DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Iran War II

I said they have their own intel. I said that if Iran can deliver a nuclear device to us they can also deliver one to them. Pay attention.


I highly suggest you take this into consideration..................

"I always thought it was me against the world and then one day I realized it’s just me against me."

So you think European intelligence agencies have the same level of intel on Iran that Mossad and the CIA do? I doubt they even tell Trump all the details because he's a blabbermouth that would burn sources (and he'd get bored if they tried.)

In theory, yes, Iran or their proxies can deliver elsewhere. Yet, there's no indication that they intend to deliver anything anywhere other than Israel or the US. The people with the direct threat are more likely to take a situation more seriously than those only threatened indirectly, especially when the undertaking is expensive.


I think you're projecting again and should take your own advice. My eyes are open, and I'm not the one fighting myself.

I have already shown you how there were European nations with intel that was far more accurate than our own in regards to Iraq having WMD. Yet they trusted U.S. intel over their own which led to a huge mistake on their part. I know you have yourself convinced that the U.S. is the best at everything, all the time. But that's simply not true.


Not only is there an indication of it, there is proof of it...............

Saudi Arabia: Strikes on key energy infrastructure, including the Shaybah oil field, and Prince Sultan Air Base.

United Arab Emirates: Missile and drone attacks causing fires at oil facilities (like in Fujairah) and debris impacts near Dubai's Al Minhad Air Base.

Bahrain: Direct strikes targeting the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet Headquarters and local refining infrastructure.Kuwait: Heavy ballistic missile and drone interceptions over U.S. and allied facilities, including Camp Arifjan.

Qatar: Drone and missile attacks targeting the Al Udeid Air Base.Iraq: Multiple strikes on military sites (such as Jurf al-Sakher) and areas near the U.S. consulate in Erbil.

Jordan: Interception of drones and missiles over U.S. and allied installations, including the Muwaffaq Salti Airbase.

Syria: Escalation of strikes by Iran and affiliated militias against U.S. and allied outposts.

Cyprus: A drone strike hit the British RAF Akrotiri military base.

Anyone that are allies of the U.S. in the region have been struck. You know, nations Iran is actually capable of striking.

As much as you wish to minimize, rationalize and skirt around the facts, not only has Europe refused to back us in battle ships, aircraft carriers and ships of war even just show force alone and defend the Strait of Hormuz, they even refused to send mine sweepers to help clear the strait. Yet they were there in Afghanistan and they were there in Iraq.

And before you go off on another back alley stroll, if there is any president in my lifetime Europe would capitulate to it would be trump. He has already hit them with massive trade tariffs. He has threatened to back out of NATO. They know just how vindictive and punitive he can be. Since you brought up financial ramifications.

Earlier you blamed it on what I read in the media and the usual blah, blah, blah BS the right uses. But none of that is needed. Anyone keeping up with things knows what I just posted is true.

All one needs to do is read actual quotes from trump and see how Europe reacted. All you need to do is see that Europe was there for us in Iraq. They were there for us in Afghanistan and they are not there for us now. You can look at our allies in the region to see that Iraq will attack any of our allies they can reach by the strikes they have conducted since the start of this "excursion".

And if anyone would punish them for it, it would be trump.

Not to muddy the waters, but simply to add, NATO allies refuse to let American forces use their bases to fuel planes for proactive strikes against Iran. That goes beyond. Just not turning up and supporting the war effort. They do not believe the war is justified. And that is not because they want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

That isn't muddying the waters. That serves as an exclamation point.

Well I don't think the other person is having an honest conversation... I don't want a comment from me to derail whatever the talking point of the moment is. But yes, if Europe thought Iran was close to a nuclear weapon, then they would have joined in the efforts in Iran. They did not and they do not.

No, I definitely don't think we are the best at everything. Stop making up BS, if you're capable, which seems unlikely. It seems to be all that you do. False claim after false claim. Mossad is generally considered the top intelligence agency, and this is happening in their "sandbox." You haven't shown more accurate intel. You've shown articles making claims after the fact. One piece of bad evidence does not show good intel elsewhere. The British probably have the best intelligence service in the EU and they're the ones that provided us with the "bad intel."

