US has struck three Iranian nuclear sites, Trump says

[durangodawood]

I hope President Trump follows through on his recent talk about regime change. It will be challenging, with American boots on the ground in another prolonged Middle East conflict and limited chances of success. Perhaps this time we might have better luck bringing democracy to Iran than we did in Iraq.

Youre normally such a sensible person. What happened?

Regime change at the point of American guns will totally lack legitimacy. An Assad/Shah type would required to keep a lid on the place in that scenario. We'll have civil war or an accelerated revolution 2.0. Have we learned nothing at all?

It is noteworthy to observe how the MAGA movement, which has advocated for "no more war" and an "America First" isolationism over the past 9 years, now appears to support actions that are completely contrary to their previous stance. This suggests that their convictions are not deeply rooted, but rather aligned with whatever President Trump endorses.

Today, they will claim these airstrikes are one-offs and not a war. However, if President Trump sends American troops to Iran, the MAGA supporters who oppose war will adopt a "we kill them before they kill us" ideology and adopt a preemptive stance, arguing that such actions are necessary to prevent potential threats.

Its a big ask there, to get maga nation to do a 180 on such a cherished position. Might require more than one ALL CAPS tweets from their leader.

 

[bèlla]

I agree. That clears up my questions about your post #111.

I think a lot of things have contributed to this mentality including video games. Immersing yourself in violence doesn’t foster the right spirit and we see the results in our culture. Whether it’s movies, social media or games; the impressions are like notches in the soul and the things that should repel no longer offend.

I’ve definitely lived long enough. You are correct, but extremism doesn’t have to blossom. It does from time to time and produces horrible results, but I’ve seen extremist views die long before they blossomed. We have to keep vigilant. The promoters prey on the weak and angry, and we have too many people like that now.

There‘s a lot of anger and division in our country at the moment. Be it politics, race, gender, socioeconomic issues, job loss and so on. Marginalization in those conditions is a breeding ground for movements. The majority are stagnant or struggling and the pie is shrinking which fuels frustrations. It‘s never good to be the odd man out when the tide is turning to that degree. You’ll become a scapegoat.

You mentioned vigilance and this is where eurocentric ideologies differ from others in similar conditions. Many are tired of fighting or have no interest in doing so. They’re building their lives and communities and investing in productive pursuits. They’re not activists or swearing allegiance to any cause. Most underestimate the percentage of the population that feels this way. They assume everyone’s up in arms or worrying about tomorrow but they’re not. When you’re distracted you’re reacting to things as they occur. But when you’re focused you take time to weigh it carefully and make decisions.

My comments are a reflection of a conscious diversion. I’ve reached a fork in the road internally where it’s necessary to reinforce our principles and draw a line in the sand morally. Once you bring God into the conversation you can justify anything to fit your narrative and we’re going to see more of that on a larger scale. Gaza is a good example and I’ve heard similar remarks about other countries along those lines. When you combine politics, religion and patriotism you’ll get a strange mix that requires compromise to make it work. That’s the road we’re on today and if that isn’t your path you have to shift. Lest you be carried away by the other unintentionally.

~bella

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Youre normally such a sensible person. What happened?

I must admit, idea of regime change in Iran and the implementation of a secular democracy similar to those in Western countries is uncertain. It is likely that if the Ayatollah regime falls, American troops may face resistance for years before potentially being withdrawn by a future President. This scenario appears to be the most possible outcome.

However, the current situation, which has persisted since the Mullah took office, cannot continue indefinitely. Iran has been engaging in proxy conflicts against Western nations, the USA, and Israel since 1979. The Mahsa Amini protests in 2022 have weakened the Ayatollah's control over the Iranian population. Israel has also weakened groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as Iranian defenses. Addressing this issue now may prevent future complications. Unfortunately, the US currently lacks strong and decisive leadership, and President Trump do not demonstrate long-term patience in dealing with this crisis.

I'm a Ragan -W. Bush conservative, so my foreign policy views might not sound sensible to you.

 

[durangodawood]

......I'm a Ragan -W. Bush conservative, so my foreign policy views might not sound sensible to you.

Are you sure youre not letting the label - rather than the evidence - lead your thinking? I mean, since Reagan / WBush the evidence has piled up that US occupations of various foreign lands are incredibly troublesome, and probably doomed after throwing away extraordinary blood and treasure. I'm all for US international leadership and engagement, and cultivations of allies. But occupations led by elective war are way beyond that.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Are you sure youre not letting the label - rather than the evidence - lead your thinking? I mean, since Reagan / WBush the evidence has piled up that US occupations of various foreign lands are incredibly troublesome, and probably doomed after throwing away extraordinary blood and treasure. I'm all for US international leadership and engagement, and cultivations of allies. But occupations led by elective war are way beyond that.

