The correct line of thinking

Iran does not pose any credible threat to the United States. We do not need to get involved in yet another war in the Middle East for reasons that have nothing to do with defending our own nation.

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) June 12, 2025

Keyno said:

---

Allen Gamble said:

---

I rest my case. By all means continue burying your head in the sand and shout empty slogans such as "neocon" and "warmonger". You gonna call me a Zionist next?

I provided ample evidence they're building nukes yet in typical isolationist dribble it's simply a "neocon" talking point. That's funny, I seem to remember Tehran Tucker working and writing for the "neocon" publication called the Weekly Standard.

---

You have provided evidence that they could potentially build nukes. I agree with all of it. They want to keep this ability as an insurance policy against a major attack from Israel or US.

---

That is nonsensical. To go from weapons grade uranium to building a nuclear weapon, mounting on a ballistic missile isn't easy nor possible in a time frame that would deter anyone from attacking Iran.

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Allen Gamble said:

---

Ah come on guys! Iran really is just a benevolent country who cares about their people! It's not they're systematically suppressing dissent and imprisoning protestors and torturing/killing them! That's just neocon propaganda! Even this neocon Iranian prisoner says so!

Quote:

---

The regime's merciless killing spree has seen at least 176 inmates sent to the gallows in the past month.

Insiders told The Sun the shocking spike in executions comes amid a barbaric attempt from leaders to crush dissent and act as a warning against it.

Masouri, who was arrested for his affiliation with the resistance unit People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, has now told of the secret process behind executions.

Psychological torture, threats against family and sham trials are all used as tools by the regime to condemn its enemies to death on trumped-up charges.

---

Of course, according to Keyno, Iran SHOULD have nukes! Because the evil neocons who run America and Israel are just agitators and they should have a right to defend themselves from oppressive regimes such as us!

---

Bro, now you are kind of getting away from the topic at hand. And assuming things about me which are not true. I am America First and I want to keep us out of more endless middle east war. I do not particularly care if Iran is brutal to its political prisoners. It has nothing to do with me or my country.

Don't mistake my arguments here for support of a nuclear Iran. All I am doing here is giving you the reasons Iran is posturing the way that they are and showing you the similarities between now and the build up to the Iraq war 2 decades ago.

---

Then just say that. You are trying to make the facts fit your world view.

Is Iran building a Nuclear weapon? Of course they are. Don't try to suggest they aren't. Just say that it's none of our business or stopping them is not worth it.

---

There is no evidence they are actively building one. Again, the "Iran is building a nuke" line has been trotted out for decades. What are they waiting for? Its literally never been true.

---

They were thwarted awhile back when their centrifuges were hacked & destroyed. They were thwarted when sanctions destroyed their ability obtain centrifuges.
The mullahs have one goal, nuclear weapons mounted on ballistic missiles. When they have them they will use them, they are leaders of a death cult.

richardag said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Allen Gamble said:

---

Ah come on guys! Iran really is just a benevolent country who cares about their people! It's not they're systematically suppressing dissent and imprisoning protestors and torturing/killing them! That's just neocon propaganda! Even this neocon Iranian prisoner says so!

Quote:

---

The regime's merciless killing spree has seen at least 176 inmates sent to the gallows in the past month.

Insiders told The Sun the shocking spike in executions comes amid a barbaric attempt from leaders to crush dissent and act as a warning against it.

Masouri, who was arrested for his affiliation with the resistance unit People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, has now told of the secret process behind executions.

Psychological torture, threats against family and sham trials are all used as tools by the regime to condemn its enemies to death on trumped-up charges.

---

Of course, according to Keyno, Iran SHOULD have nukes! Because the evil neocons who run America and Israel are just agitators and they should have a right to defend themselves from oppressive regimes such as us!

---

Bro, now you are kind of getting away from the topic at hand. And assuming things about me which are not true. I am America First and I want to keep us out of more endless middle east war. I do not particularly care if Iran is brutal to its political prisoners. It has nothing to do with me or my country.

Don't mistake my arguments here for support of a nuclear Iran. All I am doing here is giving you the reasons Iran is posturing the way that they are and showing you the similarities between now and the build up to the Iraq war 2 decades ago.

---

Then just say that. You are trying to make the facts fit your world view.

Is Iran building a Nuclear weapon? Of course they are. Don't try to suggest they aren't. Just say that it's none of our business or stopping them is not worth it.

