Trump is reportedly considering dismissing several senior officials who opposed the Iran deal, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
— Clash Report (@clashreport) June 16, 2026
A senior U.S. official reportedly said, “The argument has been settled. Those who opposed it may pay a… pic.twitter.com/1J6uLHquUp
President Trump announces military strikes on Iran: Operation Epic Fury
350,101 Views |
5622 Replies |
Last: 1 hr ago by Mitch Blood Green
FLBear: " So was the money that Obama sent back, it was Iranian money. Yet, he was ostracized by the right."
In Obama's case, he made two mistakes: He sent money w/o precondition, hoping to persuade the Iranians to negotiate further in good faith. When the Iranians did what they always do instead, this made Obama look naive (which is what the Iranians wanted) and no real deal resulted. His second mistake was sending cash, which led to a very bad optics situation.
And as you can see, even though this time we at least in theory are not releasing money unless and until specific terms are met, the President is already under attack from people looking for any reason to make such attacks.
FLBear: "Problem I have is that this accomplished nothing. There still is no proof of a "nuclear bomb" two weeks from completion. Yet when Bush went into Iraq, everyone ostracized him for the WMD not being there."
One thing about people in the Information Age - they imagine not only that they are entitled to know every last detail, including things agreed to in confidence and secret, but also that whatever online source they prefer has the complete truth and if there is any difference between what the government says and the media says, it must be the government who is wrong.
Now as for what was accomplished, we did in fact accomplish several things, including decimation of Iran's naval and air forces, and destruction of all extant nuclear development means. What was not accomplished were replacement of the regime and control of all fissionable materials. Too many people see this only in a binary win/lose condition. Conflicts in History often produced partial or debatable outcomes. It should also be understood that Trump avoided an occupation of Iran, massive troop losses, as well as expansion of the war to include new powers against the US.
Regarding the decision to attack Iran in 2025 and this year, the meat of the decision is not available to public, but given Trump's record during his first term, we can tell that something was brought to his attention which provoked the attack. After the intelligence adventures during the Bush Administration, a trick by the IC cannot be ruled out, but an actual effort by Iran to go from 'we have some enriched material' to 'we have a nuclear weapon' should not be rejected, especially given Iran's history, both over the last several decades and in recent years.
FLBear: "Trump, we are supposed to cheer? This war cost billions and accomplished nothing, worse of all it cost the US pretty much all of our political clout in Europe and a lot in Asia.
The worst thing I see, is that Europe and Asia did not follow the US and the world did not stop. That is a message resonating around the world right now. Maybe the US is NOT that needed and we can say No."
Again, there were accomplishments, but I understand how someone determined to attack the President would refuse to admit it. I disagree regarding our allies.
England in particular has proven itself hypocrite. The "special arrangement" which existed for more than a century between our two countries is effectively dead. We helped England in her darkest hours, with material and later troops and of course money. When 9/11 happened we got some pretty speeches from England and when England stood to gain from invading Iraq they did so, but against Iran our 'cousin' turned to Allah instead.
Europe has always been callow to some degree, happy to receive things from the US but never the spine to stand with us when it might cost them something.
As for political clout, ironically this will play out a bit like Thatcher's war in the Falkland Islands. In that war, Thatcher showed she was willing to go alone if needed, and her country could not be bullied by the silence of her 'allies'. Same here, if the US needs to do something and we have a leader with the spine to do it, we will carry the load as needed. The world demanded the US be their policeman for decades, it's time they learned we will use our force to protect our own interests.
It also means that we can, as you said, say 'no' to these other countries if they want us to take casualties for them in places like Somalia or Bosnia. US troops need not be at the beck and call of the UN.
FLBear: "The whole thing was and is a debacle. Israel won, they not only got us to fight Iran but now are integrated into our system, not just getting aide, but directing it."
Disagree again about 'debacle', you are looking through spite-filtered lenses again. But we do need to have a public debate about Israel. On the one hand, I fully believe in Israel's right to defend itself, and Iran has a part in the October 7 massacre to answer for. But I strongly dislike Israel taking actions which put US troops in peril, or which damage our interests.
I think frank discussion in private with Netanyahu's people should be held in the immediate future, with sharp reminders that the US is not at Israel's beck and call, and some actions by Israel would provoke a response from the US that Netanyahu would not enjoy.
FLBear: "Trump has been a disaster."
