historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

You're not alone. I've heard many commentators slip and say "Iran" when they meant "Israel" and vice versa.

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran. From the start, however, this has not been an objective of this war. We are kicking the can down the road. Perhaps this will prevent the North Korea Seoul hostage scenario. Perhaps this will weaken the government there to the point it falls, but I don't think that is seen by experts in the administration and elsewhere as a highly likely prospect.

FLBear5630 said:

---

william said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I'm more concerned the people advising him didn't really have a plan, particularly Hegseth.

---

BINGO! This is a strategic and policy disaster, thank god our military is tactically sound.

---

I wouldn't label this a disaster. At least not yet. There is truth and necessity that Iran needed to be dealt with harshly. The first bombing was sound. This second escalation may have been necessary, maybe not. I do think resetting the deterrence measure with Iran will pay dividends against terrorism against the U.S. and nuclear weapon pursuits. Leave the regime change on the side of the road and try to build a more constructive relationship with another Islamist "bad guy".

---

Maybe we should negotiate a deal with the regime that would allow us to verify what they are doing either their uranium.

---

It didn't matter for 30 years. Maybe they'll play along this time.

---

So what stopped them from building a bomb for 30 years? Considering that they were determined to do so and the agreements were so ineffective?

---

Stuxnet, Israeli execution of scientists, and a whole host of intel ops. Oh yes, and several strategic bombings and explosions along the way. The agreements definitely didn't stop them from building facilities and enriching uranium.

---

Those were relatively minor setbacks in a 30-year time frame. And the NPT was supposed to support a peaceful nuclear program, not put a stop to it. That misapprehension has plagued our discourse from the beginning.

---

A peaceful nuclear program needs no enrichment beyond 5%, tops.

It was never a 'peaceful' nuclear program, it was always a nuclear weapons program.

---

Not necessarily true, and patently false, respectively.

---

Absolutely true. Please name me the peaceful nuclear program which needs 60%+ enriched uranium.

Seriously Sam, this is more than slightly obvious.

---

Baghdad Ma'am...........

- el UF

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

D!

Go Bears!!

Viva il Donaldo!!!

Suelten los perros economicas, amigos!!!!

---

Serious question, since 1945 when we saw what nukes could do. Has ANY Nation used a nuclear bomb for anything but deterrence? Even North Korea who is bat **** crazy hasn't been that stupid. Pakistan hasn't even nuked India. The Soviet Union when they fell apart, didn't use nukes. Israel when attacked, didn't use nukes.

Don't go all indignant and say you love Mullahs or some other wild ass comment. Or that we even think Iran should have it. You opened the door, you said name one. Obviously they don't, but then the next question what is the actual risk of use? If you want to have a real discussion, let's have one.

---

Where do those North Korean terror cells operate again? NK is not Iran. They want SK and don't want their own obliteration. Not close to Iran except that they're a dictatorship.
NK also doesn't have an apocalyptic religious belief ruling the land.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran. From the start, however, this has not been an objective of this war. We are kicking the can down the road. Perhaps this will prevent the North Korea Seoul hostage scenario. Perhaps this will weaken the government there to the point it falls, but I don't think that is seen by experts in the administration and elsewhere as a highly likely prospect.

---

It is pretty clear that the experts do not believe actual regime change is likely and told Trump that. What Trump and Netanyahu were trying to accomplish is another thing entirely. I am not sure Trump really knows. Regardless, even if verification is not a failsafe, your assumptions still make it vitally important.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran. From the start, however, this has not been an objective of this war. We are kicking the can down the road. Perhaps this will prevent the North Korea Seoul hostage scenario. Perhaps this will weaken the government there to the point it falls, but I don't think that is seen by experts in the administration and elsewhere as a highly likely prospect.

---

Exactly. If any remnants of the current radical theocracy are allowed to remain in power, and/or if they're not overthrown internally by the Iranian people, it's simply a matter of time before they pick up the pieces and continue to sponsor terrorism while renewing their quest for deliverable nuclear weapons. Otherwise at best all this will ultimately accomplish is a major but temporary set back for the loons that have ruled that country for going on half a century.