---

There is no evidence they are actively building one. Again, the "Iran is building a nuke" line has been trotted out for decades. What are they waiting for? Its literally never been true.

---

They were thwarted awhile back when their centrifuges were hacked & destroyed. They were thwarted when sanctions destroyed their ability obtain centrifuges.
The mullahs have one goal, nuclear weapons mounted on ballistic missiles. When they have them they will use them, they are leaders of a death cult.

---

Agree to disagree
You strike me as a big levin enthusiast

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Just to be clear. You are claiming that Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons and that the argument that they are building them is a lie and a "neoconservative" talking point?

---

Correct. At this time there is no evidence Iran is actively building nukes. Same as it's been for the last few decades every time this talking point is trotted out. If Iran wanted to build a bomb, it could do so probably within a few weeks. But they don't want to give US justification to destroy them.

---

I love how in one post you admit that the Iranian government is obviously building nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Israel and the US. And in the next you claim they aren't building them only pretending to build them.

---

I have never admitted Iran is obviously building nukes. What I've consistently said is that they insist on keeping their nuclear program in case they need to build one.

---

Ok. Let's say you are the leader of Iran and you are against getting bombed by Israel. Would you?
A) Build nuclear weapons as fast as possible
B) Keep a nuclear program around just in case but not actually build a bomb
You arguments make zero sense.

---

Think of it like this. If they build a bomb, that gives the US the justification to go in and give them the Iraq treatment. They obviously do not want that. But if they totally give up the program, they believe they will ultimately get the Libya treatment (which Netanyahu recently called for). They also do not want that either.

Iran keeps their program as an insurance policy. If Israel does a major attack, or America goes in, then Iran literally has nothing left to lose and would then be compelled to build it. Which they would be able to do in a few weeks probably.

---

If either America or Israel attack there would be no time left to build and deploy a nuclear weapon. Your argument is nonsense.

Keyno said:

---

rootube said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Let Israel fight Israel's war. We've already done the bit about WMD in some desert

---

THIS is the argument Keyo wants to make but he keeps getting hung up on "There is no proof"

---

Incorrect again. I stated in this thread that this is not an option. If we let Israel bomb Iran, Iran retaliates, then the US is compelled to get involved. I am against this.

---

Too late.
IDF hits military sites across Iran in hours-long attack, weeks after Iran's missile barrage October 2024
What we know about Israel's attack on Iran October 2024
Israel launches missile strikes into Iran, U.S. military official says UPDATED APRIL 19, 20244:58 AM ET
Again your argument is nonsense

TXaggiesTX said:

---

The correct line of thinking

Iran does not pose any credible threat to the United States. We do not need to get involved in yet another war in the Middle East for reasons that have nothing to do with defending our own nation.

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) June 12, 2025

---

Who says we would have troops on the ground in Iran?
I do believe anyone here on this forum nor in the DOD is calling for troops on the ground in Iran.

Mark Levin is an extraordinary Constitutional scholar. A bit irritating to listen because he tends to yell way too much, but his knowledge is indisputable.

Agreed. Lots of yelling about "the mullahs" and "death cults"

I think our best option here is to keep stoking the relations with more moderate Arab nations, more capitalism, and arm the f out of the Saudis. Just my opinion.

I am no neo-con or Warhawk, but we will have to destroy Iran's nukes. It is inevitable. Hussein funding their development ensured that. It's almost as if that piece of **** is on Iran's side.

Link to Hegseth statement:

🇺🇸🇮🇷Today, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Congress that "there are multiple indications that Iran is moving toward a nuclear weapon." pic.twitter.com/IGqeVM2uEL

— Intel Slava (@Intel_Slava) June 12, 2025

This is a county where "death to America" is a central part of their belief system.

The new shift to being pro-Obama Iran policy by so many is disturbing.

This would certainly explain the Israeli preparations for a strike and U.S. instructions to embassies. My guess is there was some uncertainty over what would be announced and how quickly Iran intends to bring this facility online. 1/ https://t.co/WUXxv23czU

— Eric Brewer (@BrewerEricM) June 12, 2025

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

His point about us being told Iran is just about to get a nuke is valid. Ive been hearing people say that since at least the 90s.

But the post as a whole comes off as carrying water for America's enemies, and it's largely a strawman anyway as no lobbying will ever convince this generation of Americans to support a land invasion of Iran. Short of them smuggling a nuke into the US and detonating it, that is just never going to happen. So it's silly to talk about.

