🇺🇸🇮🇱President Trump:

“ISRAEL is the GREATEST nation, possibly, of ALL TIME, with the notable exception of maybe the United States, depending on how you look at it!”

Absolute honor, @POTUS 🙏 pic.twitter.com/WL4XZiPx26

— Vivid.🇮🇱 (@VividProwess) July 1, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

UN nuclear watchdog chief says Iran could again begin enriching uranium in 'matter of months'
By Laura Sharman and Sophie Tanno, CNN

The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium "in a matter of months," contradicting President Donald Trump's claims the US set Tehran's ambitions back by decades.

Rafael Grossi's comments appear to support an early assessment from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, first reported by CNN, which suggests the United States' strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites last week did not destroy the core components of its nuclear program, and likely only set it back by months.

Grossi also told CBS News that the IAEA has resisted pressure to say whether Iran has nuclear weapons or was close to having weapons before the strikes.

"We didn't see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending."

Meanwhile, Tehran has made moves towards withdrawing from international oversight over its nuclear program.

Iran's parliament passed a bill halting cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, while the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, also said that the country could also rethink its membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits signatories from developing nuclear weapons.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/29/world/iaea-iran-enriched-uranium-intl

---

LOL "....didn't see a program that was aiming at nuclear weapons...." even though it was enriching to 60% level or higher in an underground bunker complex that international inspectors were not allowed to visit.

Thank you for such a great example of studious obtusity.

---

As you know or should know, IAEA inspectors were allowed to visit the site until the recent attacks by the US and Israel. Until Trump scrapped the JCPOA, they were allowed to visit undeclared sites and conduct snap inspections as well. Iran was subject to the most comprehensive nuclear safeguards of any country in the world.

---

This conflicts with UN reports

---

From UN reports:

Quote:

---

Monitoring Iran and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy--the IAEA's role explained
19 June 2025

As a non-nuclear armed signatory to the treaty, Iran is banned from acquiring nuclear weapons and is required to allow the IAEA to inspect and verify all nuclear materials and activities, including at short notice, if asked.

The agency regularly inspects Iran's nuclear facilities, including sites like Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. The aim is to ensure that nuclear materials are only used for peaceful means and are not diverted for weapons use.

After the June 2025 Israeli strikes, the IAEA confirmed that Natanz had been impacted but reported no elevated radiation levels. However, it emphasised that any military attack on nuclear facilities is a violation of international law and poses serious risks to safety and the environment.

https://news.un.org/en/story2025/06/1164611

---

---

From UN reports already posted:

"Growing concerns
The draft for Thursday's resolution highlights serious and growing concerns since at least 2019 that Iran had failed to cooperate fully with the UN agency's inspectors."

---

Yes, those would be the inspectors who regularly visit Iran's nuclear sites.

---

And weren't cooperated with since 2019

---

What they mean is that Iran basically reverted to the level of cooperation it was providing before the JCPOA, and that happened more than a year after Trump withdrew from the treaty. You can't expect unlimited cooperation when you refuse to honor the agreement.

---

This is straight up spin.

---

Not at all. The US unilaterally ditched the JCPOA in May 2018. Iran continued for more than a year to act as if it was still in effect. Since then they have still provided access, but not the full access that was agreed under the now defunct treaty. These are facts.

---

boognish_bear said:

---

🇺🇸🇮🇱President Trump:

“ISRAEL is the GREATEST nation, possibly, of ALL TIME, with the notable exception of maybe the United States, depending on how you look at it!”

Absolute honor, @POTUS 🙏 pic.twitter.com/WL4XZiPx26

— Vivid.🇮🇱 (@VividProwess) July 1, 2025

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

UN nuclear watchdog chief says Iran could again begin enriching uranium in 'matter of months'
By Laura Sharman and Sophie Tanno, CNN

The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium "in a matter of months," contradicting President Donald Trump's claims the US set Tehran's ambitions back by decades.

Rafael Grossi's comments appear to support an early assessment from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, first reported by CNN, which suggests the United States' strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites last week did not destroy the core components of its nuclear program, and likely only set it back by months.

Grossi also told CBS News that the IAEA has resisted pressure to say whether Iran has nuclear weapons or was close to having weapons before the strikes.

"We didn't see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending."

Meanwhile, Tehran has made moves towards withdrawing from international oversight over its nuclear program.

Iran's parliament passed a bill halting cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, while the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, also said that the country could also rethink its membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits signatories from developing nuclear weapons.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/29/world/iaea-iran-enriched-uranium-intl

---

LOL "....didn't see a program that was aiming at nuclear weapons...." even though it was enriching to 60% level or higher in an underground bunker complex that international inspectors were not allowed to visit.

Thank you for such a great example of studious obtusity.

---

As you know or should know, IAEA inspectors were allowed to visit the site until the recent attacks by the US and Israel. Until Trump scrapped the JCPOA, they were allowed to visit undeclared sites and conduct snap inspections as well. Iran was subject to the most comprehensive nuclear safeguards of any country in the world.

---

This conflicts with UN reports

---

From UN reports:

Quote:

---

Monitoring Iran and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy--the IAEA's role explained
19 June 2025

As a non-nuclear armed signatory to the treaty, Iran is banned from acquiring nuclear weapons and is required to allow the IAEA to inspect and verify all nuclear materials and activities, including at short notice, if asked.

The agency regularly inspects Iran's nuclear facilities, including sites like Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. The aim is to ensure that nuclear materials are only used for peaceful means and are not diverted for weapons use.

