"So does the Iranian regime finally fall THIS TIME?" Topic

Tort,

Agree we could do without the Arch. Ego again.

Ballroom. From everything I have read and heard, was needed. It was embarrassing having to have large get togethers outside because the White House had no room for it.

Besides, cost the taxpayers nothing. Best kind of add on.

Not the first as we all know added and some of those were only for individuals fun, not for actual functionality and purpose.

An interesting day:

Remember, after you read this. The markets have believed it since the day after the blockade started.

At this moment
Dow up over 1000 points.
Oil according to yahoo finance 80.18 down over 12 points today
(Are MSNOW and CNN prominently showing it on their main screen at the bottom today? 😏).

Will the ceasefires continue? I'd bet yes on Iran. Only even with Hezbollah.

"The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear "Dust," created by our great B2 Bombers – No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either, but the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you! President DJT"

How much hyperbole? With Trump, who knows.

Add to this (add Iran announced this as well. But said they had to be contacted for correct route. 😏 "Baghdad Bob"

THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ IS COMPLETELY OPEN AND READY FOR BUSINESS AND FULL PASSAGE, BUT THE NAVAL BLOCKADE WILL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT AS IT PERTAINS TO IRAN, ONLY, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS OUR TRANSACTION WITH IRAN IS 100% COMPLETE. THIS PROCESS SHOULD GO VERY QUICKLY IN THAT MOST OF THE POINTS ARE ALREADY NEGOTIATED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! PRESIDENT DONALD J.TRUMP"

Some Iranian leaders still talking smack. But they have been doing that since 79

Always beware of radical fundamentalist Muslims bearing gifts. 😉

When they heard the blockade would not end:

"Ships must be commercial. The passage of military vessels is prohibited, and neither the ships nor their cargo may be linked to hostile countries. Vessels must pass through routes designated by Iran, and transit must be coordinated with Iranian forces responsible for managing passage."

Well they managed to let 2 US vessels through already.

Quite a few other vessels made it through so far

Market isn't buying what they are saying either.

Price of Oil: $83 USD a barrel (down from $96 USD yesterday)
Stock Market: Dow= Over 49,600, and trending rapidly up.

The stock market IS buying what Trump is saying.

Iran's claims, either way, are nothing but gaslighting. They have ZERO ability to close the Straits. Therefore, they claim to have "opened" them. But of course, the US is still blockading Iranian ports— and Iran has done absolutely NOTHING about it. Which tells me they can't do squat on either matter.

Sniff. Sniff. Sniff…
Is that VICTORY I smell?

We shall see.

The Iranian wolf hasn't fallen… it's disguised itself as a sheep for the time being…

Armand

Tango

I am going to post this attachment again. If you or others did not read it, please do.

What you are saying is what I have said since the start of this thread and many more. This was the belief of the dead Ayatollah and the leaders in Iran. It is the belief of all radical fundamentalist Muslims, when dealing with infidels.

All peace with them is temporary. But you must weaken them and take their toys away from them. In this case, very, very deadly toys. You work for periods of peace. When the time is right and they perceive weakness in the infidel, they will rise and strike again.

Short of extermination. The above is what you get.

Subject: Al Taqiyya, the terrorist ‘art of deception' | by Rami Zahra | Medium

link

The theory of degrading or diminishing their destructive power would apply to any country considered a threat to the free world… I don't see it being considered to help the freedom or prosperity of its inhabitants… it smells more like a demonstration of power or an economic-strategic issue. Because if that weren't the case… when will operations begin in Nicaragua, where the Ortegas have been perpetuating their massacre of their people for years?… or in Burma (Myanmar) or Turkmenistan… etc.

Who was the real winner of this conflict?… well, the one who seized power in Iran and can now do whatever he want as long as he act completely differently from their predecessor… and when I say act, I mean like a supporting actor in a play or movie…

Armand

Parzival,

Is it victory if the regime stays in power? They keep funding terrorism? They still have the ability to make nuclear weapons? They can still close the straits anytime they want too? Some victory.

@Parzival

You're treating a short-term market reaction and a set of presidential statements as confirmation that the strategy is working.

Markets respond to perceived changes in risk in real time. Presidential statements shape expectations. Neither one demonstrates that the underlying situation has been resolved or that the objectives, however defined, have been achieved.

In fact, both can move ahead of reality. Markets can price in a favorable scenario that doesn't materialize, and statements can project control that isn't fully established on the ground.

If reopening the Strait is now being treated as "victory," it would help to know whether you believe that was the objective from the outset or a new benchmark adopted midstream.

There's a difference between achieving a pre-defined goal and redefining success around the most recent positive development. Without a clear statement of objectives and criteria for completion, it becomes very easy to declare victory based on partial or temporary gains.

Reopening a shipping lane, if that's even been durably achieved, addresses one dimension of the situation. It doesn't, by itself, resolve questions about Iran's capabilities, incentives, or the broader strategic outcome.

Tango1 there are a world of countries out there.

Let them pick up the mantel of "peace and prosperity" for those countries you mention.

Cannot Argentina pick up the cross against Nicaragua? It's not very big after all.

We are a bit stretched right now.

I've said and continue to say, Iran deserves everything they have gotten or may get, again. Long time coming and way overdue.

The president offered an opportunity for the people of Iran to rise up and overthrow the regime, which is what they asked for and what the media hounded Trump about (remember all the Taco 💩)?

They have the opportunity. They brought the current regime upon themselves in 78. They had no problem fighting then. Many will die, but change does not come with NO cost.

We took out Madero and wife. I've read things are better there. But the people there have the same opportunity. Again they brought the regime that oppressed them in, believing the lie of "something for nothing" and "we will take from the rich". A suckers bet, but one too many buy into, including many here.

Nothing in life is free and nothing comes without cost.

I've also said I believe this was successful for the U.S. 3 weeks ago.

You are free to believe it's not, but Ive heard the same thing for everything this president has done. So I'm not buying it.

If one wants to see true failure, just look back on the years 2020 to 2024.

The old straits bugaboo, not new or the first time Iran rode in that rodeo. 😏

Before the major escalation in February 2026, Iran had used the Strait of Hormuz as a geopolitical hostage dozens of times. To your point, "closing the Strait" wasn't a new threat—it was a standard Iranian tactic for over 40 years.

The History of Provocations (Prior to Feb 2026)

Period Type of Provocation The "Status Quo"

1980–1988 (Tanker War)
Direct Attacks Iran attacked hundreds of merchant ships and laid mines, leading to Operation Praying Mantis where the U.S. destroyed half of Iran's fleet.

2011–2012 Full Closure
Threat Iran's Vice President threatened that "not a drop of oil" would pass if sanctions were increased.

2019 (Summer of Tension) Seizures & Sabotage
Iran seized the British-flagged Stena Impero and was accused of using limpet mines on six tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

2021–2023 Continuous Harassment
The IRGC Navy regularly swarmed U.S. warships and seized tankers like the Advantage Sweet and Niovi as "collateral" for frozen assets.

June 2025 (The "12-Day War")
Nuclear Escalation Following U.S. strikes on nuclear sites, Iran officially discussed a full blockade in parliament and increased naval harassment to record levels.

