United States and Israel attack Iran Early Saturday Morning

George1959 said:
I write that they support your opinion and you don't like this. Strange.
But let me tell you that I am not inclined in further discussions with you also.
In this point obviously we agree.
Click to expand...
I read his post 3-4 times, and didn't understand why he replied that way either, when it seemed you were both on the same page up to that point.
 
Iran's new Supreme Leader has ordered his nation to weaponise the Strait of Hormuz in his first statement, amid claims he is 'in a coma' and has lost a leg after being seriously injured in air strikes.

Mojtaba Khamenei, 56, made the statement on state TV this afternoon, which was read out by a news anchor.

He added in the written statement that Iran would not refrain from avenging the 'blood of its martyrs.'

He is said to be in intensive care at the Sina University Hospital in the city's historic quarter surrounded by security officials, according to a source in Tehran. A section of the hospital has been sealed off to guard Iran's Supreme Leader.

It is unclear whether Mojtaba was injured in the same air strikes which killed his 86-year-old father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on February 28.

Iranian state media announced today that Mojtaba's first message since his appointment will be released imminently, without specifying whether it would be a recorded message or a written statement.

Khamenei's official Telegram channel wrote: 'The first message of Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei, the supreme leader of the Islamic revolution, will be released in a few moments.'

The message will address 'the martyred leader of the revolution (Ali Khamenei), the role and duties of the people, the armed forces, executive bodies, the resistance front, as well as the countries of the region and dealing with enemies.'

A source, who does not want to be named out of fear for his life, said the new Supreme Leader is under the care of Mohammad Reza Zafargjani, Iran's Minister of Health, Treatment and Medical Education and one of the country's top trauma surgeons.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
Andrew Bustamante, former CIA agent gives his take on why this war was started He also gives insight on how threats are assessed.
"Andrew explained that annually, the CIA and other agencies produce a national threat assessment, which is forwarded to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The ODNI then consolidates this information into an evaluation of the most pressing dangers facing the US.

This Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community is accessible to the public and, as Andrew pointed out, serves as a resource for Congress members to "fund intelligence operations" in the upcoming year.

Delving deeper, Andrew stated: "Iran very clearly, in that document published in March 2025, is not working on weapons of mass destruction, has no plans to increase or enhance its uranium enrichment, and may be at the early stages of research and development for chemical and biological weapons. That's what it says.

"That was in March 2025. In June 2025, we bomb Iran under the accusation that they are enriching uranium beyond military grade or up to military-grade levels at the Fordow plants in Iran.

"In stark contrast, what we were told as the public contradicted what the ODNI published as an official source document for the national intelligence infrastructure. But that's only one of several documents."

He then highlighted documents from the US Department of War (formerly the Department of Defense) and the White House's national security strategy. He noted that, in terms of publicly available documents, "none of them highlighted Iran" as a national security priority. Full article:
https://www.themirror.com/news/poli...n=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target
Click to expand...
For now Iran was and is still a threat to the region and Israel. Not the mainland US-yet. US assets overseas yes.

The people that assessed Iran before the war did what previous generations of intelligence types have done for over half a century including missing the overthrow of the Shah/those who did it. They still think in terms of a nation state and that they think and act like one. No. The end game is a religious goal not a political one.

They also under estimated Iran's industrial capacity. It's known they are supplying drones and missiles to other countries is all one needs to know. They focused too much on nuclear related sites/assets. The fact they can export shows their manufacturing capabilities wether it's drones, missiles, boats etc. 2 weeks later and their 'navy' is still launching suicide boats to hit tankers along with drones hitting all over the region. Their inventory of Iranian assets and capabilities was off.

Wether it's this think tank/contractor or US intelligence they were off.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
Andrew Bustamante, former CIA agent gives his take on why this war was started He also gives insight on how threats are assessed.
"Andrew explained that annually, the CIA and other agencies produce a national threat assessment, which is forwarded to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The ODNI then consolidates this information into an evaluation of the most pressing dangers facing the US.

This Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community is accessible to the public and, as Andrew pointed out, serves as a resource for Congress members to "fund intelligence operations" in the upcoming year.

