Trump successfully pressures Israel to scale back retaliation strike in Iran

Axios ^ | 6/24/2025 | Barak Ravid

[tlozo]

Sure- Try reading something other than what makes you feel good about yourself.

LOL, thanks for proving you cannot find ONE treaty on NATO eastward expansion that was broken by the West.

Russian treaties broken by Putin when he invaded Ukraine:

UN Charter 1945

Nuclear NPT 1970

Helsinki Accords 1975 Belovezha Accords 91–92

Budapest Memo 94

Black Sea Fleet Treaty 97 Friendship Treaty 98

Treaty on Azov Sea & Kerch Strait 03 Border treaty 03

Karkiv pact 10

Putin even broke a treaty he personally signed with Ukraine, the 2003 “Treaty Between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Russian–Ukrainian State Border”. It set Ukraine’s borders as they were in 1991 & was lodged with the UN.

[af_vet_1981]

And if you think that Israel’s Deep State wants peace, think again.

Of course Israel wants peace.

Do you want peace with MS-13 and Tren de Aragua ?

[Sequoyah101]

You make good points. Experience has suggested that peace in the ME is only temporary though. Better to be optimistic though, it takes just as much energy as the opposite for sure and is much more pleasant.

[Sequoyah101]

Precisely! On the home front business faces the herky jerky policies of taxation and regulation. It is a wonder that US business not only survives in these conditions but does pretty well. Ditto for our people.

I wonder what it would be like to have a steady hand on the tiller to steer a steady course through time?

[Brian Griffin]

It is my understanding that the US attack on Fordow would have blocked access for about two weeks to the centrifuges and the highly enriched U-235 that might have been stored there.

Not long after, Trump gives Iran an unlimited time to get to the stuff.

Trump believes the stuff has been destroyed, but I know of no convincing evidence to that effect.

I suspect Trump has got the US placed back high on the Iranian hit list for attacks that will not as a result of his ceasefire be helpful in the long term.

The enriched U-235 would mostly be in containers.

[Brian Griffin]

Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the Ukrainian-Russian State border

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=08000002803fe18a

Note that the pdf is 563 pages long and in Cyrillic.

[Brian Griffin]

“M..... is...”

He’s a very vigorous poster.

Be aware, however, that many here value the opportunity to understand, debate, and improve our understanding and that of other participants.

[dforest]

Okay, he still is a prolific troll. I never ask that he be removed though.

I agree with your last sentence also.

[dforest]

Read this work of art and I do hope it is a success. LOL

https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1937466317193241073

[Red6]

You're right.

However, that came (((AFTER))) we started the game: https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/trty/101888.htm

https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2021/12/the-us-exit-from-the-anti-ballistic-missile-treaty-has-fueled-a-new-arms-race?lang=en

They are reacting to us, not us to them. We are the ones calling the shots, just like it was our decision to offer NATO to Ukraine: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/ (this caused a war, and it was OUR decision)

Likewise, it was (((us))) that was cheating on the Conventional Forces Europe Treaty, which we also deny. How did we do this? As new member states entered NATO, their manpower and equipment was not included in the total roll up of forces and then when Russia follows suit by stationing troops Westward we have the audacity to accuse THEM of cheating. Cause and effect, with us leading the way. We found some legalistic loop-hope regards the CFE and pretended that our lie wasn't a lie.

We did the exact same thing with NATO East expansion (there are many different people that on numerous occasions publicly promised Russia that we would NOT do this: German Chancellor Kohl, US Secretary of State Baker, the head of NATO Woerner at the time...).

Our argument is basically that their is no signed treaty or agreement outside of German unification - so what was promised doesn't count. It's like making a deal and having a hand-shake, and then coming back and claiming that this deal is binding because there is no signature on a contract.

A video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVt-WXTLIZM (Realize, DW is not pro-Russian, that's the German version of VOA or NPR and they are very FAVORABLE to NATO).