"Tango1 there are a world of countries out there…"

And how do you choose one and start bombing it?… because of the history between the two countries?… because of economic issues?… because of geopolitical issues?… not because they're bad, since they all are… I ask with genuine curiosity…

"Cannot Argentina pick up the cross against Nicaragua? It's not very big after all…"

Cynical question… since you know that our Armed Forces are practically nonexistent and incapable of taking Uruguay, which is right across from our coast… but we do provide a strong diplomatic support, as we have been doing since Trump took office…

"The president offered an opportunity for the people of Iran to rise up and overthrow the regime, which is what they asked for and what the media hounded Trump about…"

We all know perfectly well that no popular rebellion can succeed in countries ruled by tyrants or technocrats unless they are trained and provided with sufficient weapons to attempt it. In the case of Iran, it is also known that, after Russia and North Korea, they are the best prepared for any repression, regardless of the scale they face. Therefore, there was no chance whatsoever for the unarmed people; that was a fallacy.

"We took out Madero and wife. I've read things are better there…"

Where?… on Fox News?… because here in Argentina, thousands of Venezuelans live who interact with us daily. My doctor is Venezuelan, my veterinarian too, my neighbors are Venezuelan, and I even rent properties to Venezuelans… therefore, I know firsthand that practically nothing has changed there… only a few hundred prisoners were released (which is very good), but the inequality, repression, kidnappings, and all the bad things Maduro did continue because his gang is intact, led by the sweet Delcy… but the real power in Venezuela was never Maduro or Delcy… it's Diosdado Cabello, a truly vile murderer who didn't let go of a single one of the country's power structures… of course, now Venezuela is starting to repair its machinery and oil wells and even increase its oil production, but under the tutelage (and benefit, of course) of the USA… is it better that they do it instead of China or Russia? Of course… but then let's not disguise the issue with the adjective "helping" anyone other than the USA.

"Nothing in life is free and nothing comes without cost…"

I completely agree… except that the "cost," imho, is still unknown, as is when and how much it will be…

Armand

Tango

First: Of course we do things in our own self interest. Why wouldn't we? 😂
When has any country going into a war where their self interests were not involved in some way? But we do also hope many times that others benefit from those actions, as in this case.

I'm going to skip through some of your questions and poise these questions for so many of you who say things may or will get worse.

What were things like relating to Iran before we attacked!

Here let me help. Ask yourself, even if it was a complete failure, wouldn't we be just be back to the status quo?

1. The "Power Vacuum" and Protests
Critics argue the U.S. created instability. However, in January 2026, Iran was already experiencing the largest nationwide uprising since 1979.

* The Reality: All 31 provinces were in open revolt. The regime had already begun "massacring thousands of civilians" (according to human rights reports) to stay in power.



* The Success Logic: The U.S. didn't break a stable government; it removed a regime that was already systematically killing its own people to survive.

2. Economic "Collapse"
Critics point to the $270 USD billion in damage from the war, but the Iranian economy was a "zombie" well before that.

* The Reality: In December 2025, the rial hit a record low of 1.75 million per dollar, and over 50% of Iranianswere living under the poverty line. Malnourishment was rising, and the Minister of Welfare admitted 57% of the population faced food insecurity.


* The Success Logic: You cannot "destroy" an economy that has already ceased to function for its citizens. The strikes targeted the IRGC's industrial base—the part of the economy that was still working solely to fund drones and missiles.



3. The Nuclear "Threat"
Critics say the war made the nuclear situation more dangerous because inspections stopped.

* The Reality: Iran had already kicked out inspectors and reached 60% enrichment in 2025. The diplomatic path was already a "dead end" according to both U.S. and Israeli intelligence.

* The Success Logic: Proponents argue that doing nothing was a guaranteed path to an Iranian nuclear bomb by mid-2026. A "messy" military disruption is viewed as a success compared to a "quiet" nuclear breakout.

4. Proxy Aggression
Critics claim the war destabilized the region.

* The Reality: The "Axis of Resistance" was already in a hot conflict with Israel and the U.S. throughout 2024 and 2025. Shipping in the Red Sea was already hampered, and U.S. bases were already being targeted.


* The Success Logic: By striking the "head of the snake," the U.S. ended the fiction that it was at peace. It moved the conflict from a one-sided war where Iran hit U.S. allies with impunity to a two-sided war where the patron itself finally paid the

——

"And how do you choose one and start bombing it?… because of the history between the two countries?… because of economic issues?… because of geopolitical issues?… not because they're bad, since they all are… I ask with genuine curiosity…"

And your curiosity can be sated by going back through this thread from day one or on the web, if you bypass the normal. I know you read them, you post some.
Or you can believe the President (I know, it's Trump right? 😉).

As to Nicaragua. Argentina is infinitely stronger than Nicaragua. Check out their Navy, Air Force and population. If things are that bad there, round up a coalition of willing South American countries.

As pointed out above, Iranians were already revolting in 31 provinces prior to the U.S. and Israeli actions. Over 40000 killed. It should be easier to do so with the damage and death of so many leaders. Iran is a good argument against gun control, right? I believe it's their sons in the armed forces. That is where I would start if I were them. Maybe some of those wives, could take a butcher knife to old hardline Mohammed in his bed at night, yelling "Freedom!!".

They did this to themselves. There is NO getting around that.

Venezuela? Sure some Fox, why not? But from other sources as well.

Atlantic:

"Based on early 2026 data, many Venezuelans reportedly feel better off or optimistic following the removal of Nicolás Maduro, with polls suggesting a majority approve of increased U.S. influence and feel civil liberties have improved. However, significant economic, employment, and social challenges persist, leaving many residents skeptical about long-term progress."

AI:

"Current Situation (Post-Maduro, Early 2026)

Public Sentiment & Perception: Early polls indicate that nearly 80 percent of Venezuelans thought the country was the same or better off shortly after Maduro's departure. Some polls showed up to 92% of residents expressed gratitude toward the U.S. for his removal.

Public Opinion: Nearly 52% of respondents reported a perception that civil liberties have increased.

Political Shift: The transition, which saw Delcy Rodríguez in a, at times, de facto role, has brought uncertainty, with some analysts describing it as a "treacherous recovery" facing both hope and instability.
Washington Office on Latin America | WOLA"

Of course they are staying in Argentina. They are staying here too! 😂

Why wouldn't they. It may be better, but it ain't the U.S. or Argentina.. right.😉

Besides, when the going got rough, those "who fled" to our countries, cut and ran. Not exactly the individuals to form the heart of a revolution.

Nope did not miss that Iran has declared the straits are closed again. They even fired some warning shots in the air at some ships to get them to turn around.

I think it's posturing for the negotiations.

But if I were President, I'd run some more military ships through and dare them. Double dog dare them.

They fire and key infrastructure goes 🔥 Maybe more leaders ☠️The motor boats that fired treated like narco boats, joining the rest of their navy.

Oh! And an aside, evil old Fox even reports it …😏

"Iran announced it is reimposing restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, reversing its decision to reopen the waterway after President Donald Trump said the move would not end the blockade, according to The Associated Press.

