U.S. Secretary to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, appears on CBS to discuss the political angles to the U.S. military operation against Iran. There was some critical questioning about whether Iran was factually capable of sending a missile from Iran to the U.S. base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Ambassador Waltz seems to question the reporting on their capabilities. Video and Transcript Below:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s Charlie D’Agata reporting in Arad, Israel. We’re joined now by the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, and it’s good to have you here in person.
AMB. MIKE WALTZ: Thank you, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So Ambassador, on Friday, the president tweeted, “The Hormuz Strait will have to be guarded and policed, as necessary, by other Nations who use it — The United States does not!” And then last night he threatened that if Iran doesn’t fully open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours from the time of his post, the US will “hit and obliterate” their power plants, starting with the “biggest one first.” So which is it, is the U.S. opening Hormuz by force or having others do it.
AMB. WALTZ: Well, I think it can be both. It’s not necessarily mutually exclusive. I am glad you are having NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on. I think at his urging and his leadership, we have now seen Italy, Germany, France and a number of others commit to help with this effort.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –After combat operations end.
AMB. WALTZ: Particularly since, particularly since so much energy is going to Europe out of the strait. We just had the Japanese Prime Minister commit to portions of her navy and the Japanese navy, 80% of what is coming out of the Gulf is going to Asia. So we are seeing our allies come around as they should, but at the same time, the president is not going to stand for this regime, as it has threatened and tried for five decades to hold the world’s energy supplies hostage under its, its genocidal intent.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So some allies like the United Kingdom have talked about things like surveillance, anti-mining, anti-drone support for the United States. But in that appeal from the United States, I should say in the Strait of Hormuz, but not until active combat ends. To be clear, that is what we are talking about.
AMB. WALTZ: And the president has been clear too. He’s going to continue to pound Iran’s capabilities, its missile, its naval and its drone capability. Margaret, we have to take a step back. We have seen what it’s doing now in terms of attacking ports, airports, civilian infrastructure, hotels, resorts, and what it is trying to do to global energy supplies. One can only imagine if it had a nuclear umbrella. One could only imagine if Iran achieved its aim to test. Then you have Saudi Arabia wanting a nuclear program, then perhaps the UAE, Turkey or others. And when people ask why this matters to our security here at home, it should petrify every American that you could potentially have a nuclear Middle East awash in weapons.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, they are not enriching. They weren’t enriching leading up to this. This is what U.S. officials have testified to. But just on this point about what the president–
AMB. WALTZ: Well they couldn’t enrich because of Operation Midnight Hammer that obliterated their ability to enrich. They had every intent to continue.
MARGARET BRENNAN: They do have a nuclear power plant, Bushehr. It’s actually their largest energy plant. It’s a civilian site.
AMB. WALTZ: It is actually not their largest energy plant. It is about one, about one gigawatt. They have larger ones that are gas, fired outside of Tehran. But just case in point, yeah.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, but- but in this case, in that clarification, the reason I am asking you is when the president says he is going to bomb energy infrastructure, civilian energy infrastructure, is he going to bomb a nuclear power plant, or is that off the table.
AMB. WALTZ: Well, I would never take anything off the table for the president, certainly not on national television. However, there are larger plants. There is one outside of Tehran. There are others outside of other cities that are gas fired, thermal powered. I think the important point here is to understand the IRGC, a declared terrorist organization, not only by us–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, in Europe too.
AMB. WALTZ: –but in a number of European countries, controls a huge swath of Iran’s critical infrastructure, their economy and certainly many of their governing institutions. And so to the extent we are degrading their military capability and their defense industrial base, all options should be on the table, and the president has made that very clear.
MARGARET BRENNAN: How do you ensure that this doesn’t constitute a war crime, which the UN Secretary General said an attack on energy infrastructure could be. How do you make sure this is not mass punishment for innocent civilians?
AMB. WALTZ: Well, I think you know, I would encourage and will encourage the Secretary General to point out the twenty to thirty thousand Iranians that the regime massacred at scale, the civilian infrastructure that they are attacking–
[CROSS-TALK STARTS]
MARGARET BRENNAN: –No one is endorsing that but how do you make sure this doesn’t hurt–
AMB. WALTZ: — And when you, but when have a regime that has its grips on so much critical infrastructure, that is using it to further not only the repression of its own people, to attack its neighbors, and in contravention of UN sanctions, to march towards a nuclear weapon, then that makes those legitimate targets.
[CROSS-TALK ENDS]
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, well, you know that in many of these places, water desalination is linked into that energy infrastructure, civilian infrastructure. This is why it is a question of it being a war crime.
AMB. WALTZ: I have no doubt that the president, the Pentagon, their team will ensure that what they target is geared towards the military infrastructure of Iran. But I have to tell you, they deliberately blend, have a long history, everything from hiding weapons under schools and hospitals to using power plants and other critical infrastructure to not only power their military but their civilian, and they deliberately blend in contravention of international law.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about what we saw overnight with these missile attacks. The Director of National Intelligence testified last week to Congress that Iran could not develop a militarily viable ICBM, intercontinental ballistic missile, before 2035 if it attempted to pursue that capability. Yesterday, the IDF said Israel said that Iran did fire an ICBM. Has this changed the U.S. assessment?
AMB. WALTZ: I am not familiar with the IDF assessment. I can tell you-–
MARGARET BRENNAN: They said what was fired at Diego Garcia and them was an ICBM.