After the June 2025 Israeli strikes, the IAEA confirmed that Natanz had been impacted but reported no elevated radiation levels. However, it emphasised that any military attack on nuclear facilities is a violation of international law and poses serious risks to safety and the environment.

https://news.un.org/en/story2025/06/1164611

---

---

From UN reports already posted:

"Growing concerns
The draft for Thursday's resolution highlights serious and growing concerns since at least 2019 that Iran had failed to cooperate fully with the UN agency's inspectors."

---

Yes, those would be the inspectors who regularly visit Iran's nuclear sites.

---

And weren't cooperated with since 2019

---

What they mean is that Iran basically reverted to the level of cooperation it was providing before the JCPOA, and that happened more than a year after Trump withdrew from the treaty. You can't expect unlimited cooperation when you refuse to honor the agreement.

---

This is straight up spin.

---

Not at all. The US unilaterally ditched the JCPOA in May 2018. Iran continued for more than a year to act as if it was still in effect. Since then they have still provided access, but not the full access that was agreed under the now defunct treaty. These are facts.

---

You are applying cause and effect where there is no proof. You are spinning.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

UN nuclear watchdog chief says Iran could again begin enriching uranium in 'matter of months'
By Laura Sharman and Sophie Tanno, CNN

The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium "in a matter of months," contradicting President Donald Trump's claims the US set Tehran's ambitions back by decades.

Rafael Grossi's comments appear to support an early assessment from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, first reported by CNN, which suggests the United States' strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites last week did not destroy the core components of its nuclear program, and likely only set it back by months.

Grossi also told CBS News that the IAEA has resisted pressure to say whether Iran has nuclear weapons or was close to having weapons before the strikes.

"We didn't see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending."

Meanwhile, Tehran has made moves towards withdrawing from international oversight over its nuclear program.

Iran's parliament passed a bill halting cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, while the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, also said that the country could also rethink its membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits signatories from developing nuclear weapons.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/29/world/iaea-iran-enriched-uranium-intl

---

LOL "....didn't see a program that was aiming at nuclear weapons...." even though it was enriching to 60% level or higher in an underground bunker complex that international inspectors were not allowed to visit.

Thank you for such a great example of studious obtusity.

---

As you know or should know, IAEA inspectors were allowed to visit the site until the recent attacks by the US and Israel. Until Trump scrapped the JCPOA, they were allowed to visit undeclared sites and conduct snap inspections as well. Iran was subject to the most comprehensive nuclear safeguards of any country in the world.

---

This conflicts with UN reports

---

From UN reports:

Quote:

---

Monitoring Iran and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy--the IAEA's role explained
19 June 2025

As a non-nuclear armed signatory to the treaty, Iran is banned from acquiring nuclear weapons and is required to allow the IAEA to inspect and verify all nuclear materials and activities, including at short notice, if asked.

The agency regularly inspects Iran's nuclear facilities, including sites like Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. The aim is to ensure that nuclear materials are only used for peaceful means and are not diverted for weapons use.

After the June 2025 Israeli strikes, the IAEA confirmed that Natanz had been impacted but reported no elevated radiation levels. However, it emphasised that any military attack on nuclear facilities is a violation of international law and poses serious risks to safety and the environment.

https://news.un.org/en/story2025/06/1164611

---

---

From UN reports already posted:

"Growing concerns
The draft for Thursday's resolution highlights serious and growing concerns since at least 2019 that Iran had failed to cooperate fully with the UN agency's inspectors."

---

Yes, those would be the inspectors who regularly visit Iran's nuclear sites.

---

And weren't cooperated with since 2019

---

What they mean is that Iran basically reverted to the level of cooperation it was providing before the JCPOA, and that happened more than a year after Trump withdrew from the treaty. You can't expect unlimited cooperation when you refuse to honor the agreement.

---

This is straight up spin.

---

Not at all. The US unilaterally ditched the JCPOA in May 2018. Iran continued for more than a year to act as if it was still in effect. Since then they have still provided access, but not the full access that was agreed under the now defunct treaty. These are facts.

---

You are applying cause and effect where there is no proof. You are spinning.

---

The Iranians expressly made the link when they announced their intention to begin breaching the agreement.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

UN nuclear watchdog chief says Iran could again begin enriching uranium in 'matter of months'
By Laura Sharman and Sophie Tanno, CNN

The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium "in a matter of months," contradicting President Donald Trump's claims the US set Tehran's ambitions back by decades.

Rafael Grossi's comments appear to support an early assessment from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, first reported by CNN, which suggests the United States' strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites last week did not destroy the core components of its nuclear program, and likely only set it back by months.

Grossi also told CBS News that the IAEA has resisted pressure to say whether Iran has nuclear weapons or was close to having weapons before the strikes.

"We didn't see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending."

Meanwhile, Tehran has made moves towards withdrawing from international oversight over its nuclear program.

Iran's parliament passed a bill halting cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, while the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, also said that the country could also rethink its membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits signatories from developing nuclear weapons.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/29/world/iaea-iran-enriched-uranium-intl

---

LOL "....didn't see a program that was aiming at nuclear weapons...." even though it was enriching to 60% level or higher in an underground bunker complex that international inspectors were not allowed to visit.

Thank you for such a great example of studious obtusity.

---

As you know or should know, IAEA inspectors were allowed to visit the site until the recent attacks by the US and Israel. Until Trump scrapped the JCPOA, they were allowed to visit undeclared sites and conduct snap inspections as well. Iran was subject to the most comprehensive nuclear safeguards of any country in the world.

---

This conflicts with UN reports

---

From UN reports:

Quote:

---

Monitoring Iran and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy--the IAEA's role explained
19 June 2025

As a non-nuclear armed signatory to the treaty, Iran is banned from acquiring nuclear weapons and is required to allow the IAEA to inspect and verify all nuclear materials and activities, including at short notice, if asked.

