DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Iran War II

Here is a narrative for you. Trump has had a "concept of a plan" for healthcare without actually presenting one since 2015. Sometimes you dismiss facts as a narrative. That happens quite often in trumplandia.

He first promised a comprehensive replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) on the campaign trail in September 2015, famously declaring: "I am going to take care of everybody... Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now."

Sure. The screen name Bull seems quite appropriate. Now carry on and rant some more. That seems to be what you do best lately.

I'm not sure it means what you think it means. I think the investment would be coming from multinational corporations (MNCs), not tax payer money. I still think it's shady. Basically Trump "facilitating" MNCs getting sweetheart deals to build facilities and extract what they can in Iran, and probably trying to get kickbacks/finder's fees is what it sounds like to me. (Or he just plans to invest in the MNCs before the deals go public.) Iran gets tax income. Trump seems to always be looking for ways to make a buck using other peoples' money, no matter what he's allegedly doing.

It's kind of weird to me that this is leaking from the Iranian side. Iran suddenly wanting American companies in their country doesn't really add up for me with all their rhetoric about the evils of western capitalism. Makes me wonder if some stuffed envelopes were slipped into some pockets figuratively speaking.

You're projecting again. And ignoring the topic. Still think you need 90% HEU to make nukes?

Here is a little more detailed article that says alot of the same talking points. And, there better not be any taxpayer money going to this.
It more seems like trump and his merry band of billionaires going from country to country where there is lots of oil/gas/rare earth minerals and starting something so they can gain access to markets.



Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...p;utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Let's get down to the brass tacks here.

You have been engaging in making an argument for war. I have been arguing that there is not at least some immediate case for war.

My argument is based on several reasons. First I am not in favor of being the world police. Iran has no method of deploying long range missiles anywhere close to capable of reaching the U.S nor our allies in Europe. As such they are currently of no imminent threat to us. Yes I understand that there is some very remote possibility that someone could somehow sneak a dirty bomb through an airport in Iran to some neutral country, since we accept no direct flights from Iran, then pass customs in that nation, then again when it is reloaded on a connecting flight and yet once again pass customs in the U.S. However that sounds much more like something form a fictional spy novel than it does reality. Some remote possibility isn't a legitimate cause for war.

You have seemed to indicate that the reason our NATO allies have not gotten involved is because of political reasons and that war is not popular to their people. Yet from a political standpoint and from a popularity perspective war was no more popular when we went to war with both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both times our allies fought beside us. I do believe that Iran taught them not be so blindly trusting of the U.S. and has made them more cautious.

But if anything they have even greater reason to capitulate in helping us now than they did then. Trump has threatened the NATO alliance. He has struck them financially with tariffs. He is the most vindictive and punitive president in my lifetime. They fully realize the grave possible consequences of telling him no. Yet they have done so anyway.

We know that Iran and Israel have been "warring it" for decades now. We know if anyone is at risk from Iran it's Israel. As of now Israel is fighting Iran's proxies in both Lebanon and Gaza while we're fighting them in Iran. Something Netanyahu has been trying to achieve for decades now.

The world sees these things. The world understand these things. And the world isn't prepared to fight an entire war for Israel. Not even our own allies.

You have laid out some very good and informative information that helps explain a lot. But I doubt you get a response from him. He is too focused and obsessed with me for some very strange and somewhat creepy reason.

I've been engaging in making an argument for keeping nuclear weapon capability out of the hands of a government that supports terrorists however is necessary. No one can make them do anything through diplomacy. If they agreed to get rid of their capability to refine HEU above civilian grade, turn over/destroy all the HEU they already have, and allow uninhibited inspections country wide, in a peaceful decision tomorrow, great. I don't see them agreeing to that no matter what we offer. Every day the HEU is unobserved is another day it could get into the hands of terrorists.

