Eliminatus said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Seems more likely than not that ground forces will be in play shortly to me. If so, this topic is going to be VERY loud in the coming days. Especially if casualties come from it and the manner in which they do. America is not ready for their sons and daughters to be on the wrong end of an FPV feed.

---

Won't change much. Either party is so locked into their groupthink at this point that literally nothing in the world matters.

---

I beg to differ. "Boots on the ground" is a special status, even to your average joe on the street. I can even tell you most people don't even directly care about the war as is, right now. They may have an opinion but they won't expound on it endlessly or think about it as they fall asleep. Ground troops will force that extremely frustrating phrase back into a LOT of people's minds though. "Back in another ME ground war..."

I think it would be a political mess unseen yet in this term.

---

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

There's really nothing to talk about until Friday evening

---

Swollen Thumb said:

---

This thread has been hijacked by the same 3 or 4 posters going in continuous circles.

---

ttu_85 said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Seems more likely than not that ground forces will be in play shortly to me. If so, this topic is going to be VERY loud in the coming days. Especially if casualties come from it and the manner in which they do. America is not ready for their sons and daughters to be on the wrong end of an FPV feed.

---

Won't change much. Either party is so locked into their groupthink at this point that literally nothing in the world matters.

---

I beg to differ. "Boots on the ground" is a special status, even to your average joe on the street. I can even tell you most people don't even directly care about the war as is, right now. They may have an opinion but they won't expound on it endlessly or think about it as they fall asleep. Ground troops will force that extremely frustrating phrase back into a LOT of people's minds though. "Back in another ME ground war..."

I think it would be a political mess unseen yet in this term.

---

Sure could go this way. But if troops are used only at Karg Island that is, almost, an different thing. A big part of me thinks Ven and to a significant degree, Iran, are pawns in the great power struggle between rare-earth loaded China and oil loaded USA.

Iran is a twofer- get rid of and punish the Islamic terror state and gain control of the PG shipping routes. This gives the US a bunch of leverage against China and its rare earth saber rattling. The angst over Greenland is also a part of this.

---

Eliminatus said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Seems more likely than not that ground forces will be in play shortly to me. If so, this topic is going to be VERY loud in the coming days. Especially if casualties come from it and the manner in which they do. America is not ready for their sons and daughters to be on the wrong end of an FPV feed.

---

Won't change much. Either party is so locked into their groupthink at this point that literally nothing in the world matters.

---

I beg to differ. "Boots on the ground" is a special status, even to your average joe on the street. I can even tell you most people don't even directly care about the war as is, right now. They may have an opinion but they won't expound on it endlessly or think about it as they fall asleep. Ground troops will force that extremely frustrating phrase back into a LOT of people's minds though. "Back in another ME ground war..."

I think it would be a political mess unseen yet in this term.

---

Swollen Thumb said:

---

This thread has been hijacked by the same 3 or 4 posters going in continuous circles.

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Listening to Trumps segment on The Five and Greg asks an incredible question… what do you have to say in response to those who voted on your to NOT start wars / forever wars.

His response is equally well and he goes into stories his Uncle John (who knew more about nukes than anyone, beautiful nuclear brain he shared with DJT) about the destruction that is brought with nuclear weapons. And he needed to put a stop on what was happening in Iran and the threat they posed.

McEnany up with a question on the pause for 10 days. Says Iranian asked for it and even though he was still pissed about things, he decided to allow it. Now rambling about daily bomb tube streams.

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Listening to Trumps segment on The Five and Greg asks an incredible question… what do you have to say in response to those who voted on your to NOT start wars / forever wars.

His response is equally well and he goes into stories his Uncle John (who knew more about nukes than anyone, beautiful nuclear brain he shared with DJT) about the destruction that is brought with nuclear weapons. And he needed to put a stop on what was happening in Iran and the threat they posed.

McEnany up with a question on the pause for 10 days. Says Iranian asked for it and even though he was still pissed about things, he decided to allow it. Now rambling about daily bomb tube streams.

---

He repeated again over and over today they were only 2 weeks away - from something they have not been able to achieve in 40 years!

Did he ask how they were able to recover so fast from the FIRST most beautiful obliteration of their nuclear dreams? Have not heard that explanation yet.

---

ttu_85 said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Seems more likely than not that ground forces will be in play shortly to me. If so, this topic is going to be VERY loud in the coming days. Especially if casualties come from it and the manner in which they do. America is not ready for their sons and daughters to be on the wrong end of an FPV feed.

---

Won't change much. Either party is so locked into their groupthink at this point that literally nothing in the world matters.

---

I beg to differ. "Boots on the ground" is a special status, even to your average joe on the street. I can even tell you most people don't even directly care about the war as is, right now. They may have an opinion but they won't expound on it endlessly or think about it as they fall asleep. Ground troops will force that extremely frustrating phrase back into a LOT of people's minds though. "Back in another ME ground war..."

I think it would be a political mess unseen yet in this term.

---

Sure could go this way. But if troops are used only at Karg Island that is, almost, an different thing. A big part of me thinks Ven and to a significant degree, Iran, are pawns in the great power struggle between rare-earth loaded China and oil loaded USA.