The agency regularly inspects Iran's nuclear facilities, including sites like Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. The aim is to ensure that nuclear materials are only used for peaceful means and are not diverted for weapons use.

After the June 2025 Israeli strikes, the IAEA confirmed that Natanz had been impacted but reported no elevated radiation levels. However, it emphasised that any military attack on nuclear facilities is a violation of international law and poses serious risks to safety and the environment.

https://news.un.org/en/story2025/06/1164611

---

---

From UN reports already posted:

"Growing concerns
The draft for Thursday's resolution highlights serious and growing concerns since at least 2019 that Iran had failed to cooperate fully with the UN agency's inspectors."

---

Yes, those would be the inspectors who regularly visit Iran's nuclear sites.

---

And weren't cooperated with since 2019

---

What they mean is that Iran basically reverted to the level of cooperation it was providing before the JCPOA, and that happened more than a year after Trump withdrew from the treaty. You can't expect unlimited cooperation when you refuse to honor the agreement.

---

This is straight up spin.

---

Not at all. The US unilaterally ditched the JCPOA in May 2018. Iran continued for more than a year to act as if it was still in effect. Since then they have still provided access, but not the full access that was agreed under the now defunct treaty. These are facts.

---

You are applying cause and effect where there is no proof. You are spinning.

---

The Iranians expressly made the link when they announced their intention to begin breaching the agreement.

---

Show me. You're saying it isn't particularly reliable on this subject.

---

Realitybites said:

---

I find it disgusting that a president of the United States would call Israel the greatest nation on earth.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

UN nuclear watchdog chief says Iran could again begin enriching uranium in 'matter of months'
By Laura Sharman and Sophie Tanno, CNN

The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium "in a matter of months," contradicting President Donald Trump's claims the US set Tehran's ambitions back by decades.

Rafael Grossi's comments appear to support an early assessment from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, first reported by CNN, which suggests the United States' strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites last week did not destroy the core components of its nuclear program, and likely only set it back by months.

Grossi also told CBS News that the IAEA has resisted pressure to say whether Iran has nuclear weapons or was close to having weapons before the strikes.

"We didn't see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending."

Meanwhile, Tehran has made moves towards withdrawing from international oversight over its nuclear program.

Iran's parliament passed a bill halting cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, while the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, also said that the country could also rethink its membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits signatories from developing nuclear weapons.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/29/world/iaea-iran-enriched-uranium-intl

---

LOL "....didn't see a program that was aiming at nuclear weapons...." even though it was enriching to 60% level or higher in an underground bunker complex that international inspectors were not allowed to visit.

Thank you for such a great example of studious obtusity.

---

As you know or should know, IAEA inspectors were allowed to visit the site until the recent attacks by the US and Israel. Until Trump scrapped the JCPOA, they were allowed to visit undeclared sites and conduct snap inspections as well. Iran was subject to the most comprehensive nuclear safeguards of any country in the world.

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

We saw the stick, perhaps we are going to see the carrot.

" President Donald Trump is considering a $30 billion plan to help Iran develop a civilian nuclear program as an incentive to return to full-fledged talks over a nuclear deal, CNN reported on Thursday, citing sources.

Washington and its Middle East partners have been holding secret negotiations with Tehran, even as Iran and Israel exchanged strikes earlier this month, four sources familiar with the matter told the network.

The US reportedly has not dropped its key demand that Iran agree to zero enrichment of uranium, which has been a red line for Tehran. To sweeten the deal, however, Washington is said to have floated several incentives.

These include an estimated $20-30 billion investment project in Iran's nuclear program for civilian energy purposes though the money would not come directly from the US, but rather from its Arab partners, the report claims.

Israel sought to kill Iran's Khamenei defense chief
Other incentives reportedly under consideration include easing some sanctions and allowing Iran access to approximately $6 billion in frozen funds currently held in foreign bank accounts,"

If this is accurate, this will be the most brilliant exercise in US foreign policy since Reagan spanked Khadaffi for the Pan Am bombing without getting involved in a regime change war.

But Bibi, AIPAC, and the neocons are going to have steam coming out of their ears.

---

Kind of like the chicken little's doom and gloom predictions of the US being "at war," and this being the end of America as we know it, I don't believe this for a second.

---

I dont know about end of America or the WW3 stuff but I still believe that this whole Iran situation is far from over and Israel will not quit until they do regime change there. I hope the war stuff doesnt escalate and drag us into it, though.

---

But your ilk was predicting all of the above.

You're kind of the boy who cried wolf.

---

No, not really. The majority of the MAGA base doesnt want any wars and Trump has been made aware of that so I think he is doing his best to avoid that situation. The war hawks like you and Mark Levin are pushing for all out ww3 so I hope your side ends up disappointed.

---

you are imputing to others what you need them to be rather than what they are, have said, etc...

No one here came remotely close to advocating an invasion of Iran. And one was never in the cards anyway. You are apparently not old enough to remember, the First Gulf War. It took us better part of FIVE MONTHS to get deployed to slice up Saddam's army in a few days. We requisitioned civilian sea lift. We requisitioned civilian airlift. Moved an entire Corps plus some (700k troops) into theater. We didn't lift a finger to do anything like that this time. Just moved some ships & aircraft around and staged some fuel & weapons to keep planes in the air to interdict Iranian incoming.

So the "war" everyone screamed about literally could not have happened. But they wanted to have one to ***** about so badly that they 100% conjured one up out of whole cloth.