You seem to assume a plane has to land at an airport and/or be commercial. You seem to assume terrorists have to obey the law. None of those things are true. A Gulfstream G700 (private business jet) has a range of ~8,360 miles. A straight line flight between Tehran and Caracas, Venezuela is 7,321 miles (and it doesn't have to be a straight flight, Libya could make some sense as a connecting point, ISIS and AQIM still operate camps in the Fezzan Region.) It doesn't have to be an airport. It could be a crude (if somewhat lengthy) airstrip in the middle of nowhere. From Caracas, a G700 could reach anywhere in the continental US. And it doesn't have to fly to the US. They could offload a weapon in remote Mexico and finish delivery through other methods.

Yes, you believe a reason that you are making up. That doesn't make it true. I never claimed a specific reason as fact. I presented other potential reasons for their deciding not to go to war.

They also have more reasons not to. An active conflict right on their "borders." Dissension at home. Trump is an idiot. Our military leadership is inept. They are much more reliant on oil imports. Not their problem as Israel and the US are more likely potential targets. While we're allies, we're led by a bully. I don't think hardly anyone likes helping out bullies. Some "like" standing up to them (or feel obligated to.)

According to trump he set back their nuclear program by many years of not decades in June of 2025.

You seem to assume that some far fetched conspiracy of how Iran would get a dirty bomb into the U.S. as a reason for war.

The facts I laid out were not made up. They are facts. Rather than address those facts you attack the messenger and claim otherwise with nothing to substantiate that.

Israel is a likely target. Iran has the military capability to carry that out. This manufactured, far fetched plot you have created as to a method to deploy a dirty bomb or nuke to the U.S. is just that and nothing more.

This entire "But they could put it on a jet and fly it directly to the U.S." is a very unlikely scenario to say the least. One would think you feel as though we nor Israel have any surveillance on air traffic that detects aircraft leaving Iranian air space. An obvious detail you either didn't consider or obviously omitted.

I thought we both agreed Trump lied. Or do you think he told the truth now?

Which part is far fetched? Iran working with terrorists? Terrorists using planes? Terrorists using bombs? HEU being unmonitored? A country that chants "death to America" targeting America?

The facts you laid out are few and far between. The things you claimed were facts that were actually BS were legion. Do you need 90% HEU to make a nuke? The answer is still no.

Israel is a likely target. Yet, Israel is a densely populated (14 times the population density of the US), not immense area to cover, highly monitored, highly militarized country. On the other hand, our southern border is vast and has unpopulated sections. You keep talking military, I'm talking (potentially state sponsored) terrorism. While our country is monitored and militarized, there are gaps in the coverage. While Israel is the closer target, terrorists go for symbolic targets rather than the closest. We are the "softer" target, with a potentially larger "terror" factor. I.e, If they can hit us, they can hit anywhere. Israel has mandatory military service. Much of our population is unaware of the realities of war, and, in the eyes of extremists, we are the much more "decadent" country.

I agree a direct flight is an unlikely scenario. That's why it isn't the scenario I speculated on.

Israel has surveillance, yes. Is Israel going to track a private plane going SE away from them and circling around over central Africa then heading west away from Israel? I think you overestimate the abilities of radar and underestimate the number of private jets that fly out of the middle east. It's something I did consider and factored into my hypothetical scenario.

That does seem to be the situation.

Neither of the options seem particularly good to me.

There seems to be a bit of confusion here. We both agree trump lies on a regular basis. What we don't know is which time he lied. In June of 2025 he stated he set back Iran's nuclear program by several years if not decades. Eight months later he claimed later he needed to start a war because they were on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. What we do know for sure is that in one of those cases he lied. What we don't know is which time he was lying and which time he was telling the truth.


That's already been explained to you. First one would have to be naive enough to think that both Israel and the U.S. would not have any surveillance tracking airplanes leaving Iran headed towards Israel or the U.S. and track them. The only other way they would have at accomplish that would be transferring that payload through other nations airport security including our own.


You keep repeating that over and over again without any evidence to support it. Assassinating my character but not the facts I've posted. That's pretty weak.


Yet according to everything we've heard our border was wide open until trump took office and now it is totally secure. So what happened while it was wide open again? You just keep finding more rabbit holes to climb down. I get it. You'll say, "Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it wont happen." And I'll say if it didn't happen when the border was wide open there's even less of a chance of it happening now that it's much more secure. And the beat goes on.