AMB. WALTZ: I can tell you the UK just condemned the firing of an intermediate range ballistic missile at Diego Garcia, that same type of missile Iran has lied about in terms of its development, said they were not developing yet. They just lied. Yet they just did it. Not only could it hit Diego Garcia, it could hit capitals in Europe. And Margaret, the technology, the booster technology that Iran has been hiding behind its space program. I don’t think we are going to see Iranian astronauts on the moon anytime soon. That this space program has been hiding that technology. You have the re-entry technology to marry the two really does not take very much in terms of technological development. And we just have to you know, thank God the president is taking action now and stopping this march towards a fully fledged nuclear program, instead of waiting until after it’s developed, like we saw in North Korea under the Clinton administration say, surprise, we now have, a full program.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So a difference there in the assessments. But let me ask you about our polling.
AMB. WALTZ: It wouldn’t be the first time you have different intelligence assessments, by the way, by different intelligence communities.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Absolutely. The administration has not convinced, we’ve seen it in our polling, the majority of Americans that this war was necessary. Sixty six percent of Americans believe conflict with Iran is a war of choice. Sixty percent disapprove of the US taking military action against Iran. Fifty seven percent of Americans think the conflict is going very or somewhat badly. How do you tell the American people they’re wrong?
AMB. WALTZ: Well, I can. I could quote a whole slew of polls that show, for example, self-described MAGA Republicans give the president a 100% percent approval rating–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –his base is in there, absolutely–
AMB. WALTZ: A majority say the number one job of the commander in chief is to keep Americans safe. I can point here to an NBC poll, 90% of Republicans, broader Republicans, support Trump’s effort to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities. And I have to point out, no one should be surprised here. President Trump has said Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon 2016 campaign, 2020 campaign. Since 2024 he has said it seventy four times out in the public space.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But if he is going to commit any kind of ground troops or boots on the ground. Don’t you think he needs to persuade the majority of American people, not just his base?
AMB. WALTZ: I think the president will keep all options on the table to secure these objectives. And as a veteran, as a parent, I thank God he is not kicking the can like so many administrations have for fifty years, until this is a catastrophic problem where we have very limited options to deal with, much less an entire Middle East potentially awash in nukes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador Walz, thank you for your time this morning.
AMB. WALTZ: All right, thank you.
[END TRANSCRIPT]
America First, President Donald J Trump and his MAGA agenda. Peace and prosperity
hegelian dialectics political binary system
“Hegelian dialectics, often simplified as thesis-antithesis-synthesis, is a framework for historical and conceptual evolution through conflict resolution. In political terms, it is frequently used to describe a “false left-right paradigm” where opposing sides (binary system) create conflict to drive policy changes, eventually merging into a new, higher-level synthesis or consensus.”
Key Aspects of Hegelian Dialectic in Politics
Application to Modern Politics
While Hegel focused on the evolution of consciousness and the state, the application to modern political systems is often viewed through the lens of a “false binary”.
Another possibility is how many Congressional are under permanent blackmail with compromising photos.
#1 Priority… MASA… Make America Safe Again…
No going to happen with a Bunch of 12ver Mullahs running around with a Nuke and Cutting OFF the Straights, when they Don’t get what they want: Which is TOTAL Annihilation of the Jews and Israel…
So, NICE Try… Trying to Guilt Shame MAGA.
But those of us who Attended his Rallies heard him say:
NO NUKES FOR IRAN, EVER…
I WOULD HAVE KEPT THE OIL
Nice projection. You seem to not understand what longtime Treepers understand about the Uniparty sabotaging America First patriots from Goldwater through PDJT. Have a very MAGA day!
I get the Whole “Treeper” UniParty thing… and I Concur..
But… We are Where we ARE.!!!
Iran Had to be Dealt With…
Do you NOT Concur with the Fact that the Ayatollahs would Use a NUKE on Tel Aviv.???
Margaret, in my favorite Chevy Chase phrase… it’s called negotiation and consequences, Iran acts up out gets out line, boom. We had 3 kids and a fair amount of cousins hung out with us growing up. Number ONE rule when kids were little, never negotiate with terrorists. I did not make idle threats or negotiate bedtimes, baths or peas. Margaret doesn’t have the chops to negotiate the price of a used car.
Outstanding job Waltz.
🤜✝️🤛🕶️
Interesting that they have separate assessments. Hmmm. they keep saying that Bibi is calling the shots but here we see that the Trump team doesn’t rely on IDf assessments, they make their own.
I’ve seen some pretty compelling evidence that says the opposite.
Who knows?
But I don’t being in this situation.
I pray for peace and a quick resolution.
However I’m not holding my breath
Every interview is a snapshot in time and every minute in war is a snapshot in time. Maybe IDf reports are sometimes consulted when there’s a gap in our information. Maybe sometimes the U.S. leadership gets pissed at Israel and says “we don’t trust you on this one”. Maybe our strategy is the same until conditions on the ground dictate a pivot. Maybe decisions are being made minute depending on what happened 30 seconds ago. I just criticized the President for writing conflicting things within 24 hours on Truth Social, so I’m not saying Rah! Rah! Trump. But the deep need of people like Brennen to play Gotcha Trump! 24/7 makes her truly suck as a journalist.
She’s a p.o.s., displaying that condition in nearly all of her interview’s with whomever.