Delving deeper, Andrew stated: "Iran very clearly, in that document published in March 2025, is not working on weapons of mass destruction, has no plans to increase or enhance its uranium enrichment, and may be at the early stages of research and development for chemical and biological weapons. That's what it says.

"That was in March 2025. In June 2025, we bomb Iran under the accusation that they are enriching uranium beyond military grade or up to military-grade levels at the Fordow plants in Iran.

"In stark contrast, what we were told as the public contradicted what the ODNI published as an official source document for the national intelligence infrastructure. But that's only one of several documents."

He then highlighted documents from the US Department of War (formerly the Department of Defense) and the White House's national security strategy. He noted that, in terms of publicly available documents, "none of them highlighted Iran" as a national security priority. Full article:
https://www.themirror.com/news/poli...n=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target
Click to expand...

Thanks for that great link!! There's some interesting reading there!

You know what's strange though, is that the opening line about Iran of that document seems to conflict with what it says later about Iran's Nuclear Program...
here's the Opening Line:

IRAN
Strategic Overview
Tehran will try to leverage its robust missile capability and expanded nuclear program, and its diplomatic outreach to regional states and U.S. rivals to bolster its regional influence and ensure regime survival.

And then a portion of the WMD section:
WMD
We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so. In the past year, there has been an erosion of a decades-long taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decisionmaking apparatus. Khamenei remains the final decisionmaker over Iran’s nuclear program, to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons. Iran very likely aims to continue R&D of chemical and biological agents for offensive purposes. Iranian military scientists have researched chemicals that have a wide range of sedation, dissociation, and amnestic incapacitating effects, and can also be lethal.
 
Did Hitler pose a direct threat to the US? :unsure: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt was concerned about Nazi Germany but "the American people" strongly favored isolationism, so nothing was done until it was too little too late.

Neville Chamberlain thought Hitler's territorial demands could be satisfied peacefully. He stated that the Munich Agreement would bring peace. He thought Hitler could be negotiated with... as did many of the Western leaders. A quote: "In spite of the hardness and ruthlessness I thought I detected… I got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word.”

Edouard Daladier also hoped negotiations would prevent another European war. Underestimated Hitler's long-term plans.

On the other side, Mussolini considered Hitler a dangerous extremist at first. We know how *that* turned out.
 
Rich said:
From what I've read the U.S. goal was regime change in Iran. Apparently that goal was reached this by swapping Ayatollah Khamenei for Ayatollah Khamenei.
Click to expand...

Killing an 86 year old dude with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel so that he can be replaced with his son really is something we can point to with pride. USA! USA! USA!
 
Last edited:
MACKTEXAS said:
I read his post 3-4 times, and didn't understand why he replied that way either, when it seemed you were both on the same page up to that point.
Click to expand...

I read his comment: "In Germany and Austria are some websites that 100 per cent support your opinion and don't get it, why so many people in these countries believe the lie(s). " as being critical of those websites for seeing it the same as I do. How else could it be read?
 
CallMeKate said:
Did Hitler pose a direct threat to the US? :unsure: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt was concerned about Nazi Germany but "the American people" strongly favored isolationism, so nothing was done until it was too little too late.

Neville Chamberlain thought Hitler's territorial demands could be satisfied peacefully. He stated that the Munich Agreement would bring peace. He thought Hitler could be negotiated with... as did many of the Western leaders. A quote: "In spite of the hardness and ruthlessness I thought I detected… I got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word.”

Edouard Daladier also hoped negotiations would prevent another European war. Underestimated Hitler's long-term plans.

On the other side, Mussolini considered Hitler a dangerous extremist at first. We know how *that* turned out.
Click to expand...

The actions of Nazi Germany in the 1930's are more like the current actions of the US and Israel than they are of Iran. How many countries is the US threatening to take over at present? Let's see, there's Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland, Iran, have I missed any? Compare that to how many Iran has been threatening to take over.
 
CallMeKate said:
Did Hitler pose a direct threat to the US? :unsure: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt was concerned about Nazi Germany but "the American people" strongly favored isolationism, so nothing was done until it was too little too late.

Neville Chamberlain thought Hitler's territorial demands could be satisfied peacefully. He stated that the Munich Agreement would bring peace. He thought Hitler could be negotiated with... as did many of the Western leaders. A quote: "In spite of the hardness and ruthlessness I thought I detected… I got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word.”

