I like your term neo Confederates. It is right on and it is why I responded to Republican text messages asking for money by telling them they were barking up the wrong tree and all needed to be transported back to the 1850’s. Our democracy only works when we contribute.
I had trouble getting past the first part of the post:
Imminent threat to national security? Nope.
- Really? Do we wait until more American blood is spilled, whether here or elsewhere in the world? How is it not in our national security to finally take action against the world’s largest state sponsor of terror globally, where’s there is NO question that that terror will result in more death - of Americans, and globally. If we (and most of the rest of the rational actors around the world) didn’t trust the mullahs of Iran without a nuclear weapon, how can we trust them with a nuclear weapon?
Critical element of a new geopolitical strategy or mandate? No, no talk of that.
- Does the geopolitical strategy or mandate have to be “new?” What is it about “new” that’s important here? Isn’t it a longstanding geopolitical strategy to NOT let autocracies and dictatorships, theocratic or otherwise, with a known mandate to support the genocide of one group of humans (Jewish people) and who are responsible for so much human suffering around the world and who remain hellbent on continuing that suffering with pledges of killing all the Jews and infidels - get a nuclear weapon? How long thereafter until Hamas has a nuclear bomb? Or Hezbollah? Or Syria? Or the Houthis? Or Isis? Or any number of other of Iran’s terror proxies?
Highly classified evidence of crossing the nuclear weapons threshold? Not according to Trump’s National Security Advisor.
- First, was Tulsi Gabbard’s comments taken out of context and wasn’t she misquoted? Second, didn’t the IAEA say just a few weeks ago that Iran has broken its agreements with respect to its nuclear non-proliferation obligations? And further, isn’t it well-known, worldwide, that uranium for civilian purposes (i.e. for a nuclear power plant to produce clean energy) only need be enriched to perhaps, 25% at most, and that Iran had enriched its uranium to over 60%? And isn’t it further understood that the only reason for that is to build nuclear bombs and warheads? And finally, didn’t the IAEA state clearly that Iran already has enough highly enriched uranium at near weapons-grade to build 10 bombs in less than a year? If all of this is true - which most people believe to be the case - then isn’t that evidence of Iran crossing a nuclear weapons threshold? If not, are you suggesting that the evidence must come in the form of something like Iran dropping the bomb? Which of course would be on Israel and then who knows, from there….(perhaps that’s the outcome you want?)
Treaty or negotiated agreements violated? Nope. The existing agreement was summarily canceled by Trump in his first term.
- Aren’t you cherry picking (and misinforming) here? Hasn’t the Iran we know - the one since coming into power in 1979 - violated every agreement it has ever entered into with the U.S. and the West? And isn’t that especially true with regard to any conditions it had agreed to pertaining to its nuclear program?
Only option left after exhausting all further negotiations? No.
- Really? “No”?? What other options would have made sense to you? Do you care about mankind? If not, then I could certainly understand your position. But you are a thinker, like me … what were the viable options? And what should we have done? Stay isolated? Appeased Iran more? How well has that gone in the last 46 years? Taking 66 Americans hostage at the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979. Killing 258 Americans in three separate Beirut bombings in 1983. Killing 19 U.S. Air Force servicemen in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Killing 603 U.S. service members in Iraq between 2003 and 2011. Killing three Americans in Jordan in January 2024. Attempting to assassinate U.S. President Donald Trump last year. Damaging the U.S. embassy branch in Tel Aviv last week. This is just a partial list of what the Islamic Republic of Iran has done to the United States since the regime came to power 46 years ago. So, I know the Never Trumpers and political activists and agitators are going to report that the U.S. had no reason to get involved, but is that genuine? How much more death and destruction are we willing to allow? Should we be willing to allow?
I believe Trump’s reason for joining forces with Israel to arrack Iran is clear: it advances the strong man myth while also countering his sinking pole numbers. His 10pm address to the nation was all about swagger and strength. His base will eat this up.