Which in no way changes or makes a scenario of how to deliver a nuclear device to the U.S.


These are the words of a war monger who has reached the point of using hyperbole and unlikely scenarios as an excuse for war. Fear tactics do not make a cause for war.


Really? Here is a quote from one of your previous posts.....



I think you underestimate it. There is also satellite surveillance.

You see, on one hand you pose this immediate nuclear threat from Iran to be deployed on the U.S. You propose methods by which they could accomplish and deploy that threat. You point out how they have been yelling death to America for 47 years now. Then on the other hand you propose our own government has done nothing have the ability or wherewithal to have systems in place to prevent that from happening.

What you seem to be suggesting is a 2+2=3 argument.

1. Which time he was lying is unimportant. We do know there is HEU unaccounted for.

2. It's naive to think that anyone can track everything. You can't just reposition satellites at any moment to follow every plane in the middle east. I've also already pointed out the airports fallacy.

3. Your ignoring the evidence isn't evidence of my lack of providing it.

4. Trump is telling lies about the security of the border. Iran didn't have 83.7% HEU going unmonitored in the past.

5. Militaries are supposed to be uniformed and follow international law. Terrorists do neither.

6. Yours are the words of someone in denial. I just don't want unaccounted for HEU in an area full of extremists.

7. A flight to Venezuela is not a flight to the US. I also mentioned going circuitously with a stop in Libya.

8. I literally worked on radar systems in the Navy. I'm pretty sure I have a better understanding of how they work and what the are capable of than you do. Satellites operate in orbit. You can't just look any and everywhere all the time. There aren't enough in space to cover everywhere all the time and they can't reposition to follow every plane in the middle east. Even if they were everywhere all the time, they can't see through solid objects in video and they have to know where to look. They had a treaty that was in place, but Iran stopped following it. We had to do something else about it. That's how we got here. Now we have to do something else about it over there, because our defenses back home aren't all encompassing.

My argument is 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1... = Uh-oh.

Yours is 3=7, no 3=6, wait no 1+1+1+1+1+1...= 0.

That's really as far as I need to go with this. If in fact he was telling the truth about setting Iran's nuclear program back several years if not decades, that would mean there was zero need for war with Iran for at least years from now. You have just displayed what desperation looks like.

Thanks for playing. You will receive the board game of Risk as a consolation prize.

Go figure, Pit taking something out of context and assuming that's all he needs to consider.

No matter whether he was lying about both, either, or neither, there is still HEU unaccounted for now.

Ignoring everything you don't want to address is a sign of desperation or delusion, if anything is.

Unfortunately, despite your attempt at levity, this isn't a game.

The war with Iran was a stupid move but now we are on the hook for the fallout if he can’t secure a win. And laughably talking heads say we won’t see $3 gas again until 2032…

There is no win. We aren't safer. The economy has taken a huge hit. Iran has realized just how much leverage they have and it could be argued are in a stronger negotiating position than they were before. The ROTW and especially NATO has moved further way from the US.

You're like the boxer who got knocked out in the ring and thinks he can get back up and start the fight all over again. That's not how any of this works.

You're like the lunatic punching himself in the face that thinks he's winning a fight.

There may be no clean "win." But, doing nothing now seems to be a way to "lose."

The ROTW and NATO had moved away from us before this mess with Iran. We elected Trump not once, but twice. We're seemingly a country of greedy idiots from the outside (and the inside sometimes.) That's part of the reason terrorists target us, and part of the reason why I am concerned.

Allies did indeed move away from the USA before the illegal war of choice started - that is why I used the word "Further" as opposed to saying 'started to move away'. Just like I used the words ' illegal war of choice' because that is exactly how much/some/most of Europe and NATO allies see the actions taken.

I think part of the reason target the West is ideology. I think part of the reason why they target or chant specifically about the USA is because of the history or interference and military action the USA has undertaken over the decades. Honestly - you only have to look at the history of Iran and who helped remove a (peaceful) and democratically elected Prime Minister and helped install what later tuned out to be an (evil/ideological/radical) authoritarian leadership that spanned 26 years and whose 'secret police' were trained by the CIA, to maybe think they have some justification in their fear and loathing of the US.