Frank Galvin said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran. From the start, however, this has not been an objective of this war. We are kicking the can down the road. Perhaps this will prevent the North Korea Seoul hostage scenario. Perhaps this will weaken the government there to the point it falls, but I don't think that is seen by experts in the administration and elsewhere as a highly likely prospect.

---

It is pretty clear that the experts do not believe actual regime change is likely and told Trump that. What Trump and Netanyahu were trying to accomplish is another thing entirely. I am not sure Trump really knows. Regardless, even if verification is not a failsafe, your assumptions still make it vitally important.

---

The problem is that the goals are incompatible. When verification works, you lose your pretext for regime change. Our solution has been to take instances of successful verification (for example, discovery of minor procedural violations by Iran) and spin them as failures. Regime change is always the objective, despite what anyone may say.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

william said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I'm more concerned the people advising him didn't really have a plan, particularly Hegseth.

---

BINGO! This is a strategic and policy disaster, thank god our military is tactically sound.

---

I wouldn't label this a disaster. At least not yet. There is truth and necessity that Iran needed to be dealt with harshly. The first bombing was sound. This second escalation may have been necessary, maybe not. I do think resetting the deterrence measure with Iran will pay dividends against terrorism against the U.S. and nuclear weapon pursuits. Leave the regime change on the side of the road and try to build a more constructive relationship with another Islamist "bad guy".

---

Maybe we should negotiate a deal with the regime that would allow us to verify what they are doing either their uranium.

---

It didn't matter for 30 years. Maybe they'll play along this time.

---

So what stopped them from building a bomb for 30 years? Considering that they were determined to do so and the agreements were so ineffective?

---

Stuxnet, Israeli execution of scientists, and a whole host of intel ops. Oh yes, and several strategic bombings and explosions along the way. The agreements definitely didn't stop them from building facilities and enriching uranium.

---

Those were relatively minor setbacks in a 30-year time frame. And the NPT was supposed to support a peaceful nuclear program, not put a stop to it. That misapprehension has plagued our discourse from the beginning.

---

A peaceful nuclear program needs no enrichment beyond 5%, tops.

It was never a 'peaceful' nuclear program, it was always a nuclear weapons program.

---

Not necessarily true, and patently false, respectively.

---

Absolutely true. Please name me the peaceful nuclear program which needs 60%+ enriched uranium.

Seriously Sam, this is more than slightly obvious.

---

Baghdad Ma'am...........

- el UF

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

D!

Go Bears!!

Viva il Donaldo!!!

Suelten los perros economicas, amigos!!!!

---

Serious question, since 1945 when we saw what nukes could do. Has ANY Nation used a nuclear bomb for anything but deterrence? Even North Korea who is bat **** crazy hasn't been that stupid. Pakistan hasn't even nuked India. The Soviet Union when they fell apart, didn't use nukes. Israel when attacked, didn't use nukes.

Don't go all indignant and say you love Mullahs or some other wild ass comment. Or that we even think Iran should have it. You opened the door, you said name one. Obviously they don't, but then the next question what is the actual risk of use? If you want to have a real discussion, let's have one.

---

Where do those North Korean terror cells operate again? NK is not Iran. They want SK and don't want their own obliteration. Not close to Iran except that they're a dictatorship.
NK also doesn't have an apocalyptic religious belief ruling the land.

---

While NK does not sponsor or overtly back selected groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., they are peltry active in spying, cyber crime and other international shenanigans, especially IP theft.

At a prior job we had multiple companies in the portfolio hacked by groups backed by the NK government.

America acting without Israel's blessing...more of that please

Israel, which wasn’t formally part of the Iran negotiations, wasn’t happy that it got word that a deal was finalized at a late stage and wasn’t consulted, according to mediators and a person familiar with the matter. https://t.co/Dp1dd4wat8

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) April 8, 2026

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran. From the start, however, this has not been an objective of this war. We are kicking the can down the road. Perhaps this will prevent the North Korea Seoul hostage scenario. Perhaps this will weaken the government there to the point it falls, but I don't think that is seen by experts in the administration and elsewhere as a highly likely prospect.

---

It is pretty clear that the experts do not believe actual regime change is likely and told Trump that. What Trump and Netanyahu were trying to accomplish is another thing entirely. I am not sure Trump really knows. Regardless, even if verification is not a failsafe, your assumptions still make it vitally important.