Edouard Daladier also hoped negotiations would prevent another European war. Underestimated Hitler's long-term plans.

On the other side, Mussolini considered Hitler a dangerous extremist at first. We know how *that* turned out.
Click to expand...
Leaders don't necessarily know what they are doing. They just make convincing explanations for why they are doing it.
 
"Gas prices go up like a rocket, down like a feather"

Yesterday the station that I usually go to went up 50 cents yesterday from $3 to $3.50.

Then this morning I saw that they had gone down a whole 2 cents to $3.48. :ROFLMAO:
 
Trade said:
I read his comment: "In Germany and Austria are some websites that 100 per cent support your opinion and don't get it, why so many people in these countries believe the lie(s). " as being critical of those websites for seeing it the same as I do. How else could it be read?
Click to expand...

In your post 652 (note: I gave it a "like") you wrote: "It's Israel and the United States that are the bad actors, not Iran. Iran is acting in self defense. What I don't understand are the people that buy the lie that Iran posed an Imminent danger to the US. I find that to be patently absurd."

In his post 662, George replied "In Germany and Austria are some websites that 100 per cent support your opinion and don't get it, why so many people in these countries believe the lie(s)."

Although I would not have phrased my answer in the same way as George, he pointed out two countries (Germany and Austria) who would support your opinion. I took it that the end of his post was not referring to Germany and Austria, but these people you mentioned: "the people that buy the lie that Iran posed an Imminent danger to the US."

He further clarified what he meant in his post 665, where he wrote: " I write that they support your opinion and you don't like this. Strange."

Whatever....... I'm removing myself from the middle of this. @George1959 can clarify or disengage as he sees fit.
 
Messy said:
The big thing at the time was Iraq. That was on their agenda, but also, surprisingly, there was lots of conversation and talk about Iran. And what surprised me and really raised my eyebrows, was mention, open mention -- this was people talking comfortably to one another, not arguing or shouting -- but talking comfortably about the Israeli reluctance to strike and provoke Iran into armed action. That was something that really raised the hairs on the back of my neck.

And it seemed as if the Israeli government was tied onto what was going on here and had a role to play which was being dictated outside Israeli borders. A year later, Israel attacked Iranian-backed Hezbollah bases in Lebanon.

And then the second thing that came out that I recall quite clearly was mention of Japanese reluctance to create havoc within the Chinese financial sectors.

I really couldn't understand why they were talking about that and why that had any importance. What I picked up from this seemed to be the Japanese government, or those in Japan, being coerced or ordered into doing something that would wreck or slow down the Chinese rise to financial power.

It was mentioned that China was growing too quickly and the main beneficiary of that growth was the Chinese military, which was getting modernized, mostly through the money that they were getting from the world market.

And then things... and this is where I can't help but be subjective, Bill. Because at the time I recall I started to feel quite sick about what was being spoken about, and very anxious about what was being said.

I was on the periphery of this meeting and I could feel the anxiety just rise up inside me because this was stuff that was getting spoken about off the cuff. It wasn't getting announced to anybody. This was things that they already knew about.

So then there was open talk about the use of biological weapons, where and when they would be used, and the timing. And timing always appears to be crucial.

And then there was more talk centered on how Iran must be engaged militarily in order to provoke the desired military response from China.

There was a clear expectation of goading Iran into some sort of armed conflict with the West, with China coming to the aid of Iran. Through this goading, either China or Iran would use a tactical nuclear weapon of some sort.

And, as I mentioned, these people weren't making decisions. They were discussing something that had already been planned, so they were simply sharing their information between themselves. And it became clear as these discussions went on that the central issue of this meeting was when the balloon would go up -- when all this would happen.

Other talk centered on dealing with finances, resources, protection of assets, and a control of these resources and bringing in outlying assets. And I can go through this chain of events with you now, Bill, if you like.

B: I'd be really happy to go into as much detail as you feel you can.

W: Okay. Now, as I previously mentioned, they needed either the Chinese or the Iranians to be guilty of the first use of nuclear weapons in order to justify the next stage.

Now, I've already added, and this is anecdotal, so it can't be confirmed. But my information coming through in this meeting, and from elsewhere, positively indicates that the Iranians do indeed have a tactical nuclear capability right now. They're not developing it. They've got it.

