold. It is the level needed to produce good data for an underground nuclear test. Above that is the level required for a suitable delivery system. So it is either a negotiation card - or the final step towards having nuclear weapons to deter another country with nuclear weapons.
My understanding is that only around 3% is required to produce power, and peaceful purposes cap out at around 20% which is used for research, medical isotopes and such.
60% is not enough to make a bomb so as to keep the IAEA at bay, but also enough so they can tell their people that they're "doing something."
At least that's my opinion.
*shrug*
I basically agree (except the part about 20% - that only applies within the circle of 'allies of a nuclear power' - see above re Belgium). The Iranians are at best a bit sloppy and lazy and even arrogant. More likely deceitful, manipulative, bullying. Probably when Art of the Deal was translated into Farsi.
But the question that always came up, in the days when Americans thought diplomacy and arms control agreements worked better than just waving the big dick around, does it work better to craft agreements and verification/monitoring that might ultimately result in deescalation? Or to craft a 'Libya deal' where the consequence is to sodomize your enemy to death?
Qaddafi funded the Lockerbie Bomber…I still can’t believe you got so invested in the Jesus Lover’s legacy that you were willing to appease a terrorist over making Bush look bad. What an insane irony that Republicans became terrorist sympathizers by supporting Bush!! Lololol!!
Then there is this aging psycho who has so many inside jokes with the leftist voices in his head that nobody knows who, what or when he is referencing. My sister burned out her capacity for logic with acid as well. Very sad.
FFS, You dipshits only make everyone suspicious when you go on and on like you wrote the book on this shit. This is actually one of those things that requires deferring to experts and your ChatGTP answers are not going to convince anyone.
There was a geologist who explained it adequately. Someone is going to have to refute him with evidence to convince me he is wrong. You are so desperate to be right about something that you talk people out of believing it.
Or.
Iran has been assembling the pieces for a nuclear bomb for years, while carefully toeing the line of implausible deniability.
The obvious intent would be to sprint to the completion of a device, either when you plan to use it against Israel, or when you think you can effectively deter attempts to denuclearize you.
That is the most slow-walked nuke in history. The Tehran research reactor (the first reactor in Iran - now the source of medical isotopes at about 20%) was initially provided with 93% HEU - in 1967 - by the US. That was the level then required (or 'normal') to make some medical isotopes. Which is when Iran signed the NPT and is a couple years before Israel helped Iran build up their nuclear research program (and at the same time, helped train the Shah's secret police - SAVAK).
So now - nearly 60 years later we are peeing our pants about Iran having gone BACKWARDS? Because the US and Israel are encountering the blowback of what happens with 'Westernizing' Iran and trying to turn them into a high-tech police-state puppet?
Google searches with no citations are not convincing. I do love it when you include the jargon in your cribbed notes to make yourself look smart.
Unless you finally want to admit that you puppet the chemist?
IN 68 Iran signed a Nuclear Non proliferation agreement. In 79 Iran began secretly working a weapons program. In 2002 they were caught. IN 2003 it agreed to stop. But they restarted again in 2005. In 2009 Fordow was discovered and expected for being used to enrich for weapons. in 2010 a computer virus was used to destroy 1000's of centrifuges and shut the program down. Under Obama the deal was signed, Iran received billions and never actually stopped it's program.
Had this not occurred Iran would have had the capabilities and most likely a weapon now.
North Korean's in the country developing the Iranian missile tech. Most likely also supporting the nuclear development.
these sites had to be destroyed and the US were the only ones capable. That is done and the world is better off.
In 79 Iran began secretly working a weapons program.
Is this your version of the Persian Hillbillies? So the rural poor of Iran got access to oil and decided that what they really needed was a secret nuclear weapon. Because their cousins had already cashed in on that oil by moving (in exile) to Beverly Hills and getting the only available TV series.
Or they could be going closer and closer so they can make a bomb faster when they decide to go for it. There's a lot of other parts besides the Uranium they can make. I have no idea what the real answer is, but more enriched is closer to bomb materials and is a step on the way there.
Well they could have put it in a non descript building next to a wet market.
Unless of course ALL nuclear research in that country is the object of assassinations, sabotage, attacks, and yes bombing - by clearly identified enemies. If those are the conditions, where would YOU locate peaceful nuclear research?
LOL
peaceful nuclear research?
LOL, indeed! What a fucking ignoramus.
Libertarians can acknowledge that you forfeit rights when you attempt to kill your neighbor. JewFree is an anarchist like Jeffy.
"...they don't know what the fuck they're doing."
There's one for the presidential quote book; if only he'd added "and the UN is worthless as tits on a boar hog" it would be one for the ages.
Trump just related another gem. Says he got a call from Putin asking if he needed help with Iran. Trump answers, No I need help with you. Pretty sure that got a chuckle out of Putin.
"...they don't know what the fuck they're doing."
Weren't those Jesus's last words?
You got me with that one. That was good.
