It's been a few months since Kim has threatened the total annihilation of South Korea, and a few years since he threatened to inflict "shocking and unimaginable disaster" on the USA.
The Mullahs and the IRGC have never been rational actors interested in MAD. They’ve always held to their apocalyptic religious faith. They’ve been at war with the US and Israel since they gained control of Iran. They have never been interested in any form of peaceful coexistence. They inspired and organized the 10/7/23 attack against Israel. To pretend otherwise is simply foolish.
Iran/IRGC regime has killed tens of thousands of citizens just recently, and for decades. You need to read what they've done to those secretly handing out Bibles, and about their infamous prison conditions, hangings, etc.
Iran has invaded Lebanon through its proxies, destroying its peace, that has resulted in deaths of thousands.
Iran has destroyed Yemen's stability by funding Houthis, creating civil war that has resulted in deaths of thousands.
Iran has funded Islamic militias in Iraq and Judea and Samaria resulting deaths of thousands, and
Iran has suported Hamas that attacked and butchered peaceful residents in Israel, and the numbers killed are the equivalent percentage-wise of over 40,000 Americans being either raped, burnt alive, had their breasts, arms, and genitals cut off, or babies burnt, baked, strangled.
Iran's Constitution demands jihad, the destruction of all non-muslim nations and establishment of global Caliphate.
Their Shia Islam envisions a global war or chaotic violence to bring the 12th Imam, their Islamin messiah, thus they are called "Twelver" Shia Muslims (among the over a dozen different Muslim sects).
If they had a nuclear weapon, they would use it. They admit they are intent on their purification of nuclear material to higher percentages/aka "weapons grade" material.
What the atatollah said back then doesn't matter. It's Taqiyya, inentional lying mandated in Islam if it furthers the advance of Islam by any means (the definition of jihad).
I am sorry that you appear truly uninformed about the Twelver sect of Shia Islam
Seems Mr Leake (on behalf of his fellow Americans) would rather take a chance that Iran’s unending calls of Death to America, "the Great Satan", was just sabre-rattling or teasing and that their well-established objective of attempting to refine their 440 kgs of uranium to beyond its current 60% purity is just in the West’s imagination. We simply misunderstand the poor peace-loving souls.
A total of 799 USA Servicemen have been killed by Iranian backed militias utilizing IED's, EFP's and other Iranian made explosives between 2003 and 2011 !
DETAILED VERSION BELOW:
The Pentagon officially estimates that at least 603 U.S. troops were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2011 by Iranian-backed militias using weapons supplied by Iran. This figure, released in 2019 based on declassified documents, represents approximately 17% of all American combat fatalities in Iraq during that period.
Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs), a sophisticated type of armor-piercing IED traced to Iranian manufacturing, were the deadliest weapons used. Declassified U.S. Central Command data specifies that 196 American soldiers were killed specifically by EFPs between November 2005 and December 2011, while the remaining deaths in the 603 total were caused by other Iranian-supplied munitions including rockets, mortars, and small arms.
Prior to the 2019 revision, U.S. officials had cited a lower estimate of roughly 500 deaths attributed to Iranian activity. The updated assessment confirms that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), particularly the Quds Force, provided training and weaponry to Shia militias that targeted U.S. forces.
I’ve obviously been around and alert much longer than you have. No we were not told the same thing about Pakistan and North Korea. In fact, just the opposite.
We ignored the PAKs until they started exporting their technology to others. We tried the foolish negotiating path with NoKo that we were idiotically pursuing with Iran. Then NoKo abrogated all of their commitments and developed nukes. That’s the path that Iran was following.
You are so right! Dealing with Iran is dealing with vipers who will strike out, when you least expect it. The Koran states that lying to Infidels is fine...in order to advance Islam. We have many Muslims in Congress who should not be there, because according to their religion they can not take an oath, such as, "to uphold the American Constitution." Muslims are forbidden to take any oath, except to Allah, their Moon God.
That's more propaganda. The Iranians are not irrational. They kicked Jimmy Carter's butt and are doing the same to Trump. The Iranians just depleted the US missile inventory with cheap drones made with off-the-shelf parts.
If we're demanding actual proof, then show the primary evidence Iran depleted missile inventory.
Perhaps I missed it. Where is the Pentagon's publicly released inventory report showing the alleged number of remaining Patriot or THAAD interceptors? Where is the named military official on the record saying the stockpile is “dangerously low”? Where is the affidavit, indictment, or other public document identifying the alleged leakers and demonstrating that their information was false?
There is genuine primary source evidence that the Army is spending billions to accelerate Patriot production and has budgeted for thousands of new PAC-3 and THAAD interceptors. That proves the U.S. is aggressively expanding/replenishing these capabilities. It does NOT prove the specific media reported remaining-stockpile numbers.
Likewise, an investigation into leaks proves only that the government is investigating disclosures. Until an actual leaker is identified and the underlying information is independently disproved, calling the reports “false leaks” is itself an unsupported claim.
So the intellectually honest position is: there is evidence of increased production and replenishment; there are media claims of dangerously depleted inventories; but the precise depletion figures and identities/credibility of the alleged sources have not been publicly proven
Look, the fact that Trump stopped attacks after the leak is damming. No one is going to show any reports; they never do. Trump's bluster of "mother of all attacks and bombing as they have never seen" has stopped. Now he's telling us he's allowing things to cool down. If you want to trust our government in matters as this, go for it, but it's so damn obvious. Talk of low inventory has been going on before the Iran quagmire.
Phil, I understand the point you’re making, but I think there’s an important distinction here.
You started by asking for "actual proof", yet the evidence you’re now offering is essentially that Trump stopped the attacks after the leak and therefore the leaked inventory information must have been accurate. That is certainly a reasonable inference to consider, but it isn't proof of the specific claim.
Military operations can be paused or changed for many reasons: intelligence, targeting, diplomacy, force protection, logistics, escalation concerns, rules of engagement, political calculations, or simply a change in objectives. So we can't logically work backward from “the attacks stopped” to “therefore the reported interceptor numbers were correct.”
Likewise, saying “no one is going to show any reports; they never do” doesn't establish that the reports exist or that their contents are accurate. It essentially asks us to accept evidence that hasn't been produced because we shouldn't expect to see it. That's a difficult standard to apply if we're genuinely asking for verification.
And I agree that concerns about U.S. interceptor inventories predate the Iran conflict. But that still doesn't establish the accuracy of any particular current claim about how many Patriot or THAAD interceptors remain. The existence of longstanding inventory concerns is not independent confirmation of today's specific numbers.
So I think the most defensible position remains the one you were originally responding to:
There is clear evidence that the United States is aggressively producing and replenishing interceptors. There are credible media reports alleging that current inventories are dangerously depleted. But the precise depletion figures and the identities and reliability of the underlying sources have not been publicly established.
That's very different from saying the reports are falseand also different from saying they have been proven true.
No one has to “trust the government” to maintain that distinction. Skepticism should apply in both directions. Government claims shouldn't automatically be believed, but anonymous-source claims shouldn't automatically become fact simply because they fit an interpretation of Trump's behavior.
Trump's decision to let things “cool down” may indeed be related to weapons inventories. It may also reflect diplomacy, intelligence, escalation risks, operational considerations, or something else entirely. We simply don't know from that fact alone.
So I'd be quite comfortable saying the depletion reports are plausible and deserve scrutiny What I would hesitate to say is that Trump's decision to pause attacks constitutes proof of them.
That's the distinction I'm trying to preserve: plausible is not proven, and skepticism isn't the same thing as certainty in the opposite direction.