Disagree, as noted above. There is a lot more to this, but some people miss the details, and some don't want to consider the details.
In Obama's case, he made two mistakes: He sent money w/o precondition, hoping to persuade the Iranians to negotiate further in good faith. When the Iranians did what they always do instead, this made Obama look naive (which is what the Iranians wanted) and no real deal resulted. His second mistake was sending cash, which led to a very bad optics situation.
And as you can see, even though this time we at least in theory are not releasing money unless and until specific terms are met, the President is already under attack from people looking for any reason to make such attacks.
FLBear: "Problem I have is that this accomplished nothing. There still is no proof of a "nuclear bomb" two weeks from completion. Yet when Bush went into Iraq, everyone ostracized him for the WMD not being there."
One thing about people in the Information Age - they imagine not only that they are entitled to know every last detail, including things agreed to in confidence and secret, but also that whatever online source they prefer has the complete truth and if there is any difference between what the government says and the media says, it must be the government who is wrong.
Now as for what was accomplished, we did in fact accomplish several things, including decimation of Iran's naval and air forces, and destruction of all extant nuclear development means. What was not accomplished were replacement of the regime and control of all fissionable materials. Too many people see this only in a binary win/lose condition. Conflicts in History often produced partial or debatable outcomes. It should also be understood that Trump avoided an occupation of Iran, massive troop losses, as well as expansion of the war to include new powers against the US.
Regarding the decision to attack Iran in 2025 and this year, the meat of the decision is not available to public, but given Trump's record during his first term, we can tell that something was brought to his attention which provoked the attack. After the intelligence adventures during the Bush Administration, a trick by the IC cannot be ruled out, but an actual effort by Iran to go from 'we have some enriched material' to 'we have a nuclear weapon' should not be rejected, especially given Iran's history, both over the last several decades and in recent years.
FLBear: "Trump, we are supposed to cheer? This war cost billions and accomplished nothing, worse of all it cost the US pretty much all of our political clout in Europe and a lot in Asia.
The worst thing I see, is that Europe and Asia did not follow the US and the world did not stop. That is a message resonating around the world right now. Maybe the US is NOT that needed and we can say No."
Again, there were accomplishments, but I understand how someone determined to attack the President would refuse to admit it. I disagree regarding our allies.
England in particular has proven itself hypocrite. The "special arrangement" which existed for more than a century between our two countries is effectively dead. We helped England in her darkest hours, with material and later troops and of course money. When 9/11 happened we got some pretty speeches from England and when England stood to gain from invading Iraq they did so, but against Iran our 'cousin' turned to Allah instead.
Europe has always been callow to some degree, happy to receive things from the US but never the spine to stand with us when it might cost them something.
As for political clout, ironically this will play out a bit like Thatcher's war in the Falkland Islands. In that war, Thatcher showed she was willing to go alone if needed, and her country could not be bullied by the silence of her 'allies'. Same here, if the US needs to do something and we have a leader with the spine to do it, we will carry the load as needed. The world demanded the US be their policeman for decades, it's time they learned we will use our force to protect our own interests.
It also means that we can, as you said, say 'no' to these other countries if they want us to take casualties for them in places like Somalia or Bosnia. US troops need not be at the beck and call of the UN.
FLBear: "The whole thing was and is a debacle. Israel won, they not only got us to fight Iran but now are integrated into our system, not just getting aide, but directing it."
Disagree again about 'debacle', you are looking through spite-filtered lenses again. But we do need to have a public debate about Israel. On the one hand, I fully believe in Israel's right to defend itself, and Iran has a part in the October 7 massacre to answer for. But I strongly dislike Israel taking actions which put US troops in peril, or which damage our interests.
I think frank discussion in private with Netanyahu's people should be held in the immediate future, with sharp reminders that the US is not at Israel's beck and call, and some actions by Israel would provoke a response from the US that Netanyahu would not enjoy.
FLBear: "Trump has been a disaster."
Disagree, as noted above. There is a lot more to this, but some people miss the details, and some don't want to consider the details.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
boognish_bear said:Trump is reportedly considering dismissing several senior officials who opposed the Iran deal, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
— Clash Report (@clashreport) June 16, 2026
A senior U.S. official reportedly said, “The argument has been settled. Those who opposed it may pay a… pic.twitter.com/1J6uLHquUp
🚨 TRUMP: NETANYAHU BEGGED OBAMA TO STOP THE IRAN DEAL
— Parody Jeff (@Parodyjeffx) June 16, 2026
He says Netanyahu came to Washington and begged Obama not to sign the Iran nuclear deal.