---

That is not accurate. We could easily have ramped up, escalating were by week, for months. We could have said our goal was finding the enriched uranium and recovering it. Or that we needed nuclear specialists to actually investigate the sites we bombed, to know how damaged they were.

There was no way we were invading without troop movement, but anyone 25 years old remembers how easy it is for the federal government to convince themselves invasion is good.

---

I did not speculate about what we could have done. I merely noted that we did not do ANYthing necessary to go to war. We did not preposition ANY soldiers, armored vehicles, supplies, support infrastructure. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. An invasion did not happen because one could not have happened. Nothing to invade with. Most of the talking heads screaming about us going to war full well knew that. They were just pandering to their base, and flexing their muscles to protect their positions.

You can't "sneak" 750k troops and all their weapons, armor, and supply chain to the far side of the world without someone spotting it. It took 5 months for us to do for 1GW, even with all the requisitions of civilian air/sea lift. Woulda taken years to try to do it the way you suggest (and still get spotted...you can't hide an armored division, much less a half dozen of them).

All we did was conduct flight & refueling operations to help protect Israeli airspace (and by extension Jordanian & Saudi & potentially Egyptian airspace). So did most of the militaries in the region, btw. Several Nato countries, too.... What we did was conduct a robust air defense mission, with allies and for allies, with a single air raid against a strategic target of immense national security significance. Israel did all the grunt work, taking out Iranian aircraft, air defense systems, command & control, etc..... They paved the street for us. (again, proving their worth as an asset).

---

I largely agree, but disagree with your previous statement that ground invasion "could not have happened." It absolutely could have. We simply chose to stop after targeting their nuclear facilities, and accepted that they still have their enriched uranium.

---

boognish_bear said:

---

🇺🇸🇮🇱President Trump:

“ISRAEL is the GREATEST nation, possibly, of ALL TIME, with the notable exception of maybe the United States, depending on how you look at it!”

Absolute honor, @POTUS 🙏 pic.twitter.com/WL4XZiPx26

— Vivid.🇮🇱 (@VividProwess) July 1, 2025

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

We saw the stick, perhaps we are going to see the carrot.

" President Donald Trump is considering a $30 billion plan to help Iran develop a civilian nuclear program as an incentive to return to full-fledged talks over a nuclear deal, CNN reported on Thursday, citing sources.

Washington and its Middle East partners have been holding secret negotiations with Tehran, even as Iran and Israel exchanged strikes earlier this month, four sources familiar with the matter told the network.

The US reportedly has not dropped its key demand that Iran agree to zero enrichment of uranium, which has been a red line for Tehran. To sweeten the deal, however, Washington is said to have floated several incentives.

These include an estimated $20-30 billion investment project in Iran's nuclear program for civilian energy purposes though the money would not come directly from the US, but rather from its Arab partners, the report claims.

Israel sought to kill Iran's Khamenei defense chief
Other incentives reportedly under consideration include easing some sanctions and allowing Iran access to approximately $6 billion in frozen funds currently held in foreign bank accounts,"

If this is accurate, this will be the most brilliant exercise in US foreign policy since Reagan spanked Khadaffi for the Pan Am bombing without getting involved in a regime change war.

But Bibi, AIPAC, and the neocons are going to have steam coming out of their ears.

---

Kind of like the chicken little's doom and gloom predictions of the US being "at war," and this being the end of America as we know it, I don't believe this for a second.

---

I dont know about end of America or the WW3 stuff but I still believe that this whole Iran situation is far from over and Israel will not quit until they do regime change there. I hope the war stuff doesnt escalate and drag us into it, though.

---

But your ilk was predicting all of the above.

You're kind of the boy who cried wolf.

---

No, not really. The majority of the MAGA base doesnt want any wars and Trump has been made aware of that so I think he is doing his best to avoid that situation. The war hawks like you and Mark Levin are pushing for all out ww3 so I hope your side ends up disappointed.

---

you are imputing to others what you need them to be rather than what they are, have said, etc...

No one here came remotely close to advocating an invasion of Iran. And one was never in the cards anyway. You are apparently not old enough to remember, the First Gulf War. It took us better part of FIVE MONTHS to get deployed to slice up Saddam's army in a few days. We requisitioned civilian sea lift. We requisitioned civilian airlift. Moved an entire Corps plus some (700k troops) into theater. We didn't lift a finger to do anything like that this time. Just moved some ships & aircraft around and staged some fuel & weapons to keep planes in the air to interdict Iranian incoming.

So the "war" everyone screamed about literally could not have happened. But they wanted to have one to ***** about so badly that they 100% conjured one up out of whole cloth.

---

That is not accurate. We could easily have ramped up, escalating were by week, for months. We could have said our goal was finding the enriched uranium and recovering it. Or that we needed nuclear specialists to actually investigate the sites we bombed, to know how damaged they were.

There was no way we were invading without troop movement, but anyone 25 years old remembers how easy it is for the federal government to convince themselves invasion is good.

---

I did not speculate about what we could have done. I merely noted that we did not do ANYthing necessary to go to war. We did not preposition ANY soldiers, armored vehicles, supplies, support infrastructure. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. An invasion did not happen because one could not have happened. Nothing to invade with. Most of the talking heads screaming about us going to war full well knew that. They were just pandering to their base, and flexing their muscles to protect their positions.

You can't "sneak" 750k troops and all their weapons, armor, and supply chain to the far side of the world without someone spotting it. It took 5 months for us to do for 1GW, even with all the requisitions of civilian air/sea lift. Woulda taken years to try to do it the way you suggest (and still get spotted...you can't hide an armored division, much less a half dozen of them).