The US military has a giant problem, and it's been a problem for years. The US is limited in engagements because its systems are so technical and expensive. They don't make enough dumb weapons and depend on high-tech systems. Pundits have covered this issue for years. This issue became prominent since massive aid to Ukraine drew down inventory. It is easy to find discussions from the last decade, even before the Biden administration. Trump stated just a month ago that he was upset with Pete for not telling him about low munitions. That statement admitted the problem. Really, as commander, he should have shut up, but that's not Trump. I really don't think we need proof; Neocon wars are always a shit show, always aiming for quick military operations, yet they always drag on; they never have a strategy. This Iran mess will not be over anytime soon.
Phil, I think the key distinction is between what has actually been established and what is being inferred.
Yes, there were reports that Trump was frustrated with Hegseth over information about munitions levels. But that is not the same as Trump publicly establishing that Hegseth caused low stockpiles or that Hegseth had failed to tell him the truth. In fact, Trump subsequently publicly rejected the broader claim that the US was running out of munitions, saying the US had massive amounts and that more were being produced and shipped.
There are also genuine reports that some advanced interceptor inventories have been substantially reduced. That deserves to be taken seriously. But “some inventories have been heavily used” is not the same claim as “Iran depleted the US missile inventory.” Public analysis specifically identifies Patriot and THAAD as areas of concern, while the Pentagon continues to maintain that the US has substantial military capability.
And blaming Hegseth personally is another leap. These inventory and production issues did not originate with him. Hegseth has actually requested billions in additional funding for military readiness and equipment replenishment.
So I think the fair conclusion is much narrower: the US has used a lot of certain high value munitions, some inventories are under pressure, and the Pentagon needs to keep building them. But that does not prove Iran has depleted the American arsenal, and it does not establish that Hegseth was responsible for supposedly low stockpiles.
If we are demanding proof, that standard has to apply equally to both sides. A reported Trump rebuke or an anonymous source can justify scrutiny, but it is not by itself proof of the underlying inventory claim.
Not true. In fact in 1953, the Mullahs were on the same side as the Shah and opposed to the attempted Communist takeover of the country. As were many others.
The PROXIMATE CAUSE in 1953 was a CIA led coup (Kermit Roosevelt), overthrowing the democratically elected Mossedegh, resulting in the installation of a dictator, the Shah, who ruled with an iron fist. Indeed this was an act of war by the U.S. against the sovereign state of Iran. Eventually leading to the deposition of the Shah in the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
And regarding the rest of your simplistic half truths:
“In August 1953, key segments of the Iranian clergy aligned with pro-monarchist forces to oust Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, driven partly by a shared fear of the communist Tudeh Party. However, the religious establishment was deeply fractured, and the mullahs were not a monolith acting as a unified "mullah" bloc alongside the Shah from the beginning.The Alignment Against Communism and Mossadegh Fear of the Tudeh: Influential Shiite clerics, most notably Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani, grew increasingly alienated from Mossadegh because they feared his secular governance would clear the path for a Soviet-backed communist takeover by the Tudeh Party. The Alliance on the Street: Prominent religious figures like Kashani and Ayatollah Mohammad Behbahani mobilized mosque networks, bazaar guilds, and crowds into the streets of Tehran. They stoked fears that the communists were taking over, helping create the critical mass that toppled Mossadegh on August 19, 1953, and allowed the Shah to return to power. The Nuances and Divisions Not a Unified Clergy: While figures like Behbahani were staunch royalists funded in part to support the palace, Kashani had originally been a vital political ally of Mossadegh in nationalizing the oil industry before they dramatically fell out over political control. No Long-Term Love for the Shah: The clerical factions that opposed Mossadegh and the communists did so to preserve Islamic order and clerical influence, not to establish permanent autocratic royal rule. The alliance of convenience with the monarchy quickly dissolved after 1953 as the Shah modernized and secularized Iran, ultimately planting the seeds for the anti-Shah Islamic Revolution in 1979 led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
The CIA orchestrated the coup, code-named Operation Ajax, to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and restore the Shah's authority. The CIA's Actions and Methods Planning and Strategy: CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt Jr. led the operation on the ground in Tehran, coordinating closely with British intelligence (MI6). Political Sabotage: The CIA bribed Iranian politicians, military officers, and journalists to undermine Mossadegh’s government and spread anti-regime propaganda. Financing Crowds: The agency funneled money to key figures, including Ayatollah Mohammad Behbahani, to rent street mobs, thugs, and protesters to create chaos and simulate a popular uprising. Military Coordination: The CIA secretly delivered the Shah’s decrees dismissing Mossadegh to loyal military units, ensuring army backing for the final assault on Mossadegh's residence. The Motivations. Cold War Containment: The U.S. feared that an increasingly isolated Mossadegh would lean on the communist Tudeh Party, opening Iran to Soviet subversion. Oil Interests: The British wanted to reclaim control of Iranian oil after Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP).”
Before the August 1953 coup, Mossadegh himself moved to dissolve the Majlis. His supporters resigned from Parliament, depriving it of a quorum, and he then held a referendum seeking public approval for its dissolution. The referendum overwhelmingly endorsed dissolution, but the constitutional legitimacy of the procedure was highly questionable because the Iranian constitution vested the power to dissolve the Majlis in the Shah, not the prime ministe
Britain certainly wanted him removed because of the oil nationalization, but the United States viewed Iran through the lens of the Cold War. Stalin had attempted to seize northern Iran just a few years earlier, the Soviet Union bordered Iran, and Washington feared that political collapse could place one of the world's most strategically important countries under Soviet influence. Whether that assessment ultimately proved correct is open to debate, but the decision was driven by national security calculations, not simply by oil company profits.
Even if one believes the coup was the wrong decision, it does not explain or excuse the conduct of the Iranian regime over the last 47 years. The Islamic Republic has repeatedly chosen to sponsor terrorist organizations, arm proxy militias across the Middle East, attack international shipping, pursue regional hegemony, and brutally suppress its own citizens. Those were sovereign decisions made by Iran's leadership, not inevitable consequences of events in 1953.
Finally, the broader narrative leaves out Iran's own agency. Since 1979, Iran has held American diplomats hostage, orchestrated attacks through proxies that have killed Americans and allies, openly called for Israel's destruction, pursued missile and nuclear programs in defiance of international pressure, and spent enormous resources exporting its revolution while neglecting its own economy. Those policies were not forced upon Iran by the United States.
History provides context, but it should not erase accountability. The United States acted during the Cold War as it believed was necessary to contain Soviet expansion and protect vital strategic interests—a policy that can be debated on its merits. But reducing seventy years of U.S.-Iran relations to "America started it" ignores the independent choices made by Iran's leaders for nearly half a century. Both nations have pursued their own interests, but only one of them continues to define its foreign policy around hostility toward the other and the export of revolutionary Shia Mahdism ideology. That's a distinction worth acknowledging.
Before the U.S. engineered coup, Iran was a parliamentary democracy; after the coup, it was a repressive dictatorship. That is the bottom line. And the proximate cause (root cause) of all that followed. Your quibbling aside.
Iranian resistance to U.S. and Zionist hegemony and warfare (military and economic) since 1979 was and is legitimate, both in Iran and in surrounding regions. Hizbullah came into existence as a consequence of Zionist invasions of Lebanon. And what were those US Marines doing in Beruit and that US warship blasting off the coast all about? The hostages were held by Iranian students rightfully pissed by Carter harboring the Shah. The Shah should have been delivered to those students. Resistance to US and Zionist supported headchopping jihadis in Iraq and Syria: not “terrorism”. For you to call Iranians “terrorists” is pure, crystalline projection.
Of course this is all about US and Zionist hegemony and imperialism, and quintessentially about oil and geopolitical control.
Iran has won this current, incredibly stupid war of choice/aggression perpetrated by the Zionists and arguably the worst president in US history. Two thirds of US citizens oppose this war. Iraqi WMD v2.0, Déjà vu all over again…. The Strait was open before the U.S. and Zionists started this war. If the blockage continues, millions of people in the global south are at risk of starvation. And the PROXIMATE CAUSE will be the war of aggression perpetrated by the U.S. and the genocidal Zionists (both in Israel and the U.S.).