As for being concerned - personally I am more concerned over a POTUS who seems to have a crush or is an Admirer of Putin (and other dictators around the globe) and who panders to Russia while (as mentioned) alienates Western allies. That makes the world much less safe by a significant factor.

I didn't disagree with you. I just added to what you said. One can call it an illegal war, but imminent threat is not a clearly defined concept. Imminent threat was the alleged reason, and that would be a legal reason. (Edit2: "The rapid advancement of military technology and the rise of decentralized armed groups have complicated the traditional definition of imminence. Some nations have argued for an "expanded" view of imminence, claiming that modern weapons are so devastating that states cannot wait until the "last window" opens." link[Unfortunately, legality is somewhat flexible, whether it should be or not])

I think you're re-writing history a bit, or at least shading it. Peaceful is a stretch, Mossadegh nationalized a British MNC (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.) When you're forcefully taking over a foreign company without renumeration, that's an aggressive move. He also unconstitutionally dissolved the Majlis (Iran's equivalent of Parliament.) And I'm not sure how Democratic a vote is when the for and against voting locations are separated and the against has tanks and armed soldiers sitting outside it. The Shah was already "in power" before the coup. The general that replaced Mossadegh didn't last anywhere close to 26 years. Iran was an Imperial State at the time, and didn't become a Republic until 1979. Even then, neither government was a straightforward democracy. Khomeini declared himself Supreme Leader after the revolution ousting the monarchy. (Edit: not saying I'm pro operation Ajax just that it was more complicated than you seemed to indicate.)

Russia is pro-Iran, so I don't think the Putin lap dog narrative really holds in this instance. There are those that hold that Russia was behind Mossadegh's trying to take the Iranian government into Communism (Nationalization of industry.) Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia is/was assisting in the development of Iran's "secret" nuclear weapons program that's allegedly not a nuclear weapons program. Iran's that's not our 83.7% HEU in our facility argument is pretty weak. And chances seem to be that the 83.7% is really the result of a mixture of 60 and 90% lowering the average concentration, which lots of people seem to want to ignore.

I'm not going to debate with you the merits of Iran taking back sovereignty of their oil. And I will admit to hearing about this recently and the speaker was probably not doing a deep dive but highlighting the impact of US actions on Iran that date back to that event. Right or wrong - the justification for those actions don't seem unreasonable to me. I wonder how the US would feel about a contact they had been forced to sign into - that took 84% of the profits from the oil within the USA? And if contracts are supposed to be upheld no matter what - perhaps we can get Israel to honor The Oslo Accords? And a brief search on google shows the USA breaking/withdrawing from several treaties and agreements.... maybe they aren't the same when it's the US that does it?

From google:

Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) in 1951 to end severe economic exploitation and restore Iranian sovereignty. The government based its actions on three primary grounds:

Unfair Concessions: The original 1933 concession was forced upon Iran by an autocratic monarch and locked Iran into a highly lopsided agreement. The AIOC extracted massive wealth while paying Iran a fraction of the profits—often as little as \(16\%\).

State Interference and Imperialism: The AIOC functioned as a tool of British imperialism. It not only controlled the country's main natural resource but heavily interfered in Iran's internal politics to protect its commercial interests and suppress local labor.

Equal Economic Rights: Mossadegh’s government argued that state ownership of natural resources was an essential component of political independence. Nationalization was intended to allow Iran to utilize its own oil revenues to fund national budgets, resolve domestic poverty, and pursue genuine self-determination.

#punchdrunk

If their nuclear program was set back many years if not decades, there was no imminent threat. The ref has already counted you out.

An imminent threat is a real, immediate, and impending physical danger or harm that is about to occur in a short time frame. This type of situation is highly time-sensitive, requiring instant action or intervention to protect life, property, or security.........................

Be careful. You left out the R in the word contract. Word play may be a false excuse used to belittle you. Consider the source.

