Posted on 06/17/2025 12:30:11 AM PDT by Words Matter
The anti-Israel, pro-Iran faction on the right lost Trump. Whether or not America takes part in the fighting, the administration is complicit in the battle against a rogue, terrorist state. And the isolationist “woke right” is furious about that.
Jonathan S. Tobin. (June 16, 2025 / JNS).
Who is losing the most in the successful strikes on Iran by the Israeli Defense Forces? At the top of the list is, obviously, the Islamist regime itself. It has had its terrorist infrastructure in the form of the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as well as what is left of its military. And, of course, it has suffered significant damage to its nuclear facilities, in addition to its oil and gas industry, which is the foundation of the despotic government’s already-shaky economy.
We don’t know yet what this will mean for the future of the theocratic regime that has maintained power since it took over the country in 1979. And it’s still far from clear whether the credibility lost by the way that the Israeli Air Force has been able to operate with impunity, destroying the government’s assets and leaders, will be enough to shake off their tyrannical grip on a nation that desperately needs to replace them.
The other big loser in this struggle is a “woke right” faction of the conservative movement in the United States that opposes Israel and has been fervently opposed to any action to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. More to the point, this rag-tag group of talk-show hosts, right-wing influencers and social-media gurus who can’t seem to mention Israel without betraying their antisemitic tendencies has lost President Donald Trump.
Or to be more precise, they never really had him. The Tucker Carlson factor..
Describe what being an “active member of the war” would look like to you.
“I just watched that movie Chernobyl and it doesn’t seem like the best strategy to bomb nuclear facilities.”
Uranium is far less radioactive than reactor waste.
What does “far less mean?” I don’t know anything about it. Just asking.
What does “far less mean?” I don’t know anything about it. Just asking.
Tucker is quite right in that the USA should not be a militarily active participant.
My best wishes for success go out to Israel.
The best means of resolution of the conflict is gradual decapitation of the regime and not bunker busters as the Iranians can simply dig a bypass tunnel to the deep underground centrifuges.
Fallacy of the false dilemma. We don’t have to align with either side.
“1 in 5 Florida homes has an elevated radon level.”
“A radon disclosure statement is required in all Florida real estate transactions.”
https://www.floridahealth.gov/environmental-health/radon/_documents/fl-radon-map.pdf
Tucker is not right in that he does not understand our real military involvement and supports an ant-Israel agenda across the board.
They ARE after us and have been for decades.
This has been frequently stated and chanted at the highest rungs of Iranian politics for over a generation. Their leaders have repeatedly stated "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". It is an act of belligerence and certainly a breach of the principles that formed the United Nations.
“Uranium itself is radioactive, though with the major isotope U-238 having a half-life equal to the age of the earth, it has a low activity. U-235 has a half-life one sixth of this and emits gamma rays as well as alpha particles. A lump of pure uranium would give off some gamma rays, but less than from a lump of granite. It is a heavy metal, and, thus, is chemically toxic, being comparable to lead. Uranium metal is commonly handled with gloves as a sufficient precaution. Uranium concentrate is handled and contained so as to ensure that people do not inhale or ingest it.”
https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/Documents/Pubs//320-079_uranium_fs.pdf
“A lump of pure uranium would give off some gamma rays, but less than from a lump of granite.”
Being anti-involvement in a middle east conflict someone else started without consulting you doesn’t mean you’re pro-Iran.
It seems like that reference is to basic uranium. The Iranian facilities don’t just have uranium lying there. It’s a uranium enrichment site. According to Newsweek and the Atomic Energy Commission it is dangerous. https://www.newsweek.com/israels-strike-iran-causing-radioactive-contaminationiaea-chief-2085412
“”I call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint to avoid further escalation,” he told the IAEA Board of Governors on Friday. “I reiterate that any military action that jeopardizes the safety and security of nuclear facilities risks grave consequences for the people of Iran, the region, and beyond.”
The Natanz nuclear facility, about 150 miles south of Tehran, is one of Iran’s main uranium enrichment sites. It includes a large underground plant for high-volume enrichment and a smaller above-ground facility. The IAEA says Iran has been enriching uranium there to 60 percent purity, close to weapons-grade level.”
When it comes to Israel, Tucker is ambivalent or worse. Let’s not forget that a sizeable portion of the Democratic party is anti-Israel. Tucker is very moderate by comparison.
Sometime back, Tucker identified three flash-points that could lead to WWIII: Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan. That sounds reasonable. He said US interests were only affected in the case of Taiwan.
I think Tucker and Jeffrey Sachs have the facts that NATO expansion has taken place and it would be reasonable for Russia to see it as a threat.
How Tucker can be ambivalent about Jews and Muslims is a mystery to me. How many Christian nations were conquered by Muslims in the middle east? Isn’t Muslim conquest taking place through immigration in Europe and the US today? What are the tenets of the respective religions? Jefferson knew and formed the Marines, sending them to Tripoli. They went to fight Muslims, not Jews.
I can hope that the current fighting in Iran will topple the Ayatollahs and begin to undo the damage caused by Jimmy Carter in 1979.
The fact is...... Tucker really doesn’t matter.
Tucker is nw a trivial has been
I do agree with you in part. But there's no way in hell should Iran ever be allowed to possess nuclear weapons....ever! The entire world would suffer under the blackmail they would impose upon us.
They are 0bama-ite “Death to America” dirty anti-Semitic appeasers.
It is believed that Iran has about 12 bombs worth of high-grade U-235. That might weigh a ton. It would have the U-235 radiation level of maybe 100 tons of natural uranium (the U-235 level has been enriched about 100-fold) and less than 100 tons of granite.
The enrichment facilities use uranium fluoride, which I suspect would be quite nasty stuff chemically.
The chemical and heavy metal danger far exceeds the radiation danger.
It is my understanding that Capitol Hill in DC was served by lead water supply pipes. My friend Don who lived on the Hill used water filters.
Me too.
I am nearly the most pro-Israel guy around here, and I’m opposed to American boots on the ground.
Trump may conclude that American air power can be helpful. I wouldn’t oppose that, but I’d sure prefer Israel get this job done (mostly) alone.
An Iranian bomb would pose a greater danger to Tel Aviv than highly diluted uranium fluoride gas would.
The enrichment workers of Iran chose a dangerous line of work. They chose to put Israel and the USA at risk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.