All we did was conduct flight & refueling operations to help protect Israeli airspace (and by extension Jordanian & Saudi & potentially Egyptian airspace). So did most of the militaries in the region, btw. Several Nato countries, too.... What we did was conduct a robust air defense mission, with allies and for allies, with a single air raid against a strategic target of immense national security significance. Israel did all the grunt work, taking out Iranian aircraft, air defense systems, command & control, etc..... They paved the street for us. (again, proving their worth as an asset).

---

I largely agree, but disagree with your previous statement that ground invasion "could not have happened." It absolutely could have. We simply chose to stop after targeting their nuclear facilities, and accepted that they still have their enriched uranium.

---

LOL well, of course we could have invaded Iran rather than bombed it..... IF we had taken 6 months or so of moving an entire corps of troops & logistics into theater. Last time we did that, Congress voted in advance to to it. Then we had a flurry of Executive Orders requisitioning civilian air/sea lift assets followed by warning orders for troops to mass at embarkation points. And on and on and on....weeks of steady build up (affording ever more leverage to diplomats), to include resolutions at the UN and announcements of formal alliance participants. But NONE that never happened this go-around. Not so much as a synapse in that direction.

The prospect of war so many screamed about by definition could not have happened. It was a terrible waste of political capital by the isolationist right.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

UN nuclear watchdog chief says Iran could again begin enriching uranium in 'matter of months'
By Laura Sharman and Sophie Tanno, CNN

The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium "in a matter of months," contradicting President Donald Trump's claims the US set Tehran's ambitions back by decades.

Rafael Grossi's comments appear to support an early assessment from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, first reported by CNN, which suggests the United States' strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites last week did not destroy the core components of its nuclear program, and likely only set it back by months.

Grossi also told CBS News that the IAEA has resisted pressure to say whether Iran has nuclear weapons or was close to having weapons before the strikes.

"We didn't see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending."

Meanwhile, Tehran has made moves towards withdrawing from international oversight over its nuclear program.

Iran's parliament passed a bill halting cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, while the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, also said that the country could also rethink its membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits signatories from developing nuclear weapons.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/29/world/iaea-iran-enriched-uranium-intl

---

LOL "....didn't see a program that was aiming at nuclear weapons...." even though it was enriching to 60% level or higher in an underground bunker complex that international inspectors were not allowed to visit.

Thank you for such a great example of studious obtusity.

---

As you know or should know, IAEA inspectors were allowed to visit the site until the recent attacks by the US and Israel. Until Trump scrapped the JCPOA, they were allowed to visit undeclared sites and conduct snap inspections as well. Iran was subject to the most comprehensive nuclear safeguards of any country in the world.

---

This conflicts with UN reports

---

From UN reports:

Quote:

---

Monitoring Iran and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy--the IAEA's role explained
19 June 2025

As a non-nuclear armed signatory to the treaty, Iran is banned from acquiring nuclear weapons and is required to allow the IAEA to inspect and verify all nuclear materials and activities, including at short notice, if asked.

The agency regularly inspects Iran's nuclear facilities, including sites like Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. The aim is to ensure that nuclear materials are only used for peaceful means and are not diverted for weapons use.

After the June 2025 Israeli strikes, the IAEA confirmed that Natanz had been impacted but reported no elevated radiation levels. However, it emphasised that any military attack on nuclear facilities is a violation of international law and poses serious risks to safety and the environment.

https://news.un.org/en/story2025/06/1164611

---

---

From UN reports already posted:

"Growing concerns
The draft for Thursday's resolution highlights serious and growing concerns since at least 2019 that Iran had failed to cooperate fully with the UN agency's inspectors."

---

Yes, those would be the inspectors who regularly visit Iran's nuclear sites.

---

And weren't cooperated with since 2019

---

What they mean is that Iran basically reverted to the level of cooperation it was providing before the JCPOA, and that happened more than a year after Trump withdrew from the treaty. You can't expect unlimited cooperation when you refuse to honor the agreement.

---

This is straight up spin.

---

Not at all. The US unilaterally ditched the JCPOA in May 2018. Iran continued for more than a year to act as if it was still in effect. Since then they have still provided access, but not the full access that was agreed under the now defunct treaty. These are facts.

---

You are applying cause and effect where there is no proof. You are spinning.

---

The Iranians expressly made the link when they announced their intention to begin breaching the agreement.

---

Show me. You're saying it isn't particularly reliable on this subject.

---

That would only compel you to dig in your heels. If you do your own research, you might learn something. You'll find it's not a hotly contested issue.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

UN nuclear watchdog chief says Iran could again begin enriching uranium in 'matter of months'
By Laura Sharman and Sophie Tanno, CNN

The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium "in a matter of months," contradicting President Donald Trump's claims the US set Tehran's ambitions back by decades.

Rafael Grossi's comments appear to support an early assessment from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, first reported by CNN, which suggests the United States' strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites last week did not destroy the core components of its nuclear program, and likely only set it back by months.

Grossi also told CBS News that the IAEA has resisted pressure to say whether Iran has nuclear weapons or was close to having weapons before the strikes.

"We didn't see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending."

Meanwhile, Tehran has made moves towards withdrawing from international oversight over its nuclear program.

Iran's parliament passed a bill halting cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, while the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, also said that the country could also rethink its membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits signatories from developing nuclear weapons.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/29/world/iaea-iran-enriched-uranium-intl

---

LOL "....didn't see a program that was aiming at nuclear weapons...." even though it was enriching to 60% level or higher in an underground bunker complex that international inspectors were not allowed to visit.

Thank you for such a great example of studious obtusity.