Iran is a twofer- get rid of and punish the Islamic terror state and gain control of the PG shipping routes. This gives the US a bunch of leverage against China and its rare earth saber rattling. The angst over Greenland is also a part of this.

---

YouBet said:

---

WSJ reporting the Pentagon is weighing another 10k ground troops to give Trump more options.

---

Eliminatus said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Seems more likely than not that ground forces will be in play shortly to me. If so, this topic is going to be VERY loud in the coming days. Especially if casualties come from it and the manner in which they do. America is not ready for their sons and daughters to be on the wrong end of an FPV feed.

---

Won't change much. Either party is so locked into their groupthink at this point that literally nothing in the world matters.

---

I beg to differ. "Boots on the ground" is a special status, even to your average joe on the street. I can even tell you most people don't even directly care about the war as is, right now. They may have an opinion but they won't expound on it endlessly or think about it as they fall asleep. Ground troops will force that extremely frustrating phrase back into a LOT of people's minds though. "Back in another ME ground war..."

I think it would be a political mess unseen yet in this term.

---

Sure could go this way. But if troops are used only at Karg Island that is, almost, an different thing. A big part of me thinks Ven and to a significant degree, Iran, are pawns in the great power struggle between rare-earth loaded China and oil loaded USA.

Iran is a twofer- get rid of and punish the Islamic terror state and gain control of the PG shipping routes. This gives the US a bunch of leverage against China and its rare earth saber rattling. The angst over Greenland is also a part of this.

---

I can agree with your first statement being a strong possibility. In fact, I WANT to think it as true to explain our fight there. The problem I see is that I just don't see Kharg island being a "knockout" blow to Iran. Not by itself. If anything, I see it more likely it would practically guarantee our lengthened presence in this conflict. I also think it increases our potential for casualties greatly and our stomach for taking those is essentially non-existent and why it would be a political land mine.

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you believe the IAEA inspectors were able to conduct unfettered inspections or Iran's nuclear facilities and if you believe they were enriching uranium beyond agreed levels only as a deterrence against the Jews, then I do not believe there is any common ground to be had.

If you believe the Iranians did not tell Witkoff about having enough enrichment for warheads, then that's just denying facts presented. If you are trying to get cute with words that the recently departed ayatollah and his recently fragment successor had no intention of developing and using a nuclear weapon against the Great Satan and Little Satan, then there is not much we agree on there either.

I fully understand your point of view. And as bewildering as it is to me, it is your view, your truth and I won't deny you from it.

No back to discussions on real things happening and the political ramifications.

---

The IAEA had 24/7 monitoring of Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities- Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan- by way of cameras and sensors. These sites had on the ground inspectors continuously. The IAEA never found evidence of a nuclear weapons program. These are the facts. You can assume the contrary based on whatever, but it would not be in line with the evidence.

Again, you misunderstood what I said concerning Witkoff and I will correct you I guess for the third time. I DO believe the Iranians told Witkoff they have enriched uranium for warheads. Let me say it again so maybe you understand it. I DO BELIEVE they told him that. One more time. When Witkoff says "Iran claims to have enriched uranium for warheads", I believe that Iran told him that. Hopefully that settles that for you.

The Ayatollah which was assassinated had a fatwa against nuclear weapons. That is just public record and it is what it is. I am not sure if his son/successor holds the same position as I have not heard anything from him regarding it. His entire family has been killed by the US/Israel, so he may take a harder line in that regard.

---

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you believe the IAEA inspectors were able to conduct unfettered inspections or Iran's nuclear facilities and if you believe they were enriching uranium beyond agreed levels only as a deterrence against the Jews, then I do not believe there is any common ground to be had.

If you believe the Iranians did not tell Witkoff about having enough enrichment for warheads, then that's just denying facts presented. If you are trying to get cute with words that the recently departed ayatollah and his recently fragment successor had no intention of developing and using a nuclear weapon against the Great Satan and Little Satan, then there is not much we agree on there either.

I fully understand your point of view. And as bewildering as it is to me, it is your view, your truth and I won't deny you from it.

No back to discussions on real things happening and the political ramifications.

---

The IAEA had 24/7 monitoring of Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities- Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan- by way of cameras and sensors. These sites had on the ground inspectors continuously. The IAEA never found evidence of a nuclear weapons program. These are the facts. You can assume the contrary based on whatever, but it would not be in line with the evidence.

Again, you misunderstood what I said concerning Witkoff and I will correct you I guess for the third time. I DO believe the Iranians told Witkoff they have enriched uranium for warheads. Let me say it again so maybe you understand it. I DO BELIEVE they told him that. One more time. When Witkoff says "Iran claims to have enriched uranium for warheads", I believe that Iran told him that. Hopefully that settles that for you.

The Ayatollah which was assassinated had a fatwa against nuclear weapons. That is just public record and it is what it is. I am not sure if his son/successor holds the same position as I have not heard anything from him regarding it. His entire family has been killed by the US/Israel, so he may take a harder line in that regard.

---

IAEA estimated last June that Iran had a significant amount of uranium enriched up to 60%. Since the 12 day "war" last year they have not had access to those facilities to see if that has changed.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2026-8.pdf?utm_source=.com

https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-uranium-enrichment-suspend-ccf574a324504b985f4b158f9d3d6941

Saying they don't want a nuke is just dumb. They're an aggressive country that had uranium enriched way beyond a point for energy use.

