Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, you wouldn't be able to force someone to stop doing something they aren't doing anyway.
Get a new, and preferably relevant, soundbite.
Trump's Iran "Deal"
- Thread starter Arthur Brain
- Start date
Well, you wouldn't be able to force someone to stop doing something they aren't doing anyway.
Get a new, and preferably relevant, soundbite.
VladtheDestroyer
Well-known member
Arthur, you started this thread by asking "How is this good for America?" and you don't really seem to want to talk about much except oil prices in the US. I find that amusing.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh, good for you.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
And oil prices have risen yet further, good news innit?
www.independent.co.uk
Iran war live: Oil prices rise after Trump says he has offered Iran ‘nothing’
Iran's Revolutionary Guards urge American voters to punish Trump at the ballot box in November midterms
Imagine how expensive gasoline would be if Iran started WW3 with a nuclear bomb.And oil prices have risen yet further, good news innit?
Iran war live: Oil prices rise after Trump says he has offered Iran ‘nothing’
Iran's Revolutionary Guards urge American voters to punish Trump at the ballot box in November midterms
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Iran weren't posing a nuclear threat at all so that's moot. According to Trump, their nuclear potential had been obliterated so why did he start this war - that's now been going on for over half a year?
commonsense
Well-known member
Bibi flattered and bamboozled the simple-minded Trump.....It's amazing how dumb he is.
Not anymore they aren't, at least not to the extent they were.
Because Trump frequently uses hyperbole and superlatives when describing his accomplishments.
The fact remains that the strikes badly damaged Iran's nuclear infrastructure and set its program back. “Obliterated” was Trump being Trump.
Those are really two different questions.
Why did it start?
The U.S. and Iran were negotiating, but they remained divided over major issues, particularly Iran's uranium enrichment, ballistic missiles, and support for armed groups in the region.
And there was a reason for the nuclear demands: Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would dramatically increase the threat it could pose to the region. Preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon was one of the stated U.S. objectives. Iran, meanwhile, would not accept the U.S. demand to end uranium enrichment and ship its enriched uranium abroad.
The negotiations failed to resolve those differences, and the military campaign followed.
Why has it dragged on for so long?
Because Iran is fighting asymmetrically.
A nuclear site is a big, fixed target. You know where it is, so you can bomb it.
Asymmetric warfare is different. Missiles, drones, small boats, mines, and mobile launchers can be scattered, hidden, moved around, and replaced.
And Iran doesn't have to defeat the United States militarily.
It only has to maintain enough pressure on U.S. interests and international commerce to make continuing the conflict increasingly costly and gain bargaining leverage.
The United States has the much harder job. It has to protect naval vessels, bases, tankers, freighters, ports, supply routes, and the enormous amount of international commerce passing through the region.
Iran only needs enough missiles, drones, mines, boats, and launchers left to keep causing trouble.
The U.S. has to find and stop them.
That's the asymmetry.
Destroying a major fixed facility can happen relatively quickly. Finding and suppressing every small, mobile threat while simultaneously defending everything those threats can attack can take months or even years.
That's why a much stronger military like ours can still be tied up for a long time by a much weaker opponent like Iran.
Iran doesn't have to defeat us. It only has to keep imposing enough costs that we eventually decide the fight isn't worth continuing.
The problem for the U.S. is that simply walking away doesn't resolve the underlying dispute. Iran still rejects the restrictions the U.S. is demanding on its nuclear program. So withdrawing without some settlement could leave Iran free to rebuild the capabilities the U.S. went to war to restrict in the first place.
Surely, at the very least, you can recognize why Iran having nukes is bad, yes?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
They weren't posing any threat when Trump started his stupid and illegal war. We're now in the seventh month and with no forseeable end in sight, despite Trump's blatherings that it would be over quickly. So you, and every other American citizen are paying the fallout from it. I mean, be honest JR, you can't be happy with the price of gas right now, surely?
Oh, so when he said that 'Operation Midnight Hammer' successfully resulted in the "complete and total obliteration of Iran's nuclear capabilities" he was exaggerating? That's pretty convenient. So when does Trump mean what he actually says then? He also pledged not to start any foreign wars...
