They are on another level with these plans
1 Like
For starters, it’s in English. And they got the sunset view promo at 3.45am. That’s a long dinner.
4 Likes
JD Vance:
“ Look, I’m seeing this from the inside, and am admittedly biased towards our president (and my friend), but there’s a lot of crazy stuff on social media, so I wanted to address some things directly on the Iran issue:
First, POTUS has been amazingly consistent, over 10 years, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Over the last few months, he encouraged his foreign policy team to reach a deal with the Iranians to accomplish this goal. The president has made clear that Iran cannot have uranium enrichment. And he said repeatedly that this would happen one of two ways–the easy way or the “other” way.
Second, I’ve seen a lot of confusion over the issue of “civilian nuclear power” and “uranium enrichment.” These are distinct issues. Iran could have civilian nuclear power without enrichment, but Iran rejected that. Meanwhile, they’ve enriched uranium far above the level necessary for any civilian purpose. They’ve been found in violation of their non-proliferation obligations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is hardly a rightwing organization.
It’s one thing to want civilian nuclear energy. It’s another thing to demand sophisticated enrichment capacity. And it’s still another to cling to enrichment while simultaneously violating basic non-proliferation obligations and enriching right to the point of weapons-grade uranium.
I have yet to see a single good argument for why Iran needed to enrich uranium well above the threshold for civilian use. I’ve yet to see a single good argument for why Iran was justified in violating its non-proliferation obligations. I’ve yet to see a single good pushback against the IAEA’s findings.
Meanwhile, the president has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our military’s focus on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens.
He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president. And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.
But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue. And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people’s goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus.”
Israeli end game?
Not a chance the Iranian people accept the Shah as a replacement government. His dad wasn’t overly liked back in the day and now he’s just some foreigner who is of no relevance to the Iranian people.
8 Likes
Pretend for 1 second Iran has nukes…
Do they (US, Israel) think Iran would launch knowing full well they’d be flattened and ended the second they pushed the button?
Or is it, if Iran have nukes we (US, Israel) can’t bully them as much anymore knowing they (Iran) could just go ■■■■ it, here you go and launch their nuke?
2 Likes
this is seriously odd isn’t it?
if he is referring to the Israeli use of US equipment, then why doesn’t he talk about ‘we’ being US and Ukraine fighting russia?
if he’s referring to full US involvement in the ME, then it’s a weird place to announce it.
his advisors must have nightmares about what the orange farkwit might post next.
I think he likes to say ‘we’ when he thinks the ‘we’ will win.
3 Likes
JD is right: if only the USA had a deal-maker in office who could have peacefully negotiated a framework to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon… If only this could’ve happened about 10 years ago… Poor Trump wouldn’t be in this difficult position…
4 Likes
Translation: Going into the middle east is the worst decision ever made, unless I make it, then it is the best decision ever made.
7 Likes
Since WW2 the US has involved itself or started so many wars that in hindsight reflect badly on them and made things worse. Doubt there would be anyone here that disagrees with that. Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Central America, the list goes on…
It will be interesting to see how Trump/US navigates this and what involvement they have in trying to take out Iran’s nuke program.
I’m ok with the US bombing nuke sites to destroy weapons capability and supporting Israel in this case. No boots on ground.
Have you met many Iranians? Most of them that I know would take the Shah over the Ayatollah in an instant.
5 Likes
As I understand it, the Iranian counter revolution was internally driven against the corruption of the Shah.
I only know a few Iranians here. They didn’t come as refugees They are Christians who were able to practise their faith, but were excluded from a political role. They aren’t pro Shah.
1 Like
I do know a few Iranians, I’ll admit to never asking about the Shah. My take is they all reluctantly tolerate the idiots in charge and live their lives despite the regime. I never got the vibe that any of them would swap religious autocracy for monarchy instead of just going pure democracy, but I didn’t ask.
1 Like
Reportedly, there are around a thousand Australian citizens who are trying to leave Israel. The Government will facilitate their departure as soon as civilian air transport is possible ( perhaps via Cyprus).
But what is the situation if they are dual citizens, given that Israel is banning the exit of Israel citizens? If they have only been visiting Israel as tourists or on business, they might be allowed to leave.
1 Like
My take is that, at the time the people were fed up with the Shah. Then they realised the Revolutionary government was even worse, and so many in the current generation yearn for a return to the “good old days.”
(Admittedly, most Iranians I know are refugees, and so that probably slants their viewpoint in an anti-government direction).
2 Likes
These guys asking my immediate response:
2 Likes