---

Keyno said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Given a legit casus belli, Americans will absolutely support war. We do not have that in this case.

---

A regime that shouts "Death to America", funds terror cells, and is seeking to become a nuclear power seems like a pretty good case.

---

The "Death to America" chant is not a casus belli and if you understood the history and meaning of the phrase, that much is clear. The funding of "terror cells" (Hezbollah and Hamas) is certainly a threat to Israel. They have a legit casus belli absolutely. The "seeking to become a nuclear power", was not occurring according to IAEA inspectors. These claims come entirely from foreign intelligence. Much like the "Saddam has WMDs" thing.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, Iran (specifically the Islamic Republic's regime, leaders, state media, and organized crowds) has repeatedly called for "Death to the United States" (or "Death to America," "Marg bar Amrika" in Persian) for decades.

Marg bar Amrika" - slogan originated around the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the U.S. embassy hostage crisis in Tehran. It became a staple of official rhetoric, Friday prayers, state-sponsored rallies (including annual "Death to America Day" on November 4, marking the embassy seizure), parliamentary sessions, murals in cities like Tehran, and speeches by supreme leaders.

Key Examples from Iranian Officials and Events

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (founder of the Islamic Republic) and successors popularized it, framing the U.S. as the "Great Satan."

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei repeatedly endorsed it. In 2015, he called the slogan "eternal" and "backed by reason and wisdom," while clarifying it targeted U.S. "policies" and "arrogance," not the American people. In 2019, he specified it meant "death to Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo." He defended it as late as 2025, calling U.S.-Iran enmity "essential."

Crowds at regime-organized events (e.g., Revolution anniversaries, Jerusalem Day/Quds Day rallies) routinely chant "Death to America" alongside "Death to Israel," often with flag-burnings and effigies. This has continued into the 2020s, including at President Masoud Pezeshkian's 2024 swearing-in.

---

Keyno said:

---

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you believe the IAEA inspectors were able to conduct unfettered inspections or Iran's nuclear facilities and if you believe they were enriching uranium beyond agreed levels only as a deterrence against the Jews, then I do not believe there is any common ground to be had.

If you believe the Iranians did not tell Witkoff about having enough enrichment for warheads, then that's just denying facts presented. If you are trying to get cute with words that the recently departed ayatollah and his recently fragment successor had no intention of developing and using a nuclear weapon against the Great Satan and Little Satan, then there is not much we agree on there either.

I fully understand your point of view. And as bewildering as it is to me, it is your view, your truth and I won't deny you from it.

No back to discussions on real things happening and the political ramifications.

---

The IAEA had 24/7 monitoring of Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities- Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan- by way of cameras and sensors. These sites had on the ground inspectors continuously. The IAEA never found evidence of a nuclear weapons program. These are the facts. You can assume the contrary based on whatever, but it would not be in line with the evidence.

Again, you misunderstood what I said concerning Witkoff and I will correct you I guess for the third time. I DO believe the Iranians told Witkoff they have enriched uranium for warheads. Let me say it again so maybe you understand it. I DO BELIEVE they told him that. One more time. When Witkoff says "Iran claims to have enriched uranium for warheads", I believe that Iran told him that. Hopefully that settles that for you.

The Ayatollah which was assassinated had a fatwa against nuclear weapons. That is just public record and it is what it is. I am not sure if his son/successor holds the same position as I have not heard anything from him regarding it. His entire family has been killed by the US/Israel, so he may take a harder line in that regard.

---

IAEA estimated last June that Iran had a significant amount of uranium enriched up to 60%. Since the 12 day "war" last year they have not had access to those facilities to see if that has changed.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2026-8.pdf?utm_source=.com

https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-uranium-enrichment-suspend-ccf574a324504b985f4b158f9d3d6941

Saying they don't want a nuke is just dumb. They're an aggressive country that had uranium enriched way beyond a point for energy use.

---

Yes, Trump ripped up the JCPOA in 2018. Even still, Iran allowed IAEA inspectors to remain up until 2024 (even though they really had no reason to). They were expelled entirely after the 12 day war.

Calling Iran "an aggressive country" is really kind of beyond the pale. Do I need to post the stats of how many nations US/Israel has attacked compared to Iran in the last 50 years?

---

bobbranco said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you believe the IAEA inspectors were able to conduct unfettered inspections or Iran's nuclear facilities and if you believe they were enriching uranium beyond agreed levels only as a deterrence against the Jews, then I do not believe there is any common ground to be had.

If you believe the Iranians did not tell Witkoff about having enough enrichment for warheads, then that's just denying facts presented. If you are trying to get cute with words that the recently departed ayatollah and his recently fragment successor had no intention of developing and using a nuclear weapon against the Great Satan and Little Satan, then there is not much we agree on there either.

I fully understand your point of view. And as bewildering as it is to me, it is your view, your truth and I won't deny you from it.

No back to discussions on real things happening and the political ramifications.

