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 that established 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' 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...