Tucker took a serious anti Trump turn when the largest investor in the Tucker Carlson Network is a Qatari sheik. He may or may not be a kook, but he’s definitely bought and paid for.
The New Lounge
- Thread starter hpnole
- Start date
Kudos to Supreme Ct Justices Jackson, Kagan, Sotomoyor, et al for placing principle over politics and getting it right.
www.bipc.com
Ames v. Ohio : Supreme Court Upholds Uniformity in Title VII Discrimination Claims
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court struck down precedent in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that placed a heightened burden on members of a majority group bringing claims of discrimination…
www.bipc.com
As of now, I give Trump a thumbs up. I don't want us to be involved in conflict. That's my number 1 along with the border. Anything more than using our bunker busters and providing assistance to Israel to finish the job, would be a disappointment for me. Nothing past bombing.
Anything beyond that would be outside of the scope of Trump’s stated goal that Iran can’t have a nuke. So if US ground troops or regime change is on the table down the road concerns about mission creep would be valid imo. Unless Iran is dumb enough to attack the US directly I don’t think Trump would sign off on anything like that.
If Trump has stated that Iran must not obtain nuclear weapons and the IDF doesn't have the bunker busters necessary to eliminate the threat of Fordow, then it’s not mission creep. It is the mission.
There are possibly other means for the IDF to eliminate the site, and if Trump thinks those have a high chance of success, then that may be the route chosen.
What to know about bunker-buster bombs and Iran's Fordo nuclear facility
If the U.S. decides to support Israel more directly in its attack on Iran, one option for Washington would be to provide the “bunker-buster” bombs believed necessary to significantly damage the Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant, built deeply into a mountain.
apnews.com
Last edited:
How do we know Iran is close to having nuclear weapons?If Trump has stated that Iran must not obtain nuclear weapons and the IDF doesn't have the bunker busters necessary to eliminate the threat of Fordow, then it’s not mission creep. It is the mission.
There are possibly other means for the IDF to eliminate the site, and if Trump thinks those have a high chance of success, then that may be the route chosen.
What to know about bunker-buster bombs and Iran's Fordo nuclear facility
If the U.S. decides to support Israel more directly in its attack on Iran, one option for Washington would be to provide the “bunker-buster” bombs believed necessary to significantly damage the Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant, built deeply into a mountain.
IAEA, which reports to the UN, has reported that Iran is enriching uranium at 60%. Once this threshold is reached, it’s generally within weeks that you can achieve the 90% weapons grade level. Unfortunately, since Iran has not “fully cooperated” with recent inspections, it’s widely believed that Iran is closer to 90% than previously reported. Iran claims it’s for energy use. Uranium for civilian purposes is enriched at 3-5% so Iran has been lying to the West about its nuclear program since its inception. The United States may have the luxury of sitting back and hoping for the best. Israel does not.
Furthermore, by going well beyond the enrichment % necessary for civilian purposes, Iran has been in violation of their nonproliferation agreements for years. The IAEA’s decision to finally cite them for noncompliance suggests that their credibility is on the line as an agency. If Iran is able to use their nuclear weapon, after Israel who’s next? Saudi Arabia? The US? Mutually assured destruction is not a strong deterrent for a death cult hell bent on martyrdom.
How close is Iran to having nuclear weapons?
Israel has bombed strategic sites in Iran, which it said could soon produce a nuclear weapon. Tehran had announced it was increasing its production of enriched uranium, amid stalled talks with the United States.
www.lemonde.fr
Last edited:
It’s just that Netanyahu has been saying Iran was on the brink for over 30 years. If the IAEA is only citing them out of self-interest, that seems compromising.IAEA, which reports to the UN, has reported that Iran is enriching uranium at 60%. Once this threshold is reached, it’s generally within weeks that you can achieve the 90% weapons grade level. Unfortunately, since Iran has not “fully cooperated” with recent inspections, it’s widely believed that Iran is closer to 90% than previously reported. Iran claims it’s for energy use. Uranium for civilian purposes is enriched at 3-5% so Iran has been lying to the West about its nuclear program since its inception. The United States may have the luxury of sitting back and hoping for the best. Israel does not.
Furthermore, by going well beyond the enrichment % necessary for civilian purposes, Iran has been in violation of their nonproliferation agreements for years. The IAEA’s decision to finally cite them for noncompliance suggests that their credibility is on the line as an agency. If Iran is able to use their nuclear weapon, after Israel who’s next? Saudi Arabia? The US? Mutually assured destruction is not a strong deterrent for a death cult hell bent on martyrdom.
How close is Iran to having nuclear weapons?
Israel has bombed strategic sites in Iran, which it said could soon produce a nuclear weapon. Tehran had announced it was increasing its production of enriched uranium, amid stalled talks with the United States.
Not only would the US have to give Israel the bunker buster, we’d have to drop it ourselves. That’s way more involved than I want us to get for something Israel can achieve on a slower timeline. I’m concerned about who else gets involved if we get involved. Russia? China? NKorea?
The IAEA is the best we got unfortunately. It’s given Iran more than enough time to comply. It’s waited to cite them as long as it can afford to. At some point they have to do their jobs before it’s too late.
Israel has had Mossad embedded in Iran for years. They know Iran is close.
Thirty years? Bibi has been warning of the threat of a nuclear Iran for a long time, only that it’s close to obtaining them in the last few years.
Concerns about China’s involvement are valid; Russia has its hands full. North Korea? Doubtful.
Israel has had Mossad embedded in Iran for years. They know Iran is close.