---

Yes, it's been said they're close for a long time, but Tucker and those blindly following him should keep in mind that it hasn't come to fruition because everyone saying that has also been actively trying to stop them since the 90's. There have been plenty of sanctions, assassinations, cyber attacks, and conventional attacks, all meant to cause strategic damage to Iran's nuclear program, in that time period. Proper prevention is indistinguishable from absence of risk.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Today @SecDef confirmed that Iran’s terrorist regime is actively working towards a nuclear weapon.

For the sake of our national security, the security of our allies, and millions of civilians in the region this cannot be allowed to happen.

— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) June 11, 2025

If you are on the fence about who to believe, on side we have the secretary of defense, senator cotton, and mark levin, and on the other side we have Tucker, Iran apologists Obama and gabbard and the poster that says Sandusky was framed.

Tough call.

---

Wait! Wait! I've seen this movie before!

The movie where Obama was wrong? Which one? Lots to choose from.

BMX Bandit said:

---

The movie where Obama was wrong? Which one? Lots to choose from.

---

I'll play. I know your schtick though and this is probably pointless, but I'll play anyway.

The movie where somewhere in the Middle East, we received "confirmation", or if you prefer, "credible intelligence" that there was about to be a nuclear weapon.

So there is no circumstance in which you will ever believe that a nation in the Middle East is seeking nuclear weapons?

What specifically would you need to see to believe it?

BMX Bandit said:

---

So there is no circumstance in which you will ever believe that a nation in the Middle East is seeking nuclear weapons?

What specifically would you need to see to believe it?

---

I said I saw the movie before. Is your claim that this is NOT eerily similar?

BenFiasco:

Three questions for you (or anyone that wishes to answer) based on that Cotton Tweet:

1. Do you believe Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons?

2. If no, why not?

3. If Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons, should that be allowed?

Generally we don't want nuclear war and both sides having nuclear weapons seems to avoid it.

There was a lot of hullaballoo about Pakistan and India getting nuclear weapons. But a skirmish breaks out between the militaries and both sides agree to cease fire in a week.

When one side doesn't have them you get years long killing like in Ukraine and in Gaza.

I am not worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon.

I do appreciate the analogy to Iraq, but I'd don't find it eeiry that a country like Iran is trying to obtain nukes.

Maybe Hesgeth is wrong. Maybe Iran just wants nuclear power and no desire for weapons. So why do they not allow inspectors?

If Iran does not have a weapons program, it has a weird way of trying to prove it.

Urban Ag said:

---

I think our best option here is to keep stoking the relations with more moderate Arab nations, more capitalism, and arm the f out of the Saudis. Just my opinion.

---

Agree.
I seem to remember in President Trump's first term he helped get some significant agreements in the Middle East.
Wasn't there peace treaties signed between Arabic countries & Israel?
The Abraham Accords
Trump notches string of peace deals: What to know In the waning weeks before the 2020 election, the Trump administration has brokered a number of historic peace deals in the Middle East.

Too bad Iran went absolutely insane over these and after "President" Biden's Administration dropped sanctions Iran reorganized all their terrorist minions that resulted in Middle East turmoil.

Im Gipper said:

---

BenFiasco:

Three questions for you (or anyone that wishes to answer) based on that Cotton Tweet:

1. Do you believe Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons?

2. If no, why not?

3. If Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons, should that be allowed?

---

Happy to answer

1. Probably - I lean toward yes

2. They are

3. No, it probably shouldn't be allowed. That said, my disconnect is that it's not the United States obligation to prevent that. We could assist in limited capacities if we need to, but I do not want to get embroiled into another middle eastern conflict. Iran with nukes does not pose a threat to the homeland.

The others in danger are regrettable. But I reject the notion it is the United States responsibility to be the world police. It hasn't ever worked in our favor. Look how the world is now post WWII. Did any of our nation building adventures do anything positive, now looking back?

I would argue no.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

BenFiasco:

Three questions for you (or anyone that wishes to answer) based on that Cotton Tweet:

1. Do you believe Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons?

2. If no, why not?

3. If Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons, should that be allowed?

---

Happy to answer

1. Probably - I lean toward yes

2. They are

3. No, it probably shouldn't be allowed. That said, my disconnect is that it's not the United States obligation to prevent that. We could assist in limited capacities if we need to, but I do not want to get embroiled into another middle eastern conflict. Iran with nukes does not pose a threat to the homeland.