There is plenty of legitimate criticism of the 1953 coup and of American policy in the Middle East, but that does not make every subsequent action by Iran automatically “legitimate.”
Yes, the US and Britain helped overthrow Mossadegh in 1953. Declassified US records explicitly document the American role in restoring the Shah. That history is not in dispute. Moreover, Iranian citizens could care less of past history due to pervasive dislike of The Mullahs and the IRGC as indicated by internal and external polls showing about 84% unfavorabke ratings
But history does not create a permanent exemption from accountability. The 1953 coup does not make taking American diplomats hostage in 1979 legitimate. Those students seized the US Embassy and held more than 50 Americans for 444 days. Being angry about the Shah's admission to the United States does not make hostage taking lawful or justified.
Likewise, Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 is part of the history behind Hezbollah's emergence, but that does not automatically legitimize everything Hezbollah subsequently did. Hezbollah emerged during that conflict and was heavily supported by Iran.
Most importantly, “the US did something wrong first” is not a serious standard for judging everything that followed. By that logic, virtually any subsequent act becomes legitimate retaliation indefinitely.
You can condemn the 1953 coup, oppose Israeli occupation, criticize American interventions, and still acknowledge that Iran has pursued its own regional power strategy, supported armed proxies, taken hostages, the industrial killing of over 150,000 of its own people and the fanatical apocalyptic Mullahs and IRGC belief that that they must cause worldwide conflagration, as they build deep labyrinths with nuclear centrifuges, and only after the 12th Imam sees this will he return to earth. Belief and carried out actions that cannot simply be relabeled “resistance.” Iran must never hold a Nuclear bomb
And saying the current war proves Iran has “won” is another assertion, not an established fact. Wars are not won merely because one side survives, nor does changing the tempo of military operations prove the other side achieved its strategic objectives.
The strongest argument is therefore not that America has a spotless record. The stronger argument is that American wrongdoing does not automatically make Iranian actions legitimate, and condemning one side's aggression does not require pretending the other side has none.
No one gets along with them. They attack all of their neighbors. The spent 1980 to 1988 locked in a war with Iraq. They’ve attacked Israel, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey.
They get along great with Russia, China and the rest of the BRICs/global south… which comprise a majority around the world. The countries you listed are all the fake GCC nations that have little to no power or say in the region.
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is a political and economic alliance of six Arab monarchies bordering the Persian Gulf: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman. Established in 1981 amid the Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War, its primary historical purpose was to ensure collective security and stability against regional threats, particularly Iran.
Iran has recently attacked at least 13 countries in 2026 as part of its retaliatory campaign following U.S. and Israeli strikes.
Primary targets include Gulf nations hosting U.S. military bases:
* United Arab Emirates – Heavily targeted, with 1,138 drone and missile attacks reported.
* Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Oman – All hit in strikes aimed at U.S. facilities and infrastructure.
Other nations attacked:
* Israel – Received ballistic missile barrages.
* Jordan – Targeted multiple times, including attacks on U.S.-linked bases.
* Azerbaijan – Struck for the first time, with drones hitting the Nakhchivan region.
* Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Cyprus – Hit by intercepted missiles or drones, some launched via Iranian proxies.
* United Kingdom – Its Akrotiri and Dhekelia base in Cyprus was struck.
Iran has also threatened European countries, warning they may become targets if they join the conflict.
IRAN DECLARES WAT ON ISRAEL 1979
Did Israel ever say Iran did not have the right to exist? No iran declared Israel did not have the right to exist (never rescinded) and created proxies Hezzbolah, Hamas and The Houthis and Kata'ib Hezbollah (KH),Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba (HHN),Badr Organization and ThePopular Mobilization Forces (PMF) to bring murder, mayhem and War down on Israel.
The new Islamic Republic, under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, declared Israel the "Little Satan" and vowed its destruction, marking a complete reversal from the previously friendly relations between the two nations. This ideological shift led to the end of all official ties, the closure of the Israeli embassy in Tehran, and the beginning of a long-standing proxy conflict.
Moreover, I have already given you an authoritative overview of what zionism is which is not the repetitive social media mantra inculcating definition almost everyone is buying and adapting to.
One important correction here: the initial attack on Iran was conducted by the United States and Israel. It is not accurate to lump every country that subsequently became involved in the conflict into the category of countries that attacked Iran.
The UK, France and Germany explicitly stated that they did not participate in the initial strikes. Britain later allowed US use of some bases for defensive operations, and other countries provided varying degrees of logistical or defensive support. That is not the same thing as having joined the original offensive.
Likewise, several Gulf states were actually attacked by Iran after the US and Israeli strikes began. They were not members of the original attacking coalition.
So if the argument is that “the US, Israel, Britain, France, the Gulf states, etc. all attacked Iran,” that is simply too broad. The initial offensive was US and Israeli. Other governments made different choices afterward, ranging from neutrality and mediation to defensive assistance and allowing access to military facilities.
You can argue that some of those countries subsequently became participants in the conflict. But that is very different from claiming they all participated in launching the war against Iran.
I notice pervasive false concepts repeated consistently such as who people think "The Zionist" are by way of mantra inculcation via State Jesuitical Media.
THE FALSE ZIONIST CONCEPT:
A six form usurper philosophy was ingratiated into Judahs, Benjamin and The Levy's land (not totally correct calling it Israel technically they are only part of The House of Israel) to help create a divide and conquer where the "Zionest Jews" are in the forefront leading the charge to help foster in the planned disparagement on them.
According to Internationally known Expert Eric Jon Phelps:
Zionism was created by the Jesuits in alliance with Freemasonry, originating from the Bavarian Illuminati and the French Revolution.
The first Masonic Labor Zionist was Napoleon Bonaparte, guided by his Jesuit advisor Abbé Sieyès, who allegedly sought to make Palestine a Jewish homeland to benefit the Vatican.
The real purpose of modern Zionism is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem for the Pope (the Antichrist), reviving the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099–1291) under Jesuit control.
Phelps states Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, was a Masonic Jewish Labor Zionist working under Jesuit direction, with the goal of establishing a Jewish state to serve the interests of Rome, NOT the Jewish people.
Phelps identifies six types of Zionists, with himself belonging to the fifth category: Calvinist Zionists, who support the right of ethnic Jews to live in Israel exclusively, advocating for the removal of Arabs and opposing non Jewish presence.
Phelps' narrative frames Zionism as a Luciferian, Jesuit-controlled deception, not a genuine expression of Jewish national identity, and links it directly to the Vatican’s eschatological plans.
It was the Jesuits that incorporated zionism into Isreal as a manipulative philosophical too in order to weaken and control Israel. Consequently, they expanded it into six forms of zionism eventually morphing it into ten. Unknown to most the Jesuits aka Society of Loyola have compartmentalized the USA into ten provincials to expedite Americas dissolution happening in real time.
So, they get along with people who don’t live near them and who buy their oil. Got it. They have to pay people to be their friends. But other than that …
It was in large part a false flag. You can look it up. Many IDF soldiers were told to come in, that is, to leave their posts very early on the day of the attack. You can look it up. Israel is master of false flag attacks.
One of Iran's tactics is to reduce the US stockpile of weapons by using cheaper offensive weapons. The difference is huge: a $2,500 drone being shot down with missiles costing hundreds of thousands, and some in the millions. The US has begun using microwave defense systems, which are far cheaper, but still, the US stockpile of weapons is very low. Low enough that Trump has stopped the rhetoric of "the biggest attack is coming"; they are not; there's not enough munitions. You can clearly see the difference in Trump's saber-rattling after he learned about the shortage. Iran has won so far with its attrition strategy. One would think the Pentagon would understand this beforehand. But, once again, the stupidity and short-sightedness of Neocons are on display.