It started because Trump needed a diversion away from domestic issues, primarily the Epstein files - bit it's backfired spectacularly, hence his dismal approval ratings. Most Americans didn't and don't want this war. Maybe he stupidly thought Iran would be an easy prospect and as you've said, even the might of America's military doesn't equate to a quick win. This could drag on for another seven months and just what has been accomplished exactly?
Of course I don't want to see Iran with nukes, but then that was just an erroneous excuse for Trump to start this ongoing debacle in the first place. Come the midterms - and probably even now - he'll regret it.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Eh? So now the factories hit in Operation Midnight Hammer were nuclear - and drug?!
Bizarre...
The B-2 stealth bombers “unloaded every single bomb, went right down the air chutes into these drug factories really,” Trump said. “That’s what they were doing. They were nuclear and drug. They were doing drugs, but they were doing the nuclear. But these drug factories/nuclear factories were hit so hard.”
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Bizarre...
The B-2 stealth bombers “unloaded every single bomb, went right down the air chutes into these drug factories really,” Trump said. “That’s what they were doing. They were nuclear and drug. They were doing drugs, but they were doing the nuclear. But these drug factories/nuclear factories were hit so hard.”
Trump says Iranian nuclear sites hit in Midnight Hammer were 'drug factories'
"They were nuclear and drug. They were doing drugs, but they were doing the nuclear," the president said of the June 2025 operation.
www.washingtonexaminer.com
That's too absolute a claim.
U.S. intelligence did not publicly establish that Iran was about to launch an imminent attack when the war began, but that is not the same as Iran posing no threat. Iran still had enrichment capability, ballistic missiles, regional armed partners, and other military capabilities.
Yes, and a large part of that is the nature of asymmetric warfare.
Iran doesn't have to defeat the United States conventionally. It only has to retain enough missiles, drones, mines, mobile launchers, and other capabilities to keep imposing costs and creating disruption.
The U.S., meanwhile, has to keep protecting ships, bases, supply routes, and commercial traffic while trying to locate and suppress those dispersed threats.
That's why overwhelming conventional superiority doesn't necessarily produce a quick end to this kind of conflict.
Of course not. But let's not lay 100% of the blame squarely on the US government.
Iran is deliberately using the Strait of Hormuz and the threat to commercial shipping as economic leverage. Disruption and uncertainty there constrain energy flows and add a substantial risk premium to oil and fuel prices.
So yes, the war is a major reason we're paying more at the pump. But Iran's actions in and around Hormuz are part of the reason the economic fallout is as severe as it is.
In other words, Iran is partly to blame for gas prices being so high, due to their actions, in and around the Strait of Hormuz, but you seem to only want to focus on my government's actions, unfairly so. I have yet to see you condemning Iran whenever you talk about this issue.
Yes, I've already acknowledged that Trump exaggerated.
What he actually said after Midnight Hammer was that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated.” The evidence supports severe damage to those facilities and substantial disruption of Iran's enrichment program, but not the literal destruction of every element of Iran's nuclear capability.
That's why I'm not basing my argument on Trump's choice of adjective. I'm basing it on what the strikes actually accomplished.
As for “no new wars,” that's a fair criticism. Trump repeatedly campaigned on a “no new wars” message and portrayed himself as the candidate who would keep the United States out of new conflicts.
That doesn't change the separate factual questions of what Iran's nuclear capabilities were, what the U.S. was demanding in negotiations, or why the present conflict has continued.
Speculation. The publicly stated reasons concerned Iran's nuclear program, missiles, navy, and regional proxies. If you're claiming Epstein was the real motive, you need evidence for that.
The war is unpopular and has hurt Trump politically. That's fair. But his approval ratings aren't determined by one issue; high living costs, especially fuel prices, are also a major factor.
Maybe, but that's speculation too unless there's evidence that's what he actually believed.
Quite a lot, actually. Iran's missile and drone arsenal, navy, air force, and air defenses have all suffered substantial losses. Reuters reported that about a third of its missile arsenal had been confirmed destroyed, with another large portion damaged or buried, while its conventional military capability was substantially degraded.
What remains unresolved is the larger strategic objective: Iran still hasn't accepted the nuclear restrictions the U.S. wants.
"Nothing has been accomplished" isn't accurate. The better question is whether those military gains will ultimately produce the settlement my government is seeking.