---

As you know or should know, IAEA inspectors were allowed to visit the site until the recent attacks by the US and Israel. Until Trump scrapped the JCPOA, they were allowed to visit undeclared sites and conduct snap inspections as well. Iran was subject to the most comprehensive nuclear safeguards of any country in the world.

---

This conflicts with UN reports

---

From UN reports:

Quote:

---

Monitoring Iran and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy--the IAEA's role explained
19 June 2025

As a non-nuclear armed signatory to the treaty, Iran is banned from acquiring nuclear weapons and is required to allow the IAEA to inspect and verify all nuclear materials and activities, including at short notice, if asked.

The agency regularly inspects Iran's nuclear facilities, including sites like Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. The aim is to ensure that nuclear materials are only used for peaceful means and are not diverted for weapons use.

After the June 2025 Israeli strikes, the IAEA confirmed that Natanz had been impacted but reported no elevated radiation levels. However, it emphasised that any military attack on nuclear facilities is a violation of international law and poses serious risks to safety and the environment.

https://news.un.org/en/story2025/06/1164611

---

---

From UN reports already posted:

"Growing concerns
The draft for Thursday's resolution highlights serious and growing concerns since at least 2019 that Iran had failed to cooperate fully with the UN agency's inspectors."

---

Yes, those would be the inspectors who regularly visit Iran's nuclear sites.

---

And weren't cooperated with since 2019

---

What they mean is that Iran basically reverted to the level of cooperation it was providing before the JCPOA, and that happened more than a year after Trump withdrew from the treaty. You can't expect unlimited cooperation when you refuse to honor the agreement.

---

This is straight up spin.

---

Not at all. The US unilaterally ditched the JCPOA in May 2018. Iran continued for more than a year to act as if it was still in effect. Since then they have still provided access, but not the full access that was agreed under the now defunct treaty. These are facts.

---

You are applying cause and effect where there is no proof. You are spinning.

---

The Iranians expressly made the link when they announced their intention to begin breaching the agreement.

---

Show me. You're saying it isn't particularly reliable on this subject.

---

That would only compel you to dig in your heels. If you do your own research, you might learn something. You'll find it's not a hotly contested issue.

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

We saw the stick, perhaps we are going to see the carrot.

" President Donald Trump is considering a $30 billion plan to help Iran develop a civilian nuclear program as an incentive to return to full-fledged talks over a nuclear deal, CNN reported on Thursday, citing sources.

Washington and its Middle East partners have been holding secret negotiations with Tehran, even as Iran and Israel exchanged strikes earlier this month, four sources familiar with the matter told the network.

The US reportedly has not dropped its key demand that Iran agree to zero enrichment of uranium, which has been a red line for Tehran. To sweeten the deal, however, Washington is said to have floated several incentives.

These include an estimated $20-30 billion investment project in Iran's nuclear program for civilian energy purposes though the money would not come directly from the US, but rather from its Arab partners, the report claims.

Israel sought to kill Iran's Khamenei defense chief
Other incentives reportedly under consideration include easing some sanctions and allowing Iran access to approximately $6 billion in frozen funds currently held in foreign bank accounts,"

If this is accurate, this will be the most brilliant exercise in US foreign policy since Reagan spanked Khadaffi for the Pan Am bombing without getting involved in a regime change war.

But Bibi, AIPAC, and the neocons are going to have steam coming out of their ears.

---

Kind of like the chicken little's doom and gloom predictions of the US being "at war," and this being the end of America as we know it, I don't believe this for a second.

---

I dont know about end of America or the WW3 stuff but I still believe that this whole Iran situation is far from over and Israel will not quit until they do regime change there. I hope the war stuff doesnt escalate and drag us into it, though.

---

But your ilk was predicting all of the above.

You're kind of the boy who cried wolf.

---

No, not really. The majority of the MAGA base doesnt want any wars and Trump has been made aware of that so I think he is doing his best to avoid that situation. The war hawks like you and Mark Levin are pushing for all out ww3 so I hope your side ends up disappointed.

---

you are imputing to others what you need them to be rather than what they are, have said, etc...

No one here came remotely close to advocating an invasion of Iran. And one was never in the cards anyway. You are apparently not old enough to remember, the First Gulf War. It took us better part of FIVE MONTHS to get deployed to slice up Saddam's army in a few days. We requisitioned civilian sea lift. We requisitioned civilian airlift. Moved an entire Corps plus some (700k troops) into theater. We didn't lift a finger to do anything like that this time. Just moved some ships & aircraft around and staged some fuel & weapons to keep planes in the air to interdict Iranian incoming.

So the "war" everyone screamed about literally could not have happened. But they wanted to have one to ***** about so badly that they 100% conjured one up out of whole cloth.

---

That is not accurate. We could easily have ramped up, escalating were by week, for months. We could have said our goal was finding the enriched uranium and recovering it. Or that we needed nuclear specialists to actually investigate the sites we bombed, to know how damaged they were.

There was no way we were invading without troop movement, but anyone 25 years old remembers how easy it is for the federal government to convince themselves invasion is good.

---

I did not speculate about what we could have done. I merely noted that we did not do ANYthing necessary to go to war. We did not preposition ANY soldiers, armored vehicles, supplies, support infrastructure. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. An invasion did not happen because one could not have happened. Nothing to invade with. Most of the talking heads screaming about us going to war full well knew that. They were just pandering to their base, and flexing their muscles to protect their positions.

You can't "sneak" 750k troops and all their weapons, armor, and supply chain to the far side of the world without someone spotting it. It took 5 months for us to do for 1GW, even with all the requisitions of civilian air/sea lift. Woulda taken years to try to do it the way you suggest (and still get spotted...you can't hide an armored division, much less a half dozen of them).