None of those countries are in the EU, which is what we were talking about. Most of these aren't in NATO. And most of the targets were bases we use. So effectively, they were still targeting US. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have carried out attacks in Iran. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/14/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-uae-iran-attacks.html

The EU/NATO has most of its forces tied up watching Russia already. It's one of the most basic principles of warfare to never fight a war on two fronts. NATO has 8 multinational battlegroups deployed on its eastern border. Their naval groups are active in the Mediterranean and Baltic Seas for the same reason. Non-US NATO countries have a total of six active aircraft carriers. Between the Med, Baltic and their own borders, they're busy. We have 11 traditional carriers and 9 helo carriers on our own. "Mine sweepers" don't really get used a whole lot any more. It's more drones or helo-towed equipment now. They could still be used elsewhere, but in the Strait where they'd be susceptible to artillery fire, not really going to be used.

Now who is making up bogus BS. Europe capitulating to Trump? Doesn't seem like you've ever been to Europe. Or anywhere overseas for any amount of extended time. If anything, Trump has the opposite effect. They are more likely to do things just to spite Trump.

Anyone that is not just sucking at the mass media teat or lost entirely in their own fantasy world knows that what you just posted is the opposite of true. The list of places seemed legit, but they support my position more than yours. The rest was slop from your imagination.

Is it not justified or is it just politically expedient to "stand up to Trump" because Trump is massively unpopular pretty much everywhere and the current heads of state in Spain and Italy have hit rough patches in their own popularity at home and supporting Trump is political suicide there?

It'd be great to have a president that wasn't himself "radioactive" figuratively speaking.

Or is it because Spain really want Iran to have a nuke?
Or is it because they were all high at the time?
Or maybe They did it as a dare?

Along with France and the UK and Austria and Switzerland ....

See ... you aren't here for an honest conversation.

Donald Trump: Hero in the Fight Against Global Warming?

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/article/the-world-is-quietly-adapting-to-9-less-oil-100000514.html

Posting purposefully absurd reasons is having an honest conversation? I think you need to look in the mirror to see who isn't being honest.

Austria and Switzerland both have always had "strict, legally binding doctrine(s) of permanent neutrality." France is another country with political upheaval at home.

We're actually using RAF Fairford, so I'm not sure why the UK is on your list. link

I think it's either because you're not interested in honest conversation or you don't really understand how the military and politics intersect. Yes, the UK is calling it defensive mission use for political reasons, but they're basically also calling anything related to Iran's military or nuclear facilities defensive. It's part of the reason I hate politics. Saying one thing for appearances while really doing something else is, annoyingly, the way politics are played.

You did nothing but go on a personal attack rant and ignored pretty much every point I made. If Mossad is generally considered the top intelligence agency, and this is happening in their "sandbox.", why has Netanyahu been claiming Iran has been on the verge of having a nuclear weapon for 30 years now?

I stated factual information you can't refute based solely on what has happened. Once you can't refute factual things that actually happened, you lose. You're just not smart enough to figure that out yet.

Netanyahu is nothing but Israel's version of trump. He is currently charged with crimes in his own country and has been playing The Boy Who Cried Wolf over Iran for over three decades now. Yet you claim not to trust trump as you claim Netanyahu is preaching the gospel.

As has been pointed out to you, the world disagrees with you. Not according to the media but based on their own words backed up by actions.

Now go back on another one of your childish rants.

I commented on practically every "point" you tried to make and explained why I disagreed with your interpretation.

Maybe because Iran has been working towards nuclear weapons for more than 30 years now, with Mossad continuously trying to set them back?

The facts you're claiming, some of which I've admitted, don't support the "inferences" (seem to be fallacies) you are making based upon them.

Naftali Bennett was Israel's prime minister from 2021-2022. He had the same stance on Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Your interpretation of what the world's words and actions mean are not facts.

Facts are not interpretations.

I was only half-joking when I posted that DJT will have done more for EV adoption than Biden.

I think my "absurd" reasons are just examples of the type of none fact based, emotional "what if" deflection you peddle in sometimes.

If France or any other NATO ally had intel to suggest Iran had imminent ability to make a nuke, they would have joined in the war effort ... or let the US use their bases.

The UK did NOT permit the USA to fuel planes for proactive attacks on Iran - it supported the US only in defensive actions where allies (the US/neighboring countries to Iran) were being attacked.