Then the nuclear issue wasn't moot. You can argue that war wasn't the proper response, but you've just acknowledged that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a legitimate concern.
Except that restricting Iran's enrichment capability was one of the central U.S. demands, and Iran refused the demand for zero enrichment. That's precisely one of the major issues the negotiations had failed to resolve before the war began.
Eh? So now the factories hit in Operation Midnight Hammer were nuclear - and drug?!
Bizarre...
The B-2 stealth bombers “unloaded every single bomb, went right down the air chutes into these drug factories really,” Trump said. “That’s what they were doing. They were nuclear and drug. They were doing drugs, but they were doing the nuclear. But these drug factories/nuclear factories were hit so hard.”
Trump says Iranian nuclear sites hit in Midnight Hammer were 'drug factories'
"They were nuclear and drug. They were doing drugs, but they were doing the nuclear," the president said of the June 2025 operation.
Iran having nukes is bad, m'kaaay?
And regardless of whether they were also making drugs there too, drugs produced by terrorists and/or hostile regimes are bad too.
Lefties have shown themselves intellectually and morally limited when it comes to trying to understand why international terrorism must be dealt with and how it must be dealt with.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Not just US intelligence. There was no intelligence reported establishing that Iran was posing any sort of significant danger or anywhere near becoming a nuclear threat.
Agreed, military might in itself doesn't guarantee a quick victory or a cessation of hostilities. America learned that the hard way with Vietnam.
Why not? That's where the blame lies. Look, I despise the Iranian regime, it's a fascist, authoritarian dictatorship that thinks nothing of oppressing and murdering its own citizens but they're not responsible for initiating this conflict, that rests solely on your country's current administration along with the consequences being suffered by American citizens as byproduct. Iran is doing exactly as I would expect in this situation and unless you think they should have rolled over and capitulated then you can't be surprised at how they're responding either.
Of course they're going to use their tactical advantage regarding the Strait of Hormuz, what else could you possibly expect? Now perhaps Trump really was dumb enough to think he could waltz into Iran and the war would be over in a matter of a few days or weeks, but surely there were experts on his staff who could have told him the inevitability of an armed conflict dragging on as long as it has and ongoing - and what it would cost American taxpayers? Or are they all as dumb as he is or really just a bunch of spineless sycophants after all?
But he started one anyway - with no intelligence to suggest that Iran were anywhere near becoming nuclear capable. The Iraq war was travesty enough (and the UK government under Tony Blair was complicit in that) with the excuse being that Hussein had developed, or was on the verge of developing weapons of mass destruction. That turned out to be completely false.
Widespread speculation and hardly wild conjecture. Back in February, Trump was under increasingly mounting pressure to fully release the Epstein files, something he'd already agreed to do and we're still waiting. Over here we had cases of high profile politicians and royalty disgraced over their ties with Epstein - Peter Mandelson - former British ambassador to the United States and Andrew Mountbatten Windsor - the former duke of York. We know Trump is mentioned in the files more than any other individual so why was and is there such a delay in releasing them if Trump has nothing to hide?
But hey, what better way to try and deflect away from uncomfortable domestic issues than start a foreign war? What he'd tried previously hadn't worked - trying to downplay them and *encourage* people to move on and talk about something else - like that was gonna happen...that would never be 'publicly stated' as a reason for starting a war for obvious reasons.
And this war has played the significantly largest part in fuel prices escalating.
He was either too stupid or he just didn't care - or quite possibly both.
Was and is the cost worth it? Two thirds of Americans don't think so.
It was in terms of starting this war. If there'd been intelligence showing Iran to be developing or making progress towards becoming nuclear capable then a war could have been justified, there wasn't.
So this war is just going to go on and on, which was predictable from the get go.
Last edited:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Yeah JR, Iran having nukes is bad and so is this ongoing war that the current clown started.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Thanks for the substance free soundbite...
That's too broad. There was no public evidence that Iran had decided to build a bomb or was about to launch a nuclear attack. But Iran was enriching uranium to 60%, which is near weapons-grade. By June 2025 it had accumulated about 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to that level, enough that, if enriched further, it could provide fissile material for several nuclear weapons. The IAEA itself called Iran's accumulation of 60%-enriched uranium a matter of “serious concern” because of the proliferation implications.