Yes, but you'll notice the similarities to Iraq. Road bombs were devastating and cheap. Billions were spent to combat that strategy with high-cost vehicles. Lasers are similar, and it's billions again; I should say, it increases the debt.
Despite the bloviating of the Trump Dead-Enders/Delusionals who chronically infect Leake’s comment sections, the overwhelming evidence is that Trump and the Zionists are the irrational actors, not the North Koreans and Iranians. Before Trump tore up the JCPOA at the behest of the Zionists, Iran was verifiably limiting enrichment to 3.67%. Iran enriched to 60%, as a deterrent/bargaining chip only after Trump and the Zionists tore up the JCPOA. Iran has every reason to view the Zionists (both in Israel and the West) as enemies, because of the existential threat posed by the Zionists in their plans to destroy Iran and establish “Greater Israel”. The Iranian nuclear weapon that Trump and Netanyahu have been perseverating about for years is a smokescreen: precisely analogous to Iraqi WMD. But congratulations to the neocons, Zionists, Trump and Trump Dead-Ender Syndrome sufferers: after the perfidy of killing the Iranian leader (during negotiations) who resisted Iranian nuclear weapons, NOW 40+ million Iranians are polarized and desire revenge, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran does build nuclear weapons. Persians are highly intelligent and educated; it would not take them long to build gun-type nuclear weapons.
The U.S. has threatened to end Iranian civilization forever? That is not remotely true. The U.S. has threatened to end the Iranian Islamist regime. If anything, the outcome would be the return of civilization to Iran, with its people not bound in a prison state, it's women raped and murdered for not wearing the mullah-approved garb, and it's assets spent on proxy wars and massive missile and drone depots.
Would you like some Denial Dressing on your word salad? Or a side order of Conspiracy Fries?
Keep swimming in that river in Egypt, ANonnyMouse. The reality of events like the vicious Zionist pogroms in the West Bank slap you in the face, but you are obviously impervious to evidence-based reality in the HERE AND NOW.
The most basic definition of insanity: the state of being out if touch with reality.
Most people in the West who have been propagandized about Iran do the same things we see the extremists on the left do. They hold contradictory positions to rationalize an irrational point of view.
Iran is a religious theocracy which means their government and culture and tightly bound to its religious principles, far tighter than the USA and Christianity were ever bound. This means that Iran's leadership would lose the support of the vast majority of its citizens if it openly engaged and promoted in the wanton destruction of life, aka launching an unprovoked nuclear strike that killed millions of civilians. The Iranian people would all suffer an immediate crisis of faith and overwhelming guilt, much more so than if the West did this in my opinion. Yes, there are extremists in Iran that are seemingly the only people who ever make it onto Western media outlets. Hmm, I wonder why that is?
As an aside, do you know why horrible television shows like CSI, FBI, ChicagoPD and on and on and on draw consistent audiences? Because the average person (95-105 IQ) cannot use deductive reasoning and ask, as Doyle's Sherlock Holmes did, where is the dog that isn't barking? Where are the unprovoked attacks on Israel now that we see that Iran has had the ability to annihlate them for years? Why did Iran stop firing missiles into Israel when it clearly has thousands more of them?
Shh. NCIS is coming on. I'll miss those dreamy Mark Harmon eyes.
John, thanks for stating the facts. All of the military interventions by the U.S. since 1945 have not only failed to cause any country to do what we want, it's produced the opposite result. Each country becomes more united, more supportive of their government in the face of U.S. attack, and more armed and ready to defend itself from military and economic attacks. The only country we've successfully destroyed is Syria, now headed by a former terrorist, courtesy of the U.S. Thanks again for trying to reach your readership, even though many prefer to keep waving the American flag. As was said during the shameful war in Vietnam, "My country right or wrong." Even if it destroys our own economy and crushes many Americans.
Syria / ISIS operations 2014–present Minor Tactical success against ISIS, ongoing instability
Venezuela Jan. 2026: The U.S. military operation in Venezuela, codenamed Operation Absolute Resolve, was a stunning tactical success that achieved its primary objective of capturing President Nicolás Maduro without any American casualties. Executed on January 3, 2026, the raid involved over 150 aircraft and 200 special operations forces who suppressed Venezuelan air defenses and extracted the target in under three hours.
36,000 American servicemen who died in the Korean War collectively rolled over in their graves as Trump announced he was abandoning military exercises with South Korea while reopening talks with North Korea.
The slogan “America First” should be revised to “America First and Our Allies Last.”
Think President Trump is using strategy and diplomacy to tamper down N. Korean aspirations enmeshing themselves into Ukraine who has offered 50,000 troops, 120 170 mm canons, 5000 NK military engineers and 100 mine specialists not to mention 12 million military shells (believe 9 million already sent) to bolster Russia's military position. He strategized in similar fashion cozying up to Pakistan (ally of China)(which can also possibly aid in driving Pakistan and China apart) when India started to become a less cooperative ally of the USA which I think he timed well subsequent to Indias Air force experiencing a stunning defeat at the hand of Pakistan's Air force utilizing Chinese stand off missiles. Moreover, the above mentioned also serves as sending a message to South Korea who said not thanks when President Trump asked them to assist in the Persian Gulf.
There is some kind of peace-deal in the works, besides, the carrier Washington had to go to Hormuz to relieve the carrier Lincoln... Trump needs to "make lemonade" before November.
North Korea had “repeatedly threatened shocking and unimaginable disaster,” and “total destruction” of the United States if it takes military action against North Korea.
As the business of the USA is war no wonder they feel this way I guess we shouldn’t attack NK. Maybe the USA should stop getting involved in endless wars. Easy solution.
Now we know why Iran wants a nuke.
Always remember the ONLY country to use on was the USA need I say more?
All aggressions are money motivated and for geo political control over the world , then religion is thrown in , because that’s certain to aggravate any situation, any religion will do , just stir it up and the world goes mad !
What if every country governed their own country without outside interference ?
Your opinion is your opinion and no forceful behavior should result . It’s the people of the country that have to overthrow their govts not outside foreign intervention if they wish for a change ?
But the world economy only thrives on war , killing and violence . And the arms race n destruction continues throughout history .
How sad that every country has to acquire a nuclear deterrent to protect itself from aggression,
When will humanity revise its trajectory path , after they drop another nuclear bomb ?
The Mullahs and the IRGC have never been rational actors interested in MAD. They’ve always held to their apocalyptic religious faith. They’ve been at war with the US and Israel since they gained control of Iran. They have never been interested in any form of peaceful coexistence. They inspired and organized the 10/7/23 attack against Israel. To pretend otherwise is simply foolish.
that's what we were told about Pakistan and North Korea before they acquired nuclear weapons
john,
love your scientific info, but politics??
not realistic.
Iran/IRGC regime has killed tens of thousands of citizens just recently, and for decades. You need to read what they've done to those secretly handing out Bibles, and about their infamous prison conditions, hangings, etc.
Iran has invaded Lebanon through its proxies, destroying its peace, that has resulted in deaths of thousands.
Iran has destroyed Yemen's stability by funding Houthis, creating civil war that has resulted in deaths of thousands.
Iran has funded Islamic militias in Iraq and Judea and Samaria resulting deaths of thousands, and
Iran has suported Hamas that attacked and butchered peaceful residents in Israel, and the numbers killed are the equivalent percentage-wise of over 40,000 Americans being either raped, burnt alive, had their breasts, arms, and genitals cut off, or babies burnt, baked, strangled.
Iran's Constitution demands jihad, the destruction of all non-muslim nations and establishment of global Caliphate.
Their Shia Islam envisions a global war or chaotic violence to bring the 12th Imam, their Islamin messiah, thus they are called "Twelver" Shia Muslims (among the over a dozen different Muslim sects).
If they had a nuclear weapon, they would use it. They admit they are intent on their purification of nuclear material to higher percentages/aka "weapons grade" material.
