Trump: "Might have forced Israel's hand on Iran"

What a ridiculous comment. Did the thousands of Iranian protestors who got murdered by their own government also die to distract us?

Don't you care about them at all or the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons? Maybe Iran were developing high purity uranium to distract us from the Epstein files.

Is every war in the world started just to protect some high up leaders from personal scandals that might have been coming their way? Or might the reasons be extremely varied and complex?

It’s about the Epstein files. People re dying to distract us.

People say 'It's all about oil' as if that completely invalidates a war. Natural resources are always a major strategic part of any hot or cold war.

China is heavily dependent on cheap oil imports from Iran. They allow it to consistently undercut other economies and are helping it on its way to becoming the new world superpower.

In turn, the Iranian regime gets money and Chinese technology which allow it to survive sanctions and continue its campaigns of oppression, terrorism and proxy wars.

In turn, if Iran became the China-dependent dominant power in the Middle East it would allow China to control the Suez canal and the Strait of Hormuz, effectively controlling much of the world's economy.

So, yes, a lot of this is about oil, but who has oil and who gets oil is important.

Trump doesn't care about Iranian people, protesters or otherwise.

Why he has started this? Who knows but saving his own butt is not beyond him.

What a ridiculous comment. Did the thousands of Iranian protestors who got murdered by their own government also die to distract us?

Don't you care about them at all or the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons? Maybe Iran were developing high purity uranium to distract us from the Epstein files.

Is every war in the world started just to protect some high up leaders from personal scandals that might have been coming their way? Or might the reasons be extremely varied and complex?

I just thought it was funny tbh.

Trump being petulant because he didn't get his own way.

The best thing Keir can do is laugh it off if anyone mentions it, which is what he probably will do.

Sorry I got confused .... haven't seen today's PMQs.

How did she do?

I guess it comes down to whether you consider it an insult or a compliment

If you have watched Hegseth's latest press conference then I think it is the latter.

Ah well ... I doubt we've heard the last of Starmer being compared to Churchill even if Kemi didn't bring it out on this occasion.

Terrible but at least she had the grace no to have some fun with that particular comment.

Sorry I got confused .... haven't seen today's PMQs.

How did she do?

He had made the comment before today's PMQs

I think Starmer came off better than her actually- but Trump hadn’t made the Churchill comment then so I think she will play on that next PMQs.

Two things can be true. Iran can be problematic, and Trumps response to that can be problematic. Taking out their leader with no idea who will follow is not beneficial to the Iranian people. Making unsubstantiated claims about their nuclear capabilities in order to justify bombing them does not help the Iranian people. If you can name a single country in history who has benefitted from the US taking out their leader without having a plan in place of how to rebuild that nation, maybe you’d have a good point. But there are none.

Who has signed the UN treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear weapons? Iran (among 190 other States). This opens them up to having inspectors come in to see what they have, what they are doing, what they are developing etc. You know who hasn’t? Israel. They refuse to conform or deny whether or how many weapons they have, where they are, what they are made of. They will not let any of their nuclear facilities be inspected by the IAEA.

Israel is the only country in the Middle East that we have seen credible evidence of possession of nuclear weapons (given to us by an ex nuclear technician who worked there for a couple of decades), and yet we keep hearing how Iran or Iraq (or anyone else who has oil and/or minerals we’d really like) is an imminent nuclear threat?

None of this is about protecting Iranian people.

'will have some fun with that'

How do you think she did at PMQ's?

I think Kemi will have some fun with that on PMQs.

Though actually, I do agree with Starmer's stance at the moment.

Accusing people of being conspiracy theorists and antsemites is getting old. People are allowed to disagree with you while being reasonable people.

And if you think Trump gives a shit about the Iranian people… well I don’t think you do at all. And even if he did, let’s examine the US record of bombing, attacking and invading people into positive regime change. From Vietnam through Central America to Afghanistan. Shit on shit on shit.

He is lying. It’s quite clear Israel were going to act regardless and he got in line.

just as Rubio said.

I was responding to a comment another poster made about the Epstein Files @BoredZelda so I don't understand your post tbh. It seems to be something copy and pasted not responding to my actual post that you quoted at all.

What a ridiculous comment. Did the thousands of Iranian protestors who got murdered by their own government also die to distract us?

Don't you care about them at all or the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons? Maybe Iran were developing high purity uranium to distract us from the Epstein files.

Is every war in the world started just to protect some high up leaders from personal scandals that might have been coming their way? Or might the reasons be extremely varied and complex?

Two things can be true. Iran can be problematic, and Trumps response to that can be problematic. Taking out their leader with no idea who will follow is not beneficial to the Iranian people. Making unsubstantiated claims about their nuclear capabilities in order to justify bombing them does not help the Iranian people. If you can name a single country in history who has benefitted from the US taking out their leader without having a plan in place of how to rebuild that nation, maybe you’d have a good point. But there are none.

Who has signed the UN treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear weapons? Iran (among 190 other States). This opens them up to having inspectors come in to see what they have, what they are doing, what they are developing etc. You know who hasn’t? Israel. They refuse to conform or deny whether or how many weapons they have, where they are, what they are made of. They will not let any of their nuclear facilities be inspected by the IAEA.

Israel is the only country in the Middle East that we have seen credible evidence of possession of nuclear weapons (given to us by an ex nuclear technician who worked there for a couple of decades), and yet we keep hearing how Iran or Iraq (or anyone else who has oil and/or minerals we’d really like) is an imminent nuclear threat?

None of this is about protecting Iranian people.

What a ridiculous comment. Did the thousands of Iranian protestors who got murdered by their own government also die to distract us?

Don't you care about them at all or the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons? Maybe Iran were developing high purity uranium to distract us from the Epstein files.

Is every war in the world started just to protect some high up leaders from personal scandals that might have been coming their way? Or might the reasons be extremely varied and complex?

Why is it anti semitic to disagree with the current government of Israel? Is it anti Islamist to disagree with the current Iranian regime? Is it anti American to disagree with the actions of President Trump?