Iran's joint military command said Saturday that "control of the Strait of Hormuz has returned to its previous state… under strict management and control of the armed forces," adding that the restrictions will not be lifted as long as the U.S. continues to block Iranian ports.

The announcement comes a few hours after Trump said the blockade "will remain in full force" until a deal is reached between Tehran and the U.S.

For previous Fox News "

From Fox again! They report bad news too! 😱
But my sources only report bad news. 🤔

"A regional intelligence official told Fox News that the Strait of Hormuz is "under full IRGC control and effectively closed at this moment."

"Multiple vessels have been forced to turn around since this morning as they attempted to pass through the Strait," the official said.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) "opened fire on at least one vessel as part of the closure policy they declared last night," the official added.

This comes after Iran's joint military command said on Saturday that "control of the Strait of Hormuz has returned to its previous state" and is "under strict management and control of the armed forces."

The command warned that it would continue to block transit through the strait as long as the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports remained in effect.

Ebrahim Azizi, head of the Iranian parliament's National Security Commission, said that the strait was "returning to the status quo," which he had earlier described as ships requiring Iranian naval authorization and toll payment before transiting.

The development came a day after Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared the strait open while a 10-day ceasefire was announced between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. President Donald Trump on Friday had praised the reopening of the strait but said the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports would remain in "full force.""

Tango one more.

I see Nigeria as more important for the U.S. to be involved in than the 2 you mentioned and the U.S. has.

For Humanitarian reasons? Sure
For the benefit of Christians there? Sure

But obviously only part of the reasons.

The ongoing war against radical fundamentalist Islam? Of course! Which a war the U.S. has fought for multiple decades.

An ongoing war fought by many since 600 AD.

But obviously for our own interests as well.
Oil, gas and bases. (Maybe they won't stop us from using bases we already leased. Hint Hint. 😉).

"U.S. involvement in Nigeria centers on security cooperation, specifically counterterrorism against groups like ISIS and Boko Haram, alongside economic partnerships in oil and gas. Recent 2026 developments involve the deployment of ~200 U.S. troops and MQ-9 drones for intelligence and surveillance, supporting Nigerian forces without direct, large-scale combat roles. The U.S. is also a major investor, with over $7.9 USD billion in foreign direct investment in 2024."

Not over yet. Iran has the same regime, new names. It's the ME, no clear endings.

35th – I think these gaudy projects are just too grandiose to fit America ‘s style and heritage. Lincoln would look and feel silly in such an extravagant setting. It's not just an expansion, it's a huge complex. But in the end the WH is not a gold trim palace. I think Nixon added a bowling alley. Not the same. But glad you don't like the arch..let our triumphs speak for themselves.

Tort as I continue to say.

Even if we take the worst case scenario:

"The new guy's the same as the old"

Iran continues to support and propagate terrorism.

Iran continues to try and build a nuke.

Little indoctrinated terrorist continue to be propagated.

They continue to subjugate their own people.

They continue, AS IN THE PAST, open and close the Strait at will.
I've posted the examples of them doing so above. They threaten the world as well with this continuously.

Why would the world put up with a deranged government doing so since 79?
Why would they NoT want to help overturn them?
This same regime has propagated terrorism throughout the world, not just against the U.S. and Israel.

We would be back to the Status quo before, as before the conflict.

It is back to the status quo of the situation since Carter.

But we are NOT worse off. 😣

We all know Iran is not the same since the beginning of this! Anyone who does not let their hate override their reason, understands that this is true.

I won't place the reasons out here again, but instead let's see the haters post the reasons Iran is NOT better off.

Will they? 😏

Tort the ballroom will be built.

In 20 years, people including those in the White House will be happy about it.

Trump will be forgotten. They will rename it after some useless person.

🤔 OR

give it some Islamic, Hispanic or Good Commie name, after someone important to those who control the US by then. 😏

"It's Istanbul, (not Constantinople) 🎶

"Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Now it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night

Every gal in Constantinople
Lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople
So if you've a date in Constantinople
She'll be waiting in Istanbul"

OVI +1 …

It's not just an expansion, it's a huge complex. But in the end the WH is not a gold trim palace.

Nah, know your history. Here's the 1900 proposed White House rennovation plan from Colonel Theodore Bingham, commissioner of public buildings.

link

And I get it you don't like the Arch d'Trump proposal, but NYC alone still has 5 of those ya know!

Those arches are no where near the massive size of the one Trump wants. It will dominate the area. Also, totally unnecessary. Just another monument to Trump's ego.

But it will definitely be better looking than this hideous monstrosity.

Is it a bunker? A remodeled German D-Day bunker? Or designed to match the inner city?

Subject:Stock Photos, High-Res Pictures, and Images – Getty Images


link

And of course it milks the taxpayer and like the rest of their projects way over budget. 😂

But I know, it is Saint O. 👼

"taxpayers are facing nearly $200 USD million or more in infrastructure, road, and utility upgrades surrounding the site in Chicago. Long-term operating costs will be managed by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), with taxpayers covering maintenance, although a 60% endowment is required for NARA-transferred portions.

Key Taxpayer Impact Details:

Infrastructure Costs: Illinois taxpayers are paying approximately $174 USD million for roadwork and $50 USD million for rail improvements, totaling over $200 USD million for projects around the center.

Operating Costs: Similar to other presidential libraries, federal taxpayers will pay for staff and operational expenses via NARA after completion.
Endowment Shortfall: Although a 60% endowment is mandated for NARA-related facility costs, the Obama Foundation had only contributed $1 USD million toward a reported $470 USD million requirement as of late 2025.

Construction Costs: The Obama Foundation is financing the $850 USD million construction, which is the most expensive in U.S. history.
National Taxpayers Union

The project, located in Chicago's South Side, has seen construction budgets increase from initial projections of $300 USD-$330 million to over $830 USD-850 million"

Yes, things in Iran are just going marvelously.
Not quite that positive spin coming off the old MSM?

"100 days after carnage: Iran economy reels from war, inflation, unemployment

hundred days after thousands of protesters were massacred on January 8 and 9, Iran's already fragile economy has sharply deteriorated, with millions feared to be unemployed as a devastating war compounds the crisis and accelerates economic collapse.

The protests that started in the Grand Bazaar of Tehran in late December and quickly spread across the country were followed by what has been described as the deadliest crackdown on protesters in Iran's contemporary history in January.

Shortly thereafter, a war involving the United States and Israel began, compounding the country's economic distress.

The service sector was hit hard during the protests. Advertising agencies, technical consulting firms, digital service providers, and hospitality and tourism businesses have since suffered further, and in many cases irreparable, damage because of the war.

Three weeks of internet disruptions during the protests, and over 1,100 hours since the beginning of the war on February 28, have effectively paralyzed large parts of the digital economy.

"According to official estimates released by Iranian authorities, more than 10 million people in Iran earn their income directly through the internet. As a result, any disruption or shutdown of internet services poses a serious threat to their livelihoods," Dadban, a legal advisory and training center for activists, said in a report.

"With the continuation of this situation, millions have faced a sharp drop in income or unemployment," Dadban added.