What the atatollah said back then doesn't matter. It's Taqiyya, inentional lying mandated in Islam if it furthers the advance of Islam by any means (the definition of jihad).
I am sorry that you appear truly uninformed about the Twelver sect of Shia Islam
Seems Mr Leake (on behalf of his fellow Americans) would rather take a chance that Iran’s unending calls of Death to America, "the Great Satan", was just sabre-rattling or teasing and that their well-established objective of attempting to refine their 440 kgs of uranium to beyond its current 60% purity is just in the West’s imagination. We simply misunderstand the poor peace-loving souls.
Mr Leake, If an enemy says they seek to destroy us (Death to America), believe them.
A total of 799 USA Servicemen have been killed by Iranian backed militias utilizing IED's, EFP's and other Iranian made explosives between 2003 and 2011 !
DETAILED VERSION BELOW:
The Pentagon officially estimates that at least 603 U.S. troops were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2011 by Iranian-backed militias using weapons supplied by Iran. This figure, released in 2019 based on declassified documents, represents approximately 17% of all American combat fatalities in Iraq during that period.
Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs), a sophisticated type of armor-piercing IED traced to Iranian manufacturing, were the deadliest weapons used. Declassified U.S. Central Command data specifies that 196 American soldiers were killed specifically by EFPs between November 2005 and December 2011, while the remaining deaths in the 603 total were caused by other Iranian-supplied munitions including rockets, mortars, and small arms.
Prior to the 2019 revision, U.S. officials had cited a lower estimate of roughly 500 deaths attributed to Iranian activity. The updated assessment confirms that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), particularly the Quds Force, provided training and weaponry to Shia militias that targeted U.S. forces.
And what the F was the US doing in Iraq? Oh yes, now I remember: those Iraqi WMD…
I’ve obviously been around and alert much longer than you have. No we were not told the same thing about Pakistan and North Korea. In fact, just the opposite.
We ignored the PAKs until they started exporting their technology to others. We tried the foolish negotiating path with NoKo that we were idiotically pursuing with Iran. Then NoKo abrogated all of their commitments and developed nukes. That’s the path that Iran was following.
You are so right! Dealing with Iran is dealing with vipers who will strike out, when you least expect it. The Koran states that lying to Infidels is fine...in order to advance Islam. We have many Muslims in Congress who should not be there, because according to their religion they can not take an oath, such as, "to uphold the American Constitution." Muslims are forbidden to take any oath, except to Allah, their Moon God.
That's more propaganda. The Iranians are not irrational. They kicked Jimmy Carter's butt and are doing the same to Trump. The Iranians just depleted the US missile inventory with cheap drones made with off-the-shelf parts.
If we're demanding actual proof, then show the primary evidence Iran depleted missile inventory.
Perhaps I missed it. Where is the Pentagon's publicly released inventory report showing the alleged number of remaining Patriot or THAAD interceptors? Where is the named military official on the record saying the stockpile is “dangerously low”? Where is the affidavit, indictment, or other public document identifying the alleged leakers and demonstrating that their information was false?
There is genuine primary source evidence that the Army is spending billions to accelerate Patriot production and has budgeted for thousands of new PAC-3 and THAAD interceptors. That proves the U.S. is aggressively expanding/replenishing these capabilities. It does NOT prove the specific media reported remaining-stockpile numbers.
Likewise, an investigation into leaks proves only that the government is investigating disclosures. Until an actual leaker is identified and the underlying information is independently disproved, calling the reports “false leaks” is itself an unsupported claim.
So the intellectually honest position is: there is evidence of increased production and replenishment; there are media claims of dangerously depleted inventories; but the precise depletion figures and identities/credibility of the alleged sources have not been publicly proven
Look, the fact that Trump stopped attacks after the leak is damming. No one is going to show any reports; they never do. Trump's bluster of "mother of all attacks and bombing as they have never seen" has stopped. Now he's telling us he's allowing things to cool down. If you want to trust our government in matters as this, go for it, but it's so damn obvious. Talk of low inventory has been going on before the Iran quagmire.
Phil, I understand the point you’re making, but I think there’s an important distinction here.
You started by asking for "actual proof", yet the evidence you’re now offering is essentially that Trump stopped the attacks after the leak and therefore the leaked inventory information must have been accurate. That is certainly a reasonable inference to consider, but it isn't proof of the specific claim.
Military operations can be paused or changed for many reasons: intelligence, targeting, diplomacy, force protection, logistics, escalation concerns, rules of engagement, political calculations, or simply a change in objectives. So we can't logically work backward from “the attacks stopped” to “therefore the reported interceptor numbers were correct.”
Likewise, saying “no one is going to show any reports; they never do” doesn't establish that the reports exist or that their contents are accurate. It essentially asks us to accept evidence that hasn't been produced because we shouldn't expect to see it. That's a difficult standard to apply if we're genuinely asking for verification.
And I agree that concerns about U.S. interceptor inventories predate the Iran conflict. But that still doesn't establish the accuracy of any particular current claim about how many Patriot or THAAD interceptors remain. The existence of longstanding inventory concerns is not independent confirmation of today's specific numbers.
So I think the most defensible position remains the one you were originally responding to:
There is clear evidence that the United States is aggressively producing and replenishing interceptors. There are credible media reports alleging that current inventories are dangerously depleted. But the precise depletion figures and the identities and reliability of the underlying sources have not been publicly established.
That's very different from saying the reports are falseand also different from saying they have been proven true.
No one has to “trust the government” to maintain that distinction. Skepticism should apply in both directions. Government claims shouldn't automatically be believed, but anonymous-source claims shouldn't automatically become fact simply because they fit an interpretation of Trump's behavior.
Trump's decision to let things “cool down” may indeed be related to weapons inventories. It may also reflect diplomacy, intelligence, escalation risks, operational considerations, or something else entirely. We simply don't know from that fact alone.
So I'd be quite comfortable saying the depletion reports are plausible and deserve scrutiny What I would hesitate to say is that Trump's decision to pause attacks constitutes proof of them.
That's the distinction I'm trying to preserve: plausible is not proven, and skepticism isn't the same thing as certainty in the opposite direction.
The US military has a giant problem, and it's been a problem for years. The US is limited in engagements because its systems are so technical and expensive. They don't make enough dumb weapons and depend on high-tech systems. Pundits have covered this issue for years. This issue became prominent since massive aid to Ukraine drew down inventory. It is easy to find discussions from the last decade, even before the Biden administration. Trump stated just a month ago that he was upset with Pete for not telling him about low munitions. That statement admitted the problem. Really, as commander, he should have shut up, but that's not Trump. I really don't think we need proof; Neocon wars are always a shit show, always aiming for quick military operations, yet they always drag on; they never have a strategy. This Iran mess will not be over anytime soon.
Phil, I think the key distinction is between what has actually been established and what is being inferred.
Yes, there were reports that Trump was frustrated with Hegseth over information about munitions levels. But that is not the same as Trump publicly establishing that Hegseth caused low stockpiles or that Hegseth had failed to tell him the truth. In fact, Trump subsequently publicly rejected the broader claim that the US was running out of munitions, saying the US had massive amounts and that more were being produced and shipped.
There are also genuine reports that some advanced interceptor inventories have been substantially reduced. That deserves to be taken seriously. But “some inventories have been heavily used” is not the same claim as “Iran depleted the US missile inventory.” Public analysis specifically identifies Patriot and THAAD as areas of concern, while the Pentagon continues to maintain that the US has substantial military capability.
And blaming Hegseth personally is another leap. These inventory and production issues did not originate with him. Hegseth has actually requested billions in additional funding for military readiness and equipment replenishment.
So I think the fair conclusion is much narrower: the US has used a lot of certain high value munitions, some inventories are under pressure, and the Pentagon needs to keep building them. But that does not prove Iran has depleted the American arsenal, and it does not establish that Hegseth was responsible for supposedly low stockpiles.