The others in danger are regrettable. But I reject the notion it is the United States responsibility to be the world police. It hasn't ever worked in our favor. Look how the world is now post WWII. Did any of our nation building adventures do anything positive, now looking back?

I would argue no.

---

The sad thing is this was Trumps position in 2015. He campaigned on Iraq being a huge mistake and regime change and foreign war adventures are never good for America. I agreed and voted for him back then. Its sad to see where he's at now.

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/12/israel-strike-iran-response-witkoff

Nuclear capability is irrelevant if Iran has enough ballistic missiles to get thru Israel's shield.

Quote:

---

Trump told reporters Thursday that he doesn't want to say an Israeli strike "is imminent" but that "it might very well happen." Trump stressed he wants to avoid conflict but said that will require concessions that Iran has been unwilling to make.

Trump added that he still wants a deal and would prefer Israel not do anything to "ruin it" so long as there's a chance.

---

I think Trump is still more pragmatic on this than the WarBoners.

Quote:

---

Witkoff told the Senators that military strikes by Israel are on the table if no agreement is reached.

He then brought up Iran's ballistic missile capabilities. The U.S. is concerned Israel's air defenses would not be able to handle an Iranian response involving hundreds of missiles, the sources said.

Such an attack, Witkoff told the group, could cause massive casualties and damage.

---

Jugstore Cowboy said:

---

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/12/israel-strike-iran-response-witkoff

Nuclear capability is irrelevant if Iran has enough ballistic missiles to get thru Israel's shield.

Quote:

---

Trump told reporters Thursday that he doesn't want to say an Israeli strike "is imminent" but that "it might very well happen." Trump stressed he wants to avoid conflict but said that will require concessions that Iran has been unwilling to make.

Trump added that he still wants a deal and would prefer Israel not do anything to "ruin it" so long as there's a chance.

---

I think Trump is still more pragmatic on this than the WarBoners.

Quote:

---

Witkoff told the Senators that military strikes by Israel are on the table if no agreement is reached.

He then brought up Iran's ballistic missile capabilities. The U.S. is concerned Israel's air defenses would not be able to handle an Iranian response involving hundreds of missiles, the sources said.

Such an attack, Witkoff told the group, could cause massive casualties and damage.

---

---

Your bolded text is exactly the problem. Neither US or Iran want war. Israel actually wants this war. If Trump takes us to the brink (which is what appears to be happening now), I'm afraid Israel will push us over the ledge.

BenFiasco:

thank you very much for your answers!

I agree with you completely about nation building. That is not something we need to be involved with.

We agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. It either has to be us directly or Israel with our backing.


That's just a harsh reality, America cannot simply sit back and say "oh well, not our issue to solve"

You were misrepresenting Trump's position on Iran by trying to mix it with Iraq!

Trumps position on Iran is the same now as it was in 2016.

The Obama-Iran deal was a complete disaster and Iran cannot be let to get nukes!

Im Gipper said:

---

You were misrepresenting Trump's position on Iran by trying to mix it with Iraq!

Trumps position on Iran is the same now as it was in 2016.

The Obama-Iran deal was a complete disaster and Iran cannot be let to get nukes!

---

OK well striking Iran is the one way you guarantee they develop a nuke so

Im Gipper said:

---

That's just a harsh reality, America cannot simply sit back and say "oh well, not our issue to solve"

---

Especially when that country proudly chants "Death to America"

Given everything that's happened, I think it might be time for Tulsi's position as DNI to be reconsidered.

she essentially already out in terms of making an important decisions. she is relegated to working on using AI to tell her what JFK and RFK docs to release, and making youtube videos on how we should not have dropped the bomb on hiroshima.

Notable that Trump did not invite Tulsi Gabbard his Director of National Intelligence when he met with his “entire top foreign policy team” at Camp David this weekend — appears to be another example of Tulsi being snubbed from high-level national security discussions https://t.co/zRwqhC6m0I

— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) June 10, 2025

Tucker seems more unhinged as time goes on.

Keyno said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

You were misrepresenting Trump's position on Iran by trying to mix it with Iraq!

Trumps position on Iran is the same now as it was in 2016.

The Obama-Iran deal was a complete disaster and Iran cannot be let to get nukes!

---

OK well striking Iran is the one way you guarantee they develop a nuke so

---

WUT