More significantly, the conflict has inflicted severe damage on critical economic infrastructure, including key petrochemical industries and steel production across multiple cities. These sectors, considered the backbone of Iran's industrial economy, have suffered extensive losses.

The destruction of major industries has disrupted the supply of raw materials, triggering cascading effects across manufacturing and related sectors.

Widespread layoffs have followed, affecting not only workers in these industries but also those employed in dependent businesses.

At the same time, exports have declined sharply, further constraining an already limited flow of foreign revenue.

The scale of the economic shock is underscored by official estimates. A government spokesperson has put total war damages at around $270 USD billion—roughly 57 percent of Iran's gross domestic product and several times larger than the country's annual oil revenues.

The figure is estimated to be nearly three times the government's general budget, highlighting the unprecedented fiscal strain facing the state.

Stagflation and rising risk of renewed unrest

Iran's economy has now entered a period of stagflation, combining high inflation with economic stagnation and rising unemployment.

Even if the conflict were to end in the near term, economists warn that recovery will be protracted and uneven.

These worsening conditions have heightened the risk of renewed social unrest.

Without a political resolution—particularly an agreement with the United States—analysts suggest that further protests, potentially larger than those seen in December, are increasingly likely.

Public anger boils over online

Public sentiment, particularly on social media, reflects growing frustration and despair.

One user highlighted the desperation faced by unemployed citizens: "I live in Tehran, I'm married and renting. Since January I was working reduced hours, and I was officially laid off on March 25."

Another user described the collapse of freelance work: "In this situation, most jobs have shut down, especially for people like us who worked freelance. Our income has dropped to zero, and we don't know what we can do if the war and internet outages continue."

A third user wrote: "Given the brutality of the clerical regime and its supporters, the skyrocketing prices of basic necessities, and the bizarre inflation that keeps getting worse… I think people are just waiting for a spark to come back to the streets. Death is no longer the issue—this situation is worse than death and must end."

Inflation surges to historic highs

Inflation has risen dramatically over the past 100 days. Official data show point-to-point inflation, already above 50 percent at the end of December, climbed to over 70 percent by late February—before the war—reaching its highest level in decades.

In essential goods such as meat, dairy, oil, rice, fruits, and vegetables, inflation has exceeded 110 percent. Prices of critical medications, including some types of insulin, have multiplied several times—when they are available at all.

Although updated overall inflation figures have not been released, some experts believe the rate may already have entered triple digits, with further increases expected.

Survival economy takes hold

Some Iranians say the absence of severe shortages during the war reflects collapsing demand rather than stable or sufficient supply. With incomes sharply reduced, many households can no longer afford basic goods.

To cope, families are increasingly relying on savings, rental deposits, or loans from banks and relatives—placing them at risk of losing their homes. In some cases, household are selling personal belongings just to afford food.

Business owners are also under pressure. Many have begun selling equipment, with online marketplaces now flooded with listings for café and restaurant supplies and electronic devices—often with little or no buyer interest.

Meanwhile, the government faces mounting fiscal constraints. Even before the war, it struggled to meet budgetary obligations. Now, with millions feared to be unemployed, the government lacks the capacity to provide adequate unemployment benefits, and some workers report being unable to access them at all."

👍

"Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) stated that it's "almost like the media and the Democrats were gleeful when Iran took" the Strait of Hormuz.

Fetterman said, "I'll never understand why my party just can't just see that there [have] been a lot of good developments through a lot of these things. I don't — to pulverize the Iranian military, every single Democrat has said we can never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb. And now they have been the evil regime, and I think eliminating their leadership is a strong development, too, and Hezbollah, that's one of their proxies. And now, like, — it's — so, it's tremendous the way Israel has neutralized them to the point where now they're begging for a ceasefire, too."

He continued, "And then I thought, [it's] almost like the media and the Democrats were gleeful when Iran took the Strait."
"

Now I know my history…Bingham was an anti-immigrant police commissioner in NYC who ran afoul of the state Supreme Court, made inflammatory remarks about minorities, did not last long. He became major domo at the White House but was fired. I guess he found time to create the Taj Mahal design during his time there.

But his Bingham doesn't change my opinion about this latest design.. there is no comparison ….this is actually being done and without any input from any of us or the government. It's not his house, IMO.

A brief history:

"Key Architectural Additions

Colonnades (1902): Theodore Roosevelt added the East and West Colonnades to connect the mansion to office spaces.

West Wing (1902): Theodore Roosevelt built the West Wing as a temporary office, separate from the main mansion.

The Oval Office (1909): William Howard Taft expanded the West Wing and added the first dedicated Oval Office.

East Wing (1942): Franklin D. Roosevelt built the East Wing to provide a formal entrance and conceal the underground bunker.

Truman Balcony (1948): Harry S. Truman added a balcony to the South Portico (second floor), which was controversial at the time.

Rebuilding/Substructure (1948-1952): Harry S. Truman completely overhauled the interior, installing a new steel frame and expanding the foundation.

Tennis Pavilion (2020): Melania Trump oversaw the construction of a new pavilion.

East Wing Ballroom (2025): Donald Trump initiated construction of a new ballroom funded by donations

Amenities and Functionality Additions

Indoor Swimming Pool (1933): Franklin D. Roosevelt added an indoor pool for physical therapy.

Press Briefing Room (1970): Richard Nixon built this room over the top of the existing indoor pool.

Bowling Alley (1973): Richard Nixon added a one-lane alley in the basement.

Outdoor Swimming Pool (1975): Gerald Ford installed an outdoor pool and cabana.

Rose Garden (1913/1962/2025): Established by Ellen Wilson (1913) and redesigned by Bunny Mellon under Jacqueline Kennedy (1962), it was later updated by Melania Trump in 2025.

Tennis/Basketball Court (1902/2009): First installed by Teddy Roosevelt, it was adapted by Barack Obama in 2009 for both tennis and basketball.

Kitchen Garden (2009): Michelle Obama planted a large, sustainable garden on the South Lawn.

Structural & Internal Upgrades

Plumbing (1833): Andrew Jackson added a bathhouse/pipes, bringing running water to the mansion.

Third Floor (1927): Calvin Coolidge expanded the attic into a full third floor with a solarium.

Situation Room (1961): John F. Kennedy established this intelligence management center."

"When has any country going into a war where their self interests were not involved in some way…"

Well, believe it or not there are a few examples…

Vietnam invaded Cambodia and deposed the Khmer Rouge regime, which was responsible for a genocide against its own people. While Vietnam also faced border skirmishes with the Khmer Rouge, the scale of the intervention is viewed by some as an altruistic action that ended the mass killings.

Interventions in Somalia (1992) and Bosnia (1990s) were nominally aimed at protecting civilians from famine and ethnic cleansing, though critics argue these often serve the long-term regional stability interests of the intervening powers.

"What were things like relating to Iran before we attacked!…"

Bad of course, really bad, and now you consider it's better?… for whom?…

"As to Nicaragua. Argentina is infinitely stronger than Nicaragua. Check out their Navy, Air Force and population. If things are that bad there, round up a coalition of willing South American countries…"

I would very much like to know how a war front could be opened militarily from Argentina to Nicaragua… it would be an interesting wargame with our little soldiers…

On the other hand, I don't recall there ever being a South American coalition for military action since the Paraguayan War, which was fought between neighboring countries and not by the majority of the countries in that region… not to mention that a large majority are represented by socialist governments.