Here's the bottom line: Maybe you think it's plausible that Trump and his administration shared fact based data to show Iran was imminently able to obtain a Nuclear weapon - and their reaction was that they collectively shrugged their shoulders and declined to get involved because of political popularity at home ... I find that idea laughable. Not only that but I do not believe for an iota that Trump would not then release and roast those nations publicly. As it is - we get a changing made up lie out of Trump every other day with zero facts or evidence of any claim he makes.

I'm not sure if you can interpret France/UK not allowing us to use their bases like that. If I had to guess, I think their staunch non-involvement has more to do with our overall stance vs our NATO allies juxtaposed to how we flung ourselves back into Middle East conflict. We are a PitA in NATO right now, so I just don't think those countries want to extend themselves militarily and politically to help clean up our mess.

I don't think it has to do with some moral/ethical conclusion(s) they made regarding nukes.

Neither are interpretations facts.

No, yours are purposefully absurd. Mine are reasoned, even if you don't agree with my reasoning.

France knows Russia has many nukes. That's where most of there forces are already deployed (well in position to deter Russia.) Iran's nukes are only somewhere on the spectrum of possible to probable and limited in potential number. The French military isn't that large. They can't be in in multiple places at the same time. Some NATO allies are allowing us to use their bases.

Bombers are not defensive. (Which is why I included the link) One can call using them "defensive actions," but by that logic the whole conflict could be considered a "defensive action."

I find your laughable idea laughable as well. Yet, the real reasons are likely more complex than you seem to want to admit.

Trump has roasted darn near everyone. I think Tulsi was limiting the information she shared with Trump, so he couldn't release it like the tantruming toddler he acts like. "Fortunately," long briefings and lots of information "bore" Trump. I'm worried about her replacement being a simpering sycophant, and not even trying to manage Donald. You're right many of Trump's claims are bogus. That's why I'm looking at what the IAEA and other agencies have said instead of listening to Trump.

So the initial and specific observation or premise was France, Spain, UK, Austria and Switzerland not allowing the US to launch offensive strikes against Iran. I offered that if EU and those countries specifically had factual intel that Iran was close to obtaining nuclear capacity it would be in their interest and (virtually) impossible for them to collectively all deny supporting the USA's effort in Iran.

From there you claimed that it was plausible this was just politics and under pressure leaders making strategic decisions (presumably to cling to power). I disagree and would even think that most people - given proof of what was claimed regarding Iran would actually support action, meaning that it would be political suicide NOT to support the USA if those facts were shared publicly. NO facts or details have ever been provided publicly - this is the specific point I was making about Trump roasting them publicly, sharing factual data about a real threat. Hot air and calling allies names is one thing ... providing proof of an imminent threat that leaders failed to act on would be something completely different.

You've supported that notion of political decisions over security of the world/region, by introducing an angle about troops and where they are committed in relation to fighting/defensively deployed vs Russia.

No-where does allowing the US to use US airbases on foreign soil to attack Iran (France, Spain and the UK - we'll leave aside the neutrality issue with Austria and Switzerland) rely on troops being deployed ... anywhere. Home or abroad. Facing a real threat or an imagined one. I say an imagined one - because if Russia did attack France (your example of Troop deployment) - then the whole of NATO would respond. NATO is a defensive pact. Attack one and all will respond. And if Troop movement was an issue/needed: Sure every country has strategic positioning of it's military based on perceived threats , but it does not then refuse to move those assets when presented with a real and tangible threat in real time.

I'll leave it here - if you think it's credible and probable that the USA shared data showing an imminent probability that Iran was close to securing a nuke and every EU nation shrugged it's shoulders and declined to get involved because of either - [1] Politics at home - or - [2] How unpopular Trump is viewed in the majority of the ROTW .... I disagree.

A list of sites hit in several of our middle east allied nations after you claimed only the U.S. and Israel were their targets are facts not interpretations and some of those sites were not bases being used by the U.S. There are more than I listed and one happened just yesterday. The first is the U.A.E. being struck in several location. I'm sure you'll come up with some other excuses for these but that will be you trying to interpret the facts again..........