I like your term neo Confederates. It is right on and it is why I responded to Republican text messages asking for money by telling them they were barking up the wrong tree and all needed to be transported back to the 1850’s. Our democracy only works when we contribute.
I had trouble getting past the first part of the post:
Imminent threat to national security? Nope.
- Really? Do we wait until more American blood is spilled, whether here or elsewhere in the world? How is it not in our national security to finally take action against the world’s largest state sponsor of terror globally, where’s there is NO question that that terror will result in more death - of Americans, and globally. If we (and most of the rest of the rational actors around the world) didn’t trust the mullahs of Iran without a nuclear weapon, how can we trust them with a nuclear weapon?
Critical element of a new geopolitical strategy or mandate? No, no talk of that.
- Does the geopolitical strategy or mandate have to be “new?” What is it about “new” that’s important here? Isn’t it a longstanding geopolitical strategy to NOT let autocracies and dictatorships, theocratic or otherwise, with a known mandate to support the genocide of one group of humans (Jewish people) and who are responsible for so much human suffering around the world and who remain hellbent on continuing that suffering with pledges of killing all the Jews and infidels - get a nuclear weapon? How long thereafter until Hamas has a nuclear bomb? Or Hezbollah? Or Syria? Or the Houthis? Or Isis? Or any number of other of Iran’s terror proxies?
Highly classified evidence of crossing the nuclear weapons threshold? Not according to Trump’s National Security Advisor.
- First, was Tulsi Gabbard’s comments taken out of context and wasn’t she misquoted? Second, didn’t the IAEA say just a few weeks ago that Iran has broken its agreements with respect to its nuclear non-proliferation obligations? And further, isn’t it well-known, worldwide, that uranium for civilian purposes (i.e. for a nuclear power plant to produce clean energy) only need be enriched to perhaps, 25% at most, and that Iran had enriched its uranium to over 60%? And isn’t it further understood that the only reason for that is to build nuclear bombs and warheads? And finally, didn’t the IAEA state clearly that Iran already has enough highly enriched uranium at near weapons-grade to build 10 bombs in less than a year? If all of this is true - which most people believe to be the case - then isn’t that evidence of Iran crossing a nuclear weapons threshold? If not, are you suggesting that the evidence must come in the form of something like Iran dropping the bomb? Which of course would be on Israel and then who knows, from there….(perhaps that’s the outcome you want?)
Treaty or negotiated agreements violated? Nope. The existing agreement was summarily canceled by Trump in his first term.
- Aren’t you cherry picking (and misinforming) here? Hasn’t the Iran we know - the one since coming into power in 1979 - violated every agreement it has ever entered into with the U.S. and the West? And isn’t that especially true with regard to any conditions it had agreed to pertaining to its nuclear program?
Only option left after exhausting all further negotiations? No.
- Really? “No”?? What other options would have made sense to you? Do you care about mankind? If not, then I could certainly understand your position. But you are a thinker, like me … what were the viable options? And what should we have done? Stay isolated? Appeased Iran more? How well has that gone in the last 46 years? Taking 66 Americans hostage at the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979. Killing 258 Americans in three separate Beirut bombings in 1983. Killing 19 U.S. Air Force servicemen in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Killing 603 U.S. service members in Iraq between 2003 and 2011. Killing three Americans in Jordan in January 2024. Attempting to assassinate U.S. President Donald Trump last year. Damaging the U.S. embassy branch in Tel Aviv last week. This is just a partial list of what the Islamic Republic of Iran has done to the United States since the regime came to power 46 years ago. So, I know the Never Trumpers and political activists and agitators are going to report that the U.S. had no reason to get involved, but is that genuine? How much more death and destruction are we willing to allow? Should we be willing to allow?
I think maybe you commented on the wrong post. My post had little to do with anything you’ve said here.
Another great piece Jon.
I believe Trump’s reason for joining forces with Israel to arrack Iran is clear: it advances the strong man myth while also countering his sinking pole numbers. His 10pm address to the nation was all about swagger and strength. His base will eat this up.