---

The IAEA had 24/7 monitoring of Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities- Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan- by way of cameras and sensors. These sites had on the ground inspectors continuously. The IAEA never found evidence of a nuclear weapons program. These are the facts. You can assume the contrary based on whatever, but it would not be in line with the evidence.

Again, you misunderstood what I said concerning Witkoff and I will correct you I guess for the third time. I DO believe the Iranians told Witkoff they have enriched uranium for warheads. Let me say it again so maybe you understand it. I DO BELIEVE they told him that. One more time. When Witkoff says "Iran claims to have enriched uranium for warheads", I believe that Iran told him that. Hopefully that settles that for you.

The Ayatollah which was assassinated had a fatwa against nuclear weapons. That is just public record and it is what it is. I am not sure if his son/successor holds the same position as I have not heard anything from him regarding it. His entire family has been killed by the US/Israel, so he may take a harder line in that regard.

---

IAEA estimated last June that Iran had a significant amount of uranium enriched up to 60%. Since the 12 day "war" last year they have not had access to those facilities to see if that has changed.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2026-8.pdf?utm_source=.com

https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-uranium-enrichment-suspend-ccf574a324504b985f4b158f9d3d6941

Saying they don't want a nuke is just dumb. They're an aggressive country that had uranium enriched way beyond a point for energy use.

---

Yes, Trump ripped up the JCPOA in 2018. Even still, Iran allowed IAEA inspectors to remain up until 2024 (even though they really had no reason to). They were expelled entirely after the 12 day war.

Calling Iran "an aggressive country" is really kind of beyond the pale. Do I need to post the stats of how many nations US/Israel has attacked compared to Iran in the last 50 years?

---

Continuing to defend the death cult...

Must be BlueSky groups pushing the propaganda.

Typical.

---

Keyno said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you believe the IAEA inspectors were able to conduct unfettered inspections or Iran's nuclear facilities and if you believe they were enriching uranium beyond agreed levels only as a deterrence against the Jews, then I do not believe there is any common ground to be had.

If you believe the Iranians did not tell Witkoff about having enough enrichment for warheads, then that's just denying facts presented. If you are trying to get cute with words that the recently departed ayatollah and his recently fragment successor had no intention of developing and using a nuclear weapon against the Great Satan and Little Satan, then there is not much we agree on there either.

I fully understand your point of view. And as bewildering as it is to me, it is your view, your truth and I won't deny you from it.

No back to discussions on real things happening and the political ramifications.

---

The IAEA had 24/7 monitoring of Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities- Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan- by way of cameras and sensors. These sites had on the ground inspectors continuously. The IAEA never found evidence of a nuclear weapons program. These are the facts. You can assume the contrary based on whatever, but it would not be in line with the evidence.

Again, you misunderstood what I said concerning Witkoff and I will correct you I guess for the third time. I DO believe the Iranians told Witkoff they have enriched uranium for warheads. Let me say it again so maybe you understand it. I DO BELIEVE they told him that. One more time. When Witkoff says "Iran claims to have enriched uranium for warheads", I believe that Iran told him that. Hopefully that settles that for you.

The Ayatollah which was assassinated had a fatwa against nuclear weapons. That is just public record and it is what it is. I am not sure if his son/successor holds the same position as I have not heard anything from him regarding it. His entire family has been killed by the US/Israel, so he may take a harder line in that regard.

---

IAEA estimated last June that Iran had a significant amount of uranium enriched up to 60%. Since the 12 day "war" last year they have not had access to those facilities to see if that has changed.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2026-8.pdf?utm_source=.com

https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-uranium-enrichment-suspend-ccf574a324504b985f4b158f9d3d6941

Saying they don't want a nuke is just dumb. They're an aggressive country that had uranium enriched way beyond a point for energy use.

---

Yes, Trump ripped up the JCPOA in 2018. Even still, Iran allowed IAEA inspectors to remain up until 2024 (even though they really had no reason to). They were expelled entirely after the 12 day war.

Calling Iran "an aggressive country" is really kind of beyond the pale. Do I need to post the stats of how many nations US/Israel has attacked compared to Iran in the last 50 years?

---

Continuing to defend the death cult...

Must be BlueSky groups pushing the propaganda.

Typical.

---

No sir I am just an America First American against more Forever War.

You are free to argue a point, or you are also free to just keep doing drive by comments. Doesn't matter to me either way.

---

Quote:

---

Below is a single combined bullet list of major wars, interventions, campaigns, and notable terror/paramilitary actions involving Iran or its proxies since 1979 (state, IRGC/Quds Force, Hezbollah, Hamas/PIJ, Iraqi Shia militias, Houthis, etc.).[1][2][3][4][5]