Obama ignored him and moved forward anyway.
pic.twitter.com/K0JX12Zpuz
This could be really bad situation long-term ... we've show Iran it can effectively hold the world hostage. Let's hope Saudi get's a pipeline done quicky and maybe spend some of its oil billions on a new canal.
It clearly never dawned on anyone that it was a real risk.
Until these lunatics are dead and out of power it will always be a problem.
It clearly never dawned on anyone that it was a real risk.
Until these lunatics are dead and out of power it will always be a problem.
Obama emptied piles of cash out of American banks. It did not belong to the Iranians.
Harrison Bergeron said:
This could be really bad situation long-term ... we've show Iran it can effectively hold the world hostage. Let's hope Saudi get's a pipeline done quicky and maybe spend some of its oil billions on a new canal.
It clearly never dawned on anyone that it was a real risk.
Until these lunatics are dead and out of power it will always be a problem.
Logistically, how are they going to build a canal that can avoid the strait? The terrain at the west side of the UAE is not good canal terrain for this.
Pipelines face similar issues, but also sheer volume limits of a pipeline. A 48 inch pipe can carry enough crude in a day to fill ~1-1.5 typical size tankers. You would need 3-4 times that, plus separate lines for NGLS and natural gas at a minimum to maintain anything near the current (pre-conflict) tanker capacity going through the strait. Then you have to build port, loading and terminalling facilities.
Even with the (very close to) slave labor available in Saudi and the Emirates, this is a 5+ year and many billions of dollars undertaking. There is some limited capacity on the east coast of the UAE now, but nowhere near enough to scale rapidly to make a choking off of the strait immaterial.
These are remarkable comments from Trump about Israel.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 16, 2026
He's arguing that the "former" Al Qaeda commander al-Jolani would do a better job fighting Hezbollah than Israel is doing, because al-Jolani wouldn't constantly and recklessly blow up apartment buildings like Israel does. https://t.co/8mQGAxGVtc
Harrison Bergeron said:
This could be really bad situation long-term ... we've show Iran it can effectively hold the world hostage. Let's hope Saudi get's a pipeline done quicky and maybe spend some of its oil billions on a new canal.
It clearly never dawned on anyone that it was a real risk.
Until these lunatics are dead and out of power it will always be a problem.
This is true.
Best case scenario is that Iran does meet the requirements of the memorandum, and puts off trying for a nuclear weapon so far down the road that the mullahs are out of power by then.
Second best would be a quick Iranian disregard of the memorandum, and they get pummeled into losing all ability to control the people.
Worst case is that they start the best case scenario until most US military assets are gone from the area, then they start back to their old ways.
BTW, If the US is responsible for Israel's actions in Lebanon, then Iron is equally responsible for Hezbollah's actions in Lebanon. This will be a sticky issue for both sides. Of course the old media will not recognize the responsibility of Iran with Hezbollah activity. Propaganda push will be hard.
DAM… Trump is going off 👀
— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) June 16, 2026
“I didn’t like that Netanyahu attacked over a very minor drone attack— they’re attack was too much— and Without the United States, without me, there would be NO ISRAEL.
I’ve had a great relationship with Bibi but now he has to be more responsible… https://t.co/7tFCDpQffM pic.twitter.com/ROXwpo98Wf
boognish_bear said:DAM… Trump is going off 👀
— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) June 16, 2026
“I didn’t like that Netanyahu attacked over a very minor drone attack— they’re attack was too much— and Without the United States, without me, there would be NO ISRAEL.
I’ve had a great relationship with Bibi but now he has to be more responsible… https://t.co/7tFCDpQffM pic.twitter.com/ROXwpo98Wf
Syriously? Syria can't control things inside its own border. I wonder what is afoot here.
This is damning. This was his main justification for the war. https://t.co/cy9ffCBhZN
— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) June 16, 2026
"Unless you were homeschooled by a day drinker, no one's confident that Iran is going to do anything."
— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 16, 2026
Sen. John Kennedy gives his blunt assessment about how he thinks Iran will behave after the Trump administration's new agreement with the regime.
