War on Iran

Oy vey. This will be all about Israel, wanting to further weaken a regional rival - and keep Netanyahu in office and thus out of jail.

Plus it distracts the US press from this "redacted" Epstein FBI email about Trump allegedly demanding a blow job from a 13yr old. (The witness sounds flaky but it would be a quite an inconvenient story to be debated at length across the airwaves.)

But what arseholes to do this in the midst of negotiations that, according to the Omani intermediaries, were making real progress. Why should Iran ever trust the USA again?

And why, for that matter, should they not have a BOMB, to stop precisely this kind of thing?
 
exchemist said:
Oy vey. This will be all about Israel, wanting to further weaken a regional rival - and keep Netanyahu in office and thus out of jail.

Plus it distracts the US press from this "redacted" Epstein FBI email about Trump allegedly demanding a blow job from a 13yr old. (The witness sounds flaky but it would be a quite an inconvenient story to be debated at length across the airwaves.)

But what arseholes to do this in the midst of negotiations that, according to the Omani intermediaries, were making real progress. Why should Iran ever trust the USA again?

And why, for that matter, should they not have a BOMB, to stop precisely this kind of thing?
Click to expand...
And I cant believe Albanese spoke in support of it.
 
It's a confused picture, it seems, in terms of objectives, or am I missing something? Trump wants peace, so launches attacks. Israel wants peace, so launches a "preemptive attack". The US doesn't want Iran to get nuclear weapons, so launches an attack. And the US wants regime change, so launches an attack, and also encourages Iranians to take over their government. So, you know, US non-interventionism at the fore again. :rolleyes:

And all this while supposedly having negotiations with Iran??

I'm all for there being a better situation in Iran and wider geography, but is this really the best answer?
 
Last edited:
Update: seems that the UK gov't appear generally supportive, but are focussing not on the strikes by US and Israel, but on condemning Iran's "indiscriminate military strikes" - albeit retalitory - across the region, and, of course, focussing on the safety of UK and other civilians.
Sounds a bit like "oh, ****, what have the US done now! Best put out broad signals of support without fully backing the specific actions."
 
Sarkus said:
It's a confused picture, it seems, in terms of objectives, or am I missing something? Trump wants peace, so launches attacks. Israel wants peace, so launches a "preemptive attack". The US doesn't want Iran to get nuclear weapons, so launches an attack. And the US wants regime change, so launches an attack, and also encourages Iranians to take over their government. So, you know, US non-interventionism at the fore again. :rolleyes:

And all this while supposedly having negotiations with Iran??

I'm all for there being a better situation in Iran and wider geography, but is this really the best answer?
Click to expand...
This is pretty much the definition of a US President who is a demented Caligula who takes a wrecking ball to the security and stability of the Middle East and probably a lot of the rest of the globe. Very sad that Albanese would support this insanity. Is this toadying about nuclear subs and Pine Bluff and all that gotta stay buddies with the US thing? As a citizen of the US, I am totally fine with Oz standing up to the Turnip - don't a lot of Aussies want there to be resistance to the whole MAGA madness?
 
There's an excellent and reasonably brief analysis by the BBC of Trump's announcement regarding the attacks, going through it line by line.
www.bbc.co.uk

Trump's Iran strike statement analysed line by line

The BBC's State Department correspondent and Washington correspondent explain how the president is justifying the action and assess the risks ahead.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
  • Like
Reactions: ele
Sarkus said:
There's an excellent and reasonably brief analysis by the BBC of Trump's announcement regarding the attacks, going through it line by line.
www.bbc.co.uk

Trump's Iran strike statement analysed line by line

The BBC's State Department correspondent and Washington correspondent explain how the president is justifying the action and assess the risks ahead.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
In short, it is illegal, unnecessary, likely to fail, and also likely to create wider Middle East chaos.

A masterstroke!
 
You Might Think

This feels familiar—

While the MAGA coalition is currently fracturing over the prospect that President Donald Trump might join Israel in taking military action against Iran, religious-right activists have been nearly unanimous in their demand that the Trump administration lend its full support to Israel in the growing conflict.

The reason for this is that Trump's evangelical base believes that the Bible commands them to support Israel in order to bring about the return of Jesus Christ and the End Times, as former Rep. Michele Bachmann explained during a recent "World Prayer Network" program.

"This is the one thing a president can't get wrong according to the Bible, according to Joel 3," Bachmann said. "A president can't get Israel wrong. They can't. This is the one most decisive issue that will either take down a presidency or it will lift up and create great promise for a presidency."

"This is a spiritual battle," she continued. "Israel's at her greatest hour of need right now, every nation on Earth should thank Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu. We should all kiss the ground and be so grateful that Benjamin Netanyahu is prime minister and that he had the guts to take on this greatest evil terror state that has defined plans. And so the United States, in my opinion, we need to be decisive. This is not a negotiation. It can never be a negotiation."

(Mantyla↱)​

—and not just because the article is eight months old. As these Christians hope and pray for wars and rumors of wars, Right Wing Watch↱ observes, "Just a reminder that electing a president surrounded by people clamoring for the End Times might have been a bad idea." Sean Fucht, Tony Perkins, Jack Hibbs; Congresslady Lightbulb¹ isn't the only one.

It's not just that I could have told you twenty years ago, but, rather, it was an easy enough line the whole time: We should always be careful about trusting people who are looking forward to the end of the world.

