Here’s what just went down — and it’s very interesting:

[Mantiss2021]

Did not think Israel could, logistically, launch an assault on Iran capable of "eliminating" Iran's nuclear weapons program without "outside" (US) assistance.

This attack could very well result in Iran sponsoring actions on the US homeland.

[MonkMode]

Nothing Iran can do if we decide to come after their Nuke sites. Evacuating US citizens from nearby reach understandable. Iran's time has come to shit or get off the pot.

You see this Pete guy's hair He's going to want a War to win under his belt.

It’s going gray fast, and he’s only 45.

[Ravenwatcher]

And it begins

[midicon]

It's just business as usual for the warmongers. Iran was always on the cards once the Ukraine affair settled down. Got to keep the gravy train of weapons manufacture rolling. It's all good lol.

[CriticalStinker]

Did not think Israel could, logistically, launch an assault on Iran capable of "eliminating" Iran's nuclear weapons program without "outside" (US) assistance.

This attack could very well result in Iran sponsoring actions on the US homeland.

Israel already said that they weren’t done, and that this would continue for days or weeks.

Several sources on Twitter have said that Israeli news N12 reported Israeli officials saying they were optimistic US would provide assistance with their large bombers capable of carrying bunker busters. N12 is in Hebrew, and I used a translator to try and verify that, but it may have been on broadcast.

grain of salt though considering its twitter.

[quintessentone]

It's just business as usual for the warmongers. Iran was always on the cards once the Ukraine affair settled down. Got to keep the gravy train of weapons manufacture rolling. It's all good lol.

Or it is simply "war for war's sake".

[putnam6]

USMC Lady Vet Do y'all remember who financed Iran for World War 3? Pallets of cash on a plane in the dead of night?


 

• The X post references a controversial event during the Obama administration where the U.S. reportedly delivered $1.7 billion in cash to Iran, ostensibly to settle a decades-old claim related to an arms deal from the 1970s. This transaction, which involved pallets of cash transported by plane, was criticized for potentially financing Iran's military activities, including its ballistic missile program, and for bypassing traditional banking channels due to sanctions.
  
• The criticism stems from the timing and method of the payment, which coincided with the release of American prisoners held by Iran, leading some to view it as a ransom payment despite official denials. This event has been a point of contention, with detractors arguing it undermined U.S. policy against paying ransoms and strengthened Iran's position, while supporters framed it as a necessary settlement of a legal obligation.
  
• The backdrop to this event includes the broader context of U.S.-Iran relations, marked by tensions over Iran's nuclear program and support for terrorism. The Obama administration's approach was part of a larger strategy to engage Iran diplomatically, culminating in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, which aimed to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities in exchange for sanctions relief. However, the cash payment has remained a focal point for criticism, especially given subsequent Iranian actions and the ongoing debate over the effectiveness and morality of such diplomatic maneuvers.