---

The problem is that the goals are incompatible. When verification works, you lose your pretext for regime change. Our solution has been to take instances of successful verification (for example, discovery of minor procedural violations by Iran) and spin them as failures. Regime change is always the objective, despite what anyone may say.

---

Iran has done more than enough, independent of anything to do with nuclear weapons or uranium enrichment, to merit regime change.

Hegseth: Iran would be wise to find a way to get the carrier pigeon to their troops out in remote locations to know not to shoot missiles—we're prepared.

Reporter: THEY’RE STILL FIRING BALLISTIC MISSILES

Hegseth: Excuse me, why are you so rude? pic.twitter.com/4PMqMHX9qZ

— Acyn (@Acyn) April 8, 2026

This morning, I asked President Trump if he’s okay with the Iranians charging a toll for all ships that go through the Strait of Hormuz, he told me there may be a Joint US-Iran venture to charge tolls:

“We’re thinking of doing it as a joint venture. It’s a way of securing it —…

— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) April 8, 2026

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran. From the start, however, this has not been an objective of this war. We are kicking the can down the road. Perhaps this will prevent the North Korea Seoul hostage scenario. Perhaps this will weaken the government there to the point it falls, but I don't think that is seen by experts in the administration and elsewhere as a highly likely prospect.

---

It is pretty clear that the experts do not believe actual regime change is likely and told Trump that. What Trump and Netanyahu were trying to accomplish is another thing entirely. I am not sure Trump really knows. Regardless, even if verification is not a failsafe, your assumptions still make it vitally important.

---

The problem is that the goals are incompatible. When verification works, you lose your pretext for regime change. Our solution has been to take instances of successful verification (for example, discovery of minor procedural violations by Iran) and spin them as failures. Regime change is always the objective, despite what anyone may say.

---

My overriding point is that verification remains important, whether we are trying to overthrow the regime or we are not. Getting solid verification procedures in place, however, is not a "win" that Trump can easily sell; therefore, I doubt it will be part of the final agreement, if there is one.

Also, while we would welcome regime change in Iran, it has not been a priority until now. Having a crusader serving as Secretary of Badass changed that calculus, I am afraid.

These 10 points are an absolute disaster https://t.co/GLlDwtM5k6

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) April 8, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

This morning, I asked President Trump if he’s okay with the Iranians charging a toll for all ships that go through the Strait of Hormuz, he told me there may be a Joint US-Iran venture to charge tolls:

“We’re thinking of doing it as a joint venture. It’s a way of securing it —…

— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) April 8, 2026

---

We might finally have an "ally" in the Middle East that isnt a complete parasite on the American tax payer.

What a novel concept!

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran. From the start, however, this has not been an objective of this war. We are kicking the can down the road. Perhaps this will prevent the North Korea Seoul hostage scenario. Perhaps this will weaken the government there to the point it falls, but I don't think that is seen by experts in the administration and elsewhere as a highly likely prospect.

---

It is pretty clear that the experts do not believe actual regime change is likely and told Trump that. What Trump and Netanyahu were trying to accomplish is another thing entirely. I am not sure Trump really knows. Regardless, even if verification is not a failsafe, your assumptions still make it vitally important.

---

The problem is that the goals are incompatible. When verification works, you lose your pretext for regime change. Our solution has been to take instances of successful verification (for example, discovery of minor procedural violations by Iran) and spin them as failures. Regime change is always the objective, despite what anyone may say.

---

Iran has done more than enough, independent of anything to do with nuclear weapons or uranium enrichment, to merit regime change.

---

I disagree, but such honesty is rare.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran. From the start, however, this has not been an objective of this war. We are kicking the can down the road. Perhaps this will prevent the North Korea Seoul hostage scenario. Perhaps this will weaken the government there to the point it falls, but I don't think that is seen by experts in the administration and elsewhere as a highly likely prospect.

---

It is pretty clear that the experts do not believe actual regime change is likely and told Trump that. What Trump and Netanyahu were trying to accomplish is another thing entirely. I am not sure Trump really knows. Regardless, even if verification is not a failsafe, your assumptions still make it vitally important.

