ASPI'S Peter Jennings provides 5 reasons why the US might join the strike on Iran:

. Trump's sudden rush from the G7 to take advice
. Secretary of State Rubio is calling the UK and France
. US defence is saying that they are not changing their “defensive” position (wink, wink)
. The aircraft carrier Nimitz is headed for the Middle East
. Two dozen air to air fuel tankers have been deployed

By this weekend, the US will have a major strike capability in place.

Trump has said that he is losing patience, and that Iran ‘can not’ have a nuclear weapon.

In the meantime, our own leader is continuing a slow “accident” overseas reinforcing his “Airbus Albo” reputation, and looking like a “complete goose” after his rejection by Trump. (Anon).

James Macpherson, Christian pastor...
Does he have and real credentials, or just sees the world through jewish coloured glasses?
religious bias not knowledge.
Might as well just ask some homeless drug addict on meth for their opinion.

"Might as well just ask some homeless drug addict on meth for their opinion."

That's probably smarter than asking Brian Berletic aka Tony Cartalucci, a name that he had to retire because it accumulated so many errors.

ASPI'S Peter Jennings provides 5 reasons why the US might join the strike on Iran:

Maybe you should just read the damn policy paper you shared with all of us yourself?

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf

An Offer Iran Shouldn't Refuse
Persuasion

For those who favor regime change or a
military attack on iran (either by the United
states or israel), there is a strong argument
to be made for trying this option first. incit-
ing regime change in iran would be greatly
assisted by convincing the iranian people
that their government is so ideologically
blinkered that it refuses to do what is best
for the people and instead clings to a policy
that could only bring ruin on the country.
The ideal scenario in this case would be
that the United states and the international
community present a package of positive
inducements so enticing that the iranian
citizenry would support the deal, only to
have the regime reject it. in a similar vein,
any military operation against iran will like-
ly be very unpopular around the world and
require the proper international context—
both to ensure the logistical support the op-
eration would require and to minimize the
blowback from it. The best way to minimize
international opprobrium and maximize
support (however, grudging or covert) is
to strike only when there is a widespread
conviction that the iranians were given but
then rejected a superb offer—one so good
that only a regime determined to acquire
nuclear weapons and acquire them for the
wrong reasons would turn it down.

Chapter 5

Leave it to BiBi
Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike

As in the case of American airstrikes against Iran,
the goal of this policy option would be to destroy
key Iranian nuclear facilities in the hope that doing
so would significantly delay Iran’s acquisition
of an indigenous nuclear weapons capability.
however, in this case, an added element could
be that the United states would encourage—and
perhaps even assist—the Israelis in conducting
the strikes themselves, in the expectation that
both international criticism and Iranian retali-
ation would be deflected away from the United
states and onto Israel. The logic behind this approach
is that allowing Israel to mount the air-
strikes, rather than the United states, provides a
way out of the dilemma described in the previous chapter,
whereby American airstrikes against
Iran could become self-defeating because they
would undermine every other American initiative
in the Middle east, an outcome exactly the
opposite of what a new Iran policy is meant to
accomplish.

karma

http://x.com/A_M_R_M1/status/1935473190421037366
http://x.com/di313_1/status/1935513231033831535