Regarding the situation in Venezuela, it fills me with a sweet tenderness to read the precise statistics you present… none of them even begin to capture the economic, social, and political situation there… I don't know who goes to Venezuela and asks how things are… independent journalists have been barred from entering for a long time… I suggest you read this…

"…The hope seems to be that the continued threat of US military force will ensure Rodriguez's compliance in achieving the Trump administration's priorities: ending illegal immigration, curtailing drug-trafficking, reasserting US hemispheric dominance by forcing American adversaries out of the region, and ensuring the safe return of American businesses. While these will require time to accomplish, the regime's early actions point not towards stabilization that will lead to recovery and transition, but towards stagnation and regression.

Days after Rodriguez's installation, she enacted a decree that allowed for increased repression and placed oil industry workers under "temporary military rule." She warmly embraced the ambassadors of China, Russia, and Iran, signaling her intention to maintain strong relationships with US adversaries. And on March 17, the board of PDVSA, Venezuela's regime-run oil company, appointed Asdrubal Chávez as the new head of CITGO.

Chávez, who is Hugo Chávez's cousin, is not only committed to the Chavismo ideology behind the expropriation of American properties, but he was also the minister of oil who bankrupted CITGO in the first place. It is unclear how putting a Chavista in charge of major oil assets supports either Venezuelan freedom or American business interests—particularly now that US courts approved the sale of CITGO to Amber Energy, in part to pay off creditors whose properties were expropriated."

link

About Nigeria The U.S. is the largest foreign investor, with significant interests in oil, gas, and technology. Total two-way trade exceeded $13 USD billion in 2024, focusing on diversifying energy supplies….Therefore, it is more than understandable that they try to protect your personal interests… of course Cameroon, Chad, and Niger They are not as lucky as Nigeria…

Armand

Tango you can believe your sources on Venezuela and I will believe mine.

But you can't argue that the root cause of Venezuela's current situation, is the Venezuelans themselves.

Just as the Iranian people are responsible for their own situation.

As to the Iranians, the reductions produced by the U.S. and Israel on Iranian military and leadership, gives the people a better chance to free themselves, than obviously they had before we attacked. That's how it's better for them. Still up to them.

I'm not going to go through the impacts to the Iranian military, military infrastructure and monetary ability of Iran to support their proxies worldwide, that have made it better for those worldwide. Been stated before.

Obviously Argentina taking on Nicaragua was done tongue in cheek. The point of it is that is not our job to solve the world's problems. Sometimes the world need to put on their big boy pants get up to the plate themselves.

We have already done way more than our share. Especially since we rarely started those problems. Did we invade Poland in 39? Luxembourg In 14? Shoot the archduke? Invade Kuwait? Invade South Korea in 50? Take over our own Embassy in Iran? Bomb our Marine Barracks in Lebanon? And on and on.

"Tango you can believe your sources on Venezuela and I will believe mine."

Of course you do…the difference is that you give me unverifiable statistics and I give you facts…

I agree that each country is responsible for its government… but that doesn't mean the ENTIRE population is responsible… in these cases, when a truly bad person takes over and clings to power, there's no way to remove them except through armed resistance… if the USA has historically shown itself to be in favor of a free and participatory democracy and has acted militarily or invaded countries at risk of losing that form of government under that slogan… it is expected that it will continue to do so effectively, not with a showy gesture or a leap into the void, much less by declaring a victory where the governmental aspect remains as opaque and shadowy as its origin.

There doesn't seem to be a direct accusation holding you responsible for starting these conflicts… the criticism stems from the lack of planning and the void left once the lightning military actions end… the ultimate goal remains unclear, let alone how you will carry it out… we only hear a string of contradictory messages with a shocking lack of substance… add to that the bombastic announcements about possible (and ridiculous) territorial annexations and the open disdain for old allies while simultaneously accepting and supporting despicable tyrants… all of this leads to only one path… visceral rejection.

All this was telling you by a completely neutral person with no ties to any of the intervening parties and physically far removed from the conflict zones.

Armand

"Of course you do…the difference is that you give me unverifiable statistics and I give you facts…"

Facts as you believe them to be and from your media sources. Neither of us is on the streets in Venezuela.

Talking to refugee Venezuelans in your country is the view of those who ran away from the problem. The ones there before the current changes.

These are the ones that when the going got tough, they got going. The ones that should have united and attempted to take out their oppressive government.
These one my High School Coach referred to as "the weak sisters".

Yes, I do hold them responsible. They either allowed the previous government in by helping it, or they did nothing to oppose it.

Not all Germans were Nazis, but all Germans were held accountable.

Tango, the U.S. owes the "world" nothing.

The U.S. government only owes "its own citizens". Too many Globalists US leaders have forgotten that.

There is no "Federation of Planets" and "Star Trek" is only a liberal's fantasy wet dream.

I've given the reasons on many occasions why I believe this was necessary.
Why I believe it is a victory, even if it ended today.

More reasons I feel this is a success. I even let AI rewrite it form me. So more readable;

1. The End of "Strategic Patience"
For decades, U.S. policy was built on the fear that a direct strike on Iran would lead to an uncontrollable global apocalypse.

* The Logic: By executing Operation Epic Fury and eliminating Ayatollah Khamenei, the administration proved that the regime was not as untouchable as previously thought.
* The Result: The "myth of invincibility" surrounding the Supreme Leader was shattered. Supporters argue that by "ripping off the Band-Aid," the U.S. finally stopped a cycle of endless proxy wars and forced a definitive conclusion.

2. Radical Nuclear Disarmament
Diplomacy (like the JCPOA) focused on slowing Iran down. The 2026 strikes focused on physical elimination.

* The Logic: You cannot negotiate away the knowledge of how to build a bomb, but you can destroy the physical centrifuges, the underground facilities at Fordow and Natanz, and the scientists managing them.
* The Result: Military intelligence suggests the strikes set the Iranian nuclear program back by decades, not years. From a "success" standpoint, a broken facility is more reliable than a signed treaty.

3. Decapitation of the "Axis of Resistance"
Iran's power relied on its centralized command over proxies like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias.

* The Logic: By targeting the head of the snake (the Supreme Leader and top IRGC commanders), the U.S. disrupted the funding and command-and-control structures that kept these groups unified.


* The Result: Even if these groups still exist, they are now fractured and fighting for their own survival rather than acting as a cohesive Iranian "foreign legion."

4. Creating a "New Middle East" Reality
The April 2026 ceasefire wasn't a product of mutual respect, but of total leverage.

* The Logic: The administration believes that by bringing the Iranian economy to a literal standstill (via the naval blockade) and its military to its knees, any future government in Tehran—including the interim leadership under Mojtaba Khamenei—will have no choice but to accept U.S. terms.

* The Result: Proponents argue that the Islamabad talks are the first time since 1979 that the U.S. has negotiated from a position of absolute military and economic dominance.

And a little more

1. The "January Collapse" (2026)
Just weeks before the U.S. and Israeli strikes, Iran was gripped by the most violent domestic protests in its history.