Probably a Mudslime POS
Oh yeah? What’s the compelling evidence you claim that you’ve seen? Please specifically spell it out and provide a few credible examples. Regards, Former U. S. Naval Flight/Intelligence Officer
Several podcast with
John mearsheimer
Where he explains why no other President wanted to follow the project for new American century plan to invade 7 countries including Iran
The Duran has also given some good info on this front
It has been reported that Lindsay Graham tutored B Netanyahu on how to approach the President to get the war they wanted
Marco Rubio said we had to attack because Israel was going in and we didn’t want to be attacked after that
It has been widely war games that the strait of Hormuz would be closed (which PDT claimed he wasn’t advised that this would happen)
Even George Bush didn’t want anything to do with war w/ Iran
There is much more and I will go back and try to do a fair job in documentation.
Am also interested in being fair minded to Joe Kent and Tulsi Gabbard (who said there was not an imminent threat months ago). The administration has been taken over by neocon voices and most dissent has been removed
Maybe you want to buy into the idea that PDT is playing 5 d chess. That bubble was burst w me when he failed to use true the vote and others in the first term or any future terms to help with voter fraud.
Tina peters is still rotting in jail
How much more would you like?
More opinions paraded as facts? None please. Let’s analyze one example of one “view” you’ve posted here today: “Middle Eastern leaders are losing trust in the U.S.”, shall we?
Let’s ask AI what middle eastern leaders are saying about losing trust in the U.S.
Answer:
“Initially hesitant, Gulf nations have become more vocal as Iranian missiles and drones increasingly target their countries”.
“Saudi Arabia: The Kingdom expelled Iran’s military attaché and embassy staff on March 21, citing “repeated Iranian attacks” on its territory. Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan stated that trust with Tehranhas been ‘shattered’” (Whoa! Losing trust in Tehran?! Not the U.S.?! That sounds like the opposite of “a view” you shared.
UAE: The UAE Ministry of Defence has reported intercepting hundreds of Iranian projectiles. Officials have termed these “terrorist attacks” and a “flagrant violation of national sovereignty,” leading to the closure of the UAE embassy in Tehran.
“Shift in stance: While Gulf leaders initially barred the U.S. and Israel from using their airspace for offensive strikes, reports now suggest several are urging the U.S. to continue striking until Iran’s military capability is significantly degraded” (that sounds like encouraging, not losing trust, just saying)
“As the war has progressed, the “approval” among some leaders has become more pronounced, albeit often behind the scenes:
* Anger at Iran: Iranian missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain have “shattered” trust in Tehran
– [ ] Leaders in these countries now condemn Iranian “aggression” more fiercely than the initial U.S. strikes [wait?! They’re trusting the U.S. MORE and not less?!) But wait?! You said they’re LOSING trust in the U.S. What if that was “a view”, but one held by held by avowed Trump haters and not ME leaders?!)
Primary source cited by for AI response: The Atlantic Council. Who are they? What does AI tell us about them?
–
“Atlantic Council have historically leaned toward Democratic candidates and committees. In recent cycles, approximately 76% to 80% of such donations went to Democrats.Policy Focus: The organization actively supports policies often associated with the Democratic platform, such as Climate Solutions and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. However, it also maintains a strong focus on national defense and strategic security, which are traditional Republican priorities. In early 2026, the Hegseth’s DOD announced it would limit institutional ties with several think tanks, including the Atlantic Council.”
OK, so a U.S. think tank that is clearly not a mouthpiece for the Trump Administration doesn’t hold the “view” you floated. Based on the above, I’m going to guess that the “view” you floated is being pushed by US or European people who oppose the operation, oppose war in general and/or are thoroughly convinced Donald Trump can’t tie his own shoes, but probably not ME leaders.
But let’s not guess.
As long AI has come to put all of us in a he digital gulag, we may as well use it to get more informed. So I asked AI for any quote from any ME leader regarding a loss of trust in the U.S. Nope. None.
I asked if any commentators had stated that ME leaders are losing trust in the US. AI found nine-Cato Institute, Professor X, Former Ambassador Y-ask AI yourself if you want to know whose opinion you are amplifying here. Then I asked AI if any of the 9 commentators had cited any statements from any ME leaders to support the “ME leaders losing trust in US” view. Here’s the result:
“Current information as of March 22, 2026, shows that most direct, named quotes from Middle Eastern leaders focus on a “shattered” trust in Iran rather than a loss of trust in the United States. However, several reports cite anonymous officials expressing direct frustration with U.S. reliability.”
“Direct Quotes on Shattered Trust (Targeting Iran)
The most explicit public statements regarding “shattered trust” are directed at Tehran following its retaliatory strikes on Arab neighbors.
* Saudi Arabia: Foreign MPrince Faisal bin Farhaninister stated on March 19, “What little trust there was before has completely been shattered,” specifically referring to Iranian hostilities.
* United Arab Emirates: Senior adviser Anwar Gargash labeled Iran a “central threat axis” and argued that the conflict would drive the UAE to actually deepensecurity ties with Washington, rather than sever them.”
“Anonymous Quotes on Frustration with the U.S.
While top-level ministers maintain public support for the U.S. alliance, anonymous officials have provided quotes to major outlets that align with commentators’ observations of a trust deficit.
* Lack of Notification: Officials from two Gulf countries told reporters they were “disappointed” and “angry” that the U.S. did not provide advance notice of the initial February 28 strikes, leaving them unprepared for the immediate Iranian backlash.
* Inadequate Defense: A Gulf official quoted by KWTX stated there is a belief the U.S. is prioritizing the defense of Israel and its own troops while leaving Arab partners to “protect themselves” with rapidly depleting stocks of interceptors.”.