- 19791981: U.S. embassy hostage crisis in Tehran. [1][8]
- 19791995: Kurdish insurgency inside Iran. [9]
- 19801988: IranIraq War. [3][9]
- Earlylate 1980s: "Tanker war" and naval clashes with U.S. in the Persian Gulf. [9][10]
- 1982: IRGC/Quds Force deployment to Lebanon during Israel's invasion; start of organized Hezbollah project. [3][4]
- 19821984: Iranbacked Islamic Jihad/Hezbollah bombings and attacks in Lebanon (U.S. embassy Beirut, U.S. Marine barracks, French paratroopers, etc.). [1][5][8]
- 19852000: South Lebanon conflict (Hezbollah insurgency vs. Israel/South Lebanon Army, backed by Iran). [3][11]
- 1980spresent: Continuous IranIsrael proxy conflict (training, funding, arming Hezbollah and Palestinian factions; Israeli covert and air actions). [11][5]
- Late 1980s1990s: Iranlinked terror and assassination campaigns abroad (e.g., attacks in Europe, the Gulf, and Latin America, including Argentina bombings) via Hezbollah/other proxies. [5]
- 19921995: Bosnian War, covert Iranian/Quds Force arms and adviser support to Bosnian Muslims. [3][4]
- 1990s: Continued Hezbollah attacks and skirmishes with Israel in south Lebanon, including rocket fire and ambushes. [3][11]
- 2001present: Quds Force involvement in Afghanistan (antiTaliban assistance early on, later support and influence operations with various Afghan actors). [3][4]
- 20032011: Iraq War, largescale IRGC/Quds Force program to build and direct Shia militias (e.g., Badr, Kataib Hezbollah, Asaib Ahl alHaq) against U.S., coalition, and rival Iraqi forces. [3][4][10]
- 20032011: Use of EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) and other IRGCsupplied weapons by Iraqi militias against U.S. troops. [1][4]
- 2006: Lebanon War (Hezbollah vs. Israel), with significant Iranian financing, arms (rockets, missiles), and advisers. [3][11]
- 2006present: GazaIsrael conflict phases with Iran providing money, training, and weapons to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. [2][3][11]
- 2007: Quds Forcelinked Karbala raid in Iraq against U.S. forces. [3][4]
- Late 2000s: Expansion of IRGC/Quds Force networks in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, Yemen, and Bahrain. [2][4][12]
- 20112024: Syrian Civil War, with IRGC, Quds Force, Hezbollah, Iraqi/Afghan/Pakistani Shia militias deployed to support Assad. [2][3][13]
- 2011present: Intensified IranIsrael "shadow war" in Syria (Israeli airstrikes on Iranian and proxy targets; Iranian entrenchment and missile deployment). [11][13]
- 2014present: War against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, Iranian/Quds Force and Iranbacked Popular Mobilization Forces fighting ISIS. [3][4]
- 2015present: Yemen war, Iranian support (weapons, training, advisers) to Houthis against Saudiled coalition and Yemeni government. [2][3]
- 2016present: Houthi missile and drone attacks, with Iranian assistance, on Saudi Arabia, UAE, shipping, and later Israellinked or Western targets in the Red Sea and Gulf. [2][14][7]
- 20162020: Continued rocket/missile and tunnel warfare by Hezbollah and Palestinian factions against Israel, backed by Iran. [2][11]
- 2018present: Series of attacks on Gulf shipping and energy infrastructure (tankers, Saudi Aramco, etc.) blamed on Iran or its proxies. [5][10]
- 2019: Escalatory Iranlinked drone and mine attacks in the Gulf; shootdown of a U.S. drone by Iran; U.S. limited strikes and cyber operations. [15][10]
- December 2019: Kataib Hezbollah rocket attack on K1 base in Kirkuk kills a U.S. contractor, wounds U.S. and Iraqi personnel. [1]
- Late 2019early 2020: Wave of Iranbacked militia rocket/drone attacks on U.S. facilities in Iraq, U.S. retaliatory strikes on Kataib Hezbollah. [1][10]
- January 2020: U.S. drone strike in Baghdad killing IRGC Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi alMuhandis. [1][4]
- January 2020: Iranian ballisticmissile barrage on Ain alAsad and other Iraqi bases hosting U.S. troops, causing extensive traumatic brain injuries. [1][10]
- 20202022: Ongoing Iranbacked rocket and drone attacks on U.S. and coalition sites in Iraq and Syria; U.S. retaliatory strikes on militia facilities. [1][10]
- 2020present: Expanded Hezbollah precisionguided missile and UAV program with Iranian assistance, viewed by Israel as major strategic threat. [2][11]
- 20212022: Multiple Iranbacked militia attacks (rockets/drones) on U.S. forces at Erbil and elsewhere in Iraq and Syria. [1]
- 2022present: Iranian provision of drones and other support to Russia for use in the Ukraine war. [16][5]
- 20222023: Iranian missile and drone strikes on Kurdish opposition groups in Iraqi Kurdistan. [5][10]
- March 2023: Iranian drone strike near Hasakah, Syria, killing a U.S. contractor and wounding U.S. troops. [1]
- October 7, 2023: Hamas massacre in southern Israel, killing Israelis and at least dozens of Americans; Hamas and PIJ have longterm Iranian backing (though operational details of this attack remain debated). [1][11][7]
- October 2023 onward: Regional "multifront" escalationHezbollah, Iraqi militias, and Houthis increase attacks on Israel and U.S. forces after October 7. [2][14][7]
- October 2023November 2024: More than 180 Iranbacked attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria, and region, with U.S. casualties. [1]
- 2023present: Intensified Houthi missile/drone and antishipping attacks in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, linked to Iran's regional strategy. [2][14][7]
- 2024: Israeli strike on Iranian commanders and IRGC facilities at Iran's embassy compound in Damascus. [17][18][7]
- 2024: Largescale Iranian missile and drone salvo on Israel in retaliation; Israeli and allied defenses intercept most, followed by Israeli counterstrikes. [17][18][11]
- 2024: Assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah (reported Israeli operation) and Israeli ground operations in southern Lebanon against Hezbollah, directly hitting an Iranian proxy centerpiece. [7]
- 20242025: Continued Israeli air/missile strikes on Iranian assets in Syria and possibly inside Iran (nuclear/missilerelated and IRGC targets), along with retaliatory or attempted retaliatory Iranian/proxy actions. [18][11][7]
- 2025: Short, intense direct IranIsrael war layered atop the proxy conflict, with missile and air strikes on both sides and U.S. involvement in defending Israel. [19][11][7]
- Late 2025early 2026: Escalating titfortat attacks between Iran's "axis of resistance" (Hezbollah, PMF, Houthis, others) and Israel/U.S. forces across multiple theaters. [2][12][7]
- February 28, 2026: Start of full 2026 Iran war: U.S. and Israel launch surprise airstrikes across Iran, killing Supreme Leader Khamenei and senior officials; Iran responds with missile/drone attacks on Israel, U.S. bases, and allied countries. [6][7]
- March 2026: Ongoing 2026 Iran war operationsrepeated U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian infrastructure, IRGC/Quds Force, and proxies, with continued Iranian and proxy retaliatory attacks regionwide. [20][6][7]