* Domestic Overextension: The regime was forced to deploy the IRGC and Basij internally across all 31 provinces.
* The "Mercenary" Signal: Reports emerged that Iran had to fly in Iraqi militia fighters to help suppress its own citizens in January 2026 because local security forces were beginning to defect. This signaled to the world—and to U.S. intelligence—that the regime's domestic "immune system" was failing.


2. Systematic Attrition of Proxies (2024–2025)
Critics often forget that the 2026 strikes didn't happen in a vacuum. The "pre-war" phase involved:
* Decapitation as a Standard: Throughout 2025, a series of precise operations (widely attributed to Israel and the U.S.) systematically eliminated senior Hezbollah commanders and Houthi logistics experts.
* Financial Drought: By late 2025, the "Maximum Pressure" sanctions had finally drained Iran's liquid cash reserves. Hezbollah and Hamas were reportedly struggling to pay salaries, leading to a "hollowed-out" force that looked formidable on paper but lacked the morale to launch a full-scale suicide offensive when the strikes on Tehran actually began.

3. Failure of the "Integrated Deterrent"
The entire Iranian strategy for 40 years was built on the idea that if the U.S. touched Iran, the region would "burn."
* The Logic of Failure: When the U.S. and Israel finally struck the nuclear sites and eliminated Khamenei, the expected "regional conflagration" was surprisingly disorganized. While the Houthis did disrupt shipping and some missiles hit U.S. bases, it was nowhere near the "Armageddon" Iran had promised.
* Proof of Weakness: This "inadequate response" suggests that the command-and-control links between Tehran and its proxies were either physically destroyed by early cyber-attacks or that the proxies themselves realized their patron could no longer protect them and chose self-preservation over martyrdom.

4. Technical and Cyber Paralysis
Evidence is now emerging that "Operation Epic Fury" was preceded by a massive, multi-month cyber campaign that blinded Iran's radar and crippled its internal communications.

* Success Logic: If you can't talk to your generals, and your generals can't talk to their proxies, the "Axis" becomes a collection of isolated islands. The lack of a coordinated response is seen as a success of U.S. electronic warfare, which likely proved Iran's technology was decades behind what they claimed.

That is just some of the reasons I see it as a success.

The government in Iran is divided right now, according to ME sources. More moderate elements wanting peace and hardliners not so much. Unfortunately the hard liners control guard units. The actual Iranian army seem to be a nonentity.

This may not be over. We will know more soon.

But again as I've said before, I believe this was always a war of deterrence. When needed 🔥 again. But maybe Trump will get a better deal.

I've said what their believes are based off their religion. You can also read their objectives and ultimate goals in their own constitution.

"The existing Constitution, formed in 1979 and subsequently amended in 1989, outlines a vision that is fully incompatible with Western principles and that has guided and given reason to all the regime has sought throughout its forty-seven-year existence. It also gives meaning to what has often been mistaken for mere hyperbolic cheerleading: "Death to America."

While America was built on notions of liberty, individual freedoms, and limited government control, the Islamic Republic is based upon a global totalitarian vision. Essentially, it seeks a one-world Islamic government derived from Koranic principles and Sharia law. It sets out to help all similar revolutionary efforts across the world, justifying its support for its proxies and other activities abroad. In addition, it was hoped that this vision would be realized by the end of the 20th century, which certainly explains the unquenchable appetite for nuclear weapons as the optimum, most accelerated pathway toward overtaking all other forms of rule.

Here are just a few passages from the Preamble and the Articles themselves (italics added):

"The Constitution will strive with other Islamic and popular movements to prepare the way for the formation of a single world community (in accordance with the Koranic verse ‘This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me' [21:92]), and to assure the continuation of the struggle for the liberation of all deprived and oppressed peoples in the world."

The Constitution was framed "with all the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others."

The Army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards "will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God's way, that is, extending the sovereignty of God's law throughout the world…"

"With due attention to the Islamic content of the Iranian Revolution, the Constitution provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad."

"…framing the foreign policy of the country on the basis of Islamic criteria, fraternal commitment to all Muslims, and unsparing support for the freedom fighters of the world."

The Constitution dictates not only activities within the territory; it is offensive as well as defensive. Again, its reach is worldwide, not limited to the Middle East, as many in the media seek to posture. The Little and Great Satans are the prime enemies precisely because they represent the greatest obstacles. It was Iran that declared war on America decades ago; it has been the US, until the current administration, that has minimized its importance while hoping to peaceably negotiate Iran away from its mission. For those who question how Iran is a threat to the US, its prime goal requires the "downfall" of the US.

The Constitution is based on the belief, in part, in "the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God." The official religion is the Twelver Ja'fari Shiite school, which is to "remain eternally immutable." This school, generally speaking, awaits the return of its Mahdi, similar to the Messiah, and encourages global chaos, which is necessary to hasten his appearance. It is this very global chaos that underlies much of what the regime has consistently fostered.
….

Nonetheless, the last century, as well as the beginning of this one, has taught us the necessity of trusting how the enemy describes itself. From Hitler and Stalin to all Western Communists, Mao to the CCP, and the Islamists, we have learned it is important to believe what they tell us. The Iranian Constitution does just that, telling us exactly who the regime is and what it seeks, and meaningful public discourse must be fully informed by it."

@35thOVI

To the extent that it can be understood as a coherent argument, what your last dozen or so posts just laid out reads less like a defined strategy that guided events, and more like a framework constructed after the fact to explain them.

Describing outcomes and assigning them strategic meaning is not the same as showing that those outcomes were the result of a deliberate plan with clearly defined objectives at the outset.
Many of the points you're listing like deterrence, regime destabilization, proxy degradation, economic pressure etc. are not a single objective but a collection of possible interpretations of what success might look like.

If you have to broadcast multiple, shifting explanations to describe success, it becomes difficult to distinguish between a strategy that is working and a narrative that is being adapted to fit events as they unfold.

There's a broader issue running through your posts that goes beyond any single update or data point.

You're treating short-term signals—market moves, shipping activity, individual strikes—as confirmation that a strategy is working. At the same time, when asked to define that strategy clearly, the answer becomes a collection of goals, retrospective explanations, or references to prior threads rather than a concise statement of objectives and how they're being achieved.

That makes it even more difficult to distinguish between a plan being executed and a narrative being constructed around events after the fact.

There's also a consistency issue in how responsibility and resistance are being framed. On one hand, populations abroad are described as responsible for failing to overthrow their governments and implicitly expected to engage in violent resistance. On the other, the presence of armed civilians in domestic contexts is treated as destabilizing. Those positions point in different directions, and it's not clear what the underlying principle is supposed to be.

More fundamentally, the justification for all of this seems to rest on asserted threats and inferred outcomes rather than clearly demonstrated evidence and defined endpoints. If the standard becomes what an adversary might do, and success is inferred from whatever positive developments occur along the way, then the framework becomes very flexible—but not especially rigorous.

None of this is to deny that Iran poses real challenges or that pressure can produce effects. The question is whether those effects add up to a coherent, sustainable outcome that has been clearly defined in advance, and whether the reasoning being used is consistent when applied across different situations.