Iran attacks luxury hotels and airports in Dubai

Explosions rocked many of the city's major landmarks and revenue-earners, including the Palm Jumeirah man-made island, the Burj Al Arab ultra-luxury hotel and Dubai airport.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/internati...els-and-airports-in-dubai_6750972_4.html

This has been happening since trump first attacked Iran right up until yesterday.............

Kuwait says Iranian drones hit airport and killed 1 as ceasefire is tested again

https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-...ne-2026-de2d1814c0f38252bf0383be859c870b

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Trump: 'I started Iran war, would be no Israel without me'

US President Donald Trump confirmed that he called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "f****ing crazy" during a call on Monday in an interview on Pod Force One released on Wednesday.

US President Donald Trump confirmed that he called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "f****ing crazy" and told him that Trump kept him out of jail during a call on Monday, in an interview on the New York Post's "Pod Force One" with Miranda Devine, released on Wednesday.

Reports of Trump's language were first released on Monday, with an Israeli source later disputing the account.

In his interview, Trump clarified that he wasn't angry but that he "was a little perturbed at his constantly fighting with Lebanon."

"I like Bibi a lot," Trump added. "I'm a wartime president, he's a wartime prime minister."

Trump also disputed theories that Netanyahu had "tricked" him into joining the war.

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-898221

Diplomacy at its finest.

House votes to rebuke Trump over war with Iran

The House passed a largely symbolic war powers resolution over Republican leaders’ objections that it would “weaken the president’s hand” in negotiations with Iran.

WASHINGTON — The House offered a rare rebuke to President Donald Trump on Wednesday, passing a Democratic-led measure to end his war with Iran over objections from Republican leadership.

It was one of two Democratic-led measures opposed by the White House that advanced in the GOP-led House. Lawmakers later passed a motion that would unlock a vote on sending aid to Ukraine.

The Iran war powers resolution, offered by Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, had been heading for a vote before the House left for its Memorial Day recess May 21. But it was abruptly pulled from the floor when it appeared too many Republicans were absent to defeat it.

On Wednesday, it passed 215-208, with four Republicans joining all Democrats in voting yes: Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Tom Barrett of Michigan and Warren Davidson of Ohio.

The resolution directs Trump to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities with Iran, unless Congress votes to declare war or authorizes using military force against it. It would not force him to end the conflict, however; it is a symbolic expression of disapproval of the war with Iran.

Republicans had rejected three other attempts to pass a war powers resolution this year. The most recent vote ended in a 212-212 tie, and Democrats celebrated, saying that more Americans are turning against the war and that it was only a matter of time before they would be successful.

Wednesday’s vote gives momentum for the resolution in the Senate, which had already advanced its own war powers resolution on the floor last month but had not yet held a final vote. The Senate version has teeth, however, and it would require Trump to end the war without congressional approval. But it would need to pass the House, and then Trump could veto it.

A White House official responded to the House vote by noting that a handful of GOP lawmakers were absent for it and that previous efforts on similar resolutions were unsuccessful.

The House resolution was opposed by Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and most Republicans, who complained that it undermines Trump and his top negotiators when they are trying to secure a nuclear deal with Iran. Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., called Wednesday’s action “just a total BS vote.”

“I think there’s no Democrat, no Republican, that can tell you what forces they would want pulled from Iran. There’s really nothing they actually want pulled from there. They just want a stupid political vote, which is what this is,” Mast said Wednesday. That “weakens the president’s hands as he’s negotiating with Iran.”

In the same vote series Wednesday, the House voted 218-204 in favor of a motion to “discharge,” or bring forward, legislation that would provide aid to Ukraine. That vote took place after the so-called discharge petition reached 218 signatures — a simple majority of the chamber — on May 13, allowing supporters to bypass Johnson and GOP leadership and bring the measure directly to the floor.

Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, a Republican-turned-independent, joined all Democrats and two Republicans, Fitzpatrick and Don Bacon of Nebraska, in signing the Ukraine petition.

Kiley and six Republicans voted Wednesday to discharge the bill. That sets up a final vote Thursday.

“This vote is not a process vote,” said Meeks, who also led the discharge effort. “It’s a statement on whether this Congress and all of its members stand with and support Ukraine and the people of Ukraine and its fight for freedom, its fight for democracy and its fight for liberty.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-votes-rebuke-trump-war-iran-rcna348281

No, your initial observation was a generic "NATO allies refuse to let American forces use their bases to fuel planes for proactive strikes against Iran." link

5 countries are not all of NATO. (Your use of all bolded above)

Later you brought in specific countries and I brought evidence that including the UK was misleading.