B: Some say they might have got it from the Russians, maybe. Do you have any idea about that?

W: I believe it's from the Chinese.

B: From the Chinese... okay.

W: It's because the Chinese technology has been, for many years, used in their missile systems. They're getting missile technology also from the Russians as well, but this is mostly ground-to-air missile systems, that sort of thing -- defensive weapons. Tactical missile weaponry -- that technology is coming via China.

Now, the other side of the coin is Iran. Now, Iran is being continuously backed by China and then later by the Russians; and also by other countries too. The military market is quite an open one and in that we can even include the French, who quite independently export their weapons out wherever they can.

B: Yes.

W: Even in defiance of conventions in place about the sale of weapons abroad. But this goes a bit beyond that. We're talking about a country that's being used quite well by another country throughout the revolutionary period -- where they have been seen as an enemy of all the Western states, and also the Gulf states as well.

B: You mean, you're referring to Iran being used by China?

W: China. Yes. They're both using each other, of course. China's economy is skyrocketing. I don't know if it's reached its plateau now or not, and I'm not talking about that. But the amount of weaponry and the level of technical expertise that Iran is receiving from the Chinese military -- it seems inconceivable that nuclear weapons haven't been included within any package that goes there; whether that comes under the direct control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards or jointly by the Iranians and the Chinese. One can't be sure.

But I go back to what I said before, that at that meeting, the assumption was -- and it was quite clear -- that the Iranians HAD such weapons in their possession because it wasn't mentioned to the contrary.

B: Understood. And what you're going to go on to talk about is how this cooperation between Iran and China was going to be used as a way to get at China -- because China's the main target. Is this correct?

W: That's correct. China has been the main target since at least the mid 70s -- and again, this information it's through third parties so I can't give you any direct first-hand evidence of this -- but it's always been China. It was always China that is to be the big one in this timeline.

B: Mm hm.

W: It's China that they're after right now, and it's all about how to coerce and create the scenario where this type of -- well, it's going to be war, Bill; there's going to be a war -- how this can be realized and how it can be made credible to everybody here living in the West?

And the way it's going to be made credible is by a state like Iran being used as a patsy to use a nuclear weapon in order to elicit an exchange.

B: And the whole justification of this, then, is to provide or to trick China into a war, with what reason?

W: China will then come to the aid of Iran, very quickly.


Project Avalon Interview Transcripts
Click to expand...
The date of this "conversation" is January 2010. An old post on an old blog.
 
I'm sticking with what I posted on Monday 3/9/26.

"The way I see it the only way this war ends quickly is if the powers that be realize that it is unwinnable and decide to try to save face by declaring victory and then going home. "
 
Trade said:
I'm sticking with what I posted on Monday 3/9/26.

"The way I see it the only way this war ends quickly is if the powers that be realize that it is unwinnable and decide to try to save face by declaring victory and then going home. "
Click to expand...
I agree. Thinking it is easily "winnable" by the US is sheer folly. Among other obvious challenges, Iran is roughly the size of Alaska.

In addition, the largest Iranian diaspora on the planet is in the US, with the greatest numbers in California, Texas and New York.

Has it not dawned on Washington that some of those folks make take offense at homeland family members being bombed out by the US?
 
MACKTEXAS said:
I read his post 3-4 times, and didn't understand why he replied that way either, when it seemed you were both on the same page up to that point.
Click to expand...
I did the same. After several times of reading I thought it might be possible that he didn't like the word 'opinion'. I did not write 'facts'.
To be honest, I don't know the truth also. In German speaking countries there are about 80 per cent pro U.S. and Israel and 20 per cent pro Iran and Gaza.
My sympathies are on the side of the U.S and Israel.

I now see Iran as a battered boxer who is lashing out blindly in all directions.
 
Last edited:
The national average for regular gasoline at the pump stands at $3.598, which is up 66.1¢ from February 23rd. Kansas is at $3.04 average and California at $5.368 average.

Futures indicate another 23¢ rise per gallon for regular gasoline, to $3.856.

Diesel futures indicate another 15¢ per gallon, putting the national average at or slightly above $5.

While the market settled down over the past couple of days, the trend is upward, with a lot of unknowns, imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top