There you have it, the sum total of facts to support “Middle Eastern leaders are losing trust in the U.S.” is two anonymous “officials“ who were frustrated they did not receive advance notice of U.S. strikes [reminds me of a question a Japanese reporter asked recently] AND one anonymous official who was concerned the US was putting Israel’s interests ahead of Arab interests. Wow! An anonymous Arab feeling like the U.S. was defending Israel more his own country. We’re all waiting with bated breath for which deeply insightful view will you float next; an anonymous Israeli official threatening to unfriend an unnamed Arab on Facebook?
While the AI results pasted here are long, the research literally took under 5 minutes. Thats how long it would’ve taken you to see if you were sharing useful information about Middle Eastern leaders views, or just amplifying made up bullshit.
Nice
I appreciate pushback!
I have been on this site since 2014 during the Jessica chambers murder.
Admittedly my algorithm is probably different than many who post, but I feel like it’s good to bring some different perspectives to what feels like to me a Donald Trump is the messiah who can do no wrong echo chamber. It is obvious to anyone with eyes he does not have control of the IC nor many other parts of the control structure of this government. That being said who could? He has done more than anyone could imagine but it won’t be enough and it’s dang sure far from perfect.
That is probably not a fair assessment either but I quit posting for a while due to that feeling.
I am non interventionalist and I think we are definitely intervening in many areas not in the best interest of saving this country
40 trillion in debt and a war that threatens the mid terms and domestic recovery.
I am in a business and have many conversations with manufacturing, energy, freight and other sectors. No one feels good about this economy even before the war.
I also don’t want to send my progeny or yours to die for sometime g you nor I can truly agree is in the best interest of sending more blood a treasure for. Our track record of doing so lately truly sucks
Whm I got pushback from Michael I politely thanked him and asked some questions I truly hope he can answer
Have a great week!
I have seen that stated by multiple people who study history and geo politics for a living. Could they be wrong? Sure. I have not used ai for any posts I’ve made besides a bio on pat bucahan.
It is speculation because no one knows for sure what will happen. However the theory makes sense. Israel has a not very well hidden plan called the greater Israel project. One of the elements they would need is for the U.s. to evacuate the Middle East and leave a power vacuum.
Do you think I made that up?
I appreciate the civil discourse-more civil than mine, I’ll admit. I’m not seeking to debate every point you make and accept that we may agree on many of them. This is a forum where we’re all free to opine, vent, worship Trump, hate on him, critique our leaders, and share recipes. It’s a water cooler at the office for those of us who don’t have one anymore.
It’s usually clear when someone comments as I did recently, that JamesCarville was off his meds again, that I don’t know him or treat him or offer that as fact or news. When something is advanced as a fact or news or an opinion someone else holds, I think it’s reasonable to expect fair attribution for the information. To me “there is a view that our actions in Iran have caused middle eastern leaders to lose trust in the U.S.” is chicken shit. If it’s your view, say “my view is …”. You won’t get any pushback from me for sharing your view. If it’s someone else’s view you’re amplifying, say “Joe Jones said on his podcast today that …” so that readers can think about your comment in the context of what they know about Joe Jones. Saying “there is a view that” does 2 things I don’t appreciate. 1. It tries to add validity to the view and protect you from readers dismissing it as your opinion or Joe’s opinion. 2. “There’s a view that” puts the onus on the reader to find out if that’s a widely held view, a trending topic among middle eastern leaders, or something the you thought of in the shower this morning.
I’ve been here a spell myself. Long enough to remember when Sundance announced TCH hit the 100,000 subscriber mark. I don’t know what that number is now, but I suspect it rivals MSNow viewship any given Monday afternoon. When you comment to an audience of that size and you try to ease in a view stated by 9 left leaning commentators to suggest there are actual Middle East leaders saying they just lost trust in the U.S. you are one of two things. 1. You’re arrogant enough to think hundreds of thousands of people should do your research about whose view you’re amplifying or 2. You’re a left leaning troll trying to soft sell a fringe opinion of fringe, left-leaning commentator as an actual thing that middle eastern leaders are expressing. The fact that you’re adding “I’ve been here since 2014 just reinforces the troll vibe for me. Twelve years is a long time to be in this right leaning community without knowing other readers generally respect one another enough not to try to pass off an opinion of a leftist
commentator (or perhaps as many of 9 of them) who have publicly opined on a subject as “a view”, without attribution. It sure seems like you just showed up with a lot (and I mean a lot) of “see, Im one of you-now let me see if you’ll find my opposing opinions more palatable. Maybe Anthropic pivoted from military propaganda to Troll 2.0, the troll who had what you had for lunch and asks about your grandma.
imminent threat is such bs. because it is always stated out of context Imminent threat of flying a missle half way across the world and putting an atomic warhead down the soilpipe vent at the Whitehouse pretty small. Having a quantity of hihgly enrich urainium in sufficent quanity to built a single device Quite possible. Having an underground bunker big enough to assemble a device from parts absolutely. Loading it on a truck and driving a circutous route to a capital city easy peasey.
Okay assume no bomb grade materail ( wishing in one hand) load up a missle with yellow cake and let the saudis or the israelis intercept it in there air space. Now that my friends is an imminent threat and if you dont get it its time to check out the other hand and do a face palm
I can appreciate your credentials.
Are you telling me the neocons and Israel have no input in this?
Do you think we haven’t given Iran some degree of power to say when it’s over?
If this drags out how do we keep from sending in troops?
How do we save the domestic policy and the midterms?
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603220618
I remember CNN’s assessment and polling that showed Hillary winning in 2016.
It Depends on What’s on the WarHead…
IF they “Lighten” it Up, they can even Reach London…
Won’t be an “Explosion”, More of an IMPACT.