If we are demanding proof, that standard has to apply equally to both sides. A reported Trump rebuke or an anonymous source can justify scrutiny, but it is not by itself proof of the underlying inventory claim.
No, the U.S. has waged war against Iran since 1953.
Not true. In fact in 1953, the Mullahs were on the same side as the Shah and opposed to the attempted Communist takeover of the country. As were many others.
The PROXIMATE CAUSE in 1953 was a CIA led coup (Kermit Roosevelt), overthrowing the democratically elected Mossedegh, resulting in the installation of a dictator, the Shah, who ruled with an iron fist. Indeed this was an act of war by the U.S. against the sovereign state of Iran. Eventually leading to the deposition of the Shah in the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
And regarding the rest of your simplistic half truths:
“In August 1953, key segments of the Iranian clergy aligned with pro-monarchist forces to oust Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, driven partly by a shared fear of the communist Tudeh Party. However, the religious establishment was deeply fractured, and the mullahs were not a monolith acting as a unified "mullah" bloc alongside the Shah from the beginning.The Alignment Against Communism and Mossadegh Fear of the Tudeh: Influential Shiite clerics, most notably Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani, grew increasingly alienated from Mossadegh because they feared his secular governance would clear the path for a Soviet-backed communist takeover by the Tudeh Party. The Alliance on the Street: Prominent religious figures like Kashani and Ayatollah Mohammad Behbahani mobilized mosque networks, bazaar guilds, and crowds into the streets of Tehran. They stoked fears that the communists were taking over, helping create the critical mass that toppled Mossadegh on August 19, 1953, and allowed the Shah to return to power. The Nuances and Divisions Not a Unified Clergy: While figures like Behbahani were staunch royalists funded in part to support the palace, Kashani had originally been a vital political ally of Mossadegh in nationalizing the oil industry before they dramatically fell out over political control. No Long-Term Love for the Shah: The clerical factions that opposed Mossadegh and the communists did so to preserve Islamic order and clerical influence, not to establish permanent autocratic royal rule. The alliance of convenience with the monarchy quickly dissolved after 1953 as the Shah modernized and secularized Iran, ultimately planting the seeds for the anti-Shah Islamic Revolution in 1979 led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
The CIA orchestrated the coup, code-named Operation Ajax, to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and restore the Shah's authority. The CIA's Actions and Methods Planning and Strategy: CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt Jr. led the operation on the ground in Tehran, coordinating closely with British intelligence (MI6). Political Sabotage: The CIA bribed Iranian politicians, military officers, and journalists to undermine Mossadegh’s government and spread anti-regime propaganda. Financing Crowds: The agency funneled money to key figures, including Ayatollah Mohammad Behbahani, to rent street mobs, thugs, and protesters to create chaos and simulate a popular uprising. Military Coordination: The CIA secretly delivered the Shah’s decrees dismissing Mossadegh to loyal military units, ensuring army backing for the final assault on Mossadegh's residence. The Motivations. Cold War Containment: The U.S. feared that an increasingly isolated Mossadegh would lean on the communist Tudeh Party, opening Iran to Soviet subversion. Oil Interests: The British wanted to reclaim control of Iranian oil after Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP).”
Before the August 1953 coup, Mossadegh himself moved to dissolve the Majlis. His supporters resigned from Parliament, depriving it of a quorum, and he then held a referendum seeking public approval for its dissolution. The referendum overwhelmingly endorsed dissolution, but the constitutional legitimacy of the procedure was highly questionable because the Iranian constitution vested the power to dissolve the Majlis in the Shah, not the prime ministe
Britain certainly wanted him removed because of the oil nationalization, but the United States viewed Iran through the lens of the Cold War. Stalin had attempted to seize northern Iran just a few years earlier, the Soviet Union bordered Iran, and Washington feared that political collapse could place one of the world's most strategically important countries under Soviet influence. Whether that assessment ultimately proved correct is open to debate, but the decision was driven by national security calculations, not simply by oil company profits.
Even if one believes the coup was the wrong decision, it does not explain or excuse the conduct of the Iranian regime over the last 47 years. The Islamic Republic has repeatedly chosen to sponsor terrorist organizations, arm proxy militias across the Middle East, attack international shipping, pursue regional hegemony, and brutally suppress its own citizens. Those were sovereign decisions made by Iran's leadership, not inevitable consequences of events in 1953.
Finally, the broader narrative leaves out Iran's own agency. Since 1979, Iran has held American diplomats hostage, orchestrated attacks through proxies that have killed Americans and allies, openly called for Israel's destruction, pursued missile and nuclear programs in defiance of international pressure, and spent enormous resources exporting its revolution while neglecting its own economy. Those policies were not forced upon Iran by the United States.
History provides context, but it should not erase accountability. The United States acted during the Cold War as it believed was necessary to contain Soviet expansion and protect vital strategic interests—a policy that can be debated on its merits. But reducing seventy years of U.S.-Iran relations to "America started it" ignores the independent choices made by Iran's leaders for nearly half a century. Both nations have pursued their own interests, but only one of them continues to define its foreign policy around hostility toward the other and the export of revolutionary Shia Mahdism ideology. That's a distinction worth acknowledging.
Before the U.S. engineered coup, Iran was a parliamentary democracy; after the coup, it was a repressive dictatorship. That is the bottom line. And the proximate cause (root cause) of all that followed. Your quibbling aside.
Iranian resistance to U.S. and Zionist hegemony and warfare (military and economic) since 1979 was and is legitimate, both in Iran and in surrounding regions. Hizbullah came into existence as a consequence of Zionist invasions of Lebanon. And what were those US Marines doing in Beruit and that US warship blasting off the coast all about? The hostages were held by Iranian students rightfully pissed by Carter harboring the Shah. The Shah should have been delivered to those students. Resistance to US and Zionist supported headchopping jihadis in Iraq and Syria: not “terrorism”. For you to call Iranians “terrorists” is pure, crystalline projection.
Of course this is all about US and Zionist hegemony and imperialism, and quintessentially about oil and geopolitical control.
Iran has won this current, incredibly stupid war of choice/aggression perpetrated by the Zionists and arguably the worst president in US history. Two thirds of US citizens oppose this war. Iraqi WMD v2.0, Déjà vu all over again…. The Strait was open before the U.S. and Zionists started this war. If the blockage continues, millions of people in the global south are at risk of starvation. And the PROXIMATE CAUSE will be the war of aggression perpetrated by the U.S. and the genocidal Zionists (both in Israel and the U.S.).
There is plenty of legitimate criticism of the 1953 coup and of American policy in the Middle East, but that does not make every subsequent action by Iran automatically “legitimate.”
Yes, the US and Britain helped overthrow Mossadegh in 1953. Declassified US records explicitly document the American role in restoring the Shah. That history is not in dispute. Moreover, Iranian citizens could care less of past history due to pervasive dislike of The Mullahs and the IRGC as indicated by internal and external polls showing about 84% unfavorabke ratings
But history does not create a permanent exemption from accountability. The 1953 coup does not make taking American diplomats hostage in 1979 legitimate. Those students seized the US Embassy and held more than 50 Americans for 444 days. Being angry about the Shah's admission to the United States does not make hostage taking lawful or justified.
Likewise, Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 is part of the history behind Hezbollah's emergence, but that does not automatically legitimize everything Hezbollah subsequently did. Hezbollah emerged during that conflict and was heavily supported by Iran.
Most importantly, “the US did something wrong first” is not a serious standard for judging everything that followed. By that logic, virtually any subsequent act becomes legitimate retaliation indefinitely.