Until those pieces are laid out plainly, pointing to individual developments, whether economic damage, market reactions, or tactical actions, doesn't really resolve the underlying questions.

You're moving from what the Iranian constitution says in principle to what must therefore happen in practice. That's a much larger leap than it appears.

Many states articulate ideological or aspirational goals that extend beyond what they are actually capable of achieving. The relevant question is not simply what a document says, but how that translates into real-world capability, behavior, and constraints.

If stated ideology alone is treated as sufficient proof of inevitable action, then the threshold for conflict becomes extremely low, because many regimes (past and present) contain language that could be interpreted expansively or aggressively.

That's why the distinction between rhetoric, doctrine, and operational capability matters. Without it, the argument risks collapsing into: they say they oppose us, therefore conflict is necessary.

That may feel intuitively persuasive, but it doesn't establish when force is warranted, how much is warranted, or what outcome is realistically achievable.

There is also a moral and practical dimension being glossed over. Inflicting widespread economic and social hardship on a civilian population is not, in itself, a strategic objective, nor is it clear why it should produce alignment with external goals. Prolonged pressure more often hardens internal cohesion rather than breaking it. Cuba is an obvious example of a regime that has endured decades of sanctions without political collapse.

None of this is to deny that Iran poses real challenges or that pressure can produce effects. The question is whether those effects add up to a coherent, sustainable outcome that has been clearly defined in advance, and whether the reasoning being used is consistent when applied across different situations.

For some inexplicable reason, the current administration cannot lay out one coherent plan of action. Until those elements are laid out plainly, pointing to individual developments, whether economic damage, market reactions, or tactical actions, does not resolve the underlying questions.

Invavart,

I will be sure to tell the President you are still not happy.
I'm absolutely sure he will be concerned.

Write him and Let is know what he tells you. You always get a response. One never knows from whom. But you get a response.

Or give me your full name and email and I'll write the White House for you.
Because I see you stay incognito in TMP 🤔

I've said before, whether you agree with my explanations, doesn't really matter to me.

Neither of us is ever going to change the others view. That's not why we post.

"There are those who say you never loved the Emperor."

Why you don't bring snakes into your home.

"Feds arrest Iranian woman at LAX for allegedly brokering sales of bombs, assault weapons for Iran
Federal authorities arrested an Iranian woman at Los Angeles International Airport on Friday, alleging she brokered deals to sell Iranian-made drones, bombs, bomb fuses, assault weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition to Sudan in violation of U.S. sanctions laws, according to a newly unsealed criminal complaint.

"Last night, Shamim Mafi, 44, of Woodland Hills, was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport for trafficking arms on behalf of the government of Iran," First Assisant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli wrote Sunday on X.

"She is charged with a violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1705 for brokering the sale of drones, bombs, bomb fuses, and millions of rounds of ammunition manufactured by Iran and sold to Sudan.

"If convicted, she faces a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison. Mafi is an Iranian national who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2016. She is expected to make her initial appearance on Monday afternoon in U.S. District Court in downtown L.A. She is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court."

Prosecutors say Mafi, granted permanent U.S. residency in California under former President Barack Obama, worked with others on behalf of Iran and was preparing to board an LAX flight to Turkey when she was taken into custody, according to a redacted member of the Iran Counterintelligence Squad of the FBI's Los Angeles Field Office."

But we are not the only ones:

"UK Jews are in increasing danger.

An attempted arson attack targeted a synagogue in North London overnight, as the incidents multiply in Labour-led Britain.

It's the third occurrence at Jewish sites in the capital this week, and it comes in the context of 3,700 antisemitic incidents recorded in the United Kingdom in 2025.

The UK establishment and the lying MSM will blame the military confrontations in the Middle East for this state of things – but, in fact, these attacks are the direct result of their own suicidal ‘unchecked mass migration' policies."

"but, in fact, these attacks are the direct result of their own suicidal ‘unchecked mass migration' policies."

absolute .

Doubt the Iranians warn anyone

Subject: U.S. Central Command on X: "U.S. Forces Disable Vessel Attempting to Enter Iranian Port, Violate Blockade" / X


link

Not responsible for the quote, Noggin just posting it.
The author Paul Serran is Brazilian if you want to contact him.

The attacks did not take place? Yes of course they did.

The "unchecked" part. Probably a bit exaggerated by the author.

(From the web)

"The term "unchecked" often refers to two different things: legal migration (visas issued by the government) and illegal or "irregular" migration (such as small boat crossings). Here is the breakdown of the situation as of early 2026:

1. Legal Net Migration: From Peak to Plunge
Post-Brexit migration levels reached an all-time record in 2023, but have since fallen dramatically.

The Peak: Net migration hit a record high of 944,000 in the year ending March 2023. This was driven by a post-pandemic surge in international students, health and care workers, and humanitarian schemes (e.g., Ukraine and Hong Kong).

The Correction: For the year ending June 2025, net migration fell to approximately 204,000—a decrease of nearly 70% from the previous year.

Why it dropped: The government "checked" these numbers by introducing strict new rules in 2024 and 2025, including:

Banning most international students and social care workers from bringing family dependants.

Substantially raising the minimum salary required for a Skilled Worker visa.

Implementing a "visa brake" in 2026 for specific nationalities to further limit entry.

2. Illegal Migration and "Small Boats"
While legal migration is strictly regulated by visa quotas and salary floors, "irregular" arrivals remain a major point of contention.

Small Boat Crossings: In 2025, approximately 41,500 people were detected crossing the English Channel in small boats. While this was a 13% increase from 2024, it remained below the 2022 peak of 46,000.
+1

Enforcement: To counter the perception of "unchecked" borders, the government has ramped up enforcement. In 2025 alone, there were over 3,600 disruptions of organized immigration crime and a significant increase in the detention and return of individuals without a legal right to stay (notably to countries like Albania"

…

Now the group below claims credit for this attack and others in Europe.
But many doing investigation doubt the veracity of their claims.

But even if true. You think they are made up of Irish Catholics, jewish dissidents or good cockney anglos?

But the below group is very new and I'm fairly sure they were not responsible for these:

"CST recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2025, the second-highest total ever reported to CST in a single calendar year. This is an increase of 4% from the 3,556 anti-Jewish hate incidents recorded by CST in 2024, and 14% lower than the highest ever annual total of 4,298 antisemitic incidents reported in 2023. CST recorded 1,662 antisemitic incidents in 2022, and 2,261 in 2021."

(group)
"The newly founded Islamist group Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya (HAYI), or Movement of the Companions of the Right Hand of Islam, said in a statement published on Telegram on Sunday afternoon that it had targeted Kenton United Synagogue because it is "one of the centers of Zionist influence in the British capital."

So pretty sure your suspects come from this group:

"According to the most recent official data from the 2021 Census, there are approximately 3.8 million Muslims living in England.

This represents roughly 6.7% of England's total population. When looking at England and Wales together, the figure is slightly higher at 3.87 million (6.5% of that combined population).
+1

Population Growth

The Muslim community has seen significant growth over the last two decades:

2001: 1.52 million (3.1% of the population)

2011: 2.66 million (5.0% of the population)

2021: 3.80 million (6.7% of the population)"

Probably from this most recent subsection of that population:

The Middle East and North Africa

"Instability and political shifts in these regions have led to high numbers of arrivals via humanitarian routes and small boat crossings.