Which would still be pretty Substantial, falling from Space.
If attacking energy infrastructure is a war crime, they should hang Zelensky for attacking Nordstream or shut up.
A 4km-capable ballistic missile isn’t all that scary without guidance. I can build a bottle rocket that can reach my neighbor’s house from a thousand yards, but I probably can’t hit the house because there’s no guidance. The only concern I have is if the mad mullahs add a payload of radioactive material and create a dirty bomb, but that’s nowhere near a nuclear weapon burst.
We’re running out of stuff to blow up, and the iranians know that. Their attempt to drag the entire arab world into the conflict failed and the iranian people seem unwilling to seize the country. I am against us seizing it.
I hate to say it, but we are on the verge of declaring victory and leaving.
Maybe PDJT47 can be pursuaded by this neocon advisors to land on an aircraft carrier and declare, Mission Accomplished! (/sarc)
They should hang Z regardless.
I agree but what about Lindsay Graham and former John McCain and the cia?
Miss Lindsay is so low she can walk under a snakes belly without taking hat off.
we can dig McCain up for the party
Another view is we have potentially weakened our relationships with the gulf Arab states and future trust in what our protections offer
Good point about Nordstream.
4000-four thousands – kilometers……
= 2,400 miles.
That hero for the ages G W Bush…declaring “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!” at the beginning of his FOREVER WAR was very telling!
Well PDT said we have already won the war but that was two weeks ago.
What does an actual win look like?
We could theoretically win and still lose.
“the iranian people seem unwilling to seize the country.”
The Iranian people are unarmed.
The Iranian army is still mostly intat.
Do you want them to commit suicide?
Exactly
So those earlier demonstrations were fake? Because they were unarmed then and the army was more “intat” than it is today, right?
the president and any thinking person has told them to shelter in place shrapnels a bitch
Margaret taking the side of the Iranian Clerics and the Democrats, but I repeat myself.
The filthy swine’s hajib must be at the cleaners….
Her hubby would get mad if she didn’t.
Lindsay Graham is a terrible human
Likely demon possessed
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2035751629836710159
He’s awful but her right on Iran sorry
So we should send in troops?
https://usa.mfa.gov.ua/en/news/53586-prezident-vruchiv-derzhavni-nagorodi-senatoram-dzhonu-makkejnu-ta-lindsi-gremu
Graham and John McCain in Ukraine rallying actual nazis
Thanks for the link. If only terrible described him to his actual depth – start out with words beginning with the letter “a” – abhorrent, abominable, atrocious, and continue on throughout . . .
Iwo Jima? Would Graham care about casualties that grim? Apparently not.
AMB. WALTZ: Well, I can. I could quote a whole slew of polls that show, for example, self-described MAGA Republicans give the president a 100% percent approval rating–
I find this statement to be questionable.
I talk to dozens of people every week for work and other opportunities.
I am seeing many who for sure voted for President Trump all 3 times are not happy with the situation. You can’t question the polls on one end and not the other.
Sure.
I see polls that the Democrat Congress are losing their base, and that 2/3 of Democrat voters want Voter ID immediately.
Voter ID is the one the all sides agree on and it can’t get passed tells me all in need to know about colkittos dialectic
I am one of those who voted for Trump 3 times and am furious at his getting us into this fiasco. He broke his campaign promises made numerous times without any good reason to attack a country who posed no threat to us. He has continually lied about the situation over there like the Straits being closed for just one example. Heaven forbid he send more of our troops to their needless deaths. I could say much more but those who care about truth probably know it already. That does not mean I now support democrats. Both parties are deplorable as far as I am concerned.
Trump promised he would never allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb….i guess we should just wait and get nuked and say later that TrumpWasRightAgain.
im a 3x Trump supporter and I know no one that doesn’t back PotusTrump.
Of course, it is better to create ones reality rather than doing double checks on realities provided by our politicians before blindly believing them. We all know they would never lie us into a war over WMD or any other phony created crisis. Oh wait, they already have used the WMD before Trump even became a politician.
Question. If Trump was stopping Iran from getting a bomb, why did he murder the Supreme leader of that country who placed a moral edict forbidding them from developing nuclear bombs?
Speaking out of polls, I have dismissed polls since the Clintons. I have never looked back or quizzed myself after voting TRUMP. However McCain, Dole, Romney… I am shamed.
Same!
I’m proud of my Trump votes but I have to admit I am concerned about these recent developments.
We have to fix this domestic economy and not lose midterms and ain’t nothing happening in Iran helping that
If you’re referring to the present, very necessary, military move on Iran, the inflation numbers, etc., I’m not happy with them either. However, inflation has remained above what it should be because of the fool controlling the Federal Reserve; Not President Trumps’ doing, at all. As for Iran, those lying muslim murderers have been taking pieces of the U. S. A. (not only Israel, but U. S. citizens & U. S military member’s lives and body parts for 47 + years). This time, the threat of nuclear disaster from that satanic crowd is so close, whether delivered by missile, a ship into one of our ports, or overland truck within the mideast, etc., etc., a responsible man, President Trump with a great military, guided by strong intel, had to take action. I have been more than casually familiar with all of which I am writing here, for decades. Regards, Former U. S. Naval Flight/Intelligence Officer
Well put Michael and thank you for your service.
sear you seem to be repeating your self we get it you think trump and everything hes done is not great so you have set the stage when is the great reveal of your plan to take down the evi orange man
polls are interesting but there is a limit to them for not so obvious reasons.