President Reagan made mistake. President W. Bush also made mistake in going to Iraq, as the assessment made by the administration about Iraq was incorrect. The most likely outcome of U.S. engagement with Iran will probably be similar. However, not taking any action is not an option. This is where I have a significant difference with the liberals. They believe that if we do not engage in the Middle East, then everything will be fine. Perhaps Syria should remind them that withdrawing from the Middle East does not work well either.

 

[BCP1928]

Are you sure youre not letting the label - rather than the evidence - lead your thinking? I mean, since Reagan / WBush the evidence has piled up that US occupations of various foreign lands are incredibly troublesome, and probably doomed after throwing away extraordinary blood and treasure. I'm all for US international leadership and engagement, and cultivations of allies. But occupations led by elective war are way beyond that.

It use to be easier. We worked that trick throughout the Carribean and Central America for the first half of the 20th century, Our favorite dictator is being overthrown by rebels??? Send the Marines! But the force mismatch was so great that they could basically walk right in. Not any more.

 

[Vanellus]

Just doing some catching up. Trump tears up the nuclear deal with Iran. Iran then gets more nuclear enriching devices. Israel and US attack Iran i.e. US and Israel are the aggressors. Israel has an undeclared nuclear weapons program. So who are the bad guys here? Who is running this show - Trump or Putin and Netanyahu?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Did dispensationalism influence the Crusades?

No. The Crusades were wrong for entirely different reasons.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Servus]

No. The Crusades were wrong for entirely different reasons.

-CryptoLutheran

Nonetheless the notion that Israel is the Holy Land that Christians should protect existed way before Darby.

 

[BCP1928]

I think Trump did the right thing, but Russia is now considering giving a bomb to Iran.

Fair enough. Saudi already has a line on warheads out of Pakistan.

 

[BCP1928]

Nonetheless the notion that Israel is the Holy Land that Christians should protect existed way before Darby.

We're talking about Christians, now, today. It appears, today, that it is mostly Dispensationalists who identify the modern state of Israel as a fulfillment of God's promise to the Jews.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nonetheless the notion that Israel is the Holy Land that Christians should protect existed way before Darby.

I see you are intentionally obfuscating.

The region you're talking about is what was known as The Holy Land, not Israel. Emperor Alexios of the Byzantine (Roman) Empire requested military assistance against the Seljuks. Pope Urban heard the call for aid, and it was met rather enthusiastically. In spite of the Great Schism (which would only be formally cemented later at the Council of Florence), the West took up arms to reclaim the Holy Land. Alexios wanted military aid against the Seljuks who threatened an ever-shrinking Roman Empire. Reclaiming the Holy Land for "Christendom" was, ostensibly, about securing safe passage for pilgrims to the ancient holy places which had been places of pilgrimage for centuries prior to Islamic control.

There was no "Israel" in the Holy Land that Christians wanted to protect; the goals, ostensibly, were to secure safe passage for pilgrims by securing Christian control of the region.

The result was the wonton horrors against and slaughter of Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike by Crusader forces, several failed military states, further instability of the already shrinking Byzantine Empire (and, eventually, almost certainly helping to lead to its demise by the mid 15th century) and a legacy of shame for the Western Church down to the present day.

So no, not "nonetheless". Apples and Oranges.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Servus]

I see you are intentionally obfuscating.

Whaa? I simply pointed out preserving the "Holy Land" goes back to at least the 12th century.

The region you're talking about is what was known as The Holy Land, not Israel.
Emperor Alexios of the Byzantine (Roman) Empire requested military assistance against the Seljuks. Pope Urban heard the call for aid, and it was met rather enthusiastically. In spite of the Great Schism (which would only be formally cemented later at the Council of Florence), the West took up arms to reclaim the Holy Land. Alexios wanted military aid against the Seljuks who threatened an ever-shrinking Roman Empire. Reclaiming the Holy Land for "Christendom" was, ostensibly, about securing safe passage for pilgrims to the ancient holy places which had been places of pilgrimage for centuries prior to Islamic control.

There was no "Israel" in the Holy Land that Christians wanted to protect; the goals, ostensibly, were to secure safe passage for pilgrims by securing Christian control of the region.

