Iran was a justified strike, another FAFO as they funded Hamas and were actively working against American interests with their global trade/finance/naty resources.

Just checking in to see if yall still believe that we bombed Iran because they were close to building a nuke?



When we needed a bi-partisan fool proof reason to strike Iran, Tulsi fell in line and changed her tune.

To be clear. I think both the Iran and Vzla missions were justified and impressively executed. A solid taxpayer ROI, no doubt. Im just pointing out, these are clearly narratives used for cover. It seems most here now realize Maduro drug smuggling was just that.....but since the Iran rationale isnt transparently talked about like Vzla oil, most of you still believe the Iran WMDs threat, like so many did for Iraq.

[Your approach of trolling the board in the OP and then belittling other posters in follow up posts below isn't consistent with posting norms of respectful dialogue. Take a break and use a different approach the next time around -- Staff]

Whatever the reason...if the Mullahs transplant themselves to Moscow and Reza Palavi becomes their influential figurehead of state in a secular democratic Republic, I'm good with that.

Iran was an upwardly moving place when my parents moved there in '72, they left in '79, my last year at A&M.

Got to see Europe and plenty of Iran as NIOC would send my older brother and younger sister, all of us @ A&M for summers and Christmas Holidays...Expat parties were great with British, Norwegian and Latin American chicks and some Persians too.

Alpha and Omega...Oil and the control thereof

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

The strike whose extent was precision bunker buster drops into a nuclear enrichment facility?

---

That wasn't the extent of the strike. We decimated their air defense systems.

If america wanted to take out iranian oil, Kharg Island is their major terminal and its just sitting in the Persian Gulf. Iran has stated if anyone takes out Kharg Island then it'll immediately go after Saudi Arabia's terminals.

When one million barrels of oil a day can wildly swing oil prices nobody wanted a shock of 3 million iranian plus 9 million saudi barrels leaving the market.

I will say this though, stabilizing and revitalizing Venezuelan oil production can make it easier for america to strike foreign oil production like Kharg Island because between american refineries could fully blend light land output with Venezuelan heavy crude while the rest of the world fights over production.

You still misrepresenting what she said?

There you go again.

The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division. America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the… pic.twitter.com/mYxjpJY2ud

— DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) June 20, 2025

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Are you implying the Iran strike was about oil?

---

No. Read OP.

It was mostly retaliation for funding Hamas ops against Israel. We are wasting 10s of billions of taxpayer dollars defending Israel against Iran's proxy war. Trump sent Iran a clear message not just in crippling their military assets and enrichment, but also just the flex on how easily we got it done with no concern for any consequences from their allies. Its also basically a signal for them to regime change, or we will.

FobTies said:

---

Iran was a justified strike, another FAFO as they funded Hamas and were actively working against American interests with their global trade/finance/naty resources.

Just checking in to see if yall still believe that we bombed Iran because they were close to building a nuke?



When we needed a bi-partisan fool proof reason to strike Iran, Tulsi fell in line and changed her tune.

To be clear. I think both the Iran and Vzla missions were justified and impressively executed. A solid taxpayer ROI, no doubt. Im just pointing out, these are clearly narratives used for cover. It seems most here now realize Maduro drug smuggling was just that.....but since the Iran rationale isnt transparently talked about like Vzla oil, most of you still believe the Iran WMDs threat, like so many did for Iraq.

---

1) Do you believe that Iran is pursuing the bomb?
2) Do you think our strike set this back?
3) Do you think setting back their pursuit of the bomb is bad?

I mean, maybe Iran wasn't days away from the bomb, but using any excuse to set their nuclear program back doesn't mean that the strike "wasn't about nukes"/

FobTies said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Are you implying the Iran strike was about oil?

---

No. Read OP.

It was mostly retaliation for funding Hamas ops against Israel. We are wasting 10s of billions of taxpayer dollars defending Israel against Iran's proxy war. Trump sent Iran a clear message not just in crippling their military assets and enrichment, but also just the flex on how easily we got it done with no concern for any consequences from their allies. Its also basically a signal for them to regime change, or we will.

---

Maybe it wasn't just about the nukes.

But, it was about the nukes. Otherwise we would have hit something else.

The timing might have been related to something else, though.

Im Gipper said:

---

You still misrepresenting what she said?

