War On Iran: – Saudis Blame Israel – Neocon Grandee Concedes Defeat

[Sunsettommy]

Someday Americans will realize they were misled and lied to over this sad war.

America has lost a lot of influence in the ME due to this poorly conceived war as they badly underestimated Iran.

================

Moon of Alabama

War On Iran: – Saudis Blame Israel – Neocon Grandee Concedes Defeat

Two remarkable pieces appeared during the last days. They are related to each other as both authors are seasoned right-wing strategist who were deeply involved with the George W. Bush administration and its war on Iraq.

May 11, 2026

Excerpt:

The first piece is by Turki Al-Faisal:

He is a grandson of Saudi Arabia’s founder King Abdulaziz and son of King Faisal. He is chairman of the King Faisal Foundation’s Center for Research and Islamic Studies.

From 1979 to 2001, Prince Turki was director general of Al Mukhabarat Al ‘Ammah, Saudi Arabia’s intelligence agency, resigning from the position on 1 September 2001, ten days before the September 11 attacks in which 15 Saudi nationals hijacked commercial American airliners.

Prince Turki subsequently served as ambassador to the Court of St. James’s and the United States.

LINK

[Earl]

The goal, as President Trump has stated, was to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. They reportedly have nuclear dust but no weapon.

An ancillary goal was to stop their state sponsored terrorism. This is yet to be determined but their economy is wrecked. How can they continue to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups?

Without this military action, Iran would already have a nuclear weapon and would be using it for nuclear blackmail or the nuclear destruction of Israel and America.

I don't see that he or any other sane president had any other options.

These things take time. If the far left Democratic/Socialist/Communists in Congress would support the president, it would convince the Islamic fanatics in Iran that they can not wait out the midterms with the hope that the Democrats will win and stop the military action and allow them to have nuclear weapons.

[peter1469]

Iran has nuclear material refined to 60%, which is over triple what is needed for civilian purposes. That 60% can be spun to 90% very quickly. Making a bomb is not a heavy lift these days. Delivery technology is also needed, and we thought Iran only had medium reach. But their missile attack on Deago Garcia shattered that belief. Do they have an even longer-range missile they are keeping under wraps? What they do have can hit most of Europe.

[Old Ridge Runner]

Every war time president has had his armchair generals who think they know better than the people who actually have the skin in the game.

ORR

[Sunsettommy]

Iran has nuclear material refined to 60%, which is over triple what is needed for civilian purposes. That 60% can be spun to 90% very quickly. Making a bomb is not a heavy lift these days. Delivery technology is also needed, and we thought Iran only had medium reach. But their missile attack on Deago Garcia shattered that belief. Do they have an even longer-range missile they are keeping under wraps? What they do have can hit most of Europe.

I see the infatuation of the long known 409 kg of 60% material continues while they ignore the part that they don't have the facilities to make bombs out of them.

I have pointed out several times that Trump never made that case at all, just focus on the legal small pile Iran has and that is all you have. I also have pointed out the inspection reports several times even included Gabbards release of documents stating Iran doesn't have a bomb making program.

You guys ignore it all.

Once again,

Did Iran's Nuclear and Missile Programs Pose an Imminent Threat? No.

March 3, 2026

Excerpt:

U.S. President Donald Trump and senior administration officials have offered conflicting justifications for the renewed U.S. strikes on Iran, including the claim that Iran’s nuclear and missile programs posed an imminent threat to the United States. There is no evidence, however, to support those claims. Furthermore, it is increasingly clear that the Trump administration did not engage in good-faith negotiations with Iran over the past several weeks and exhaust diplomatic options to reach an agreement to limit future risks posed by the nuclear and missile programs.

The absence of an imminent military threat and failure to follow through on diplomatic efforts to address concerns about Iran's sensitive nuclear activities demonstrates that this is a war of choice, waged in violation of international law and without the necessary approval from Congress. It behooves members of Congress to challenge the Trump administration’s justifications for striking Iran and re-assert that under the U.S. Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act only Congress has the power to declare war.

1. Did Iran’s nuclear program pose an imminent threat?

In a Feb. 28 video announcing that the United States attacked Iran, Trump stated that Iran had “attempted to rebuild their nuclear program” and that the strikes will “ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.” But when the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28, there was no evidence that Iran was engaged in nuclear activities that would pose an imminent threat to the United States. Neither U.S. President Donald Trump nor Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented any evidence of an ongoing weaponization effort and, in a March 2 press conference, IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said “we don’t see a structured program to manufacture nuclear weapons” in Iran. The following day, in an interview with CNN, Grossi was asked if “the Iranians were days or weeks away from building a bomb.” His response was "no."

LINK

red bolding mine

[Earl]

The reason that AEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said that “we don’t see a structured program to manufacture nuclear weapons” in Iran is because they were not allowed to see all off Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran still refuses to make unlimited inspections a part of a peace agreement.

Iran’s funding of worldwide terrorism, including assassins sent to America to kill Americans, including the president of the US., was justification for the attacks on Iran, a State Dept. designated state sponsor of terrorism.

If the Iran problem had been addressed in earlier administrations, it would not be extant now.

During negotiations, the Iranians said that they had enough weapons grade uranium to build 11 nuclear bombs.



CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com › U.S.
Mar 3, 2026 — President Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff said that Iran claimed it had enoughenriched uranium to make 11 nuclear bombs before the U.S

[Sunsettommy]

The reason that AEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said that “we don’t see a structured program to manufacture nuclear weapons” in Iran is because they were not allowed to see all off Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran still refuses to make unlimited inspections a part of a peace agreement.