(And if you ask them↑ straight out, of course they won't answer: They never wanted to countenance what they are, and likely won't be starting now, now. Was it worth the trade? Or was it not really a trade?)
____________________

Notes:

¹ see "Iran: P5+1 Overcomes American Enemies, Achieves Nuclear Pact" #228 (2015)↗ for a glimpse at Bachmann's previous speculation about the End Times and Iran.​

Mantyla, Kyle. "MAGA Evangelicals Expect The Israel/Iran Conflict To Bring About The End Times". Right Wing Watch. 20 June 2025 PeopleFor.org. 28 February 2026. https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwing...ect-israeliran-conflict-bring-about-end-times

https://twitter.com/x/status/2027777247180919233
 
TheVat said:
This is pretty much the definition of a US President who is a demented Caligula who takes a wrecking ball to the security and stability of the Middle East and probably a lot of the rest of the globe. Very sad that Albanese would support this insanity. Is this toadying about nuclear subs and Pine Bluff and all that gotta stay buddies with the US thing? As a citizen of the US, I am totally fine with Oz standing up to the Turnip - don't a lot of Aussies want there to be resistance to the whole MAGA madness?
Click to expand...
Yeah
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
Under present US law it is not illegal.
Click to expand...
It would seem to go against the US constitution which requires Congress approval to take the US into armed conflict with another country.

As David Janovsky, Acting Director of The Constitution Project at the Project on Government Oversight, explained when asked:

"Are Trump’s strikes on Iran legally justified?

DJ: The short answer is no. There's no indication that there's any sort of circumstance that would give the President the unilateral authority to order military action. It's true that presidents have some inherent authority to deploy the military as Commander in Chief, but that's really limited to true emergency circumstances where there is an attack underway that needs to be repelled, or maybe an extremely clear imminent attack. But there's no suggestion that that's the case today—that would make the strikes illegal."

time.com

Would a War Against Iran Be Legal? An Expert Explains

As the U.S. joins Israel in a major attack, an expert explains why Trump lacks authority to strike Iran.
time.com time.com

Many others would seem to concur that the attacks are illegal per the US constitution. Not that Trump cares. For example:
internationalpolicy.org

Congress Must Prevent Trump’s March to an Illegal War on Iran - CIP

February 23, 2026 – In response to the massive U.S. military building in the Middle East and Presidents Trump’s threats of the use of force against Iran, Center for International Policy Executive Vice President Matt Duss issued the following statement: “President Trump has neither congressional...
internationalpolicy.org internationalpolicy.org

But I look forward to you providing justification for you thinking the actions taken to be legal.
 
It's also illegal from a statutory perspective. It violates a couple provisions of the 1973 war powers act. Which further articulated and affirmed the Constitutional provision.
 
TheVat said:
It's also illegal from a statutory perspective. It violates a couple provisions of the 1973 war powers act. Which further articulated and affirmed the Constitutional provision.
Click to expand...
The 73 act gives him 48 hrs to report to congress after initiating the attack and I think 60 days if congress does not declare war.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
The 73 act gives him 48 hrs to report to congress after initiating the attack and I think 60 days if congress does not declare war.
Click to expand...
The 1973 War Powers Resolution doesn't apply, or at least that's the argument. The Resolution gives the president power only by Congress's "statutory authorization", or in the case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".
None of those apply, hence the 1973 War Powers Resolution does not apply. Hence the action is illegal. Or so the argument goes.

Trump will of course try to spin the latter part, saying that Iran somehow posed an "imminent threat", and that that satisfies the Reaolution, but that's simply not true, as any honest person could tell you.

So, no, it seems to be illegal under that Resolution. At least in my reading of it. But, please, do have another go. Happy to wait. ;)
 
Correction: Feucht, Not Fucht, But Actually Vaughn

Tiassa said:
Sean Fucht, Tony Perkins, Jack Hibbs; Congresslady Lightbulb isn't the only one.
Click to expand...

The prior reference to Sean Fucht is not only misspelled (Feucht), but entirely erroneous to begin with; Shane Vaughn is the evangelist noted in the Right Wing Watch piece↱:

Bachmann is joined in that view by MAGA pastor Shane Vaughn, who recently declared that Netanyahu is "a foreshadowing of the true lion that is getting ready to rise in the land of Israel."

"That lion that is soon to come of the tribe of Judah, Jesus Christ, Yeshua the Messiah, the Bible said when he returns that his vesture will be dipped in blood. He is not coming back to play, he is coming back to bring the rod of correction over the enemies of Israel," Vaughn proclaimed. "What you're seeing right now tonight my friends is not, hear me well, flesh and blood warfare. The missiles that flew on Friday the 13th were not just iron missiles but they were spiritual projectiles."​

Apologies, a round!
____________________

Notes:

Mantyla, Kyle. "MAGA Evangelicals Expect The Israel/Iran Conflict To Bring About The End Times". Right Wing Watch. 20 June 2025 PeopleFor.org. 28 February 2026. https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwing...ect-israeliran-conflict-bring-about-end-times
 
Sarkus said:
But at least it deflects from the Trump-Epstein files! \o/
Click to expand...
And his plummeting poll numbers.

Trump 2012: “Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin — watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.”

Trump 2013: “Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly — not skilled!”

Trump 2016: “We’re going to stop the reckless and costly policy of regime change.”

Trump 2024: “I’m not going to start wars. I’m going to stop wars.”
 
Sarkus said:
But at least it deflects from the Trump-Epstein files! \o/
Click to expand...
That's the most important aspect. Deflecting attention from the Epstein files that resulted in no charges against Trump even during the Biden Administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top