Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 06/17/2025 11:16:54 AM PDT by Words Matter
JD Vance @JDVance Look, I'm seeing this from the inside, and am admittedly biased towards our president (and my friend), but there's a lot of crazy stuff on social media, so I wanted to address some things directly on the Iran issue:
First, POTUS has been amazingly consistent, over 10 years, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Over the last few months, he encouraged his foreign policy team to reach a deal with the Iranians to accomplish this goal. The president has made clear that Iran cannot have uranium enrichment. And he said repeatedly that this would happen one of two ways--the easy way or the "other" way.
Second, I've seen a lot of confusion over the issue of "civilian nuclear power" and "uranium enrichment." These are distinct issues. Iran could have civilian nuclear power without enrichment, but Iran rejected that. Meanwhile, they've enriched uranium far above the level necessary for any civilian purpose. They've been found in violation of their non-proliferation obligations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is hardly a rightwing organization.
It's one thing to want civilian nuclear energy. It's another thing to demand sophisticated enrichment capacity. And it's still another to cling to enrichment while simultaneously violating basic non-proliferation obligations and enriching right to the point of weapons-grade uranium.
I have yet to see a single good argument for why Iran needed to enrich uranium well above the threshold for civilian use. I've yet to see a single good argument for why Iran was justified in violating its non-proliferation obligations. I've yet to see a single good pushback against the IAEA's findings.
Meanwhile, the president has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our military's focus on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens.
He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president. And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.
But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue. And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus.
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
a free iran with freedom of religion can be possible with trump’s vision and bibi’s tenacity
check out these iranians for trump
https://rumble.com/v181401-january-6th-rally-2021.html
Gotta love JD! Always a voice of reason!
Bravo, VP Vance!
Wow
There is only one country on the earth that was allowed to have nuclear weapons but WASN'T required to sign the non-proliferation treaty and has NEVER come under the scrutiny of the IAEA.
Would suggesting that they not be required to abide by it when their main enemy wasn't required to abide by it, be a reasonable excuse? I don't have an allegiance to either one but I would think that is at least a REASONABLE excuse (even if not convincing)
a free iran with freedom of religion can be possible with trump’s vision and bibi’s tenacity
check out these iranians for trump
https://rumble.com/v181401-january-6th-rally-2021.html
He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president.
Funny i thought going to war involved congress. Hunh.
JD has a natural ability to frame contentious things in a non-contentious way. That defuses the situation and makes people more open to reasonable solutions. Most politicians just respond directly and polarize things - we’re lucky to have him as Trump’s VP.
Trump has earned our trust so trust him.
The hier apparent.
Missed that. Thanks
That said, there is no mention of Carlson, Bannon or Kirk in the VP’s post; all of whom have voiced some level of concern/disagreement w/the President's position regarding the U.S. level of involvement in the current ongoing war between Israel and Iran (and its surrogates).
I can only assume that the mention of Carlson, let alone singling him out in the headline, is part of the typical establishment tactics borrowed from Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” in order to focus and fix Carlson as a “bad actor.”
It would be helpful for those on both sides of important policy decisions to try to be open minded enough to listen to opposing points of view without feeling the need for personal attacks directed towards those with whom we disagree. Assuming these contrarian points of view are made in good faith, they only help to elucidate and refine our own viewpoints.
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.