Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

image.png

 

Donald Trump, is reportedly deliberating a potential American response to Iran’s advancing nuclear program. A report by the *Wall Street Journal*, suggests that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is under serious consideration, particularly in the aftermath of Bashar al-Assad's fall in Syria, which has weakened the Iranian axis in the region.  

 

image.png

 

Trump is said to have expressed concern to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the possibility of an Iranian nuclear breakout occurring during his presidency. According to individuals familiar with their discussions, Trump conveyed his apprehensions while exploring potential strategies to address the escalating situation.  

 

Despite these concerns, the president-elect is reportedly reluctant to commit to a large-scale military conflict that would involve deploying U.S. forces on the ground. Instead, Trump is considering alternative approaches. Among these is the idea of bolstering military presence in the Middle East, including deploying additional forces, warplanes, and ships, as well as supplying Israel with advanced bunker-busting bombs. Such weapons are widely regarded as essential for penetrating Iran’s deeply fortified nuclear facilities, which are resistant to conventional airstrikes.  

 

Another strategy under review involves leveraging military threats in tandem with heightened U.S. sanctions to pressure Iran into a diplomatic resolution. This echoes the "maximum pressure" campaign Trump employed during his previous presidency, though that initiative failed to produce the desired outcome.  

 

As Trump weighs his options, reports indicate that Israel views this as an opportune moment for a decisive strike against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have reportedly ramped up their preparations for such an operation. Israeli media suggest that the fall of Assad in Syria has significantly weakened Iran's regional position, while Israeli forces have established air superiority by dismantling Syria’s robust air defense systems.  

 

“The Syrian air defense array is one of the strongest in the Middle East, and the blow caused to it is a significant achievement for the air force’s superiority in the region,” the IDF stated. This development has left a clear path for Israeli fighter jets, heightening the potential for a military strike on Iran’s nuclear sites.  

 

Prime Minister Netanyahu has long maintained a hardline stance on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, issuing repeated warnings that Israel will not permit Tehran to develop nuclear weapons. In a video address on Thursday, Netanyahu appeared to hint at broader ambitions to undermine Iran's Islamic regime. Speaking directly to the Iranian people, he expressed optimism about a future free from the current regime.  

 

“Women, life, freedom, zan, zendegi, azadi. That is the future of Iran. That is the future of peace. And I have no doubt that we will realize that future together a lot sooner than people think,” Netanyahu declared.  

 

Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-12-14

 

news-logo-btm.jpg

 

news-footer-4.png

 

image.png

Posted

I am sure that most people , especially the Iranian women , would be happy if the crazy Mullahs disappear forever ...

 

There should be another way to achieve that than another war ... Iran needs another revolution , that enables a system change .

Bombing everything is not a lasting solution , the iranian people should get rid of the Mullahs by themselves ...

Discontent is everywhere in Iran , may be foreign secret service could help to incite a revolution ?

  • Like 1
Posted

It's not very nice, I know, but another solution is to kill all of the nuclear bomb scientists. As they are killed one by one, the rest will not want to be involved anymore.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, renaissanc said:

It's not very nice, I know, but another solution is to kill all of the nuclear bomb scientists. As they are killed one by one, the rest will not want to be involved anymore.

That would mean killing lots of people in the USA, Russia, India, ....

Is that what you suggest?

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, newbee2022 said:

Well, hurrah, start another war. We don't have enough. 🥴

Come on, the military industrial complex must be fed. The show must go on.

  • Agree 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Lest we forget why Iran is where it is now with its nuclear program.

"Killing the Iran nuclear deal was one of Trump's biggest failures", by Tom Collina, May 7, 2024, responsibkestatecraft.org

45th POTUS Trump promised a better deal.

- "Six years after the US withdrew from the JCPOA, prospects for its resurrection are dim and Tehran is closer than ever to a bomb.

- Tehran is believed to be not one year but just weeks from being able to produce enough fissile material for a bomb if it chooses to do so."

Now does Trump 47th POTUS have a better deal or just another "concept?"

 

 

 

How  do we know what you say is correct.?  Why no mention of Biden's assist with over $100 billion dollars and removing Trump sanction.  Just another Leftist taking a shot against Trump.

  • Sad 1
  • Love It 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, thaipo7 said:

How  do we know what you say is correct.? 

I quote one source, you avoid citing any counter source. Instead you divert from the topic.

"Trump Abandons Iran Nuclear Deal He Long Scorned," by Mark Landler, May 8, 2018  New York.com

"President Trump declared on Tuesday that he was withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, unraveling the signature foreign policy achievement of his predecessor Barack Obama, isolating the United States from its Western allies and sowing uncertainty before a risky nuclear negotiation with North Korea."

 

"5 years after U.S. left Iran nuclear deal, more enriched Uranium and much less trust," May 30, 2023 by Connor Donevan, Courtney Dorning, Mary Louise Kelly - npr.org

"It was then-President Trump who, five years ago this month, yanked the U.S. out of the nuclear deal known as the JCPOA, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. What followed is the U.S. reimposed crushing sanctions. Over time, Iran stopped adhering to the limits the deal had imposed, and day by day, its nuclear program crept forward."