There you go again.

---

I didnt misrepresent anything. Tulsi has been on the record for years on avoiding conflict with Iran over their nuclear program. Then, in her new position under Trump, she fell in line.

All the splitting hairs over any unfair reporting on certain statements is irrelevant to her overall stance on Iran before she was in Trump admin, to later when she needed to lay down the narrative for our strike. You fail again, as usual...

[Your approach of belittling other posters isn't consistent with posting norms of respectful dialogue. Take a break and use a different approach the next time around -- Staff]

FobTies said:

---

Iran was a justified strike, another FAFO as they funded Hamas and were actively working against American interests with their global trade/finance/naty resources.

Just checking in to see if yall still believe that we bombed Iran because they were close to building a nuke?



When we needed a bi-partisan fool proof reason to strike Iran, Tulsi fell in line and changed her tune.

To be clear. I think both the Iran and Vzla missions were justified and impressively executed. A solid taxpayer ROI, no doubt. Im just pointing out, these are clearly narratives used for cover. It seems most here now realize Maduro drug smuggling was just that.....but since the Iran rationale isnt transparently talked about like Vzla oil, most of you still believe the Iran WMDs threat, like so many did for Iraq.

---

The justifications the public hears from our government, is predominantly never the truth.

There are a lot of tin pot dictatorships in the world using oil as a political tool. I think Trump finally said enough is enough to these countries like Iran and Venezuela using black market oil to help terrorism around the world.

Ducks4brkfast said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

The strike whose extent was precision bunker buster drops into a nuclear enrichment facility?

---

That wasn't the extent of the strike. We decimated their air defense systems.

---

"WE" sat back and watched Israel systematically do that on their own.

We used F-35As in a mission referred to as "kicking down the door", clearing a way for the B-2s. Destroying air defenses. From what I can remember.

FobTies said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

You still misrepresenting what she said?

There you go again.

---

I didnt misrepresent anything. Tulsi has been on the record for years on avoiding conflict with Iran over their nuclear program. Then, in her new position under Trump, she fell in line.

All the splitting hairs over any unfair reporting on certain statements is irrelevant to her overall stance on Iran before she was in Trump admin, to later when she needed to lay down the narrative for our strike. You fail again, as usual...

---

Do you think, maybe, just maybe, her current position might have influenced her stance because, maybe, she is in a position to be more informed than what she was before? Maybe new information came available to her as DNI and her old position provided her with less information? Just spitballing here.

Of course she had her reasons for changing her tune. My point stands, she changed her tune and fell in line. She went from Bernie liberal Trump hater to MAGA, so of course she has political flip flops in her closet....Iran was a big one.

But my point in the OP is very simple. We did NOT strike Iran because they were weeks away from a nuke, as Tulsi read out. That was the narrative pushed to provide poltical cover, in the same way Maduro drug running was poltical cover for that strike.

For some reason people here cant accept the Iran narrative, like they do the Vzla one.

Iran is more of a danger than JUST nuclear. But yes, they were trying to get nuclear weapons and it was likely a real problem that we needed to deal with by bombing them. Doing it right, combined with other geopolitical conditions, has led to other possibly beneficial outcomes.

The claim that is was never about nukes is, frankly, super simplistic.

Ducks4brkfast said:

---

We used F-35As in a mission referred to as "kicking down the door", clearing a way for the B-2s. Destroying air defenses. From what I can remember.

---

I know we escorted the B2s, but the isralies has spent the previous two weeks out so building total air superiority over Iran.

Maybe we helped with some aerial refueling?

Phatbob said:

---

The claim that is was never about nukes is, frankly, super simplistic.

---

The claim that the Venezuela strike was never about drugs is, frankly, super simplistic.

Why are these statements different

Do you think we invaded Iraq bc they were a WMD threat?

Im not claiming Iran didnt have longer term nuke aspirations, that we set back. Im claiming the "imminent nuke threat" we were sold was total BS.

Im also not denying that the BS narrative was effective at garnering public support and limiting pushback from across the aisle. Thats why they gaslit with it.

Sometimes things are that simple.

