Democrat Narratives on Iran Based on Politics and Lies
Democrats and their crony press are proffering a humongous whopper about the war in Iran and President Trump’s alleged settlement agreement. They insist that Iran is winning. American is gaining nothing.
This falsehood flows directly from their original propaganda that the war was unnecessary because Iran posed “no imminent danger” to the United States. Yeah, right. That only works if you discount the 600 American’s the Tehran regime killed over the past 47 years, plus the thousands wounded and maimed, and the scores of hostages they took and tortured. The never-Trump crowd claims that nothing of substance has been achieved or can ever be achieved. They assert that Trump has agreed to settlement terms that leave the situation precisely as it stood before the first military strike.
That grand lie rests upon a series of smaller lies, each one more detached from reality than the last.
- The left wing establishment first argues that the same regime remains firmly in place and will continue its unhinged terrorist behavior as before. Really? Virtually every senior leader of the old regime is dead. That is accountability for the millions of people murdered by the deceased reprobates. The new Supreme Leader is seriously crippled and disfigured and has not been seen or heard from in public. Democrats reveal their own lack of common sense. On one hand, they say that the old regime still controls everything. On the other hand, they warn that the new regime is far worse than the old. Someone clearly failed Logic 101. Whoever leads Iran today, these are not the same people who directed the regime before the war began. They may cling to many of the same hateful principles – and have to be dealt with — but they are not the departed old guard and the old regime. (Hmmm. One wonders why Israel has stopped knocking off the new guys. Perhaps the task of regime weakening has already been accomplished with ruthless efficiency. But I digress.)
- Democrats claim that Trump will leave the regime capable of renewing its terrorist activities throughout the region. This claim of continuity ignores the successful conduct of the war itself. Trump did not stumble into a quagmire as the Democrats predicted. Instead, America and Israel executed a swift, targeted campaign that dismantled command structures, destroyed air defenses, and neutralized the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in record time. Iran’s navy and air force have been essentially obliterated. Its defense systems have been rendered ineffective, and the ammunition inventory has been greatly diminished – with few options for resupplying. The Iranian economy is on the verge of total collapse. Funding international terrorism in the future? Hell, they cannot fund a lunch break at McDonald’s.
- The left had assured the public that any conflict would drag on for years and cost thousands of American lives. That prediction now lies in the same graveyard as the Iranian generals who once plotted against the West. The war exposed the hollowness of Iranian power – and now there is a temporary ceasefire. It demonstrated that decades of bluster and proxy warfare could be answered with decisive force rather than endless meaningless diplomacy. For decades, American presidents have negotiated against a weak nation – and did not know it.
- The Democrats next insist that the supposed Trump agreement is no different from the Obama agreement he tore up. Au contraire. The old deal merely delayed Iran from building nuclear weapons for fifteen years while allowing the regime to keep its enrichment infrastructure intact. Trump demands a permanent ban and the complete removal of all enriched material from Iranian soil – and permanent inspectors. The Obama agreement said nothing meaningful about Iran exporting terrorism or developing long-range ballistic missiles. That thorny issue was kicked down the road to vague future talks that never materialized. Trump calls for the total end of Iran missile program. More importantly, Trump has already destroyed or severely limited the tools of terrorism by crippling the Iranian military. The mullahs can no longer fund or arm their proxies with the same impunity.
- Another absurdity peddled by the left is the notion that the war showed the regime that it can damage the world economy by blocking the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranians always understood that potential. They have brandished the threat of closure for decades as a cheap negotiating tactic. The only similarity between past bluster and future reality is that the Strait of Hormuz was an open international waterway not under Iranian jurisdiction before the war — and it will remain so afterward. Thanks to the destruction of Iranian naval capacity, the regime lacks the means to make good on its threats even if it dared to try. There is no way that it can indefinitely seize control of the Strait,
- Finally, the Democrats maintain that the United States, Israel, and the free world have gained no benefits from the conflict. One must marvel at such selective blindness and political spin. Is the elimination of maniacal leaders who destabilized the region and murdered millions over four decades not a positive development? Is holding them accountable not long overdue justice? Is rendering Iran incapable of building atomic weapons not a historic accomplishment? Is stripping the regime of its ability to subsidize global terrorism not a strategic victory? Even as direct Iranian support for terror has been eliminated, its proxy organizations — Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis — have been greatly diminished. The region breathes easier. The threat of nuclear blackmail has receded.