This is already a compressed list; there are dozens more individual bombings, assassinations, and small operations not listed.

---

Keyno said:

---

OK now do the US. And then Israel separately. And then we can combine them to see how you are making my point.

---

bobbranco said:

---

Keyno said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you believe the IAEA inspectors were able to conduct unfettered inspections or Iran's nuclear facilities and if you believe they were enriching uranium beyond agreed levels only as a deterrence against the Jews, then I do not believe there is any common ground to be had.

If you believe the Iranians did not tell Witkoff about having enough enrichment for warheads, then that's just denying facts presented. If you are trying to get cute with words that the recently departed ayatollah and his recently fragment successor had no intention of developing and using a nuclear weapon against the Great Satan and Little Satan, then there is not much we agree on there either.

I fully understand your point of view. And as bewildering as it is to me, it is your view, your truth and I won't deny you from it.

No back to discussions on real things happening and the political ramifications.

---

The IAEA had 24/7 monitoring of Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities- Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan- by way of cameras and sensors. These sites had on the ground inspectors continuously. The IAEA never found evidence of a nuclear weapons program. These are the facts. You can assume the contrary based on whatever, but it would not be in line with the evidence.

Again, you misunderstood what I said concerning Witkoff and I will correct you I guess for the third time. I DO believe the Iranians told Witkoff they have enriched uranium for warheads. Let me say it again so maybe you understand it. I DO BELIEVE they told him that. One more time. When Witkoff says "Iran claims to have enriched uranium for warheads", I believe that Iran told him that. Hopefully that settles that for you.

The Ayatollah which was assassinated had a fatwa against nuclear weapons. That is just public record and it is what it is. I am not sure if his son/successor holds the same position as I have not heard anything from him regarding it. His entire family has been killed by the US/Israel, so he may take a harder line in that regard.

---

IAEA estimated last June that Iran had a significant amount of uranium enriched up to 60%. Since the 12 day "war" last year they have not had access to those facilities to see if that has changed.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2026-8.pdf?utm_source=.com

https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-uranium-enrichment-suspend-ccf574a324504b985f4b158f9d3d6941

Saying they don't want a nuke is just dumb. They're an aggressive country that had uranium enriched way beyond a point for energy use.

---

Yes, Trump ripped up the JCPOA in 2018. Even still, Iran allowed IAEA inspectors to remain up until 2024 (even though they really had no reason to). They were expelled entirely after the 12 day war.

Calling Iran "an aggressive country" is really kind of beyond the pale. Do I need to post the stats of how many nations US/Israel has attacked compared to Iran in the last 50 years?

---

Continuing to defend the death cult...

Must be BlueSky groups pushing the propaganda.

Typical.

---

No sir I am just an America First American against more Forever War.

You are free to argue a point, or you are also free to just keep doing drive by comments. Doesn't matter to me either way.

---

Your posts are quite clear. You defend Iran.

ETA. It does not take paragraphs of propaganda to make my point.

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Iran has been in a constant state of conflict since 1979.