So no, Iran was not established to be an immediate or imminent nuclear attack threat. But it absolutely was a serious nuclear-proliferation threat, and saying it was “nowhere near becoming a nuclear threat” does not square with the enrichment record.
True, but Vietnam also shows that wars are not decided by military strength alone.
One especially relevant factor was North Vietnam's willingness to fight a prolonged war and outlast America's willingness to continue paying the costs.
That's similar to the asymmetric problem with Iran. Iran doesn't have to defeat the U.S. conventionally. It only has to keep enough pressure on U.S. forces, shipping, and the economy that continuing the conflict becomes increasingly costly.
The stronger side can dominate militarily and still face a long war if the weaker side is willing and able to keep imposing costs.
Because not all of the blame lies squarely on the U.S.
Thanks for at least recognizing that much.
The U.S. and Israel initiated this round of open hostilities. That's fair.
But it doesn't follow that they therefore bear sole responsibility for every consequence that followed.
Iran has made its own strategic choices since then, including using the Strait of Hormuz and threats to commercial shipping as economic leverage. Those choices have directly contributed to higher shipping risk, disrupted energy flows, and higher fuel prices.
And saying Iran is responding exactly as you'd expect doesn't remove its agency. Predictable actions are still choices.
So responsibility for starting the war and responsibility for everything that happens afterward are not the same thing.
Those aren't the only two options.
Iran could resist militarily without using the Strait of Hormuz and international commercial shipping as economic leverage. It could also pursue ceasefires and negotiations, which it has in fact done at various points during this conflict.
And whether their response is surprising is beside the point. I already said their asymmetric strategy is predictable.
Predictable doesn't mean unavoidable, and it doesn't mean Iran bears no responsibility for the choices it makes.
I would expect a regime with that record to behave exactly as it has.
Think through the logic here.
Iran was enriching uranium to 60%, which is near weapons-grade. The IAEA itself called Iran's increased production and accumulation of highly enriched uranium a matter of “serious concern.”
You've already acknowledged that the Iranian regime is authoritarian and brutally repressive toward its own citizens.
And during this conflict Iran has demonstrated that it is willing to use its geographic leverage over the Strait of Hormuz, including threats and attacks against commercial shipping, to impose costs well beyond its own borders.
Put those facts together and the concern over Iran acquiring nuclear weapons was hardly imaginary.
None of that, by itself, settles whether going to war was the proper response. But it does make “Iran posed no significant threat” very difficult to maintain.
I'd expect nothing less from a regime with that record. Which is precisely why dismissing Iran as posing ‘no significant threat’ makes very little sense.
That's speculation about what Trump privately believed.
What we actually know is that this wasn't planned as a ground invasion where America would simply “waltz into Iran.” Before the war, the U.S. military was preparing for an air and naval campaign that could last weeks and expected Iranian retaliation.
Trump himself later said the campaign had originally been expected to last about four or five weeks, while acknowledging that it could take longer.
There were experts warning about exactly those risks.
Before the war began, military planners anticipated Iranian retaliation and prepared for sustained operations, while advisers warned Trump that a conflict with Iran could become economically and politically costly.
What they could not know was that seven months of conflict was “inevitable.” That's hindsight. They could identify the risk of a prolonged and expensive war, not predict its exact duration or cost in advance.
So the record doesn't show that Trump's advisers were either stupid or sycophants. It shows that the risks were known and the administration chose to proceed despite them.
That still overstates the case.
There was no public intelligence showing that Iran had decided to build a bomb or was about to launch a nuclear attack.
But Iran had already enriched uranium to 60%, which is near weapons-grade, and before the 2025 strikes it had accumulated about 440.9 kg (972 lbs.) of it. By February 2026 the IAEA still could not verify the status of that stockpile, and Reuters reported that, if further enriched, it could provide enough fissile material for up to about ten weapons. That is a serious proliferation concern, even if it is not evidence of an imminent attack.
Iraq is a fair cautionary comparison, because the prewar WMD intelligence there turned out to be badly flawed.
But there is an important difference: in Iraq, the key judgments about active WMD programs were later found to have been overstated or unsupported by the underlying intelligence.