Of course, all the Democrats’ and left wing establishment’s claims and judgments remain purely speculative. No one yet knows precisely how the negotiations or the war will finally conclude. It is like calling the final score of a baseball game in the sixth inning. The left rushes to declare defeat for Trump because it cannot bear the possibility that his bold approach might succeed in the face of their abject failure over decades of appeasement-style negotiations. And yet, they want to return to that process.
War was necessary and long overdue. It was conducted with precision, and its outcome may yet reshape the Middle East for the better – a more peaceful Middle East. The partisan Trump-hating crony press can spin all it wants. Reality has a way of eventually punching through bogus partisan narratives.
So, there it’s.
Larry, Unfortunately for you, the vast majority of Americans do not agree with you. I realize that you struggle at every turn to defend the autocrat wannabe Trump, but more and more people are realizing his ignorance (and yours) and pulling away from him (and you). Trump campaigned on being the peace president-yet another lie by this fool. While I would never say the Iranians are winning this conflict, the war is not over, and is still causing pain for billions (yes billions) of people worldwide. Trumps leadership is nonexistent, he was drawn into this conflict by netanyahoo, who, unlike the US, probably did have a reason to fear Iran. As you are well aware, I am not a fan of Israel (you refer to that as antisemitism, but that is just another sign of your willful ignorance), but they could probably eliminate much of this threat if they would honor their treaties and stop the Palestinian persecution/murders-they have done nothing as far as attempting to live at peace with their neighbors. So no, you are wrong, we were not justified in spending billions, killing thousands of Iranians not to mention a few Americans in order to force our will on Iran-though they are not winning, we haven’t ‘won’ either and even worse have lost the support of the majority of the world in trumps reckless invasion, something that will hinder the US for years to come….
Mike f as in faggot I see that you like to root against America. Like Dunger.
Stupid, sanctimonious, sack of shit Sethdung and his bend-over-buddy Bendung, are lying fools who never can back up what they say. Just big chicken shits that way.
Sethdung and Bendung have never proven the lie they said I told before. Over a week and they got NOTHING.
Now they say falsely that I root against America’s War of Choice in Muslim lands. They cannot not prove that true because it’s a lie and they are liars. Deplorable liars. Come on boys; it’s two against one, your favorite even-odds; you have the advantage in numbers, now let’s see you use your pea-brains to support what you speak. Show me rooting against America or be the toads I am pretty sure you will prove yourselves, once again, to be.
Awww! Dunger doesn’t really mean that
Mike f as in fag I noticed that you question trump’s ability to lead the country Kumbreath Harris would have destroyed the country by now. So you and Dunger keep rooting against the country. You are evidence that stupidity can’t be fixed
Remember what I said about chaos? Well, you got it, right here in Potomac City. Remember what I said about a simple objective, then a simple strategy, declaring “mission accomplished” for leveling the place to gain a modicum of justice for our fallen, an idea I thought Trump/Larry should have gone with from day one. If he had just gone in, levelled the place, and then communicated why and what’s going to happen next, I believe more Americans would be in support of that. But no. Now look at Larry’s new list in the cartoon, 8 items, many new. It’s a objectives clusterfuck list of the first order. You can never accomplish it, the objectives call for different strategies, end-games, and monitoring. It’s a kitchen sink plan; not the best method to guarantee success.
In review of his excursion objectives, perhaps over a dozen now, Larry seems to be tossing mud at the wall to see what sticks and has created a list that’s impossible to deliver due to varying strategies and end games required to reach his desired multi-point outcome. Regime change, imminent threat, and nuclear proliferation each require different strategies, results, and end games. Imminent threat dictates you remove the threat; regime change means you not only remove a lot of officials, but then you must police the entire country until it “grows up” and can govern itself. Nuclear means none of that but you must have boots on the ground to dig and dig and dig.