Thirty years? Bibi has been warning of the threat of a nuclear Iran for a long time, only that it’s close to obtaining them in the last few years.
Concerns about China’s involvement are valid; Russia has its hands full. North Korea? Doubtful.
The concerns with North Korea are legit, not as a force with Iran, but they could use the many conflicts in the ME as an opportunity for shenanigans. Thing is with them, they've been a paper tiger for decades, but their unpredictability and their possession of nuclear weapons is not something to take lightly.
Al Jazeera? Wow.
As early as the 2000s, according to this CNN article, highly enriched uranium was found at Natanz. So he was right as far back as twenty years ago anyway. This led to heavy sanctions for years. There have been many stops and starts over the years related to sanctions and the level of possible military action, depending on the stance taken by various Israeli and US leaders. The Islamic Regime was emboldened in the Biden years with billions of oil dollars flowing in due to the removal of sanctions, which allowed them to fund the Houtis, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
Through its proxies, Iran has been firing literally thousands of rockets into Israel for the past 20 months so whatever Bibi has said or not said in the past I deem irrelevant to the operation at hand. If he’s been making this claim that “Iran is very close” longer than I realized, I stand corrected. I wouldn’t use Al Jazeera as a credible reference going forward though.
The US and Israel are using current intelligence as well as IAEA inspections to guide them, not what Iran was doing with its nuclear program 20 or 30 years ago.
It’s fine to be skeptical of Bibi in general. Half of Israel is.
Re: this operation, however, the Israelis have reached a consensus on what has to be done.
Your skepticism of Netanyahu makes sense. To confer that mistrust on an operation that has the support of the US, as well as most of the Mid East and Europe, is a bird of a different feather entirely however. Respectfully.
Does have Iran have nuclear weapons? What to know about their nuclear program | CNN
After decades of threats, Israel launched an audacious attack on Iran, targeting its nuclear sites, scientists and military leaders. Here’s what to know about its controversial nuclear program.
Key: In 2023 Iran was found with uranium at over 83% enrichment. It’s generally considered to take no more than a month tops possibly just a week or so to get to 90 % from here so the time to act is now.
Trump’s been Dunphyd. The IDF should hack his computer and make this his screensaver
Duly noted re: Al Jazeerah....There have been many stops and starts over the years related to sanctions and the level of possible military action, depending on the stance taken by various Israeli and US leaders. The Islamic Regime was emboldened in the Biden years with billions of oil dollars flowing in due to the removal of sanctions, which allowed them to fund the Houtis, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
Through its proxies, Iran has been firing literally thousands of rockets into Israel for the past 20 months so whatever Bibi has said or not said in the past I deem irrelevant to the operation at hand. If he’s been making this claim that “Iran is very close” longer than I realized, I stand corrected. I wouldn’t use Al Jazeera as a credible reference going forward though.
The US and Israel are using current intelligence as well as IAEA inspections to guide them, not what Iran was doing with its nuclear program 20 or 30 years ago.
It’s fine to be skeptical of Bibi in general. Half of Israel is.
Re: this operation, however, the Israelis have reached a consensus on what has to be done.
Your skepticism of Netanyahu makes sense. To confer that mistrust on an operation that has the support of the US, as well as most of the Mid East and Europe, is a bird of a different feather entirely however. Respectfully.
Does have Iran have nuclear weapons? What to know about their nuclear program | CNN
After decades of threats, Israel launched an audacious attack on Iran, targeting its nuclear sites, scientists and military leaders. Here’s what to know about its controversial nuclear program.amp.cnn.com
Key: In 2023 Iran was found with uranium at over 83% enrichment. It’s generally considered to take no more than a month tops possibly just a week or so to get to 90 % from here so the time to act is now.
Not to point fingers or deflect, but I've been hearing that President Trump's decision during his first term to terminate President Obama's agreement with Iran has contributed to escalation in recent years.
I bring up skepticism of how close Iran is to nuclear weapons not as a judgment of what Israel is doing, but as a reason for the US to stay out of it.
I'm a pacifist, but not a very good one. I'm theoretically a pacifist, and baptized as such, but I recognize it's not entirely feasible. I see Israel's attack on Iran like the way a big dog puts up with crap from a little dog for a long time, then snaps. I can't blame Israel. Unless that little dog emerges from the scrum holding a knife, I don't see any reason for the biggest dog -- the US -- to join in. Not when there's a borzoi, a jindo, and a chow waiting to join the fray.
There were a lot of flaws with the nuclear deal such as the sunset provisions related to centrifuge production and uranium enrichment that many thought would only delay Iran’s program on top of the sanctions relief that allowed Iran to underwrite terrorism in the region (see Oct 7, Houtis, Hezbollah).
What was in the Iran nuclear deal and why did Trump withdraw the US from it?
Known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, the deal followed two years of negotiations during the Obama administration.
Many felt that the agreement rewarded Iran with a level of trust that was naive at best reckless at worst.
The deal limited access to some sites, and the IAEA had to endure a time wasting, bureaucratic process to get in. It was a bad deal all around and the msm has rallied around it simply to make Trump look bad. Simply put, the deal gave Iran too much for too little.
Last edited:
I'm not sure about the decision Trump made during his first term escalating Iran. Maybe so. And not to deflect or play a blame game, but what about the decision to send hundreds of millions of dollars to Iran by Obama during his term? Did this money help finance the nuclear weapons?
It was a weird look for sure, but from what I understood at the time, it was Iran's money to begin with, and returning it was part of the deal on nuclear weapons. Based on what @KDSTONE is saying, that deal may have been too generous, and the money certainly seems to support that idea.