---

The problem is that the goals are incompatible. When verification works, you lose your pretext for regime change. Our solution has been to take instances of successful verification (for example, discovery of minor procedural violations by Iran) and spin them as failures. Regime change is always the objective, despite what anyone may say.

---

My overriding point is that verification remains important, whether we are trying to overthrow the regime or we are not. Getting solid verification procedures in place, however, is not a "win" that Trump can easily sell; therefore, I doubt it will be part of the final agreement, if there is one.

Also, while we would welcome regime change in Iran, it has not been a priority until now. Having a crusader serving as Secretary of Badass changed that calculus, I am afraid.

---

I agree that verification is important if we care about nonproliferation, however, regime change has always been the priority.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

---

Its a good point

I mean as long as the regime ruling in Tehran is filled with islamists & nuts who believe in "hidden Imam"/apocalyptic ideology.....we can never be sure they won't work towards a nuke.

In fact its almost a sure thing they will.

Even secularist-Baathist Iraq under Saddam was interested in a nuke....for no ideological reason other than it would give them "great power" status and allowed them to thumb their nose at the West and push around other regional states.

JUST IN: White House backs Israel, reiterating that Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire agreement.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) April 8, 2026

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

---

Its a good point

I mean as long as the regime ruling in Tehran is filled with islamists & nuts who believe in "hidden Imam"/apocalyptic ideology.....we can never be sure they won't work towards a nuke.

In fact its almost a sure thing they will.

Even secularist-Baathist Iraq under Saddam was interested in a nuke....for no ideological reason other than it would give them "great power" status and allowed them to thumb their nose at the West and push around other regional states.

---

The only thing that will finally solve the Iranian "nuclear problem" from the US point of view is the end of Chinese railroad building in Iran.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran. From the start, however, this has not been an objective of this war. We are kicking the can down the road. Perhaps this will prevent the North Korea Seoul hostage scenario. Perhaps this will weaken the government there to the point it falls, but I don't think that is seen by experts in the administration and elsewhere as a highly likely prospect.

---

It is pretty clear that the experts do not believe actual regime change is likely and told Trump that. What Trump and Netanyahu were trying to accomplish is another thing entirely. I am not sure Trump really knows. Regardless, even if verification is not a failsafe, your assumptions still make it vitally important.

---

The problem is that the goals are incompatible. When verification works, you lose your pretext for regime change. Our solution has been to take instances of successful verification (for example, discovery of minor procedural violations by Iran) and spin them as failures. Regime change is always the objective, despite what anyone may say.

---

My overriding point is that verification remains important, whether we are trying to overthrow the regime or we are not. Getting solid verification procedures in place, however, is not a "win" that Trump can easily sell; therefore, I doubt it will be part of the final agreement, if there is one.

Also, while we would welcome regime change in Iran, it has not been a priority until now. Having a crusader serving as Secretary of Badass changed that calculus, I am afraid.

---

I agree that verification is important if we care about nonproliferation, however, regime change has always been the priority.

---

I've never understood why we cared. They can choose to change the regime or not. Regime change, to me, is another way to get those who want change to back their government. Outsiders interference isn't always acceptable.

Have we seen the Trump version?

JUST IN - A White House official says that the 10-point peace plan that Iran publicly released on Wednesday differs from the plan that Trump said was a "workable basis on which to negotiate." — NYT

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) April 8, 2026

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

---

Its a good point

I mean as long as the regime ruling in Tehran is filled with islamists & nuts who believe in "hidden Imam"/apocalyptic ideology.....we can never be sure they won't work towards a nuke.

In fact its almost a sure thing they will.

Even secularist-Baathist Iraq under Saddam was interested in a nuke....for no ideological reason other than it would give them "great power" status and allowed them to thumb their nose at the West and push around other regional states.

---

The only thing that will finally solve the Iranian "nuclear problem" from the US point of view is the end of Chinese railroad building in Iran.

---

China is building roads and rail lines in a lot of countries.

Its the whole "radical islamist-nut job" ideology mixed in with a Nuke that is the issue.

