Trumps senior counter terrorism officer resigns due to the war with Iran and has said they only went to war because of Israeli pressure, not because of any imminent threat from Iran.

[BerthaPotts]

If that is really the case will this not be very damning for Trump? How will he respond to this?

It has been updated for modern times.

People still assuming Israel has an almost supernatural amount of power.

The drinking blood thing is old hat now so they have moved on to Netanyahu pulling Trump's strings. Because one is stupid and one is smart, apparently.

Absolutely this 👏🏼

So, to be clear, you're telling me what I think?

No I'm talking about how the old tropes of Jews drinking blood etc get updated for the modern age. No one would believe THAT anymore would they.

So the current equivalent is they have superhuman powers to make Trump do exactly what they want. Maybe Netanyahu controls his brain, that seems a lot more believable.

I fully agree.
Kent is perfectly "normal and good" in Trump's realm. Till yesterday, that is.
Journalists keep posting how much they are spending on food and drink and it is insane! He bribes them wiith lobster, for the look of it!

Bibi? Or “the Israel lobby”? Legitimately persuaded by force of argument or “captured”, mesmerized and brainwashed?

Bibi persuading Trump or anyone else is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, and to complain about and discuss. Bibi has his own and his country’s interests to consider and must do what he considers best, including persuading foreign leaders to help him. That’s rational and above-board. If Trump is persuaded to do so because Trump believes it’s in America’s (or his own) interests, more power to Bibi’s power of rhetoric.

Allegations that there’s an “Israel lobby” of Americans working nefariously and deliberately to further the interests of a foreign country over their own, that’s entirely different and wholly illegitimate thing to suggest. And once you get to “captured” then we’re talking about supernatural powers and things only Jews can do.

I think what’s going on here is that you’re so convinced that nobody rational could disagree with your position on the Middle East that if someone does disagree with you then there must be a Jewish conspiracy at the heart of it.

Jews usually gets a capital J, by the way. Christians and Muslims, mutatis mutandis.

Thanks for putting this so eloquently- I see it so often on here... subtle differences in language amounts to so much more than semantics in current climate.

Well Trump did not go before the American people, as he's constitutionally required to do, so we have no idea of what case was or wasn't made to him. I do know what Marco Rubio said. In addition, I also know, as an American taxpayer, that my taxes are funding this fucking shit show, not to mention the absolute clusterfuck AIPAC is making of US elections at all levels, so I don't think it's illegitimate in the least to suggest there's a lobby - there's literally a lobby.

I actually have no position on the Middle East, other than, putting historic issues aside, Israel had the right to defend itself after October 7 and managed to do it in a way that alienated a considerable portion of the world. That Hamas, Bibi and Trump are all pretty much equal, all belong in prison, and the citizens of all three countries deserve better.

I'm jewish, by the way and have close relatives in Israel. They're no more enamoured of Bibi and his wars than I am with Trump.

Well said.

Obviously there’s an Israel lobby, and nobody thinks it’s not powerful and influential. Of course it’s legitimate to believe and say that you don’t agree with it. As it is to say you don’t agree with Bibi. Especially if you’re Israeli, and if you are, there’s a ballot box to make your point. Likewise Trump and his actions, if you’re a citizen of the USA (In contrast with Iran, at present).

It’s crossing a line when you imply that the Israel lobby is trying to influence American policy knowingly and deliberately to the detriment of the USA.

And “captured”? Captured by whom, exactly?

It’s crossing a line when you imply that the Israel lobby is trying to influence American policy knowingly and deliberately to the detriment of the USA.

AIPAC's spending is designed to influence US foreign policy and maintain strong American support for Israel. They are knowingly and deliberately trying to influence American foreign policy it's up to American citizens to decide whether it is to their detriment or not, a lot of what I'm reading from America is that people are not happy with it.

Pro-Israel lobby group lobbies US administration to support Israel. And in other news, it rained, somewhere.

Yes so why did you say it's crossing a line to suggest it? Or am I missing something.

Lobbyists will lobby and try to influence, it's the elected representative that have a price and make a decision based on that rather than what's good for their own constituents who I have a problem with

The line is crossed when someone implies that the lobbying is intended to be to the detriment of the USA.

Contrast:

As an American, I think America's interests are furthered by partnering with Israel in military action against Iran, so that's what the US administration should do.

vs.

As an American, and despite the fact that I believe it's against American interests to partner with Israel in military action against Israel, I am going to try to persuade Trump to do it anyway. Particularly, using my mesmeric Jew powers.

Let's go back to the phrase that caught my attention: the captured by Israel neocons

That suggests the author thinks the second scenario is what is happening. Not the first. That the neocons have to be "captured" - enslaved - controlled by - Israel. That if they were free agents able to speak their own minds, they'd feel differently. Not that the, er, neocons see the interests of the USA and Israel naturally aligned on this point, and are prepared to say so.