Iran’s funding of worldwide terrorism, including assassins sent to America to kill Americans, including the president of the US., was justification for the attacks on Iran, a State Dept. designated state sponsor of terrorism.

If the Iran problem had been addressed in earlier administrations, it would not be extant now.

Misleading as that problem started AFTER June 2025 when Iran was bombed.

I am still waiting for Trump to make the case which none of you fellas have ever posted, it is all about the Uranium piles which are currently legal and ZERO about actual facilities to make the bombs out of the small 60% Uranium pile.

U.S. President Donald Trump and senior administration officials have offered conflicting justifications for the renewed U.S. strikes on Iran, including the claim that Iran’s nuclear and missile programs posed an imminent threat to the United States. There is no evidence, however, to support those claims.

Where is the freaking evidence!

Why is this so hard for many to understand.

[old dog]

Sunsettommy

Let's say that I agree that Iran is not an imminent threat. Was Hitler an imminent threat to Europe in 1936 when he re-militarized the Rhineland? He was just two years later. Left to their own devices, Iran would have nukes and ICBMs in at most a few years. Their refusal in this war to reach an acceptable settlement in light of devastating destruction proves, if proof be needed, that they will not be rational actors if they get these weapons,

What's the plan Charlie Chan?

[Camp]

I agree. We hear very little about Oct 7th and the role Iran had in funding and provoking.

Iran continues to act as though they control Oman and international shipping lanes. This needs to end.

[ChemEngineer]

Iran's vile leaders have threatened to "teach the united States a lesson."

Look out, US Navy. They are getting their broken concrete pieces ready to hurl at your ships!!!
Be very afraid.

[Earl]

Iran has nuclear material refined to 60%, which is over triple what is needed for civilian purposes. That 60% can be spun to 90% very quickly. Making a bomb is not a heavy lift these days. Delivery technology is also needed, and we thought Iran only had medium reach. But their missile attack on Deago Garcia shattered that belief. Do they have an even longer-range missile they are keeping under wraps? What they do have can hit most of Europe.

With the non-participation of Spain, France, Germany, and Italy, I am inclined to allow them to solve their own problems with Iran.



Iran has engaged in a decades-long "proxy war" targeting American personnel in the Middle East and has sponsored, or planned, unsuccessful violent plots on US interests.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has maintained a consistent strategy of using proxy forces to target U.S. personnel and interests in the Middle East for over four decades, often utilizing groups like Hezbollah and various Iraqi militias. Beyond the region, U.S. authorities have uncovered and disrupted multiple violent plots on U.S. soil, which are linked to the Iranian government or its security apparatus.

Iran is now suffering from their own violent radical Islamist terrorism.

[Earl]

AI

• Compliance and Breaches: While the NPT permits civilian nuclear activities, Iran has been found in breach of its obligations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding declarations of nuclear material and activities. In June 2025, the IAEA declared Iran in non-compliance, and in October 2025, Iran announced it was no longer bound by the 2015 JCPOA limitations.
• Enrichment Levels: Iran has accumulated a stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% purity, which is far beyond the 3.67% limit set by the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) and is a short, technical step away from the 90% required for weapons-grade material.
• IAEA Monitoring: The IAEA has been unable to verify that Iran’s nuclear program is entirely peaceful and has noted that Iran has restricted monitoring access since February 2021. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

In summary, while Iran claims a legal right to enrichment under the NPT, its failure to satisfy IAEA safeguards and its high-level enrichment (60%) mean that a significant portion of its activities are considered in breach of international agreements and, according to the U.S. and other powers, lack a credible peaceful justification.[1, 2]



Quibbling over dates is non productive.

One could question why Iran is in breach of international agreement's.

[Sunsettommy]

Sunsettommy

Let's say that I agree that Iran is not an imminent threat. Was Hitler an imminent threat to Europe in 1936 when he re-militarized the Rhineland? He was just two years later. Left to their own devices, Iran would have nukes and ICBMs in at most a few years. Their refusal in this war to reach an acceptable settlement in light of devastating destruction proves, if proof be needed, that they will not be rational actors if they get these weapons,

What's the plan Charlie Chan?

They are now as they decided that they were going to get bombed no matter anyway along with a NEW hard line war veterans leadership in place now show indication that nuclear bombs will be part of the future which up to the new attacks of February 28 over the small Uranium piles were then NOT considered which are not actually illegal anymore because Trump vacated the agreement in 2018 pretending that Iran was just 2-4 weeks away only 6 years ago from a bomb which the inspection team stated for years afterwards they don't have the facilities/program to make.

Pakistan has nuclear bombs and they are an ally with Iran Shiites as they are Muslims with a shared antipathy of Israel as a dominant Sunni majority.

[old dog]

They are now as they decided that they were going to get bombed no matter anyway along with a NEW hard line war veterans leadership in place now show indication that nuclear bombs will be part of the future which up to the new attacks of February 28 over the small Uranium piles were then NOT considered which are not actually illegal anymore because Trump vacated the agreement in 2018 pretending that Iran was just 2-4 weeks away only 6 years ago from a bomb which the inspection team stated for years afterwards they don't have the facilities/program to make.

Pakistan has nuclear bombs and they are an ally with Iran Shiites as they are Muslims with a shared antipathy of Israel as a dominant Sunni majority.

I wouldn't exactly call Pakistan an ally of Iran. They both oppose Israel but the Paki's are not bat$#!+ crazy fanatics and aren't going to give nukes to Iran or enter a war on their side.

Do you agree that Iran will have nukes and ICBMs in the near future if they are not totally defeated? If you agree, what is the future plan to deal with them? If you disagree, please explain.