Trump says he bombed Iran

[cherokeetroy]

"Army Chief of Staff fired: THIS IS VERY BIG.

Firing the Army Chief now, and replacing him with a loyalist, is preparation for orders the previous leadership might have slow-walked or resisted. When you fire a service chief mid-war with no stated cause, the real reason is almost certainly doctrinal disagreement — how the war is being fought.

It should be noted that the US started bombing Iranian civilian infrastructure today (Iran's largest bridge). A career infantry officer like George, who ran the Army's transformation initiative, would have serious institutional opinions about the feasibility and cost of a ground operation in Iran. If he was pushing back — even through internal channels — that's exactly the kind of friction Hegseth would remove.

The likely replacement is Gen. Christopher LaNeve, formerly Hegseth's own military aide — meaning Hegseth is installing a loyalist at the top of the Army during active combat operations against Iran.

Hegseth has now fired over a dozen senior military officers, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. C.Q. Brown, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Slife, and the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse.

Bottom line: This is escalatory.

The civilian leadership is systematically removing any institutional brake on military options — this is what the entire purge has been building toward. The George ouster happening simultaneously with Trump's "stone ages" speech is not coincidence.

Expect the next two weeks to be the most kinetically intense phase of the war so far."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hegseth-ous...dy-george/

https://x.com/Arrogance_0024/status/2039...15997?s=20

[EXETER]

That's not what I'm talking about.
Lemme' try again.

The claim that some are putting forward that Iran was working on peaceful nuclear program and that now they will work on a weapons program because America bombed them ... that doesn't hold water.    Iran was working on a nuclear weapons  program before we went in.   Our going in didn't motivate them to now go after nuclear weapons.  They were ALREADY going after nuclear weapons.

Well, yes and no.  

Back in the years leading up to the JCPOA, it was clear to all of the major powers concerned--China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union that Iran was slowly but covertly and steadily working towards a nuclear weapons capability.  The entire reason that agreement was negotiated and signed was to prevent that from going any further because the stated policy of the US (and Israel) was that Iran would not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.  Obama and all of the Presidents before him were well aware of the cost and difficulty of having to prevent Iran from getting those kinds of weapons militarily.  Unlike Trump, all of those other Presidents were briefed on the consequences of closing the Strait of Hormuz and listened to those advisors.

So Obama decided to do it the cheap way instead of the expensive way.  That meant preventing Iran from progressing any farther than they already were and, in fact, rolling back their progress to the point where the time required to break out from their 20% enriched uranium to weapons grade and produce enough of it to make a few bombs would be long enough that large scale military operations with multiple allies could be organized and brought to bear on Iran.

And that's what the JCPOA achieved.  All of Iran's enriched uranium (20% enrichment) produced up to that point in time was accounted for and 95% of it was shipped out of the country. The remaining 20% enriched uranium was legitimately for medical isotope purposes. Two thirds of their enrichment centrifuges were either destroyed or placed in monitored storage. Their nuclear reactor was permanently modified so that it could not produce plutonium.  The whole situation was monitored by on site  round the clock electronic surveillance and periodic inspections by the International  Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  When the IAEA finally certified that Iran was in full compliance with the agreement on Jan. 15, 2016, the next day Obama released the hold on the money that Iran had paid to the US for arms purchases in 1979 (before the Islamic Revolution) plus interest.  That totaled about $1.7 Billion. Essentially, Obama paid Iran to scale their nuclear program back from one that was on track to eventually produce nuclear weapons to one that was a legitimate civilian program.  MAGA pissed and moaned about that, but that is approximately 1/2 the amount that Trump and Hegseth burned through in the first day of Epic Fury.

During the first year of his first term in office, Trump himself twice certified that Iran was in compliance with the agreement. But in his second year in office, Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the JCPOA calling it the "dumbest deal ever", and claiming he was going to replace it with something better.  Which he never did, of course.  So within about a year Iran decided that the JCPOA was no longer in effect, and they started enriching uranium again, eventually getting to the 60% level in April of 2021.  And it is true that the 60% level is not needed for medical purposes.  So you are correct (in my opinion) that Iran was back on a trajectory to obtain nuclear weapons before Trump bombed them last June.  

However, most of the important provisions of the JCPOA extended for 10 years, so Iran would still have had only 20% enriched uranium and a small number centrifuges last June, if Trump had not impulsively terminated the JCPOA.  

But he did, effectively putting us on course for the expensive solution.  The problem now is that Iran is going to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that they MUST develop nuclear weapons from whatever remains of their 60% enriched uranium buried in the rubble at Natanz and Fordow, as fast as they can. If Trump and Netanyahu don't stop that from happening, they will have spent hundreds of billions of dollars and not actually put Iran out of the nuclear weapon business.

[DBCowboy]

No, they don't.  

I don't know what your experience is, but I started traveling internationally for both business and pleasure about 40 years ago. That's close to half my life. Most of that was to Europe but some of it was to Asia, Central and South America, Australia, Indonesia, the high Arctic in Canada, etc., etc.

All totaled, I've probably spent about 5 years abroad in those locations, probably about 4 of those in Europe.  I think that's a reasonably good statistical sample. I am a professional scientist/engineer and have developed many, many friendships and professional colleague relationships from residents from all of those nations, over the years.  I can honestly say that I have never, ever received any mockery, insults, or abuse directed to me as an individual or as a symbolic representative of America.  

Seriously, never.  