To suggest that the suggestion they are not aggressive is laughable

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Little ol innocent iran, just trying to exist

Ai summary of Iranian actions since 1979:

Quote:

---

Below is a single combined bullet list of major wars, interventions, campaigns, and notable terror/paramilitary actions involving Iran or its proxies since 1979 (state, IRGC/Quds Force, Hezbollah, Hamas/PIJ, Iraqi Shia militias, Houthis, etc.).[1][2][3][4][5]

- 19791981: U.S. embassy hostage crisis in Tehran. [1][8]
- 19791995: Kurdish insurgency inside Iran. [9]
- 19801988: IranIraq War. [3][9]
- Earlylate 1980s: "Tanker war" and naval clashes with U.S. in the Persian Gulf. [9][10]
- 1982: IRGC/Quds Force deployment to Lebanon during Israel's invasion; start of organized Hezbollah project. [3][4]
- 19821984: Iranbacked Islamic Jihad/Hezbollah bombings and attacks in Lebanon (U.S. embassy Beirut, U.S. Marine barracks, French paratroopers, etc.). [1][5][8]
- 19852000: South Lebanon conflict (Hezbollah insurgency vs. Israel/South Lebanon Army, backed by Iran). [3][11]
- 1980spresent: Continuous IranIsrael proxy conflict (training, funding, arming Hezbollah and Palestinian factions; Israeli covert and air actions). [11][5]
- Late 1980s1990s: Iranlinked terror and assassination campaigns abroad (e.g., attacks in Europe, the Gulf, and Latin America, including Argentina bombings) via Hezbollah/other proxies. [5]
- 19921995: Bosnian War, covert Iranian/Quds Force arms and adviser support to Bosnian Muslims. [3][4]
- 1990s: Continued Hezbollah attacks and skirmishes with Israel in south Lebanon, including rocket fire and ambushes. [3][11]
- 2001present: Quds Force involvement in Afghanistan (antiTaliban assistance early on, later support and influence operations with various Afghan actors). [3][4]
- 20032011: Iraq War, largescale IRGC/Quds Force program to build and direct Shia militias (e.g., Badr, Kataib Hezbollah, Asaib Ahl alHaq) against U.S., coalition, and rival Iraqi forces. [3][4][10]
- 20032011: Use of EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) and other IRGCsupplied weapons by Iraqi militias against U.S. troops. [1][4]
- 2006: Lebanon War (Hezbollah vs. Israel), with significant Iranian financing, arms (rockets, missiles), and advisers. [3][11]
- 2006present: GazaIsrael conflict phases with Iran providing money, training, and weapons to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. [2][3][11]
- 2007: Quds Forcelinked Karbala raid in Iraq against U.S. forces. [3][4]
- Late 2000s: Expansion of IRGC/Quds Force networks in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, Yemen, and Bahrain. [2][4][12]
- 20112024: Syrian Civil War, with IRGC, Quds Force, Hezbollah, Iraqi/Afghan/Pakistani Shia militias deployed to support Assad. [2][3][13]
- 2011present: Intensified IranIsrael "shadow war" in Syria (Israeli airstrikes on Iranian and proxy targets; Iranian entrenchment and missile deployment). [11][13]
- 2014present: War against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, Iranian/Quds Force and Iranbacked Popular Mobilization Forces fighting ISIS. [3][4]
- 2015present: Yemen war, Iranian support (weapons, training, advisers) to Houthis against Saudiled coalition and Yemeni government. [2][3]
- 2016present: Houthi missile and drone attacks, with Iranian assistance, on Saudi Arabia, UAE, shipping, and later Israellinked or Western targets in the Red Sea and Gulf. [2][14][7]
- 20162020: Continued rocket/missile and tunnel warfare by Hezbollah and Palestinian factions against Israel, backed by Iran. [2][11]
- 2018present: Series of attacks on Gulf shipping and energy infrastructure (tankers, Saudi Aramco, etc.) blamed on Iran or its proxies. [5][10]
- 2019: Escalatory Iranlinked drone and mine attacks in the Gulf; shootdown of a U.S. drone by Iran; U.S. limited strikes and cyber operations. [15][10]
- December 2019: Kataib Hezbollah rocket attack on K1 base in Kirkuk kills a U.S. contractor, wounds U.S. and Iraqi personnel. [1]
- Late 2019early 2020: Wave of Iranbacked militia rocket/drone attacks on U.S. facilities in Iraq, U.S. retaliatory strikes on Kataib Hezbollah. [1][10]
- January 2020: U.S. drone strike in Baghdad killing IRGC Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi alMuhandis. [1][4]
- January 2020: Iranian ballisticmissile barrage on Ain alAsad and other Iraqi bases hosting U.S. troops, causing extensive traumatic brain injuries. [1][10]
- 20202022: Ongoing Iranbacked rocket and drone attacks on U.S. and coalition sites in Iraq and Syria; U.S. retaliatory strikes on militia facilities. [1][10]
- 2020present: Expanded Hezbollah precisionguided missile and UAV program with Iranian assistance, viewed by Israel as major strategic threat. [2][11]
- 20212022: Multiple Iranbacked militia attacks (rockets/drones) on U.S. forces at Erbil and elsewhere in Iraq and Syria. [1]
- 2022present: Iranian provision of drones and other support to Russia for use in the Ukraine war. [16][5]
- 20222023: Iranian missile and drone strikes on Kurdish opposition groups in Iraqi Kurdistan. [5][10]
- March 2023: Iranian drone strike near Hasakah, Syria, killing a U.S. contractor and wounding U.S. troops. [1]
- October 7, 2023: Hamas massacre in southern Israel, killing Israelis and at least dozens of Americans; Hamas and PIJ have longterm Iranian backing (though operational details of this attack remain debated). [1][11][7]
- October 2023 onward: Regional "multifront" escalationHezbollah, Iraqi militias, and Houthis increase attacks on Israel and U.S. forces after October 7. [2][14][7]
- October 2023November 2024: More than 180 Iranbacked attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria, and region, with U.S. casualties. [1]
- 2023present: Intensified Houthi missile/drone and antishipping attacks in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, linked to Iran's regional strategy. [2][14][7]
- 2024: Israeli strike on Iranian commanders and IRGC facilities at Iran's embassy compound in Damascus. [17][18][7]
- 2024: Largescale Iranian missile and drone salvo on Israel in retaliation; Israeli and allied defenses intercept most, followed by Israeli counterstrikes. [17][18][11]
- 2024: Assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah (reported Israeli operation) and Israeli ground operations in southern Lebanon against Hezbollah, directly hitting an Iranian proxy centerpiece. [7]
- 20242025: Continued Israeli air/missile strikes on Iranian assets in Syria and possibly inside Iran (nuclear/missilerelated and IRGC targets), along with retaliatory or attempted retaliatory Iranian/proxy actions. [18][11][7]
- 2025: Short, intense direct IranIsrael war layered atop the proxy conflict, with missile and air strikes on both sides and U.S. involvement in defending Israel. [19][11][7]
- Late 2025early 2026: Escalating titfortat attacks between Iran's "axis of resistance" (Hezbollah, PMF, Houthis, others) and Israel/U.S. forces across multiple theaters. [2][12][7]
- February 28, 2026: Start of full 2026 Iran war: U.S. and Israel launch surprise airstrikes across Iran, killing Supreme Leader Khamenei and senior officials; Iran responds with missile/drone attacks on Israel, U.S. bases, and allied countries. [6][7]
- March 2026: Ongoing 2026 Iran war operationsrepeated U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian infrastructure, IRGC/Quds Force, and proxies, with continued Iranian and proxy retaliatory attacks regionwide. [20][6][7]