Not a China getting rich on development

They don't want their own annihilation. No one wants to that. How many leaders, including Mullah's, have you seen strap on a bomb and blow themselves up? Oh sure, they will send an orphan, a wander or some schmuck that will go and do it. No issues there, strap one on themselves? No way. People that make it to the top of their fields whether CEOs, Clerics, Military, Politicians, etc... are narcissist and have egos the size of Texas. Narcissist don't end themselves, they think too much of themselves. MADD keeps ALL Nations from using Nukes, Iran will be the same.

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

---

Its a good point

I mean as long as the regime ruling in Tehran is filled with islamists & nuts who believe in "hidden Imam"/apocalyptic ideology.....we can never be sure they won't work towards a nuke.

In fact its almost a sure thing they will.

Even secularist-Baathist Iraq under Saddam was interested in a nuke....for no ideological reason other than it would give them "great power" status and allowed them to thumb their nose at the West and push around other regional states.

---

We are 40 trillion in debt and this country has become the Weimar Republic.

Republicans can never hold congress and improve the country because they are too busy fighting Israel's unpopular wars half the world away.

A conservative estimate I've seen is we already spend $200 billion bombing Iran... we could have used that money to pay down the debt, lower inflation, and we'd all be a little richer today. Instead we are all poorer and our savings is worth less with nothing to show for it.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

---

Its a good point

I mean as long as the regime ruling in Tehran is filled with islamists & nuts who believe in "hidden Imam"/apocalyptic ideology.....we can never be sure they won't work towards a nuke.

In fact its almost a sure thing they will.

Even secularist-Baathist Iraq under Saddam was interested in a nuke....for no ideological reason other than it would give them "great power" status and allowed them to thumb their nose at the West and push around other regional states.

---

The only thing that will finally solve the Iranian "nuclear problem" from the US point of view is the end of Chinese railroad building in Iran.

---

China is building roads and rail lines in a lot of countries.

Its the whole "radical islamist-nut job" ideology mixed in with a Nuke that is the issue.

Not a China getting rich on development

---

Oh, don't worry...the powers that be are already arming rebels in Myanmar and will have you convinced that their regime is a dire threat to world peace when the time comes.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

---

Its a good point

I mean as long as the regime ruling in Tehran is filled with islamists & nuts who believe in "hidden Imam"/apocalyptic ideology.....we can never be sure they won't work towards a nuke.

In fact its almost a sure thing they will.

Even secularist-Baathist Iraq under Saddam was interested in a nuke....for no ideological reason other than it would give them "great power" status and allowed them to thumb their nose at the West and push around other regional states.

---

The only thing that will finally solve the Iranian "nuclear problem" from the US point of view is the end of Chinese railroad building in Iran.

---

China is building roads and rail lines in a lot of countries.

Its the whole "radical islamist-nut job" ideology mixed in with a Nuke that is the issue.

Not a China getting rich on development

---

Israel blackmailed Nixon during the Yom Kippur war by threatening to use nukes on all their enemies.

If we are worried about nut jobs having nukes, why has nothing been done to stop Israel's nuclear weapons program?

Doubtful we can get Israel on board with that

BREAKING: Iran warns that it will withdraw from the ceasefire agreement if Israel continues attacks on Lebanon.

Just minutes ago, the White House told Axios that the ceasefire agreement does not include Lebanon.

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) April 8, 2026

Apocalyptic scenes in Lebanon’s capital right now.

Israel has launched 100 airstrikes on Lebanon in 10 minutes.

Striking South Lebanon, Beirut and the Bekaa Valley simultaneously.

This isn’t a ceasefire.

It’s mass bombardment of civilian areas. pic.twitter.com/ygTf2Pscrn

— sarah (@sahouraxo) April 8, 2026

This will be Netanyahu’s legacy, and it’s not a good one.
He can boast as much as he wants on his special relationship with Trump, but he lost the American people, which for Israel’s long term can be devastating.

One reason for this massive change is Bibi bringing to his… https://t.co/nPDyRUvfyo

— Nadav Pollak (@NadavPollak) April 8, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

Doubtful we can get Israel on board with that

BREAKING: Iran warns that it will withdraw from the ceasefire agreement if Israel continues attacks on Lebanon.

Just minutes ago, the White House told Axios that the ceasefire agreement does not include Lebanon.

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) April 8, 2026

Apocalyptic scenes in Lebanon’s capital right now.