Maybe. Looks like we blew up a whole bunch of stuff.

https://www.newsweek.com/f-35-jet-strikes-iran-nuclear-sites-11105347

Iran with nukes is not going through what they are going through now. Why do you think they were trying to get them (and yes, it's obvious that they were). I guess at this point I don't get your purpose other than to try to reargue the same bad arguments from last summer as if current events changed any of it. They don't.

FobTies said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

The claim that is was never about nukes is, frankly, super simplistic.

---

The claim that the Venezuela strike was never about drugs is, frankly, super simplistic.

Why are these statements different

Do you think we invaded Iraq bc they were a WMD threat?

Im not claiming Iran didnt have longer term nuke aspirations, that we set back. Im claiming the "imminent nuke threat" we were sold was total BS.

Im also not denying that the BS narrative was effective at garnering public support and limiting pushback from across the aisle. Thats why they gaslit with it.

Sometimes things are that simple.

---

Apples:
Everything that was being done and the intel community pointed to WMD in Iraq. He used them on his own people and the Iranians. During Desert Shield/Storm we were briefed on it and took shots and drilled to mitigate WMD attacks. During OSW we were constantly shot at with normal AA/SAMs and unique "science experiments" while enforcing the "No Fly Zones". Iraq repeatedly denied and/or stalled UN Weapons Inspectors. SH repeatedly thumbed his nose at the Coalition and acted incredibly sketchy with regards to WMD. Turns out, despite every indicator pointing towards them having them, none were found once we had full access. Did they have them, destroy them, then act squirrelly afterward just to make us think they still had them? Who knows. I just know, at one point, they had them. When we invaded, supposedly there weren't any. I have no idea when it went from one reality to the other. I was not a huge fan of Iraqi Freedom due to us still being involved in Enduring Freedom. Wouldn't have minded it if we had finished OEF just not a fan of a two front war. All that to say, every indication was there was a WMD threat in Iraq. None being found is a hindsight 20/20 argument. Leaving room for alternate realities.

Oranges:
Iran had been trying to make headway towards Nukes. They had been setback repeatedly by tricky, tricky means. Finally, enough was enough and something more significant was done to set them back. Nuclear facilities were struck. What evidence is there to the contrary? Just that TG reversed her position after possibly seeing more in depth information. I mean, I guess it could be the same type of situation but I don't think so.

Trying to get nukes is different than being an imminent nuke threat in need of a strike. These type of goal post moving responses prove my point.

Hard to justify a strike if you say "Iran has below weapons grade enriched uranium, but has long term nuke aspirations." Much better to say "Iran is weeks away from a nuke". Then, after the successful strike, just say "well they were trying to, and eventually probably would, build a nuke".

Same could be said for Saddam. "Well, he didnt have WMDs, but he was seeking them and we couldnt let him get them."

I get it. Team blue never wants to admit their side gaslit them. And team red doesnt want to either....its like siding with the opposition. Tribal sheep.

[Your approach of belittling other posters isn't consistent with posting norms of respectful dialogue. Take a break and use a different approach the next time around -- Staff]

The ultimate goal is/was to get the crap mullahs out of power. Destroying their nuclear facilities amonst other things, sent a signal to the population that this was their best chance to get rid of these knuckleheads. Doesn't matter how it was sold. If you couldn't see the end game then you might want to give your brain a rest. Everything looks to be proceeding as planned.

FobTies said:

---

Trying to get nukes is different than being an imminent nuke threat in need of a strike. These type of goal post moving responses prove my point.

Hard to justify a strike if you say "Iran has below weapons grade enriched uranium, but has long term nuke aspirations." Much better to say "Iran is weeks away from a nuke". Then, after the successful strike, just say "well they were trying to, and eventually probably would, build a nuke".

Same could be said for Saddam. "Well, he didnt have WMDs, but he was seeking them and we couldnt let him get them."

I get it. Team blue never wants to admit their side gaslit them. And team red doesnt want to either....its like siding with the opposition. Tribal sheep.

---

So you are rehashing some feelings you had back in the summer, is there any new reason to take it any more serious than we did back then? It seems like the whole "Israel is dragging us into fighting their wars for them" has pretty well been debunked since then, so I really don't get why you feel the need to try to try it again, especially since things seems to be going in a good direction. The one saying the nuke threat wasn't imminent is you, not anyone else, so the goal posts haven't moved at all, but it does look like the score is being run up against all the Tucker Carlson types.