This idea that French waiters in Paris will insult Americans for no reason is total bullshit in my experience.  I have found that if you treat others with respect and consideration, they will reciprocate 99.9% of the time.  I once walked into a random bar in the South of France, lost, and asked for directions in pidgin French.  They asked where I was from and I said the US and they acted as if I had just personally landed on the beach in Normandy and helped to liberate Paris.  They offered me free drinks, which I had to decline, because I was driving. I once got lost in a German village and a local resident came over and asked me where I was going.  I replied in my pidgin German.  He stopped what he was doing and got in his car and led me for 20 minutes to my destination.  

My experiences have been the exact opposite of mockery, insult, and abuse.

But for some reason, the whole Trump-MAGA cult is completely caught up in the psychopathology of grievance, resentment, and retribution based on an entirely false narrative that "foreigners" are fucking us over and ripping us off.  The rest of the world faces exactly the same issues that we do.  They have to get up in the morning, go to work, pay the bills, etc., etc. They have to live with what providence has given them or not given them in the way of resources and challenges.  They engage in business deals with us based on the idea that they have to make a living and so do we.  That's healthy.  That's how it should be.  That's not exploitative. There's no reason on God's green Earth that Americans should expect to come out on top in every business deal. 

We are particularly blessed to have developed deep and cordial relationships with allies whose cultures and nations have given our nation birth-predominantly Europe, but also including Latin America, Asia, and others.

The fact that Donald Trump and his cult followers would give all of that up based on a fictional grievance is frankly mentally ill.  

Our bonds with Europe and other allies that we have developed over the last 80 years are a million times more valuable than Trump.  

And by the way, have you given any consideration to the practical consequences of your irrational hatreds?  The US and the EU are cross-invested in each other to the tune of around 50% of our GDPs.  The EU is the US' largest trading partner by far--about 3 times larger than China. We've already tied our boat to theirs. If we harm their economies it harms our economies about as much, and vice versa.

Dump Trump and keep NATO.

I grew up in the UK, and earlier in Hong Kong.  So yeah, I know how they think of America.

[IDELB2006]

"Army Chief of Staff fired: THIS IS VERY BIG.

Firing the Army Chief now, and replacing him with a loyalist, is preparation for orders the previous leadership might have slow-walked or resisted. When you fire a service chief mid-war with no stated cause, the real reason is almost certainly doctrinal disagreement — how the war is being fought.

It should be noted that the US started bombing Iranian civilian infrastructure today (Iran's largest bridge). A career infantry officer like George, who ran the Army's transformation initiative, would have serious institutional opinions about the feasibility and cost of a ground operation in Iran. If he was pushing back — even through internal channels — that's exactly the kind of friction Hegseth would remove.

The likely replacement is Gen. Christopher LaNeve, formerly Hegseth's own military aide — meaning Hegseth is installing a loyalist at the top of the Army during active combat operations against Iran.

Hegseth has now fired over a dozen senior military officers, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. C.Q. Brown, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Slife, and the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse.

Bottom line: This is escalatory.

The civilian leadership is systematically removing any institutional brake on military options — this is what the entire purge has been building toward. The George ouster happening simultaneously with Trump's "stone ages" speech is not coincidence.

Expect the next two weeks to be the most kinetically intense phase of the war so far."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hegseth-ous...dy-george/

https://x.com/Arrogance_0024/status/2039...15997?s=20

Good grief.  I just hope this firing was not so that Trump can go ahead with the Kharg Island nonsense.

[ANNEE]

I grew up in the UK, and earlier in Hong Kong.  So yeah, I know how they think of America.

"Birds of a feather flock together".

Comes to mind.

[RazorV66]

"Army Chief of Staff fired: THIS IS VERY BIG.

Firing the Army Chief now, and replacing him with a loyalist, is preparation for orders the previous leadership might have slow-walked or resisted. When you fire a service chief mid-war with no stated cause, the real reason is almost certainly doctrinal disagreement — how the war is being fought.

It should be noted that the US started bombing Iranian civilian infrastructure today (Iran's largest bridge). A career infantry officer like George, who ran the Army's transformation initiative, would have serious institutional opinions about the feasibility and cost of a ground operation in Iran. If he was pushing back — even through internal channels — that's exactly the kind of friction Hegseth would remove.

The likely replacement is Gen. Christopher LaNeve, formerly Hegseth's own military aide — meaning Hegseth is installing a loyalist at the top of the Army during active combat operations against Iran.

Hegseth has now fired over a dozen senior military officers, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. C.Q. Brown, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Slife, and the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse.

Bottom line: This is escalatory.

The civilian leadership is systematically removing any institutional brake on military options — this is what the entire purge has been building toward. The George ouster happening simultaneously with Trump's "stone ages" speech is not coincidence.

Expect the next two weeks to be the most kinetically intense phase of the war so far."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hegseth-ous...dy-george/

https://x.com/Arrogance_0024/status/2039...15997?s=20

You don't know that and neither does "Polish oligarch" and "French philosopher" Daniel Foubert.

Random dude, making random statements again.

[cherokeetroy]

You don't know that and neither does "Polish oligarch" and "French philosopher" Daniel Foubert.

Random dude, making random statements again.

It's an opinion and a prediction

[DBCowboy]

"Birds of a feather flock together".

Comes to mind.

Huh?

[cherokeetroy]

AGAIN — where are the Check’s and Balances?

Why is this crap allowed to continue.

Trump is a traitor and he deserves a traitor's justice 

How's that for a random statement

[Maxmars]

It might serve everyone if we noted (not that I have) who is reporting what and when... (hell, maybe even noting 'editors' might speak to an unaddressed bias here and there.)

And sometimes resignations are much deeper than reported, more nuanced, more subtle... in fact most of them are... used to be considered "professionalism."

Now every resignation "must be" the subject of entertainment news.

Frankly, I would probably be shocked that anything nuanced comes from the image of President Trump...
but then... that's now trademark-able and "on brand," isn't it?