I never claimed it was just politics. Too many people seem to have a need to simplify complex topics until they are either meaningless or in no way actually reflect the situation. They focus on individual "facts" without really understanding what those "facts" mean or how they fit together. They hear some neatly tied narrative in the media that seems to fit the "facts" that same media tells them, and they believe that is the whole story. I hate to break it to you, but governments lie to people. People in government use the media to lie to people. It's not just Trump. The real world of politics, defense/war, and espionage aren't simple. It's complex, and shady, and deceitful, and compartmentalized. Misinformation is a weapon, in politics, the military, and intelligence. It gets even more complex when you have to operate around your own head of state because he's a rampaging simpleton whose lies are to stroke his own ego rather than to effectively govern, and you never know what he's going to blurt out. Yet, threats still have to be neutralized, and unfortunately there are a whole lot of them to worry about currently. Not everyone can do everything, so things get compartmentalized.

Unfortunately, most people don't understand proof when they see it. They think weapons-grade uranium means something that it doesn't. Governments want people to believe that misconception. Further people don't seem to understand that evidence of 83.7% uranium is essentially evidence of weapons-grade uranium. Governments don't want people to understand that. Governments think their citizens are stupid and can't handle complex and/or harrowing information. Many of those citizens apparently can't.



Russia is a real and tangible threat in real time to Ukraine who if not an official member is closely affiliated and wants to be a member. No one wants Ukraine to fall because then there is no buffer for NATO. EU NATO members staying there from a compartmentalization standpoint makes sense.

We don't need to use those bases to attack Iran. There are plenty of others we are using. We don't need other countries assistance with assets. The US makes up ~60% of all NATO military expenditures. More assets in a restricted theater could actually cause more problems. Joint operations complicate communications and oversight. They make great photo ops and do perform the function of relations building, but when it comes to actually getting things done they in many ways make things harder. Like many things, Trump doesn't really understand that. He just thinks he knows best and everyone should just follow his every whim.

I think the characterization that every EU nation shrugged is bogus. Again, it's not that simple. They likely just understand the military situation better than Trump and know that their military forces are better used elsewhere if Trump is going to be Bigfooting with our forces. They know we have the forces to do what needs to be done, and if Trump wants to waste a bunch of money doing it the way he has been, more power to him. They'd be happy to be rid of him as soon as possible if this craters his popularity. While the US can likely handle things despite Trump (or they might be putting more faith in Israel), they'd still like us to go back to something resembling rational leadership. If they can score points at home at the same time by talking what their constituents want to hear, while having minimal, if any, material effect on the outcome in Iran, they will. Politicians don't shrug, they scheme for advantage, even the well intentioned ones.

Again this is just my opinion. My interpretation of the facts. But I do have some basis for them having participated in Joint operations and having been stationed overseas and having witnessed the juncture of military and politics during the "global war on terror."

I think you are smarter than that.

"NATO allies refuse to let American forces use their bases to fuel planes for proactive strikes against Iran." == Does not make a claim that ALL NATO allies refused. It does say/imply/mean - there are Allies of the US that are in NATO that refused to let the US use their bases fully in regards to proactive strikes against.

It's basic comprehension, granted the English language does have a lot of nuance.

I'm not going to get into a debate about Uranium. I have always started with and maintained "imminent ability to make/create" a nuclear weapon.

Neither am I going to get into what % of NATO the US makes up or whether the US needs those EU bases.

I'll simply stick to my opinion and Occam's razor - those countries did not fully support the USA. I believe if there was evidence of an imminent threat - they would have.

If you don't mean all, don't say all. I bolded your use of it in the quoted text in my previous post.

What do you know about making nuclear weapons? What do you know about making conventional ordinance? While the theory of rocket science is complex, following design specifications is pretty straightforward. Getting the enriched uranium is the "hardest" part of making a nuke. There is evidence they've cleared that hurdle. Iran has a robust military manufacturing industry.

Of course you're going to ignore anything that shakes your overly simplified narrative.

link