The result was the wonton horrors against and slaughter of Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike by Crusader forces, several failed military states, further instability of the already shrinking Byzantine Empire (and, eventually, almost certainly helping to lead to its demise by the mid 15th century) and a legacy of shame for the Western Church down to the present day.

-CryptoLutheran

It's the same place. The Holy Land, The Land of Milk and Honey, the Promised Land etc is the same region also known as Israel. The focal point of the Crusades was Jerusalem.

 

[Servus]

We're talking about Christians, now, today. It appears, today, that it is mostly Dispensationalists who identify the modern state of Israel as a fulfillment of God's promise to the Jews.

True, but I think simply viewing it as an ally and a land that belongs to the Jews rather than Islam is a lot more prevalent politically. It's like South Korea.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Whaa? I simply pointed out preserving the "Holy Land" goes back to at least the 12th century.

It's the same place. The Holy Land, The Land of Milk and Honey, the Promised Land etc is the same region also known as Israel. The focal point of the Crusades was Jerusalem.

Because, as I said, it's apples and oranges. These are not like for like.

I care about Jerusalem. I care about sacred places like the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Via Delarosa, and Gethsemane. But what does that have to do with Dispensationalists believing the modern state of Israel, formed in 1948, is a divine fulfillment of biblical prophecy and is part of some cosmic countdown to the Rapture; and therefore America, as a "Christian nation" needs to "stand with Israel" and, well, all the rest.

It doesn't. Lots of Christians care about Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, and ancient holy sites. Lots of Christians want to see our ancient holy sites safe.

And even more importantly, I care about the people who live there--Christians live in the Holy Land, most of them are Palestinians who suffer under the twin boot-heels of Israeli state-sponsored terrorism as well as terrorist organizations like Hamas. And I don't just care about my fellow Christians, I care about the Jews and Muslims and non-religious people who live there, who have to endure all this; and then I have to--over and over and over--be told by Christians in America that they don't matter, because something-something Israel is God's nation.

So, apples and oranges.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[wing2000]

Who is running this show - Trump or Putin and Netanyahu?

Netanyahu. He has accomplished nearly all of his objectives (according to him). Trump was not on oboard initiatially....but when he saw Israel's military success in Iran, he readily jumped on board and will now claim it was his grand plan all along.

 

[Servus]

Because, as I said, it's apples and oranges. These are not like for like.

I care about Jerusalem. I care about sacred places like the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Via Delarosa, and Gethsemane. But what does that have to do with Dispensationalists believing the modern state of Israel, formed in 1948, is a divine fulfillment of biblical prophecy and is part of some cosmic countdown to the Rapture; and therefore America, as a "Christian nation" needs to "stand with Israel" and, well, all the rest.

It doesn't. Lots of Christians care about Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, and ancient holy sites. Lots of Christians want to see our ancient holy sites safe.

And even more importantly, I care about the people who live there--Christians live in the Holy Land, most of them are Palestinians who suffer under the twin boot-heels of Israeli state-sponsored terrorism as well as terrorist organizations like Hamas. And I don't just care about my fellow Christians, I care about the Jews and Muslims and non-religious people who live there, who have to endure all this; and then I have to--over and over and over--be told by Christians in America that they don't matter, because something-something Israel is God's nation.

So, apples and oranges.

-CryptoLutheran

I think politically Israel is a protected nation like South Korea is a protected nation. Aside from that if you want to insist Christians thinking the Holy Land needs to be preserved against Muslims is apples and oranges, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[BCP1928]

I think politically Israel is a protected nation like South Korea is a protected nation. Aside from that if you want to insist Christians thinking the Holy Land needs to be preserved against Muslims is apples and oranges, we'll have to agree to disagree.

It is their "Holy Land," too,

 

[Servus]

Youre normally such a sensible person. What happened?

Regime change at the point of American guns will totally lack legitimacy. An Assad/Shah type would required to keep a lid on the place in that scenario. We'll have civil war or an accelerated revolution 2.0. Have we learned nothing at all?

Its a big ask there, to get maga nation to do a 180 on such a cherished position. Might require more than one ALL CAPS tweets from their leader.

Republicans / conservatives / the right supported Bush's handling of Iraq. If Trump tries to turn Iran into another Iraq, how Iraq is today, probably the right will support it and the left will protest it like last time.

 

[NxNW]

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-announces-israel-iran-ceasefire-2025-06-23/

WASHINGTON/DOHA/ISTANBUL, June 24 (Reuters) - Israel's military said Iran launched waves of missiles on Tuesday, with emergency services reporting three people killed, hours after U.S. President Donald Trump announced a complete ceasefire between Israel and Iran to end a 12-day war.