With Iran, the enrichment itself was not speculative. The IAEA had actually measured uranium enriched to 60%.
So the legitimate argument is whether that proliferation risk justified going to war, not whether the nuclear concern was simply invented in the same way Iraq's WMD case ultimately proved to be.
You haven't made that argument yet.
You keep arguing that Iran wasn't an imminent nuclear threat. Fine. But that isn't the same argument as showing that the verified proliferation threat did not justify military action.
Iran was enriching uranium to 60%, had accumulated a substantial stockpile, and refused the U.S. demand for zero enrichment. You've acknowledged you don't want Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
So make the actual argument: why were those facts insufficient to justify military action?
I, too, am dissatisfied with my government's handling of the Epstein files.
Anyone credibly implicated in trafficking or sexually abusing minors should be investigated, prosecuted on the testimony of two or three witnesses (again, not "eyewitnesses"), and upon conviction, publicly executed on live television, as far as I'm concerned.
And there are legitimate reasons to question the government's transparency here. The DOJ released about 3.5 million pages in January, while roughly 6 million potentially responsive pages had been identified, and there has been continuing controversy over material that may have been withheld. The DOJ later said it was reviewing whether some records had been improperly omitted.
I'm certainly not arguing that the government's handling of Epstein inspires confidence.
But none of that establishes your claim that Trump started a war with Iran in order to distract from Epstein.
At most, you've established a possible motive and suspicious timing. That's enough to justify asking questions. It isn't enough to establish causation.
And the claim that Trump is mentioned in the files “more than any other individual” also needs qualification. That formulation appears to come from Rep. Robert Garcia (a Democrat from California), who said Trump was mentioned “almost more than any other person next to Ghislaine Maxwell.” That's a (recognizably hostile to Trump) politician's characterization of the documents, not an independently established ranking of every person named in the files.
So investigate Epstein thoroughly. Release everything that can legally be released while protecting victims. Hold anyone involved accountable.
But if you're claiming the Iran war was actually an Epstein diversion, you still need evidence connecting one to the other.
It's certainly been a major factor. Disruption around the Strait of Hormuz has constrained energy flows and pushed a substantial risk premium into oil prices. But “the significantly largest part” would require evidence separating the war's effect from every other factor affecting fuel prices.
What we can establish is that the conflict and disruption of Hormuz have been major drivers of the increase.
That's speculation about Trump's intelligence and motives, not an argument.
You're certainly welcome to your opinions of Trump, but opinions are not arguments.
We know the administration was warned beforehand that Iran could retaliate and that military operations could become prolonged and expensive. We don't know from that whether Trump “didn't care” or was “too stupid” to understand the warnings.
That's not what the polling I've found says.
Reuters/Ipsos has repeatedly found roughly 51–53% saying the military action has not been worth the costs and benefits, compared with about 24–25% saying it has.
You may be thinking of the March poll where 66% said the U.S. should try to end its involvement quickly even if that meant not achieving every objective. That's a different question.
But there was verified evidence that Iran was making substantial progress in nuclear capability.
Iran had enriched uranium to 60%, which is close to the roughly 90% generally regarded as weapons-grade, and had accumulated about 440.9 kg of it. The IAEA called Iran's production and accumulation of 60%-enriched uranium a matter of “serious concern” because of the proliferation implications.
By February 2026 the IAEA still could not verify the status of that stockpile, which Reuters reported was sufficient, if further enriched, for roughly ten weapons' worth of fissile material.
Again, that does not establish that Iran had decided to build a bomb. But “there wasn't” evidence of progress toward nuclear capability simply isn't accurate.
That a prolonged war was a foreseeable risk, yes.
That seven months of warfare, or an indefinite conflict, was inevitable from the beginning, no.
U.S. planners were preparing for operations potentially lasting weeks and expected Iranian retaliation before the fighting began. That's evidence that the danger of a protracted conflict was understood. It isn't evidence that today's exact duration and outcome were predetermined.
Calling Trump a “clown” doesn't actually address anything we've been discussing.
You can dislike Trump, criticize his rhetoric, criticize his handling of the war, or argue that starting it was a mistake.
But “clown” is just an insult.
The actual question is whether the facts justified the actions taken, not whether you can come up with another pejorative for Trump.