Afghanistan: Following the events of 2021, the UK saw a surge in Afghan arrivals through the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS) and the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP). Afghanistan has also been a top nationality for asylum claims.

Iran & Syria: Both countries have consistently been in the top five nationalities for asylum seekers and irregular arrivals (small boats) over the last four years.

Sudan: Since the conflict began in 2023, Sudan has moved into the top five nationalities for asylum applications and unaccompanied child arrivals.

3. East Africa

Eritrea & Somalia: These two nations account for a significant portion of humanitarian-based migration. In 2024 and 2025, Eritreans were frequently the most common nationality arriving via small boats."

@35thOVI

If the discussion has reached the point of suggesting I contact the White House or disclose personal information, then we've moved away from the substance entirely.

I'm not looking to change your views, and I don't expect you to change mine. The point of posting is to examine the reasoning being presented.

On that level, the questions remain the same: what are the defined objectives, how are they being measured, and how do the actions being described connect to a durable outcome? You suggest a letter to the White House but that would almost certainly yield only a slightly less satisfactory answer than being given here.

The President has just recently posted that unless Iran takes his very fair and reasonable deal he will knock out every bridge and power plant in Iran all while we seem to have boarded some Iranian adjacent ship in the Strait.To be sure, some shifting, vague, contradictory and counterproductive messaging.

One can only imagine what my response letter would read like; it would undoubtedly be obsolete one minute after being mailed.

Additionally, you keep citing Iranian pain as though that settles the matter. It doesn't because wars are negative-sum. Youre leaving out the fact that we are all suffering as a result of this excursion.

If this conflict knocks even 0.2% to 0.4% off global output, that's on the order of roughly $240 USD–$480 billion of world economic damage, plus U.S. war spending on top; which one respected modeler has estimated could hit the hundreds of billions if the war drags on.

The key strategic point for you to consider is this: Iran's economy collapsing does not mean the war is cheap, wise, or net-beneficial. It only means Iran is suffering badly.

It may be the case that some parties are deriving pleasure from inflicting pain on Iran. However, it also calls into question the judgment and competency of actors who regularly hurt themselves in an endeavor to injure others.

My old Army buddy sent me this … This what I have been trying to say about how things will probably go down in Iran.

link

By that logic, no wars would ever be fought.

Is that the point you are attempting to make? No, I'm sure it's not.

Maybe you are saying only by the complete elimination of Iranian leadership, elimination of their military, elimination of their capability to ever produce nuclear weapons, elimination of their ability to ever propagate terrorism throughout the world again, would THEN classify as a administration success. Is that it?

You know we could do that. We have the weapon. Is that the only way to call this a success?

You and others will never find anything this administration does acceptable. Obviously you are not alone. On TMP there has been one thread after another about anything and everything it does.

So obviously I don't take the criticism about this war on TMP very seriously. If criticism of everything the administration does had not been so prevalent prior, I might believe there were actual reasons behind views being expressed and not just emotions.

As to the actual endgame, none of will know until it actually ends. Probably not for months after.

Legion +1 on that post

What is the color of "skeptical"? 🤔

"The command of Iran's military, Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, offered an explanation for why Iranian forces did not fight back as U.S. forces boarded and seized an Iran-flagged vessel on Sunday.

"Due to the presence of some family members of the ship's crew, they faced constraints in order to protect their lives and ensure their safety, as they were in danger at every moment," Khatam al-Anbiya said.

The U.S. ultimately disabled the engines of the M/V Trouska and seized the vessel without incident."

If this conflict knocks even 0.2% to 0.4% off global output, that's on the order of roughly $240 USD USD–$480 billion of world economic damage, plus U.S. war spending on top; which one respected modeler has estimated could hit the hundreds of billions if the war drags on.

The World Bank estimates the Ukraine War represents about a 1.0% drag on the Global economy since 2022. That adds up to about $5.6 USD TRILLION in economic loss -- yet nobody seems to be in a hurry to end the bloodiest and most disruptive war in Europe since WW2. That's beem going on for 4 years and the peacemakers shunned and reviled as "Putin Puppets"

@SBminisguy

That's a different argument. The scale and duration of the Ukraine war don't really address the point I raised about the costs and risks of this conflict.

If anything, Ukraine reinforces it, because large conflicts can impose enormous, long-term economic damage, especially when objectives are contested and the end state remains unclear.

I don't see how pointing to another costly war that has been difficult to resolve demonstrates that additional conflicts are low-cost or easily managed; it suggests the opposite.

But if it's any consolation, the Ukraine war is also an economic disruption. I suppose the difference is that that's the war Russia started rather than our Administration.

That's a different argument. The scale and duration of the Ukraine war don't really address the point I raised about the costs and risks of this conflict.

If anything, Ukraine reinforces it, because large conflicts can impose enormous, long-term economic damage, especially when objectives are contested and the end state remains unclear.

Doesn't it? In the case of Ukraine, the "Establishment" finds advantage in it, so the costs do not perturb them. Not the millions of dead, injured and scarred survivors… not the millions of refugees… not the North African famine caused by shutting off fertilizers and feed…nor trillions in cost.

But NOW cost is a concern to the same Establishment class who oppose peace in Ukraine, but clamor for it when the US takes down Iran's nuclear and power projection capabilities?

That's because there's no advantage to them in the Iran War.

That's shifting from the costs themselves to assumptions about who benefits from them.

Experts have been raising concerns about the global economic costs of the Ukraine war since it began. Growth impacts, energy disruption, food and fertilizer shocks, inflation etc.has been widely discussed.

So the issue isn't that costs only matter in one case and not another. It's that large conflicts consistently generate significant, widely recognized costs, which is exactly why they should be part of the analysis for this Iran war too.

Also, explaining why people tolerate costs doesn't make those costs any less relevant to the decision itself.

OVI +1

SBm +1

The conflict continues. Many in the media and some in Congress with all their lies, negative opinions, spin, obfuscation, propaganda, etc. Only emboldens Iran. Making the surviving regime think they can hold out, etc. They are more concerned about Trump, than the US finishing off Iran's blooded islamic regime. The want Trump to lose the war … even if it cost US lives.

When they say Iran was not a threat to the US. They have to be lying or just fools. Iran has been a threat to the US since the invaded our embassy in 1979. And they have been trying to get nukes for a very long time.

Yes, higher gas prices can be upsetting, etc. But it is only temporary … If Iran gets deployable nuke … nuke strikes will be even more upsetting, etc.

Iran is being run by the remnants of the IRGC. The murdering butcher that is in charge is still talking trash … According to intel he is a war criminal, etc.

Still the bottom line –

No nukes

No support for islamic terrorists

No slaughtering your own people

No blocking the Straits of Hormuz

Short answer – this regime has to go …

Give the plan time, let the situation develop, we don't know what is going on behind the curtain. It is only about 50 days since the US & IDF struck Iran. They have done more damage to Iran, than any other nations could do in a year or more …

War comes down to a test of will …