Contrary to what that other guy wrote, even the head of NATO at the time Woerner stated that NATO would not expand eastward and that is on the record.

https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/documents-show-gorbachev-was-assured-us-wouldnt-ex

https://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_91676.shtml

There are numerous examples of meetings and public speeches where senior officials state that “Not one inch to the East” James Baker, our secretary of State at the time.

From the French state media, also a NATO member and highly critical of Russia (but a fact is a fact): https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east

Again, We found some legalistic loop-hope and pretended that our lie wasn't a lie - even though Baker, Kohl, Woerner... publicly did say we won't do this.

We're the big guy today and we can make or break the rules, we act with impunity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z8SpgmF0sA

But do not pretend like this is some huge moral issue where we are on the right side of things. We're just the big kid on the playground and do what we want, and then create the arguments to support our cause after the fact.

[Red6]

You are right, there is no treaty.

You got your war.

Are you happy?

Are things going as you want?

[Flaming Conservative]

Now let’s see what Iran does with that. If they attack again, then all bets are off and it’s on them what happens next. We’ll see; they are insane and demonically possessed.

[silverleaf]

Iran was not violating the ceasefire when it struck Beersheva with a single missile, based on the timelines set for each side, as Irans missile was launched just before the ceasefire

Though they did fire 2-3 more missiles several hours after the ceasefire, which hit nothing

Israels response to Beersheva was dialed back to be proportional, taking out an Iranian radar site before returning

Sadly someone always is the last to die before a ceasefire takes effect
In this case, 4-5 Israeli civilians and a bunch of Iranian targets in Tehran bombed by Israel 4 hours before the ceasefire

[tlozo]

Our argument is basically that their is no signed treaty or agreement outside of German unification - so what was promised doesn't count. It's like making a deal and having a hand-shake

Its common sense. Treaties state what is promised, NOT something said in negotiations.

If you buy a house you cannot argue you were promised something in negotiations, which is not in the contract.

[tlozo]

Again, We found some legalistic loop-hope and pretended that our lie wasn't a lie

Its not a lie, IT WAS SAID IN NEGOTIATIONS, not written in a treaty. Russians didn't ask for it to be included in any treaty.

Not sure why you cannot understand the difference.

[Red6]

There never was a treaty signed with Cuba regards ending the Missile Crisis either.

There are many examples of where we make “promises” without a formal treaty.

When you have a head of the German state (Kohl), head of NATO (Woerner), head of the Department of State (J. Baker), and many other senior leaders agree that NATO will not expand East, and they make public statements to that effect, you can assume there is an understanding that this is the case.

In fact - even the @sshole who caused this war, knew that was the case: https://www.facebook.com/rishibagree/videos/1997-the-only-thing-that-could-provoke-a-vigorous-and-hostile-russian-response-w/1131428724346357/ (He knew!)

Speculation: That was Biden’s position in 1997 and he was on the losing side of the argument. In 2004 the Balkan states did join NATO and there was no war. IMHO, he learned the wrong lesson and simply hoped Russia would acquiesce regards Ukraine and NATO.

We are not the good guys on this one.

I get as an American you want to defend our country - blind Patriotism.

Or maybe you just hate the Russians - blind hatred.

But blind anything tends to not get you to the truth.

This is a case where (1) We lied and (2) we put the Russians in a position where if it were us, we would do the exact same thing.

When we started getting serious about Ukraine being in NATO, we were pushing for something which both in terms of conventional and nuclear threat for Russia, impacts them adversely.

We will not accept Iran having nukes on the other side of the planet, but we expect Russia to accept them on their border, if we so choose. We expect Russia to accept our troops, tanks, fighters, bombers, missiles, missile defense, to be permanently stationed, in any number, on their border. What is our reaction when the Solomon Islands wants to host a Chinese naval base 6,000 miles from our South-Western coast in the Pacific? What was our reaction when the Soviets wanted to base missiles in Cuba and we have 90 miles of water between us?