All we did was conduct flight & refueling operations to help protect Israeli airspace (and by extension Jordanian & Saudi & potentially Egyptian airspace). So did most of the militaries in the region, btw. Several Nato countries, too.... What we did was conduct a robust air defense mission, with allies and for allies, with a single air raid against a strategic target of immense national security significance. Israel did all the grunt work, taking out Iranian aircraft, air defense systems, command & control, etc..... They paved the street for us. (again, proving their worth as an asset).

---

I largely agree, but disagree with your previous statement that ground invasion "could not have happened." It absolutely could have. We simply chose to stop after targeting their nuclear facilities, and accepted that they still have their enriched uranium.

---

LOL well, of course we could have invaded Iran rather than bombed it..... IF we had taken 6 months or so of moving an entire corps of troops & logistics into theater. Last time we did that, Congress voted in advance to to it. Then we had a flurry of Executive Orders requisitioning civilian air/sea lift assets followed by warning orders for troops to mass at embarkation points. And on and on and on....weeks of steady build up (affording ever more leverage to diplomats), to include resolutions at the UN and announcements of formal alliance participants. But NONE that never happened this go-around. Not so much as a synapse in that direction.

The prospect of war so many screamed about by definition could not have happened. It was a terrible waste of political capital by the isolationist right.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

UN nuclear watchdog chief says Iran could again begin enriching uranium in 'matter of months'
By Laura Sharman and Sophie Tanno, CNN

The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium "in a matter of months," contradicting President Donald Trump's claims the US set Tehran's ambitions back by decades.

Rafael Grossi's comments appear to support an early assessment from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, first reported by CNN, which suggests the United States' strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites last week did not destroy the core components of its nuclear program, and likely only set it back by months.

Grossi also told CBS News that the IAEA has resisted pressure to say whether Iran has nuclear weapons or was close to having weapons before the strikes.

"We didn't see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending."

Meanwhile, Tehran has made moves towards withdrawing from international oversight over its nuclear program.

Iran's parliament passed a bill halting cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, while the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, also said that the country could also rethink its membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits signatories from developing nuclear weapons.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/29/world/iaea-iran-enriched-uranium-intl

---

LOL "....didn't see a program that was aiming at nuclear weapons...." even though it was enriching to 60% level or higher in an underground bunker complex that international inspectors were not allowed to visit.

Thank you for such a great example of studious obtusity.

---

As you know or should know, IAEA inspectors were allowed to visit the site until the recent attacks by the US and Israel. Until Trump scrapped the JCPOA, they were allowed to visit undeclared sites and conduct snap inspections as well. Iran was subject to the most comprehensive nuclear safeguards of any country in the world.

---

This conflicts with UN reports

---

From UN reports:

Quote:

---

Monitoring Iran and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy--the IAEA's role explained
19 June 2025

As a non-nuclear armed signatory to the treaty, Iran is banned from acquiring nuclear weapons and is required to allow the IAEA to inspect and verify all nuclear materials and activities, including at short notice, if asked.

The agency regularly inspects Iran's nuclear facilities, including sites like Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. The aim is to ensure that nuclear materials are only used for peaceful means and are not diverted for weapons use.

After the June 2025 Israeli strikes, the IAEA confirmed that Natanz had been impacted but reported no elevated radiation levels. However, it emphasised that any military attack on nuclear facilities is a violation of international law and poses serious risks to safety and the environment.

https://news.un.org/en/story2025/06/1164611

---

---

From UN reports already posted:

"Growing concerns
The draft for Thursday's resolution highlights serious and growing concerns since at least 2019 that Iran had failed to cooperate fully with the UN agency's inspectors."

---

Yes, those would be the inspectors who regularly visit Iran's nuclear sites.

---

And weren't cooperated with since 2019

---

What they mean is that Iran basically reverted to the level of cooperation it was providing before the JCPOA, and that happened more than a year after Trump withdrew from the treaty. You can't expect unlimited cooperation when you refuse to honor the agreement.

---

This is straight up spin.

---

Not at all. The US unilaterally ditched the JCPOA in May 2018. Iran continued for more than a year to act as if it was still in effect. Since then they have still provided access, but not the full access that was agreed under the now defunct treaty. These are facts.

---

You are applying cause and effect where there is no proof. You are spinning.

---

The Iranians expressly made the link when they announced their intention to begin breaching the agreement.

---

Show me. You're saying it isn't particularly reliable on this subject.

---

That would only compel you to dig in your heels. If you do your own research, you might learn something. You'll find it's not a hotly contested issue.

---

Ironic post.
I have repeatedly given support for my views. If I give opinion, it is presented as such.

---

Porteroso said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

🇺🇸🇮🇱President Trump:

“ISRAEL is the GREATEST nation, possibly, of ALL TIME, with the notable exception of maybe the United States, depending on how you look at it!”

Absolute honor, @POTUS 🙏 pic.twitter.com/WL4XZiPx26

— Vivid.🇮🇱 (@VividProwess) July 1, 2025

---

Did he really say that?

Where are the people who wanted to fire that lady for saying the same thing?

---

BearFan33 said:

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-could-arm-israel-us-b2s-bunker-busters-iran-tries-go-nuclear-under-new-proposal

Congressman wants us to share (give) the bunker buster and B2 technology and equipment with Israel. That's a bridge too far for me.

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-could-arm-israel-us-b2s-bunker-busters-iran-tries-go-nuclear-under-new-proposal

Congressman wants us to share (give) the bunker buster and B2 technology and equipment with Israel. That's a bridge too far for me.