The Louisiana senator says… pic.twitter.com/oSHqrjNkrb
Don't know about source
I can now confirm that Israel formally requested access to the Iran MoU and was denied. A remarkable and highly unusual development between close allies on an issue of such critical national security importance.
— גיא עזריאל Guy Azriel (@GuyAz) June 16, 2026
Today, you'll easily be able to discern who is carrying water and who is not by whom on TV and radio parrots this. I appreciate my friends in the conservative sphere wanting to be team players, but if the deal were a good deal, it'd be released already, and we wouldn't need… pic.twitter.com/61Fm14WHaQ
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 16, 2026
Uh oh....Trump may be in jeopardy of losing the midterms in Israel
Trump’s support in Israel has flipped in 3 weeks — from +23 to -23, a 46 point drop, according to Kantar poll. pic.twitter.com/LyHQG2lrnf
— Faytuks Network (@FaytuksNetwork) June 16, 2026
Q: Why not release the text of the Iran deal?
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
TRUMP: Oh, I will
Q: Why not release it before Friday?
TRUMP: Well, because I'd like to get a formal setting first. But I have no problem with that. Here's what it says -- Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. I'll probably have a… pic.twitter.com/XvGioQGO0U
Fortunately @SecRubio made clear that Iran & Hezbollah aren’t linked in a deal. @Israel doesn’t need Iran permission to defend itself. The tether of terror must end. https://t.co/TXfZtiYswD
— Ambassador Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) June 16, 2026
You make some fair and good points. The Thatcher one is good.
Clearly the administration completely missed Iran's ability to control the Hormuz Straight.
Lindsey Graham: Here’s what we’ve achieved. If this thing goes through, we’ve opened up the straits…There will be in a permanent ceasefire, hopefully, and we’ll try to get a nuclear deal with Iran. Hopefully, that will work out.
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 16, 2026
If it doesn’t, then we’ve still achieved opening… pic.twitter.com/VWlenk3EgF
boognish_bear said:Lindsey Graham: Here’s what we’ve achieved. If this thing goes through, we’ve opened up the straits…There will be in a permanent ceasefire, hopefully, and we’ll try to get a nuclear deal with Iran. Hopefully, that will work out.
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 16, 2026
If it doesn’t, then we’ve still achieved opening… pic.twitter.com/VWlenk3EgF
Triumphantly announcing that we're back to square one.
historian said:
Obama emptied piles of cash out of American banks. It did not belong to the Iranians.
proof???????
boognish_bear said:Lindsey Graham: Here’s what we’ve achieved. If this thing goes through, we’ve opened up the straits…There will be in a permanent ceasefire, hopefully, and we’ll try to get a nuclear deal with Iran. Hopefully, that will work out.
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 16, 2026
If it doesn’t, then we’ve still achieved opening… pic.twitter.com/VWlenk3EgF
Once again, the Strait of Hormuz not controlled by Iran and was open BEFORE Trump's war with Iran. He is crowing about fixing a problem that he created!
I feel like with Trump we over and over witness a college football player making a long explosive play and dropping the ball before crossing the damn goal line.
Call it a tax, the people are outraged! Call it a tariff, the people get out their checkbooks and wave their American flags!!!
It will be interesting to see how badly the Iranians want this. Might just be playing for time, knowing the deal wont happen because the US cannot actually force Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.
Trump criticizing Israel is hilarious, as are his lies about the nuclear material and regime change. He's just a typical run of the mill narcissist. Only cares about himself.
To be fair to him, this is such a huge disaster that his only chance at not being a lame duck after midterms is appealing to low IQ and low information voters with enough lies that they think we just won a war with Iran and stopped them from pursuing nuclear weapons.
Trump criticizing Israel is hilarious, as are his lies about the nuclear material and regime change. He's just a typical run of the mill narcissist. Only cares about himself.
To be fair to him, this is such a huge disaster that his only chance at not being a lame duck after midterms is appealing to low IQ and low information voters with enough lies that they think we just won a war with Iran and stopped them from pursuing nuclear weapons.
Jack Bauer said:
Now I've seen everythingAs I watch and monitor this historic operation, I’m in awe of President Trump’s determination to be a man of peace but at the end of the day, evil’s worst nightmare
— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) February 28, 2026
Well done, Mr. President.Operation Epic Fury.
— U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) February 28, 2026
President Trump has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region.
God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel.