Ukraine in NATO is a serious security issue for Russia, and some want to hand-waive that way. This shifts the entire nuclear deterrence model in our favor! Russia has practically no early warning (6 minutes with a modern hyper-sonic) and with missile defense going after Russian missile in their boost phase (must vulnerable) we can significantly degrade their retaliation.

This is a case where Western economic and political interests collided with Russia’s security interests, and we chose to ignore Russia and in fact tried to steam roll them (speed things up and ram it down their throat).

Pretending this is about Ukraine being “sovereign” or “Russian aggression,” “a Russian unprovoked attack,” are rhetorical arguments. Words themselves are the argument.

Claiming we didn’t tell the Russians repeatedly, by numerous officials, over several years, that we would not expand NATO Eastward is more of the same, games with words where 40 years later we want to pretend we didn’t say these things, or meant it all differently, or it’s not official... Bullshit-

[Red6]

It's all really basic.

Don't take a dump in someone else’s backyard.

Just because you're the biggest kid on the block (and everyone knows that), shouldn't mean you get to do whatever you want.

We get our way most of the time! We have so much political influence, economic and military might, that on most issues where we want a desired outcome and throw our weight behind, we will get our way. But there is such a thing as pushing to much.

With Russia, we have been expanding NATO Eastward. Invading nations that are formal allies with them, Syria. Invading nations that were aligned with them, Iraq (under false pretenses BTW). We have been sponsoring coups in nations aligned with them, Venezuela. We have attacked nations aligned with them, Libya. We overthrew a government in Ukraine 2014 and installed ours which was rabid anti-Russian and then built 12 CIA bases there operating against Russia...

Just back off and give them their space! They know they are the underdog. They avoid conflict with us. Ukraine was us cornering a dog and then pretending that this dog came out of its corner trying to bite for no reason at all (the "unprovoked" crap).

[Red6]

I don't think Trump wants to end NATO.

Nor do I think that is a good idea.

However, NATO member states should all contribute in an equitable way to the cost AND absorb some of the blood toll.

I'll be blunt, most of Europe benefits from our actions, even what we did in Iran a few days ago. Do you really think it's a good thing for them if Iran has a nuke? Of course not.

But may it be dealing with pirates, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Abu Saaef, Boko Haram, the Taliban, AQ, ISIS, Qaddafi, Saddam, or Assad, even in Europe's own back yard during the Serbian crisis in 1999, it is (((us))) that takes on the high risk missions, that pays the greatest blood toll and financial cost when these things happen. Even politically and for our people (terrorism), we are the ones taking it on the nose, while the Euro's benefit but want to stand on the sidelines hoping they don't get into the cross-hairs.

The true argument is that because of our capabilities certain things fall into our lap by default, Iran a few days ago being the perfect example. (((NO ONE))) else can do that, period.

But that is largely because the Euro's do not even want to. They starve their military and do not acquire certain capabilities (((intentionally))) so they are not thrust into the position of having to do these missions.

When a conflict happens, their policy makers jockey to have their forces set up in areas less dangerous, they want to assume the nonlethal roles (drill water wells, build roads, provide medical treatment, psyop missions, training to locals, etc), while it's our boys that do all the dirty work in the nastiest/most dangerous places. It does not matter if we're talking about Somalia 1993 or Afghanistan 2001 - 2021, we take on the overwhelming majority of kinetic/lethal missions and we assume the most dangerous locations as well as becoming the nose an enemy wants to punch (ISIS, AQ, Saddam, Qaddafi, the Taliban, they want to hurt us more than anyone else).

That crap needs to stop.

They need to carry their fair share in cost and blood.

I think that is what Trump truly seeks.

[dforest]

Good thoughtful post.

This is why I just can’t agree with the US being in NATO anymore. The first thing Trump was asked by some foreign reporter was whether he still believed in Article 5, which is all they care about.

NATO is no longer a defensive entity, it has become like the monster it was intended to stop.

https://x.com/NextNewsNetwork/status/1937559284360831045

[Red6]

Ironically, it was “us” that wanted to transform NATO into something new post Cold War and especially post 9-11.