The fact is, what Trump called for FIRST was unconditional surrender. The current strategy does not seem to get us that goal. Larry ignores that objective and Trump seemingly has forgotten it as both list a litany of grievances as objectives now. Now Larry says “imminent threat” is the top dog objective. Haven’t we removed that now? You know: obliterated the nuclear program and materials, destroyed the tools of war, destroyed the military, killed all the leaders, didn’t we get er imminent threat done yet? At least as good as it gets?
In a previous lifetime, like last week, Larry told us regime change was the top dog, now it’s imminent threat. He’s told us the regime has been changed, so why we still there?
On the imminent threat, there is no imminent threat to America. Trump said they were two weeks from the bomb, that’s his imminent threat; Larry does not mention that factoid now, he’s old, he’s forgotten. Kidding. Apparently, he’s backburnered it. Good idea since it’s not true, they were not two weeks from the bomb and we would know even if they just tried to get the buried Uranium. And we know instantly when anyone, anywhere in the world, tests a bomb.
Larry tells you it’s 600 Americans killed by Iran and their proxies that’s the imminent threat. Not to be callous, but if they are dead, the threat is not imminent. In truth, these deaths happened over 47 years; that’s not imminent either. He first said it was 1,000. I noted that was based on an updated DOD IED body count without a second source, a report, or a database and the number could be as low as 600 which IMO is still too high. This threat affected Americans, made us less safe, yet the country of America was never in any imminent danger. Larry conflates threats to individuals overseas with threats to America, the entire country. That’s a false equivalency and faulty logic.
I do believe we deserve some justice for these fallen. I have said this SHOULD have been Trump’s main, and perhaps only, objective. I believe if Trump, from day one, had said justice for our fallen is the objective and Trump took the exact same actions, he could declare mission accomplished, give Iran the message to stop and tell them it only gets worse if they do not modify behavior, much worse, and then bring our kids home safely, victoriously, heads held high for job well done.
Instead, war-dog Republican Hawks like Larry have created a ever-evolving, never-ending plethora of reasons and rationales to go to war. On top, you have shifting priorities for the different objectives, a list so large that they will never succeed, and we will never really know why the Hell we are even over there when we have our own “imminent threats” right in our own backyard.
Larry, I daresay there’s rarely a war you don’t want to be in. I, on yet another other hand, rarely see a war I want to be in. Even ones that look good in the beginning tend to lose meaning as the years and decades roll on. So many lies, like WMD’s, Domino Theory, Two-weeks until the bomb, babies ripped off incubators, they’re willing to die for democracy, let’s make them like America, —– have all plagued us in past wars.
We have a war, a big one, in Ukraine. How can we defund that war to pick a new one in Iran? Seems disingenuous to enter a new war in a Muslim nation, to free the Muslims who we are not sure want to be a democratic republic, when you defund the War to free the Christian Ukrainians who will be a democratic republic, if we help them..
Bush Sr. could see the issues with a broad-based set of objectives in war. Eisenhower could see that. Guys like Clinton and Trump go to war when poll numbers down. Johnson escalated one to look manly during an election year. Nixon expanded it secretly hoping for a back-door success. And Bush Jr, well, he just lied to look better than Jeb to Daddy. And in this one, somewhere between imminent threat being justice for past bad deeds, let’s execute the leaders so the people can rise up, topple the regime, and it’s only two-weeks until they drop the big one, has caused us to enter a war to gain unconditional surrender.
Again, I hope the blockade works, I hope we use diplomacy to end this, I hope a diplomatic “deal” is achieved. I hope our kids come home safe and sound. My guess is we end up with the JCPOA ala Trump rebranding, where, like Nafta, we call it better than Obamas, sigh a big sigh of relief, and move forward to the next crisis, what crisis.