You can condemn the 1953 coup, oppose Israeli occupation, criticize American interventions, and still acknowledge that Iran has pursued its own regional power strategy, supported armed proxies, taken hostages, the industrial killing of over 150,000 of its own people and the fanatical apocalyptic Mullahs and IRGC belief that that they must cause worldwide conflagration, as they build deep labyrinths with nuclear centrifuges, and only after the 12th Imam sees this will he return to earth. Belief and carried out actions that cannot simply be relabeled “resistance.” Iran must never hold a Nuclear bomb
And saying the current war proves Iran has “won” is another assertion, not an established fact. Wars are not won merely because one side survives, nor does changing the tempo of military operations prove the other side achieved its strategic objectives.
The strongest argument is therefore not that America has a spotless record. The stronger argument is that American wrongdoing does not automatically make Iranian actions legitimate, and condemning one side's aggression does not require pretending the other side has none.
Everyone else seems to be able to get along with them sans Israel and their pedo partners in the GCC.
No one gets along with them. They attack all of their neighbors. The spent 1980 to 1988 locked in a war with Iraq. They’ve attacked Israel, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey.
They get along great with Russia, China and the rest of the BRICs/global south… which comprise a majority around the world. The countries you listed are all the fake GCC nations that have little to no power or say in the region.
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is a political and economic alliance of six Arab monarchies bordering the Persian Gulf: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman. Established in 1981 amid the Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War, its primary historical purpose was to ensure collective security and stability against regional threats, particularly Iran.
Iran has recently attacked at least 13 countries in 2026 as part of its retaliatory campaign following U.S. and Israeli strikes.
Primary targets include Gulf nations hosting U.S. military bases:
* United Arab Emirates – Heavily targeted, with 1,138 drone and missile attacks reported.
* Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Oman – All hit in strikes aimed at U.S. facilities and infrastructure.
Other nations attacked:
* Israel – Received ballistic missile barrages.
* Jordan – Targeted multiple times, including attacks on U.S.-linked bases.
* Azerbaijan – Struck for the first time, with drones hitting the Nakhchivan region.
* Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Cyprus – Hit by intercepted missiles or drones, some launched via Iranian proxies.
* United Kingdom – Its Akrotiri and Dhekelia base in Cyprus was struck.
Iran has also threatened European countries, warning they may become targets if they join the conflict.
IRAN DECLARES WAT ON ISRAEL 1979
Did Israel ever say Iran did not have the right to exist? No iran declared Israel did not have the right to exist (never rescinded) and created proxies Hezzbolah, Hamas and The Houthis and Kata'ib Hezbollah (KH),Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba (HHN),Badr Organization and ThePopular Mobilization Forces (PMF) to bring murder, mayhem and War down on Israel.
The new Islamic Republic, under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, declared Israel the "Little Satan" and vowed its destruction, marking a complete reversal from the previously friendly relations between the two nations. This ideological shift led to the end of all official ties, the closure of the Israeli embassy in Tehran, and the beginning of a long-standing proxy conflict.
You forgot to mention that all those Gulf countries were complicit in the U.S./Zionist attack and war on Iran.
“The Jew will always tell you what happened to him, but he'll never tell you why.”
- Russian Proverb
Moreover, I have already given you an authoritative overview of what zionism is which is not the repetitive social media mantra inculcating definition almost everyone is buying and adapting to.
One important correction here: the initial attack on Iran was conducted by the United States and Israel. It is not accurate to lump every country that subsequently became involved in the conflict into the category of countries that attacked Iran.
The UK, France and Germany explicitly stated that they did not participate in the initial strikes. Britain later allowed US use of some bases for defensive operations, and other countries provided varying degrees of logistical or defensive support. That is not the same thing as having joined the original offensive.
Likewise, several Gulf states were actually attacked by Iran after the US and Israeli strikes began. They were not members of the original attacking coalition.
So if the argument is that “the US, Israel, Britain, France, the Gulf states, etc. all attacked Iran,” that is simply too broad. The initial offensive was US and Israeli. Other governments made different choices afterward, ranging from neutrality and mediation to defensive assistance and allowing access to military facilities.
You can argue that some of those countries subsequently became participants in the conflict. But that is very different from claiming they all participated in launching the war against Iran.
I notice pervasive false concepts repeated consistently such as who people think "The Zionist" are by way of mantra inculcation via State Jesuitical Media.
THE FALSE ZIONIST CONCEPT:
A six form usurper philosophy was ingratiated into Judahs, Benjamin and The Levy's land (not totally correct calling it Israel technically they are only part of The House of Israel) to help create a divide and conquer where the "Zionest Jews" are in the forefront leading the charge to help foster in the planned disparagement on them.
According to Internationally known Expert Eric Jon Phelps:
Zionism was created by the Jesuits in alliance with Freemasonry, originating from the Bavarian Illuminati and the French Revolution.
The first Masonic Labor Zionist was Napoleon Bonaparte, guided by his Jesuit advisor Abbé Sieyès, who allegedly sought to make Palestine a Jewish homeland to benefit the Vatican.
The real purpose of modern Zionism is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem for the Pope (the Antichrist), reviving the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099–1291) under Jesuit control.
Phelps states Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, was a Masonic Jewish Labor Zionist working under Jesuit direction, with the goal of establishing a Jewish state to serve the interests of Rome, NOT the Jewish people.
Phelps identifies six types of Zionists, with himself belonging to the fifth category: Calvinist Zionists, who support the right of ethnic Jews to live in Israel exclusively, advocating for the removal of Arabs and opposing non Jewish presence.
Phelps' narrative frames Zionism as a Luciferian, Jesuit-controlled deception, not a genuine expression of Jewish national identity, and links it directly to the Vatican’s eschatological plans.
It was the Jesuits that incorporated zionism into Isreal as a manipulative philosophical too in order to weaken and control Israel. Consequently, they expanded it into six forms of zionism eventually morphing it into ten. Unknown to most the Jesuits aka Society of Loyola have compartmentalized the USA into ten provincials to expedite Americas dissolution happening in real time.
So, they get along with people who don’t live near them and who buy their oil. Got it. They have to pay people to be their friends. But other than that …
They get along with the majority of the people around the world with the exception of those aligned with the pedos/satanic jews.
OMG, it’s the Joos again. Really? That’s your position.
BTW, the Joos don’t condone marrying 9 year olds. Guess who does. They also don’t condone keeping sex slaves. Guess who does.
It was in large part a false flag. You can look it up. Many IDF soldiers were told to come in, that is, to leave their posts very early on the day of the attack. You can look it up. Israel is master of false flag attacks.
sure man; whatever you say.
Osama died of kidney disease in late 2001.
The U.S. doesn't want to attack North Korea because the zionists who control our government don't care about North Korea.
Islam is essentially a system of conquest by any means available
not a religion as Westerners think
One of Iran's tactics is to reduce the US stockpile of weapons by using cheaper offensive weapons. The difference is huge: a $2,500 drone being shot down with missiles costing hundreds of thousands, and some in the millions. The US has begun using microwave defense systems, which are far cheaper, but still, the US stockpile of weapons is very low. Low enough that Trump has stopped the rhetoric of "the biggest attack is coming"; they are not; there's not enough munitions. You can clearly see the difference in Trump's saber-rattling after he learned about the shortage. Iran has won so far with its attrition strategy. One would think the Pentagon would understand this beforehand. But, once again, the stupidity and short-sightedness of Neocons are on display.
right!
lasers are being implemented to solve that disparity
Yes, but you'll notice the similarities to Iraq. Road bombs were devastating and cheap. Billions were spent to combat that strategy with high-cost vehicles. Lasers are similar, and it's billions again; I should say, it increases the debt.
What a can of worms!