(noting: I do not place ANY significance to any polls for any issue or circumstance to be clear…they just are not reliable.)
let me explain my opinion about polls.
its very similar to chat room, and blogs. What people are willing to write isn’t also what they are willing to say face to face. People pontificate, project, and usually have opinions that are aimed at raising their stock/perception…up votes. On the other hand, when no one is around and no one is looking, they might have an entirely different view and opinion. It’s sort of a weird is the cat dead or alive. If no one is looking anyway, what does it matter to pretend anymore…dead cat in one instance, alive in the next.
there is a kind of saying about people. We have three people all clambering to get noticed.
the person you think you are
the person others think you are
and…the person that NO ONE KNOWS YOU TO ACTUALLY BE.
humans are incredibly complex in how we steer our answers, our opinions, or doubts and our dependencies based almost always on how they will be received and what kind of benefit can be derived as a result. Only fools tell the truth at their own expense is another way to think about this.
polls are similar. they present a “safe” way to be truly anonymous, and be masked up with no consequences for responses you might not want others to know about. Maybe you find it also curiously relaxing to answer a poll in a way that you know that you would never actually make or act upon in a real world circumstance, where others would judge you, call you out for not having a “proper” view or opinion or answer. There is zero cost to answering a poll in any way you choose. none. This is the problem with polls. It’s virtual by definition. the answer is essentially unreliable, because there is no investment.
another example to fully understand this. You can play poker and learn the game well over time. You can rack up some incredible stacks of Monopoly money that has no value whatsoever. Because that is how most people learn poker. with fake money. But you will never truly learn poker until you put some money in the game. Real money. Then everything changes and everything you thought would work, doesn’t. And that is sort of how this works with polls. You have no dog in the fight.
reminds me of a joke. If you want 150 opinions, ask 100 people!
God Bless America
Brennan doesn’t interview. She sits in front of her guests and makes combative statements. Walsh held up well to her snark, innuendo and declarative statements that she doesn’t even pretend to pose as questions.
Given her background, Margaret Brennan is basically a Islamist shill. Except possibly among anti-Israel progressives, she has no credibility.
I thought Waltz did an excellent job. He talked right over Brennan and all I heard from her was impatience with a hmm, a hmm, she wasn’t listening, just wanted to get another question in, which you could barely hear. Lol
Ambassador Walz does an admirable job of representing President Trump keeping a reasonable measured approach to the constant interruption and bickering by Ms Brennan. The one thing that jumps out at me is that the real enemy is sitting across from him trying to attack President Trump at every breath. How can this disgraceful woman even exist?
WHY oh WHY do the they even go to be interviewed by Brenna and Welk?
because its a fantastic opportunity to have communications to a broader section of the public that lets say limiting it to only truth social.
besides, its fun to destroy the narratives and force them embeciles to show it live in front of anyone in America ..Americans that I will remind are not necessarily thrilled these days with the obvious flaws and bias that happens in the main stream media.
I believe one particular factor for decision to select his key officials, President Trump looked for authenticism and the ability to square off and talk down to the media meatheads and be prepared in advance for the kinds of gimic and tricks they use to confuse issues and present false narratives. That doesn’t necessarily take great skills, but it is also something we have not really seen done well in a long time, before now.
God Bless America
For those that do not completely understand Socrates and dismiss it as just another AI, where humans I put the data they want to receive the outcome would be correct. However, Socrates monitors the globe and writes 1000 reports daily which no human being can do. The CIA wanted the Source code an Martin said no. So, he spent 11 years in prison on trumped up charges, (none would know unless they actually read the documents) until he turned over the source code.
Socrates is the only True AI in the world designed back in the 70’s/80’s, it’s never been wrong. For me, 15 years now. It’s followed by some of the wealthiest people in the world because it doesn’t have n opinion, it only states the facts..
Anyone who Dismisses this is a fool. This is not some scare tactic I’m stating, it’s real. MaineCoon would certainly back me up and anyone else who’s studied Martin over the years.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/war/socrates-update-on-iran-war/
Missiles pointed at Diego Garcia doesn’t mean the even had a prayer of hitting… anything. I guess the Brit’s will settle for war with Iran…if they can get people in Europe scared.
Substituting ‘air’ for a warhead load – and the rocket reaches a higher altitude (and eventual range) during the boost phase of flight …
57% of Americans think this is going badly?!? Who are these people and what are they smoking?
Who are these people? – Democrats
What are they smoking? – loco weed / hash hish / meth / grass / etc.
The question you have to ask is, who’s the audience CNN are trying to reach? The ‘poll’, referenced at the end of the interview so it’s the most memorable item, is designed to reassure leftists that once again they are in the majority (critical for keeping the herd together before the mid-terms) and shaping the opinion of LIV’s.
The problem for the MSM/Democrat axis is that the President will be conducting the final phases of this operation well before most people even think about the mid-terms, so their perceptions, as to its conduct, will largely be dictated by the outcomes not push-polling. It’s similar to the press coverage of OIF, as soon as the usual injection of friction on the operation occurred, and the USMC got temporarily log-jammed, the reporters were making allusions to the stalemate in the Vietnam War, and referencing polls claiming falling public opinion. A little over a week later the US was conducting ‘Thunder Runs’ into the capital.
The Left, and by extension the DS, desperately want the President to fail because they know that a perception of victory in Iran, blows their mid-term strategy of OMB apart, and threatens to accelerate the cold-civil war in their increasingly fractious ranks. Something the media are desperately trying to stop, by comforting the rank and file with ‘57% think x is going badly wrong’, after the split MAGA campaign failed dismally, again referenced by Brennan herself with, ‘His base is in their absolutely’.