Live Updates: Iran state media say talks with U.S. halted, attacks on another key waterway coming

An Iranian news outlet linked to its Revolutionary Guard Corps said Monday that the regime was suspending indirect talks with the U.S. and opening "other fronts" in the war in response to what it considers U.S. and Israeli ceasefire violations, specifically threatening the Bab el-Mandeb strait.

President Trump had continued to voice optimism for diplomacy early Monday, saying on Truth Social that, despite another exchange of airstrikes over the weekend, "Iran really wants to make a deal." He urged critics to "sit back and relax, it will all work out well in the end."

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-war-us-trump-strikes-ceasefire-lebanon-israel/

Breaking news. Tehran suspended negotiations via mediators with US, Iranian media says

Iran has suspended all indirect talks with the US and announced it would pursue “complete closure of Strait of Hormuz”, accusing Israel of "continuing crimes" in Lebanon and stating that any ceasefire breach on one front breaks the truce in general.

Iran has suspended all exchanges with the US via mediators on Monday, IRGC-affiliated news agency Tasnim reported, as the two sides remained apart on a deal to extend the ceasefire and end the war.

The decision was made over what the news agency said were "continuing crimes" of Israel in Lebanon.

"Considering that Lebanon was one of the preconditions for the ceasefire and that this ceasefire has now been violated on all fronts, including Lebanon, the Iranian negotiating team is suspending dialogues and exchange of texts through mediators," Tasnim reported.

"Furthermore, Iran and the Axis of Resistance have resolved to pursue the complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and activate other fronts, including the Bab al-Mandab Strait, as part of efforts to punish Israel and its supporters," Tasnim said in a separate post on X.

Tehran has also demanded a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon, according to the news agency.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said earlier on Monday that a violation on one front of the ceasefire is a violation “on all fronts” and that the US-Iran ceasefire is “unequivocally a ceasefire on all fronts, including in Lebanon”.

“Its violation on one front is a violation of the ceasefire on all fronts. The US and Israel are responsible for the consequences of any violation,” Araghchi wrote on X.

The Lebanese Shia militant group Hezbollah is the most powerful component of what Iran calls the Axis of Resistance — a network of armed groups across the Middle East, including Hamas in Gaza, Houthis in Yemen and Shia militias in Iraq — that Tehran finances, arms and directs.

The network was built over decades by the IRGC's Quds Force and functions as Iran's primary instrument of regional influence.

Israel has been involved in a military intervention against Hezbollah since the early days of the Iran war, which began with US-Israeli strikes on Iran in late February that resulted in the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Hezbollah launched a series of missile attacks against Israel in response to his killing, triggering the ongoing conflict.

A ceasefire in the war took effect on 8 April, with Pakistan serving as the primary mediator between Washington and Tehran.

Talks have since covered the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed to international shipping since the war began, Iran's enriched uranium stockpiles, sanctions relief and the terms of a lasting settlement.

The two sides had been working toward a 60-day memorandum of understanding that would extend the ceasefire and open nuclear talks.

Draft terms reported by US sources included unrestricted Hormuz shipping, Iran removing mines from the strait within 30 days, proportional lifting of the US naval blockade, and sanctions waivers allowing Iran to sell oil.

The deal was awaiting final approval from both US President Donald Trump and Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei.

Trump expressed optimism about the talks in a post on his Truth Social platform early Monday in Washington.

“Iran really wants to make a deal, and it will be a good one for the USA and those that are with us,” he wrote. “Just sit back and relax, it will all work out well in the end — it always does."

Trump also said last week that Iran had to make a deal happen or "we'll have to finish the job," after the White House dismissed an Iranian state-run television report of a draft agreement as a "complete fabrication". The US president has previously described the ceasefire as having a "one percent chance" of surviving.

The ceasefire has been repeatedly tested by military incidents. US CENTCOM and the IRGC have shared conflicting accounts of multiple exchanges of fire in the Persian Gulf, including strikes near Bandar Abbas and competing claims over drones, tankers and an Iranian retaliatory strike on a US airbase.