Personally, I think Trump's rejection of the deal was purely that the deal was formulated by Obama. Technically the deal was beyond Trump's comprehension and would give credit to his nemesis Obama. 

 

  • Thumbs Up 2
Posted
9 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

I am sure that most people , especially the Iranian women , would be happy if the crazy Mullahs disappear forever ...

 

There should be another way to achieve that than another war ... Iran needs another revolution , that enables a system change .

Bombing everything is not a lasting solution , the iranian people should get rid of the Mullahs by themselves ...

Discontent is everywhere in Iran , may be foreign secret service could help to incite a revolution ?

People in Iran are mostly born after 1953. but they are nonetheless aware that the CIA ran a coup that ousted the democratic government led by Mossadegh and elevated the Shah to autocrat status supported by SAVAK,a rather unpleasant secret police, so like the Syrians, I doubt that Iranians would like the interference of Mossad or CIA to institute regime change.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

Iran, a sovereign state, was signatory to a treaty under which it would not produce nuclear weapons. 
 

Trump unilaterally withdrew from and therefore nullified that treaty.

 

Now 

16 hours ago, Social Media said:

Trump is said to have expressed concern to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the possibility of an Iranian nuclear breakout occurring during his presidency.


It’s as if cause and effect don’t exist in Trump’s brain.

 

I doubt too the long term consequences of a US attack on Iran have been thought about either.

 

Take the gloves off, the gloves come off.

Posted
58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Iran, a sovereign state, was signatory to a treaty under which it would not produce nuclear weapons. 
 

Trump unilaterally withdrew from and therefore nullified that treaty.

 

Now 


It’s as if cause and effect don’t exist in Trump’s brain.

 

I doubt too the long term consequences of a US attack on Iran have been thought about either.

 

Take the gloves off, the gloves come off.

The US approved plans by Israel to strike Iran under Biden. Not a lot of difference in Trump taking away the middle man, "if" it goes that way.

Posted
12 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Why does the USA support that country in any way they can

 

Maybe because "that country" always behaved in a much more responsible way than Iran (and other countries on the US black list). Even the recent events surrounding Gaza are a reaction (maybe disproportioned, albeit I disagree) to the heinous crimes committed by Hamas on October the 7th, 2023.

 

On the other end I do not see how bombing Iran can prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear deterrent. North Korea couldn't be stopped, and Iran has infinite more resources than the economically broken, tiny, enslaved, Asian country,

Iran's nuclear program can be delayed but not stopped.

 

There is another fact I find disturbing. The list of countries that are at odds with the US is getting longer and longer. It is much easier to make it into the list than to drop off of it. There was a time the USA and Iran cooperated in a transactional agreement, in which each partner had something to gain. It took a congressional committee, and the crucifixion of several dozen Reagan administration officials in front of the public opinion, including Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Lieutenant colonel Oliver North, to scrap it.
After that, no more serious attempts to open the communication channels between the two countries was done. I consider that a lost opportunity. 

 

Iran is in a delicate geostrategic spot, right on the way from Moscow to the Iraqi and Saudi oil fields. The only serious military aggression post-revolutionary Iran recorded against its territorial integrity was carried out by a Soviet Union loyal ally (Saddam Hussein's Iraq), not by the USA and not by Israel. The Shah relied on the USA for his own and his country security. After the Khomeini led revolution, the USA left Iran out in the cold, giving Iran very few options.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
13 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And then there is this other country in that area. It does not only hope to get nuclear weapons. It has many nuclear weapons, which officially don't exist, but everybody knows they exist.

Why does the USA support that country in any way they can, but if another country even tries to get similar weapons, then they are the bad guys.

Typical American double standards. 

If you don't understand the difference, I don't think anyone can help you.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

The US approved plans by Israel to strike Iran under Biden. Not a lot of difference in Trump taking away the middle man, "if" it goes that way.

There is a whole lot of difference.

 

The escalation and involvement of U.S. forces being the most obvious.

 

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is a whole lot of difference.

 

The escalation and involvement of U.S. forces being the most obvious.

 

 

Really don't see any difference, Iran No1 enemy is Israel, the serious strikes Israel did including on Iran's nuclear capabilities was immense. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Really don't see any difference, Iran No1 enemy is Israel, the serious strikes Israel did including on Iran's nuclear capabilities was immense. 

How has that worked out?

Posted
1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How has that worked out?

I am not in Iran at the nuclear facility to pass that on but the satellite evidence was

Posted
2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Iran No1 enemy is Israel

 

Israel is an importer of oil and gas, it has a vested interest in keeping the oil and gas flowing and their prices low. Iran, on the other end, is an oil exporter, a member of the OPEC, and it has a vested interest in keeping the oil flowing.

 

There is no structural reason for any enmity between Iran and Israel. The only reason is that after the revolution, because of Khomeini's obtuse dogmatic stance with regards to everything Western, and the hostage taking in the Theran American Embassy, Iran found itself out in the cold, without American protection, at the mercy of the Soviets (Iraq).

 

Hit by sanctions, limited in its capability to export its oil, Iran was left with only one choice. Accept to act as a proxy for Russia and threaten the oil exporting countries in the Gulf, jeopardizing oil supplies and pushing oil and gas prices up, for the benefit of Russia.

  • Confused 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...