Clarification.: You have to understand missile terminology to understand what they are talking about.
Mr Waltz did not say that “4,000 km is not verified”. He said that he doesn’t know about the IDF’s assessment but “the UK did condemn Iran for firing an Intermediate range Ballistic missile to Diego Garcia”. This base is about 4,000 km away from Iran.
I will explain it. But the idea that a missile was fired to Diego Garcia base is independently stated by the Department of Defense of the UK. And separately by the IDF.
1. ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) – 5,500+ km range. Often 10,000 km. (3,418 – 6,214 miles).
2. IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) – 3,000 km – 5,500 km. (1,864 – 3,481 miles)
3. Two Stage ballistic missile – One stage is to lift it off the ground and second stage is to push it to a distance. The IDF mentioned “two stage missile” so I am mentioning it.
What we know Iran has:
1. Sejjil Ballistic Missile: ranging 2,000 km – 2,500 km (1,243 – 1,553 miles). This is a two stage missile with solid fuel – advanced.
2. Khorramshahr 4 Ballistic Missile : 2,000 – maybe 3,000 km. (1,243 – 1,864 miles). One stage.
3. Ghadr 110 Ballistic Missile : 2,000-2,500 km.
4. Emad Ballistic Missile : 1,700-2000 km.
5. Shahab 3 Ballistic Missile : 1,300-2,000 km.
They don’t have a confirmed IRBM nor ICBM.
If they reduce the weight of the warhead and change the trajectory to fly lower they could make one of their better missiles go 4,000 Km.
If we are talking about a two stage missile then they would take their Sejjil, optimize the trajectory and reduce the payload to make it go 4,000 km.
The UK Government said that one missile was intercepted by a US Warship and the other fell short.
I guess I need to know what they are firing at us. Was a good drill.
Here is one for more reality of how it looks.
https://rumble.com/shorts/v76q0uw
Great post
Thanks.
Yes if they reduce the payload and put a small amount of nuclear material, you have a nuclear bomb within range or even a dirty bomb or one that disintegrates and spreads radioactive material. I remember when Chernobyl blew a friend living in Sweden had to take Iodine because the radioactive cloud blew across Sweden/Stockholm
Either the missle got there or it didn’t!
That Commie cheerleader kept after him hoping for a wrong answer. It failed.
She better be prepared to be out of a job soon.
nah
you really think there’s accountability on the Left?
not as long as they’re singing from the Lefty hymn book
Why do talk show host repeatedly go after Trump and his administration?
The alphabet TV Stations have to know they will lose audience size when they slant the news.
We want to moderate Iran to join this century. It’s like left-wing folks think “Death to America” is just a campaign slogan!
I don’t understand the Republican messaging.
Brennan expressed the lie that “Iran was not enriching” uranium because some IC people told her so. Why didn’t Waltz push back HARD that Iranians boasted to Litnick that they had over 400 kilos of 60% enriched already and that meant they could have 11 nuclear warheads in weeks.
I saw somewhere a few days ago that the only media even mentioning that was Fox, and the rest were burying that to justify their lying narratives that there was no “imminent threat” to us or the world.
The Trump administration has their “top men” all over the legacy media talking about the Iran war. One of their strongest points should be to debunk this lie that there was no “imminent threat” in EVERY appearance.
But they’re not.
Waltz was poorly informed on the nuclear issue as were the two real estate investors negotiating on America’s behalf. It is not to Trump’s credit that he had no person competent in nuclear energy much less diplomacy involved in the talks.
The amount of uranium Iran had was the amount we agreed they could have in the NPT. Iran was also offering to turn it over to the US. Iran has a system of nuclear power plants. Those require enriched uranium to operate. Iran also has to produce enriched uranium so to produce medications that require radio isotopes such as cancer treatments. US sanctions have forbid them from buying the required uranium on the market. Thus enriching uranium for these purposes has always been understood. It has also been misunderstood and misused by our politicians. That happened with Witcoff and Kirschner. When Iran told them they had x amount of uranium, the two bozos went to running to Bibi in immature theatrical hysterics that Iran just admitted they were building a bomb. I saw them in the news!!
As important is the fact that Trump and Netanyahu had been preparing for another attack on Iran since the 12 days war. Bibi had made numerous trips over here to work on it with Trump. Trump had been moving military assets into the area. There was plenty of talk in the news as to whether or not Trump would attack leading up to him actually pulling the trigger and doing it. This is known as an Act of Purify and is another of the war crimes that Trump committed in his war.
Did they “misunderstand” that Iran has 60% enriched uranium which they boasted about? I am not an expert in nuclear physics, but why would we have allowed them to have 460 kilos of 60% enriched when it is my understanding that 5% enriched would have been sufficient for energy and medicinal purposes, which we agreed to provide them free for the long term.
I doubt that Witcoff, real estate background not withstanding, would have gone screaming to Bibi about 60% with no knowledge of the implications w/o running that past real nuclear experts first.i
7:44pm Eastern… MONDAY
Lights better be Going OUT in IRGC Iran.
NO T.A.C.O. Tuesday for Trump…
Get IN, Get IT OVER WITH.!!!
Send in the MEUs to Bandar Abbas.
Once we have the Airport Secure; Fly IN the 82nd Airborne.
Set Up a BeachHead around there.. Expand Out to Control the Straights…
Get the “Son of Shah” ON-Land and let him and his Followers MARCH to Tehran,
Like the Guy From Syria did.
Then we will have Plenty of time to Excavate the 60 and 20% Enriched Uranium.