Okay Jack. I must give credit where credit is due. I would rank Donald Trump's first term as one of the best in my lifetime. This second term so far is perhaps the worst (Except for Joe Biden). The most troubling thing about this is that most of his supporters don't see the difference.
Call it a tax, the people are outraged! Call it a tariff, the people get out their checkbooks and wave their American flags!!!
“Where is Vader today?”
— Mark Hammond (@MarkHam80780803) June 16, 2026
“He’s paying the Rebel Alliance $300 billion dollars after defeating them completely, every day for the last four months, sir.” pic.twitter.com/pCp0ULMjsC
Hillary Clinton on Gaza:
— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) June 16, 2026
I'm gonna say something positive about Trump:
Trump's 20-point plan for Gaza is actually a pathway to security for Israel, reconstruction for Gaza, and the possibility of self-determination for the Palestinians.
There are a lot of people who reject it…
The US secretly approved a financial and maritime arrangement between Qatar and Iran, under which billions of dollars were paid to Tehran in exchange for free passage for Qatari tankers and ships through the Strait of Hormuz, three diplomatic officials now confirm.
— Carlos Abadi (@NewSamawal) June 15, 2026
This was a…
“I have totally defeated you and also transferred $300 billion dollars into your bank account” pic.twitter.com/DnMNQySMjx
— Mark Hammond (@MarkHam80780803) June 16, 2026
boognish_bear said:
It's called cutting and running. $30B. Viva la Coward/Cheeto. Looking good Donnie!
Harrison Bergeron said:
This could be really bad situation long-term ... we've show Iran it can effectively hold the world hostage. Let's hope Saudi get's a pipeline done quicky and maybe spend some of its oil billions on a new canal.
It clearly never dawned on anyone that it was a real risk.
Until these lunatics are dead and out of power it will always be a problem.
Israel isn't happy.
— Michael T. Lester (@MichaelTLester) June 16, 2026
They lobbied Washington for years to attack Iran.
The US finally did it. Struck Iranian nuclear sites. Deployed the Navy. Lost American lives.
Israel's contribution? Minimal, then almost nothing. They left the US to fight alone and used the war to distract…
"Israel isn't happy.
They lobbied Washington for years to attack Iran.
The US finally did it. Struck Iranian nuclear sites. Deployed the Navy. Lost American lives.
Israel's contribution? Minimal, then almost nothing. They left the US to fight alone and used the war to distract from people noticing that they were illegally taking more of Lebanon's land.
Israel now occupies 770 square miles of Lebanon. Nearly one-fifth of the country. And they have announced they're not giving it back.
They wanted the war with Iran. They didn't fight it. They used it as a cover to invade Lebanon. And now they're angry the war with Iran is ending.
What do you think about that?"
Imagine having a friend who keeps starting fights with everyone then expects you to step in a finish it even though you wanted nothing to do with it and it's none of your business.
— Owen Shroyer (@OwenShroyer1776) June 16, 2026
It'd certainly be an awful way to conduct foreign policy at least...
Harrison Bergeron said:
This could be really bad situation long-term ... we've show Iran it can effectively hold the world hostage. Let's hope Saudi get's a pipeline done quicky and maybe spend some of its oil billions on a new canal.
It clearly never dawned on anyone that it was a real risk.
Until these lunatics are dead and out of power it will always be a problem.
It has been clear to pretty much anyone and everyone with a decent grasp of geopolitics what Iran's situation was relative to the Strait of Hormuz. That's why no prior president, regardless of party affiliation, was dumb enough to attack Iran.
It's just that Trump, led around by Paula White and Benjamin Netanyahu, was the first guy dumb enough to prove it to the world.
He's now realized his mistake as the SPR heads to tank bottom and the world economy goes off a cliff and is trying to (admirably) reverse course. Let's see if he can, because Iran says that an IDF withdrawal from the Lebanese territory it has seized is a requirement, and Israel is saying they won't do it.
Oh, and don't put too much stock in those pipelines. Pipelines are easily destroyed by drones and missiles. Pipelines can't transport fertilizer, aluminum, or any other number of important commodities that transit Hormuz...and the "dead and out of power" you speak of would involve a full scale D-day type invasion of Iran, marching to Tehran, and occupying the country. Hegseth's bluster aside, our military is not capable of that. The Russians aren't either. The Chinese might be. But even that's not certain.