Iran's newly established Persian Gulf Strait Authority, which had been charging vessels $2 million per passage, was sanctioned by the US Treasury Department last week.

https://www.euronews.com/2026/06/01...via-mediators-with-us-iranian-media-says

If one side stops honoring their side of a treaty, it makes no sense to keep giving that side the benefits of the treaty at your detriment.

The problem is that it wasn't really "Mossadegh's government." In Iran's government, the monarch held the ultimate power. It wasn't forced on "Iran," it was legally the Shah's decision to make based on their "constitution." Mossadegh was trying to overthrow the Shah and suspend "parliament" to give himself absolute power. If we supported a "coup," we also helped stopped one. We assisted in keeping the internationally recognized head of state that was friendly to the west in place, instead of allowing the pro-communist revolutionary to oust him.

Really, I sympathize with Mossadegh some. But the way he went about it seems problematic. You can't just unilaterally take a foreign companies' investments by (threat of?) force and expect no pushback. The Iranian/Persian constitution (of 1906 that they were operating under at the time) explicitly gave the Shah the power to depose the PM. After the alleged "coup," Eisenhower pushed for a compromise that resulted in AIOC becoming BP and splitting oil revenue 50/50 between western investors and Iran (with the US getting a cut of the west's portion, of course.)

Did the Shah seemingly get paranoid after Mossadegh's attempted coup and things end badly with him? Yes. But, they also got even worse after him with Khomeini's revolution and reign of terror.

Yes, you're apparently punchdrunk and hallucinating a ref.

Pit "winning a fight":



Since you've elsewhere agreed that this "if" isn't true, the entire statement has no value.

What is a short time frame? Short doesn't have anything quantitative in the definition.

Trump's ego might be bigger than yours, Pit.

Can we please get this sociopath impeached already?

So then you have decided that when he said he set back Iran's nuclear program back many years if not decades that was a lie but when he said they were on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon he was telling the truth?

In that case your entire premise holds no value. Life is a two way street.

Many years if not decades is certainly not a "short time frame".

If you had any idea just how desperate you sound right now......

Uncertainty does not a case for war make.

Yes. I believe the first statement is false and the second is true. Even habitual liars occasionally tell the truth, even if it's unintentional. I don't trust Trump. I do think the probability of IAEA reports being factual is more likely than not.

Life may be a two way street, but both those ways aren't your way, and you can't just twist directions about to suit your whims.

The way technology now allows rapid advancement, anything setting something that has already been figured out back "decades" is BS. While much enrichment equipment was destroyed, the already enriched material has not been accounted for. Simultaneously, Iranian scientists had access to the enrichment equipment long enough to reverse engineer it and recreate more relatively quickly. Iran's manufacturing capabilities are quite advanced.

If Iran already had verified 83.7% HEU in their facility, they can likely already make 90% weapons-grade HEU, and it seems they likely are. 60 to 90 is an easier step than 20 to 60 when it comes to uranium enrichment.

By Iran not allowing access to military sites, the IAEA doesn't know what nuclear weapon program may or may not be in place. They could have everything in place but the loading, or they could even already have nukes.

Forgive me if I don't take the word of the Khomeini's who fill(ed) mass graves with their political opponents and actively support terrorists.

So trump gave two opposite accounts. You admit he is a liar but have chosen which time you believe him and which time not to in order to support your agenda.


Odd, you admit trump is a lair and still randomly choose to believe him when it supports your argument.

Forgive me if I choose not to believe either of them. I refuse to pick and choose which liar I trust more.

And "they could have" is nothing but conjecture. Conjecture is not a legitimate cause for war.

What I believe has nothing to do with the fact that Trump/Khomeini is the one that said something. My initial inclination is to distrust both. Yet, I make my determinations on the seeming reality of each individual situation on the apparent evidence rather than who said what.

You claim you refuse to pick and choose which liar you trust more, but your actions seem to show you picking Khomeini. And you constantly pick and choose whether you believe Trump or not based on the bad argument you are making at that moment. You've argued for both sides of the same Trump statement.

Conjecture by itself isn't a legitimate cause for war. Conjecture supported by copious evidence of wrong doing may be. Especially if additional intelligence is out there that hasn't been made publicly available.