---

They would just turn around and sell it to the Chinese like they do with all the military tech we give them

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I don't necessarily have a problem dropping the Bunker Busters to destroy their Nuclear program , however, if we help Izzy, I would insist a lasting FIX for Gaza (a Palestinian State) with no Netanyahu BS in return. I DO NOT trust Netanyahu and his govt in the least.

---

Do a lend-lease on a couple B1s. Sell the IDF a dozen bunker busters. Problem solved. We would be no more involved than China and Russia already are.

We sell arms
China sells arms
Russia sells arms

Shouldn't be a problem.

---

A law proposal put forward last year would make it possible for the USA to transfer B-2 stealth bombers & bunker-busting bombs to Israel if Iran resumes its nuclear program.

The bipartisan initiative “The Bunker Buster Act” is by Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J & Mike Lawler, R-N.Y. pic.twitter.com/DerrhDnwvd

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 2, 2025

Waco1947 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

🇺🇸🇮🇱President Trump:

“ISRAEL is the GREATEST nation, possibly, of ALL TIME, with the notable exception of maybe the United States, depending on how you look at it!”

Absolute honor, @POTUS 🙏 pic.twitter.com/WL4XZiPx26

— Vivid.🇮🇱 (@VividProwess) July 1, 2025

---

Did he really say that?

Where are the people who wanted to fire that lady for saying the same thing?

---

Fire what lady?

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

🇺🇸🇮🇱President Trump:

“ISRAEL is the GREATEST nation, possibly, of ALL TIME, with the notable exception of maybe the United States, depending on how you look at it!”

Absolute honor, @POTUS 🙏 pic.twitter.com/WL4XZiPx26

— Vivid.🇮🇱 (@VividProwess) July 1, 2025

---

Did he really say that?

Where are the people who wanted to fire that lady for saying the same thing?

---

Fire what lady?

---

Not you. You're okay for now. Still, what lady? Do you have to be snarky with an honest question?

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I don't necessarily have a problem dropping the Bunker Busters to destroy their Nuclear program , however, if we help Izzy, I would insist a lasting FIX for Gaza (a Palestinian State) with no Netanyahu BS in return. I DO NOT trust Netanyahu and his govt in the least.

---

Do a lend-lease on a couple B1s. Sell the IDF a dozen bunker busters. Problem solved. We would be no more involved than China and Russia already are.

We sell arms
China sells arms
Russia sells arms

Shouldn't be a problem.

---

It looks like lend-lease may be on the table

A law proposal put forward last year would make it possible for the USA to transfer B-2 stealth bombers & bunker-busting bombs to Israel if Iran resumes its nuclear program.

The bipartisan initiative “The Bunker Buster Act” is by Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J & Mike Lawler, R-N.Y. pic.twitter.com/DerrhDnwvd

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 2, 2025

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I don't necessarily have a problem dropping the Bunker Busters to destroy their Nuclear program , however, if we help Izzy, I would insist a lasting FIX for Gaza (a Palestinian State) with no Netanyahu BS in return. I DO NOT trust Netanyahu and his govt in the least.

---

Do a lend-lease on a couple B1s. Sell the IDF a dozen bunker busters. Problem solved. We would be no more involved than China and Russia already are.

We sell arms
China sells arms
Russia sells arms

Shouldn't be a problem.

---

It looks like lend-lease may be on the table

A law proposal put forward last year would make it possible for the USA to transfer B-2 stealth bombers & bunker-busting bombs to Israel if Iran resumes its nuclear program.

The bipartisan initiative “The Bunker Buster Act” is by Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J & Mike Lawler, R-N.Y. pic.twitter.com/DerrhDnwvd

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 2, 2025

---

Josh Gottenhiemer is Jewish.... shouldnt he recuse himself from weapons sales involving Israel?

Why is that not considered a conflict of interest?

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I don't necessarily have a problem dropping the Bunker Busters to destroy their Nuclear program , however, if we help Izzy, I would insist a lasting FIX for Gaza (a Palestinian State) with no Netanyahu BS in return. I DO NOT trust Netanyahu and his govt in the least.

---

Do a lend-lease on a couple B1s. Sell the IDF a dozen bunker busters. Problem solved. We would be no more involved than China and Russia already are.

We sell arms
China sells arms
Russia sells arms

Shouldn't be a problem.

---

It looks like lend-lease may be on the table

A law proposal put forward last year would make it possible for the USA to transfer B-2 stealth bombers & bunker-busting bombs to Israel if Iran resumes its nuclear program.

The bipartisan initiative “The Bunker Buster Act” is by Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J & Mike Lawler, R-N.Y. pic.twitter.com/DerrhDnwvd

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 2, 2025

---

Josh Gottenhiemer is Jewish.... shouldnt he recuse himself from weapons sales involving Israel?

Why is that not considered a conflict of interest?

---

I'm English, Irish, French, Indian, and a couple other things. I have a conflict of interest with most of western civilization.

But you should be good with me; not a drop of Jew blood in me. /s

---

Realitybites said:

---

Those of you looking at Patriots and the Iron Dome, these are yesterday's technologies. With the proliferation of cheap offensive drones and hypersonic missiles the battle space is radically different than it was in the 20th century.

If you rely on these systems you rapidly find your self on the losing end of an economic war.

Reusable laser weaponry is going to be what it takes to build a winning defensive shield going forward.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Those of you looking at Patriots and the Iron Dome, these are yesterday's technologies. With the proliferation of cheap offensive drones and hypersonic missiles the battle space is radically different than it was in the 20th century.

If you rely on these systems you rapidly find your self on the losing end of an economic war.

Reusable laser weaponry is going to be what it takes to build a winning defensive shield going forward.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

And we may be the only country in the world with the money and technology to build them…. for now.

---