Frank Danger… The level of your ignorance and lack of critical thinking is astounding. You say the 600+ who have been killed do not represenet an imminent threat. THEY are not the immanent threat and never were. It is the folks in Iran who have been killing them TO THIS DAY, who are the imminent threat. They are determined to continue to kill in the future. THAT is the immanent threat. Geez. You just cannot be that stupid. And take that as a compliment.
Larry, sorry, I am not ignorant, I’ve been tested. My critical thinking is just fine, and calling me stupid is not a compliment, no matter how personal you feel you need to get. I blame your DDS. I said the death of 600 in the past is not an imminent threat to our present in direct response to your illogical claim: “that only works if you discount the 600 American’s the Tehran regime killed over the past 47 years, plus the thousands wounded and maimed, and the scores of hostages they took and tortured.” You spewed it, own it. Now, as is your way in spewing your plethora of ever-evolving objectives and priorities, you turn and modify your claim to: “THEY are not the immanent (sic) threat and never were. It is the folks in Iran who have been killing them TO THIS DAY, who are the imminent threat.” Bwhaat? It’s not the gun, but the person? No shit Sherlock, we got that the first time. You say: “They are determined to continue to kill in the future.” Now explain how “in the future” is an imminent threat as in how can a future threat be deemed imminent? Hoirsted on your own petard eh Larro?
Not to mention that this is not what Trump initially claimed as imminent threat although you have never been shy to tell us what he really means as the top Trump-whisperer around here. In fact, Trump claimed they would have the bomb in two weeks; that’s the original imminent threat. He calls that “intolerable.” And it’s a lie too; two weeks my sweet billydoots. From Trump’s address to the nation: “For these terrorists to have nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat. The most violent and thuggish regime on earth would be free to carry out their campaigns of terror, coercion, conquest and mass murder from behind a nuclear shield. I will never let that happen, and neither should any of our past presidents.”
Mike Johnson, after his briefing, confirms: “I got all the briefings. We all understood that there was clearly an imminent threat that Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability and they were building missiles at a pace no one in the region could keep up with,” said Johnson.” He added he is convinced that if the president had waited “we would have mass casualties of Americans, service members and others, and our installation would have been dramatically damaged.”
BUSTED
Larry wants the imminent threat to be based on past actions, past behaviors, concluding that Iran might hurt our citizens in the future. A future threat is not an imminent threat. Imminent threat is our metric, not future threats. He has no proof of an imminent threat of their pending attack. I note Iran has attacked Americans overseas, they have attacked our soldiers in battle. They have not attacked Americans in America. They are a very bad actor, and the chief exporter of terrorism. Obviously, the attacks on our embassies and ships are attacks on America. The last embassy attack was 2019, seven years ago. Apparently not imminent for Trump’s first term.
I have no issue with punishing Iran for these actions. Not sure our response needs to be unconditional surrender and regime change. Larry’s first priority was regime change, he has tempered that now.
Where does this stop because the list of bad actors like Iran starts with Russia where Larry’s Trump has defunded our support in the Ukraine war. North Korea, one of Trump’s buddies, Syria that Trump says is our socialist friend now, Cuba that looks to be our next war, and Pakistan who Trump is having run our negotiating talks with Iran.
Larry, you are showing us Trump’s plan of “if you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there,” pitching almost a dozen objectives in your war of choice. The big ones, regime change, imminent threat, and nuclear tend to morph daily in terms of priority, starting with regime change. Now you focus on imminent threat that you define as past acts against Americans portending the future. I am sure you will roll around to nuclear again soon.
IMO, the imminent threat now is the Hormuz Strait which was open before our war of choice. And I still say Trump, and the nation, would have been better served if he had just done what he did and stated if was in response to the 600 Americans who perished at Iran’s hands and we will do it again, harder, if they do not modify their behaviors. This shit that Larry spews is CYA mud at the wall and nothing is sticking.
When we ask our kids for the ultimate sacrifice, our objectives must be clear, concise, and spot-on truthful. Not spin spew of ever changing objectives and priorities.