Israel has launched 100 airstrikes on Lebanon in 10 minutes.

Striking South Lebanon, Beirut and the Bekaa Valley simultaneously.

This isn’t a ceasefire.

It’s mass bombardment of civilian areas. pic.twitter.com/ygTf2Pscrn

— sarah (@sahouraxo) April 8, 2026

---

boognish_bear said:

---

These 10 points are an absolute disaster https://t.co/GLlDwtM5k6

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) April 8, 2026

---

If Mark Levin doesn't like it, it is a good plan. The question is what happens when Israel unilaterally violates the ceasefire.

Realitybites said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

These 10 points are an absolute disaster https://t.co/GLlDwtM5k6

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) April 8, 2026

---

If Mark Levin doesn't like it, it is a good plan. The question is what happens when Israel unilaterally violates the ceasefire.

---

It's a known fact that Israel has never broken a ceasefire. Primarily because they never kept one to begin with.

So glad Assad is no longer around!...

CRAZY: 🇸🇾🇩🇪 Syria has rejected Germany’s plan to send over 700,000 refugees home. pic.twitter.com/tBGqwg405a

— Coinvo (@Coinvo) April 8, 2026

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.

---

Ultimately, the only verification that will finally solve the Iranian nuclear problem is the verification of the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

---

Its a good point

I mean as long as the regime ruling in Tehran is filled with islamists & nuts who believe in "hidden Imam"/apocalyptic ideology.....we can never be sure they won't work towards a nuke.

In fact its almost a sure thing they will.

Even secularist-Baathist Iraq under Saddam was interested in a nuke....for no ideological reason other than it would give them "great power" status and allowed them to thumb their nose at the West and push around other regional states.

---

The only thing that will finally solve the Iranian "nuclear problem" from the US point of view is the end of Chinese railroad building in Iran.

---

China is building roads and rail lines in a lot of countries.

Its the whole "radical islamist-nut job" ideology mixed in with a Nuke that is the issue.

Not a China getting rich on development

---

Israel blackmailed Nixon during the Yom Kippur war by threatening to use nukes on all their enemies.

If we are worried about nut jobs having nukes, why has nothing been done to stop Israel's nuclear weapons program?

---

Why didn't Nixon simply say "Look, an Israeli first strike is going to result in your nation being turned into an outdoor Auschwitz. I will call the Soviets and we will coordinate a counterstrike on your nation. So knock it off."

CNN: Iranian media reports oil tanker traffic through the key waterway was stopped after Israel attacked Lebanon. Updated 12:26 PM EDT, Wed April 8, 2026

Quote:

---

Iran halts Strait of Hormuz oil traffic after Israel's Lebanon attacks, Iranian media says

By Nechirvan Mando
Iran is halting oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz after Israel attacked Lebanon, semi-official news agency Fars reported.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said earlier that Lebanon was included in the ceasefire between Israel, the United States and Iran, but the Israeli military said attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon would continue.
Israel today has carried out what it called the largest strikes on the country since the start of the war.
Fars said two oil tankers were allowed to cross the strait since the ceasefire came into effect.

---

Not much market reaction yet

CL1:COM Crude Oil Futures

29.22K followers
$94.90-18.05 (-15.98%)12:33 PM 04/08/26

SP500 S&P 500 Index

110.5K followers
6,777.62160.77 (+2.43%)12:33 PM 04/08/26

The_barBEARian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Doubtful we can get Israel on board with that

BREAKING: Iran warns that it will withdraw from the ceasefire agreement if Israel continues attacks on Lebanon.

Just minutes ago, the White House told Axios that the ceasefire agreement does not include Lebanon.

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) April 8, 2026

Apocalyptic scenes in Lebanon’s capital right now.

Israel has launched 100 airstrikes on Lebanon in 10 minutes.

Striking South Lebanon, Beirut and the Bekaa Valley simultaneously.

This isn’t a ceasefire.

It’s mass bombardment of civilian areas. pic.twitter.com/ygTf2Pscrn

— sarah (@sahouraxo) April 8, 2026

---

---

Why is Iran worried about Lebanon? Don't they have problems of their own?

The answer is they don't want to lose their terror network there.