Ha
Trump is a victim of his own ego. Like every other warmonger, he thinks bringing peace to the Middle East is a matter of personal charisma and flexing USA military might. This group of idiots has been hating and fighting the other group of idiots for generations and no amount of outside interference is going to change that. Leave them to it, nothing positive has ever come out of that mess.
Trump escalated Afghanistan and Yemen…but when he saw the folly of his actions he turned tail and surrendered to the Taliban and Houthis. Unlike “dumb” Bush Trump doesn’t make decisions based on sunk costs which Bush should have learned at HBS. Hmmmm
"I'm not happy with [Israel]. I'm not happy with Iran, either," he told reporters on the White House lawn. "We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing."
Language.
All due respect Mr. President, but perhaps you don't fully appreciate their respective mentalities.
You are correct when you say that they have been "fighting so long and so hard." I would clarify that to suggest that Iran is often the belligerent in that regard, which I'll explain in a minute, and that Israel would likely be content to live and let live if Iran (and the rest of Islam) would just leave them alone.
But that's what I don't think you - and many Americans - fully understand. This isn't some skirmishing over borders or trade or human rights issues. For both of them, the battle is an existential one.
Iran wants Israel exterminated. Period. They will devote every effort and action to this end, because it's a core tenet of their Islamic beliefs. They don't even care if they die in the process (jihadis gon' jihad), because they see it as net positive for Islam. The Ayatollah himself would happily kill himself if it meant destroying Israel and therefore accelerating the return of the Madhi. They genuinely believe they can hasten his appearance by taking overt geopolitical action against what they call the Great Satan (Israel/Zionism and Western/Christian Culture).
In response, Israel regards (and the US should regard) Iran (and therefore Gaza/Hamas, Lebanon/Hezbollah, Syria/IRGC, Yemen/Houthis, etc) as a perpetual and active threat and enemy that must be eliminated in order to achieve national security.
They know EXACTLY what they're doing, and at some point a side needs to be taken. Because one cannot suffer the existence of the other forever. The Democrats clearly sided with Iran. The Republicans (and Trump)... TBD.
You do know that the Iranian government is an oppressive theocratic regime that does not represent the society is rules over, right?
Those who aren't represented fled a long time ago, after the ouster of the Shah. Those there now are either loyal or indoctrinated.
But you go ahead and let me know when the Iranian "resistance" starts coordinating with the US and Israel, and begins their guerilla attacks against the Ayatollah. I'll wait.
And you know this? Iran is a really big country with a lot of people with a lot to lose if the country has a violent revolution or descends into civil war.
I can't say I really know either, but by many accounts, there are a lot of people in Iran with pretty western sensibilities (for the region anyway) who keep their heads down and deal with the government they have for whatever reasons.
Iran is a really big country with a lot of people with a lot to lose if the country has a violent revolution or descends into civil war.
Yea, I can think of another country like that - and we did it anyway. Worked out pretty well in the end.
by many accounts, there are a lot of people in Iran with pretty western sensibilities (for the region anyway) who keep their heads down and deal with the government they have for whatever reasons.
We eagerly await their thank you's.
Did what anyway? Encouraged a revolution or civil war? I know we've done that, but I can't think of any case where it's worked out very well.
I suggest you pick up a history book.
We didn't go to war with when we assassinated Soleimani. We didn't go to war when we blew up their nuclear facilities. We're NOT at war with Iran. Neither side declared war, which makes sense for Iran because it would lead to their utter destruction. Stop this chicken little shit about Iran war, you sound like Tucker Carlson.
This is the depth of TDS - People mourning FOR Iran, a head of police posting condolences for their "victims" affected by the airstrike, and protesters taking to the street to defend Iran. Iran - a fascist country where gays, women, and dissidents are grilled, killed, and imprisoned like cattle. Finances warfare and terrorist attacks on our people and allies. Even if your objection is 100% rooted in fear of escalation and the president abiding by constitution (snickers), the fact that all your moral outrage is directed at Trump and Iran is some generic bad guy not worth touching should still tell you something.
And I don't want to hear this FUCKING bullshit about us being subservient to Israel when I saw vandals waving Mexican flags attack our police officers. The country is like 40% foreign, their people make up a bulk of our government and they openly declare their loyalty to "MY community". Immigration is an issue EVERY election. I'm an immigrant and I'm tired of this. Taco shops and boba joints are everywhere, but I haven't tried gefilte fish yet.
You get pissed over one cop kneeling over a black addict, but Israel can't act in response to nations acting to wipe them off the earth for decades. If 10/7 happened here, we would have bombed 3 times as many targets.
I'm now convinced Petti is the dumbest fuck writing, not just for reason.
I can't disagree. This quote from yesterday's column maybe the dumbest shit ever put in print.
"Monday's warning shot demonstrated that Iran can do a lot more to menace U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf and the fragile, oil-rich Arab monarchies that host them."
Just going to leave this right here.
https://x.com/RealSaavedra/status/1936611198461530469
Except there was and is no war.