I would suggest the lobbyists are not considering what's in the best interest of American constituents that's not what they're lobbying for, they're lobbying for what's in the best interests of themselves.

Edited to add there are many voices coming out of America very unhappy about it but as I've said it is their elected representatives they are angry with for not acting in what they perceive to be their best interest

If we've moved away from they're lobbying because they've been brainwashed by Jews then that's progress.

Well I never said that and I didn't see anyone else say that either so not sure why you needed to bring it up on this thread.

Sure they did:

the captured by Israel neocons

Perhaps you didn't understand my point after all.

Yup. That was me.

As an American, and despite the fact that I believe it's against American interests to partner with Israel in military action against Israel, I am going to try to persuade Trump to do it anyway. Particularly, using my mesmeric Jew powers.

Oh, please. Get off the high horse.

Particularly, using my mesmeric Jew powers.

That's all your reading. It could just as easily be, using Trump's greed and stupidity to get him to do what I want.

Just as Putin does.

Let's go back to the phrase that caught my attention: the captured by Israel neocons

Yup. Because that's what they are.

Particularly, using my mesmeric Jew powers.

That's all your reading. It could just as easily be, using Trump's greed and stupidity to get him to do what I want.

It could just as easily be lots of other things, but it isn't. You could have described things lots of other ways.The one thing you did pick, however, has the Protocols embedded through it like a stick of rock. A lot of people reading this thread do see that; if you still can't, then I can't help you any further.

Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence, provided a written statement to the recent senate Intelligence Committee meeting that the Iranians had made “no efforts” since the U.S. bombing of their nuclear facilities “to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.”

Then during direct questioning by the committee-she declined to answer whether Iran had posed an imminent nuclear threat. The lack of an affirmative surely tells us the answer?

Status of Iran’s nuclear programme (June 2025)

Since 2019, Iran is considered to have been incrementally violating the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, commonly referred to as the ‘Iran nuclear deal’), which was agreed between Iran, the UK, China, France, Russia, the US, and Germany in 2015.

Under the terms of that deal, Iran accepted limits on its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.

Iran is currently enriching uranium to 60%, which is significantly beyond the 3.67% permitted under the JCPOA and far beyond enrichments levels considered necessary for civilian purposes.

Weapons-grade uranium is enriched to 90%. Iran’s overall stockpile of enriched uranium (at varying degrees of enrichment) is currently more than 40 times that permitted under the JCPOA, and it continues to expand its enrichment
capabilities with the installation of additional, more advanced, centrifuges.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) noted in May 2025 that while enrichment is not forbidden in and of itself, “the fact that Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon State in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60% remains a matter of serious concern” (PDF).

Iran’s nuclear ‘breakout’ time (the time taken to develop enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon) is estimated to be almost zero (PDF).

The IAEA considers Iran to have enough nuclear material for nine nuclear weapons if further enrichment to 90% is achieved. However, ‘breakout’ time does not account for the technological capability and time required to successfully construct a deliverable nuclear weapon (weaponisation).

Nuclear experts widely agree that Iran has not, to date, moved towards weaponisation. It is considered that such a step would take several months, or even years.

In June 2025, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution which, for the first time since 2005, formally found Iran to be non-compliant with its nuclear safeguards obligations (PDF).

In response to the IAEA resolution, which Iran said was politically motivated, it announced a number of measures intended to accelerate its nuclear programme.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10284/

In response to the IAEA resolution, which Iran said was politically motivated, it announced a number of measures intended to accelerate its nuclear programme.

The measures that this refers to were outlined in a joint statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Atomic Energy Organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated June 12th 2025:

As previously stated, the Islamic Republic of Iran has no choice but to respond to this politically motivated resolution.
Accordingly, the President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran has issued necessary directives for launching a new enrichment facility in a secure location, and replacing first-generation centrifuges at the Martyr Ali Mohammadi (Fordo) enrichment center with advanced sixth-generation machines.
Additional measures are also being planned and will be announced in due course.

https://en.mfa.ir/portal/newsview/768213/Joint-statement-by-the-Ministry-of-Foreign-Affairs-and-the-Atomic-Energy-Organization-of-the-Islamic-Republic-of-Iran

which explains why Israel & the US ‘obliterated’ nuclear facilities last June.

@Twiglets1

“Since 2019, Iran is considered to have been incrementally violating the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action”

Trump withdrew from US from the JCPOA and imposed sanctions on Iran in 2018.

The diplomatic efforts to revive an improved version of the JCPOA this seemed to going well prior to Israel and U.S. choosing to initiate this war. That information is also available in the press. See quotes by Oman FM.

Even before the bombing of nuclear facilities in 2025, U.S. intelligence showed there was no imminent threat of a deliverable nuclear bomb.

The CIA director as well as the US director of National Intelligence evidence this week also raises doubts about an imminent threat.