Shortly after the Cold War the idea of NATO being obsolete was floated even at the most senior political levels here and in Europe. That is why the YU crisis was so beneficial for NATO, it demonstrated a need even post Cold War and pretty much ended all discussion of dissolving this alliance.

Our push for NATO transformation started full force under Bush W. and Rumsfeld and it was the Euro's at the time that were resisting because they didn't want to get sucked into the GWOT, Iraq. Post 9-11 we were like a pissed off hornets nest and the Euros really didn't want to get involved much beyond Afghanistan. Which is sort of a problem if you think about it. They call on us, but if we call on them...

https://www.globalsecurity.org.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/02/mil-060214-usia01.htm

https://www.globalsecurity.org.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/10/mil-041013-afps03.htm

https://www.globalsecurity.org.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/02/mil-060207-afps06.htm

I was a huge proponent of this idea at the time. It made sense, i.e. make NATO into something that is designed to meet the new challenges of cyber warfare, terrorism, missile defense, belligerent nations (regional threats) usually where some despot assumed power and is flexing his muscle.

The problem is, that the Euro's never stepped up to the plate but they were willing to transform NATO to assume offensive missions (offensive campaigns: Serbia 1999 and Libya 2011, or outside NATO AOR: Libya 2011, Syria 2014), ESPECIALLY if it benefited them.

At the beginning of this Ukraine conflict you saw the epitome of this. Some of these nations are STILL not contributing their contractual required minimum of 2% GDP on defense, BUT talking big and expect NATO to assume a huge role in helping Ukraine.

If the Euro's don't step up to the plate, let NATO die. We can economically by size/industrially/tech/population/militarily operate independently, we don't have anything to lose. It's the Euro's that are short sighted and “f-ing” themselves.

It's to the point where “either they carry their own weight with us, or they carry their own weight without us.” That's the message I believe Trump is sending.

All that said, I do not think it's a good idea if NATO is transformed into some expeditionary and offensive organization. It'll become a sort of neo-colonial foreign legion if we do that. It needs to be bound geographically unless a threat outside its AOR is penetrating into our AOR, and defensive. Example, if a country in the Middle East launches missiles into Europe, if terrorists in Egypt kidnap a bunch of Westerners. I do not want a commitment for us in protecting French (what are really colonial) interests in Africa. If we want to help them, like we did the UK in the Falklands campaign, sure. But expeditionary and offensive campaigns lead one down the road of using military force for political and economic gain or even colonial causes.

Do you realize that according to article 1 and 8 (our own rules) Ukraine should never have been invited to NATO?!?! https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm They were in a state of civil war and do not meet even the most basic requirements. But none of that matters, because as I wrote before, it's good to be the king.

(Article 1)
“The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” (Ukraine was in a civil war while we tried to fast track them in)

(Article 8)
“Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.” (What we did in Ukraine, was EXACTLY what you're not supposed to do, try to use NATO as a club)

We just take the rules and throw them out the window whenever we feel like it. Where was our watchdog MSM on this? They were doing copy and paste jobs ghost written by someone in Ukraine, talking about Putin being a madman, human rights, Ukrainian sovereignty, war of aggression, unprovoked attacks. They used a lot of rhetoric, Cold War fear mongering that wasn't even remotely feasible (if we don't stop them in Ukraine they will keep going), and of course kept spirits high with bogus casualty reports on Russians while not reporting on Ukraine, printing stories about some Ghost of Kiev, battle for Snake Island, glorious counter offensives that are going well, and why some new Western Wunderwaffe is a “game changer.” But no propaganda on our side! (sarc)

NATO put a nail in its own coffin with Ukraine. If NATO does die, the political leadership in the West (freeloaders and getting tangled up in a costly unnecessary war) and NATO leaders (that don't follow their own rules) played the primary role in that. We'll of course even blame this on some Russian conspiracy and concoct some theory of how the Russians managed to achieve that. (LOL)