Despite the bloviating of the Trump Dead-Enders/Delusionals who chronically infect Leake’s comment sections, the overwhelming evidence is that Trump and the Zionists are the irrational actors, not the North Koreans and Iranians. Before Trump tore up the JCPOA at the behest of the Zionists, Iran was verifiably limiting enrichment to 3.67%. Iran enriched to 60%, as a deterrent/bargaining chip only after Trump and the Zionists tore up the JCPOA. Iran has every reason to view the Zionists (both in Israel and the West) as enemies, because of the existential threat posed by the Zionists in their plans to destroy Iran and establish “Greater Israel”. The Iranian nuclear weapon that Trump and Netanyahu have been perseverating about for years is a smokescreen: precisely analogous to Iraqi WMD. But congratulations to the neocons, Zionists, Trump and Trump Dead-Ender Syndrome sufferers: after the perfidy of killing the Iranian leader (during negotiations) who resisted Iranian nuclear weapons, NOW 40+ million Iranians are polarized and desire revenge, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran does build nuclear weapons. Persians are highly intelligent and educated; it would not take them long to build gun-type nuclear weapons.
The U.S. has threatened to end Iranian civilization forever? That is not remotely true. The U.S. has threatened to end the Iranian Islamist regime. If anything, the outcome would be the return of civilization to Iran, with its people not bound in a prison state, it's women raped and murdered for not wearing the mullah-approved garb, and it's assets spent on proxy wars and massive missile and drone depots.
Opinion. Mind viruses are real.
However, their nature and virulence go beyond surface analysis.
They are the product of a much deeper mind, a quasi transcendent mind.
If we are to eradicate the mind viruses threatening our survival, we will need to plumb deeper depths with a better understanding of mind.
Would you like some Denial Dressing on your word salad? Or a side order of Conspiracy Fries?
Keep swimming in that river in Egypt, ANonnyMouse. The reality of events like the vicious Zionist pogroms in the West Bank slap you in the face, but you are obviously impervious to evidence-based reality in the HERE AND NOW.
The most basic definition of insanity: the state of being out if touch with reality.
Most people in the West who have been propagandized about Iran do the same things we see the extremists on the left do. They hold contradictory positions to rationalize an irrational point of view.
Iran is a religious theocracy which means their government and culture and tightly bound to its religious principles, far tighter than the USA and Christianity were ever bound. This means that Iran's leadership would lose the support of the vast majority of its citizens if it openly engaged and promoted in the wanton destruction of life, aka launching an unprovoked nuclear strike that killed millions of civilians. The Iranian people would all suffer an immediate crisis of faith and overwhelming guilt, much more so than if the West did this in my opinion. Yes, there are extremists in Iran that are seemingly the only people who ever make it onto Western media outlets. Hmm, I wonder why that is?
As an aside, do you know why horrible television shows like CSI, FBI, ChicagoPD and on and on and on draw consistent audiences? Because the average person (95-105 IQ) cannot use deductive reasoning and ask, as Doyle's Sherlock Holmes did, where is the dog that isn't barking? Where are the unprovoked attacks on Israel now that we see that Iran has had the ability to annihlate them for years? Why did Iran stop firing missiles into Israel when it clearly has thousands more of them?
Shh. NCIS is coming on. I'll miss those dreamy Mark Harmon eyes.
John, thanks for stating the facts. All of the military interventions by the U.S. since 1945 have not only failed to cause any country to do what we want, it's produced the opposite result. Each country becomes more united, more supportive of their government in the face of U.S. attack, and more armed and ready to defend itself from military and economic attacks. The only country we've successfully destroyed is Syria, now headed by a former terrorist, courtesy of the U.S. Thanks again for trying to reach your readership, even though many prefer to keep waving the American flag. As was said during the shameful war in Vietnam, "My country right or wrong." Even if it destroys our own economy and crushes many Americans.
You are Mistaken !!
chronological table of U.S. military conflicts since WWII, including:
Conflict name
Years
Scale (major/minor)
Outcome
Here’s a detailed version:
Conflict Years Scale Outcome
Korean War 1950–1953 Major Stalemate / Armistice (no clear victory)
Vietnam War (U.S. combat) 1965–1973 Major Defeat / Withdrawal
Lebanon Crisis 1958 Minor Partial success, stabilized temporarily
Dominican Republic Intervention 1965 Minor Limited success, U.S. stabilized government
Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury) 1983 Minor Victory, regime overthrown quickly
Lebanon Multinational Force & Civil War 1982–1984 Minor Partial success, U.S. withdrew after casualties
Panama (Operation Just Cause) 1989 Minor Victory, Noriega removed
Gulf War (Desert Storm) 1990–1991 Major Clear victory, Kuwait liberated
Somalia (UN / U.S. intervention) 1992–1994 Minor Mixed, humanitarian goals partially met; Battle of Mogadishu setback
Bosnia (Operation Deliberate Force / NATO) 1995 Minor Victory, ended ethnic cleansing, U.S. key role
Kosovo (NATO air campaign) 1999 Minor Victory, Serbian forces withdrew, U.S. key role
Afghanistan (War on Terror) 2001–2021 Major Ambiguous / Strategic defeat, Taliban regained control
Iraq War 2003–2011 Major Mixed, Saddam removed but long-term instability
Libya (NATO intervention) 2011 Minor Initial victory, Gaddafi removed, long-term instability
Syria / ISIS operations 2014–present Minor Tactical success against ISIS, ongoing instability
Venezuela Jan. 2026: The U.S. military operation in Venezuela, codenamed Operation Absolute Resolve, was a stunning tactical success that achieved its primary objective of capturing President Nicolás Maduro without any American casualties. Executed on January 3, 2026, the raid involved over 150 aircraft and 200 special operations forces who suppressed Venezuelan air defenses and extracted the target in under three hours.
Observations
Major wars:
Clear victories: Gulf War
Stalemates / defeats: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq (long-term)
Minor conflicts / interventions:
Mostly tactical victories: Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, Libya (initially)
Mixed or ambiguous: Lebanon, Somalia, Syria
Trend:
U.S. is often successful tactically in small-scale operations.
Strategic success in major wars is rare since WWII.
36,000 American servicemen who died in the Korean War collectively rolled over in their graves as Trump announced he was abandoning military exercises with South Korea while reopening talks with North Korea.
The slogan “America First” should be revised to “America First and Our Allies Last.”
Think President Trump is using strategy and diplomacy to tamper down N. Korean aspirations enmeshing themselves into Ukraine who has offered 50,000 troops, 120 170 mm canons, 5000 NK military engineers and 100 mine specialists not to mention 12 million military shells (believe 9 million already sent) to bolster Russia's military position. He strategized in similar fashion cozying up to Pakistan (ally of China)(which can also possibly aid in driving Pakistan and China apart) when India started to become a less cooperative ally of the USA which I think he timed well subsequent to Indias Air force experiencing a stunning defeat at the hand of Pakistan's Air force utilizing Chinese stand off missiles. Moreover, the above mentioned also serves as sending a message to South Korea who said not thanks when President Trump asked them to assist in the Persian Gulf.
There is some kind of peace-deal in the works, besides, the carrier Washington had to go to Hormuz to relieve the carrier Lincoln... Trump needs to "make lemonade" before November.
North Korea had “repeatedly threatened shocking and unimaginable disaster,” and “total destruction” of the United States if it takes military action against North Korea.
As the business of the USA is war no wonder they feel this way I guess we shouldn’t attack NK. Maybe the USA should stop getting involved in endless wars. Easy solution.
Now we know why Iran wants a nuke.
Always remember the ONLY country to use on was the USA need I say more?
Except Trump is considering using another.
All aggressions are money motivated and for geo political control over the world , then religion is thrown in , because that’s certain to aggravate any situation, any religion will do , just stir it up and the world goes mad !
What if every country governed their own country without outside interference ?
Your opinion is your opinion and no forceful behavior should result . It’s the people of the country that have to overthrow their govts not outside foreign intervention if they wish for a change ?
But the world economy only thrives on war , killing and violence . And the arms race n destruction continues throughout history .
How sad that every country has to acquire a nuclear deterrent to protect itself from aggression,
When will humanity revise its trajectory path , after they drop another nuclear bomb ?