This is already a compressed list; there are dozens more individual bombings, assassinations, and small operations not listed.

---

---

Keyno said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Iran has been in a constant state of conflict since 1979.

To suggest that the suggestion they are not aggressive is laughable

---

It's going to blow your mind how long Israel has been in a "state of conflict". Much less the United States

---

Keyno said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Keyno said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you believe the IAEA inspectors were able to conduct unfettered inspections or Iran's nuclear facilities and if you believe they were enriching uranium beyond agreed levels only as a deterrence against the Jews, then I do not believe there is any common ground to be had.

If you believe the Iranians did not tell Witkoff about having enough enrichment for warheads, then that's just denying facts presented. If you are trying to get cute with words that the recently departed ayatollah and his recently fragment successor had no intention of developing and using a nuclear weapon against the Great Satan and Little Satan, then there is not much we agree on there either.

I fully understand your point of view. And as bewildering as it is to me, it is your view, your truth and I won't deny you from it.

No back to discussions on real things happening and the political ramifications.

---

The IAEA had 24/7 monitoring of Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities- Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan- by way of cameras and sensors. These sites had on the ground inspectors continuously. The IAEA never found evidence of a nuclear weapons program. These are the facts. You can assume the contrary based on whatever, but it would not be in line with the evidence.

Again, you misunderstood what I said concerning Witkoff and I will correct you I guess for the third time. I DO believe the Iranians told Witkoff they have enriched uranium for warheads. Let me say it again so maybe you understand it. I DO BELIEVE they told him that. One more time. When Witkoff says "Iran claims to have enriched uranium for warheads", I believe that Iran told him that. Hopefully that settles that for you.

The Ayatollah which was assassinated had a fatwa against nuclear weapons. That is just public record and it is what it is. I am not sure if his son/successor holds the same position as I have not heard anything from him regarding it. His entire family has been killed by the US/Israel, so he may take a harder line in that regard.

---

IAEA estimated last June that Iran had a significant amount of uranium enriched up to 60%. Since the 12 day "war" last year they have not had access to those facilities to see if that has changed.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2026-8.pdf?utm_source=.com

https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-uranium-enrichment-suspend-ccf574a324504b985f4b158f9d3d6941

Saying they don't want a nuke is just dumb. They're an aggressive country that had uranium enriched way beyond a point for energy use.

---

Yes, Trump ripped up the JCPOA in 2018. Even still, Iran allowed IAEA inspectors to remain up until 2024 (even though they really had no reason to). They were expelled entirely after the 12 day war.

Calling Iran "an aggressive country" is really kind of beyond the pale. Do I need to post the stats of how many nations US/Israel has attacked compared to Iran in the last 50 years?

---

Continuing to defend the death cult...

Must be BlueSky groups pushing the propaganda.

Typical.

---

No sir I am just an America First American against more Forever War.

You are free to argue a point, or you are also free to just keep doing drive by comments. Doesn't matter to me either way.

---

Your posts are quite clear. You defend Iran.

ETA. It does not take paragraphs of propaganda to make my point.

---

No sir. I am an America First American I am OG MAGA. I was against the endless middle east wars when Trump was against them in 2015, and I am against them still. I will continue to point out the flaws and discrepancies of the casus belli we are given, the influence of foreign governments on our leaders, and the detriment to America that these wars have.

---