Oh, and China will be Calling us for Oil and Gas.!!!
24:17:43 and Counting Down… Tik-Tok… Tik-tok
I’m skeptical of whether it really was a long-range missile and, if so, maybe it was shot off by someone else. Seems like Iran, China, our Marxists want to portray that Iran still has a lot of threat. They also want to take out Tulsi, the DNI. Seems fishy to me. On a side note, Trump should really increase tariffs on China for supporting Iran, which has killed many Americans.
Lebanon PM: Iranian Guards commanding Hezbollah
Lebanon Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are commanding Hezbollah’s operations in the group’s ongoing war against Israel.
The Lebanese PM condemned the Iran-backed terror group for firing rockets at Israel and dragging the country into the war in the Middle East.
In an interview, Salam said: “It was declared that this war was in retaliation for the assassination of [Iran Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei, so this means this war was imposed upon us.”
Referring to the incident in which an Iran-made drone hit a British base in Cyprus earlier this month, Salam said “that was the Revolutionary Guard, which is present and, unfortunately, is managing the military operation in Lebanon”.
“These people have forged passports and entered the country illegally,” he added.
The Lebanese Government has this month banned any activity by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the country.
Beirut also imposed a ban on Hezbollah military activities and called on the group to hand over its weapons to the state.
“We are committed to the decisions we have made and we are working to implement them,” Salam said.
—
I also read that some IRGC had taken off their uniforms and changed their appearance and crossed the border to Afghanistan. Hopefully since Pakistan and Afghanistan are at odd,s , Pakistan will deal with them
Q: Has Margaret converted to Pisslam?
Q: Is she bringing up her kids as Mudslimes?
Because in Islam children are the property of the father and are brought up as mudslimes.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3sL6hO4aQXtDpYjlCd6hkCqNPBrcTNBvrBA&s
GENOCIDES, CULTURAL GENOCIDES, AND ETHNIC CLEANSINGS UNDER ISLAM
It’s NEVER been just about the Jews. Throughout its history, various Islamic caliphates, empires, and armies have engaged in armed conflict with numerous religious and ethnic groups.
These conflicts occurred during the rapid expansion of the 7th-8th centuries, the medieval Crusades and Ottoman periods, and various regional conquests in Central Asia and South Asia.
Key Groups Fought in Early Islamic Expansion (7th–8th Centuries) Arab Polytheists (624–630 CE):
The initial conflicts led by Muhammad in the Arabian Peninsula, including the Battle of Badr (624) and the Battle of Uhud (625).
Jewish Tribes of Medina (624–628 CE): Banu Qainuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza were expelled or defeated in Medina.
Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Christians) (634–11th Century):
Campaigns in Syria, Egypt, and North Africa (e.g., Battle of Yarmouk 636, Sieges of Constantinople 674-678, 717-718).
Sasanian Empire (Persian Zoroastrians) (633–651 CE): The Muslim conquest of Persia, featuring the Battle of Qadasiya (636) and the Battle of Nahavand (642).
Berbers (Traditional Religion / Christians) (647–742 CE): Fought during the conquest of the Maghreb, led by figures like Uqba ibn Nafi and Kusayla / Kahina (resistance ended around 701).
Visigoths (Catholic Iberia) (711–732 CE):
The Umayyad conquest of Hispania starting in 711 under Tariq ibn Ziyad.
Franks (Western European Christians) (732 CE): Fought at the Battle of Tours.
Turgesh Turks and Sogdians (Buddhists / Shamanists) (673–751 CE):
Campaigns in Central Asia (Transoxiana) to take Bukhara and Samarkand, culminating in the Battle of Talas (751) against the Tang Dynasty.
Conflicts in the Medieval and Ottoman Periods (10th–19th Centuries) Shia Ismailis (1025 CE):
Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Ismailis in Sindh.
Armenian Christians (1064 CE): Seljuk Turks under Alp Arslan captured Ani.
Assyrian Christians (1310, 1380s-1405):
Massacred in Irbil (1310) and targeted by Timur (Tamerlane) in the Near East.
Hindu and Buddhist Kingdoms (India / Afghanistan) (11th–18th Centuries):
Campaigns by Mahmud of Ghazni (998-1030), Bakhtiyar Khilji (1197), and various Delhi Sultanate / Mughal rulers. Jains (1100s–1600s):
Persecution and temple destruction in India. Serbs (1371, 1901):
Fought against Ottomans at the Battle of Maritsa and later targeted in Kosovo.
Yazidis (1500s–1800s): Targeted for forced conversion by the Ottoman Empire in Iraq and Syria.
Alevis (1514 CE): Targeted in massacres by Ottoman Sultan Selim I.
Sikhs (1658 onwards): Persecuted by the Mughal Empire under Aurangzeb.
Mangalorean Catholics (1784–1799): Forced onto a death march and persecuted by Tipu Sultan.
Assyrian and Armenian Christians (1894–1923): Massacres and genocide under the late Ottoman Empire.
Modern Era Conflicts (20th–21st Centuries) Bulgarians (1913 CE):
Murdered and expelled from Thrace by the Young Turk government.
Hazara Shias (1888-1893): Targeted by Pashtun forces in Afghanistan.
Hindus / Christians (Pakistan/Bangladesh) (1947–present):
Various sectarian conflicts and anti-minority riots. These conflicts involved a mix of religious, political, and ethnic motives, often driven by the expansionist policies of the caliphates and empires involved, or regional sectarian tensions.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Genocides,_Cultural_Genocides_and_Ethnic_Cleansings_under_Islam