Posted on 02/24/2026 6:16:56 AM PST by MtnClimber
"We're either gonna get a deal or it's gonna be unfortunate for them.” — POTUS Donald Trump.
The message seems to be something like the USA isn’t messing around with all those strike forces in the waters around Iran. The Islamic Republic suddenly looks like Rock-and-Hard-Place-Land. Everybody and his uncle are trying to figure out the calculus in play, World War Three or a happy ending?
You’re seeing the most significant US military build-up over there in memory. Smells a little bit like the first Gulf War, 1991 — minus all those allies we roped in then. Mr. Trump (via Marco Rubio) has read Euroland out on this one. We are in a cold war with those birds, in case you haven’t noticed. The UK, France, Germany & Co.? They are as crazy as the ladies of The View and their millions of Cluster-B followers.
Euroland is yet in thrall to the climate nutters, the farm-and-industry-destroyers, the one-worlders, the Jihad-migrationists, the floundering banksters, and the Klaus Schwab wannabes. Euroland seeks to throttle free speech throughout Western Civ and meddle in everyone’s elections. Euroland keeps mouthing off about a war with Russia despite having no military mojo and going broke-a-- broke faster than you can say Götterdämmerung. Bottom line: the US is going solo on this one.
What is the objective? Ostensibly “a deal” over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Like, just cut it out, will you, please? By the way, did you know that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa in 2005 saying production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam. But then deception is allowed in Islam under the doctrine of taqiyya, against the threat of attack from hostile forces,
I’m sure you remember Operation Midnight Hammer in June last year when we attacked and supposedly “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear research and development bunkers at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan? They got pretty banged-up, you may be sure, and nobody in Iran denied there was something nukey going on in those installations. Is there a will there to rebuild the whole darn infrastructure of uranium enrichment and so forth?
The mullahs are not saying, which means: of course, they intend to continue developing nuclear weapons — and even if that’s a stupid and futile gambit, given recent history, they still have factories churning out plain old long-range ballistic missiles and new drones by the thousands. Let’s face it: the mullahs are hardcore for Jihad and martyrdom. Since being elevated to Supreme Leader in 1989, Ayatollah Khamenei has sought relentlessly to transform the traditional Islamic concept of Jihad and establish it as the central pillar of the regime’s ideology.
Are we doing Israel’s bidding there? (Cue: roar of affirmation.) But then, Israel has a point. Iran has been cuckoo for going on forty years. If Israel wasn’t a target of the mullahs’ eternal Shia wrath, there are their other enemies, the Sunni, on the west side of the Persian Gulf (and next door in Iraq). And consider, too, Iran’s obdurate sponsorship of Jihad, wherever possible, both within and outside the Ummah — including especially Western Civ, where low-grade Jihad has been going on for over a decade. . . mass murders, rape gangs, beheadings, trucks through the Christmas markets. . . .
Okay, if Euroland is out, what about the other big dogs, Russia and China. Will they just stand by and let the US have its wicked way with Iran? Russia sent a corvette-class naval vessel down to the Strait of Hormuz for a joint operation with Iran’s navy, but what does that mean? Probably not much more than occupational therapy. Besides, Mr. Trump is just now promising to bring Russia “out from the cold” of all those onerous economic sanctions. . . to begin the process of normalizing relations. You might doubt that Russia wants to blow that for Iran’s sake.
And, while it is somewhat out of the news due to the Epstein stink-bomb, and the deepness of mid-winter, there is still a war going on over in Ukraine. Which is to say, the Russians have their hands full in their own back-yard and might, perhaps, be hesitant about piling-on in Iran. And, let’s just suppose that the US objective is actually regime change in Iran. Would Russia be indisposed if the mullahs got kicked out of power? I doubt it. Russia has longstanding annoying issues with Islamic factions distributed throughout their adjoining former Soviet republics. Russia does not need Jihad. Russia might actually live more comfortably with Iran under a secular government, tilting a bit more western in temperament. Just sayin’. . . .
China has more urgent concerns with Iran. China gets around 13-percent of its oil imports from Iran, and it enjoys a three to four percent discount on it. Regime change or war that could damage Iran’s oil terminals would be bad news for China. But then, China is at a long geographic remove from Iran, and China is not used to conducting military adventures so far from home, so don’t expect much assistance there. China’s other option would be to start a kerfuffle over Taiwan to distract and divert the US. We’ll just have to see about that. Uncle Xi Jinping has been busy lately sacking the upper echelons of his own military leadership. Are they even ready for action? Plus, China’s economy is wobbly. Consider also: has the US given China assurances of continued oil imports from Iran if it steers clear of the situation there?
What are we operationally capable of over in Iran with all our warships, fighter jets, and other stuff? I don’t know. . . and neither do you. Looks impressive, but a couple of Sunburn-type missiles landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln could produce a profound instant attitude adjustment. Perhaps President Trump, WarSec Hegseth, and StateSec Rubio have more refined plans for disarming Iran and surgically removing the cuckoo-birds in charge. Our guys are certainly acting confident. But then in geopolitics confidence is best friends with hubris. And hubris generally precedes cluster----. The art of the deal is not for sissies.
“The UK, France, Germany & Co.? They are as crazy as the ladies of The View and their millions of Cluster-B followers…”
The scary thing is that the above is LITERALLY true. No hyperbole . No nothing. The European leadership are functionally delusional. Wait’ll we see what trouble this brings…
.
(The UK, France, Germany)
Literally the three countries mentioned in Nigel Farage talking about Digital ID, CBDC and a GLOBAL DATABASE desired by Ursula von der Leyen
Digital ID will be used to suppress Free Speech 💬💬💬
Kier Starmer is counting on it
Nigel Farage: Say “NO!” to a Global Digital ID
Nigel Farage:
Direct Link 🔗🔗🖇️🖇️ to the video
https://youtube.com/shorts/132r2L5jlOE
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/4365380/posts
“Imagine that: A Global Database that could fall
into the hands of bad actors 🎭🎭🎭
and our lives be completely controlled!”
And that is EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN
in the middle of the 7 Years of ‘Peace and Security’
THEN shall be Great Tribulation
Matthew 24:14-16
21st Century King James Version
14 And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the World for a witness unto all Nations, and then shall the end come.
15 “When ye therefore shall see the Abomination of Desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the Holy Place (WHOSO READETH, LET HIM UNDERSTAND),
16 then let them that be in Judea flee unto the mountains.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024%3A14-16&version=KJ21
Daniel 9:26-27
King James Version
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the End of the war Desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the Covenant with many for one week: AND IN THE MIDST OF THE WEEK he shall cause the Sacrifice and the Oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of Abominations he shall make it Desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the Desolate.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%209%3A26-27&version=KJV
Mark 13:14
King James Version
14 But when ye shall see the Abomination of Desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (LET HIM THAT READETH UNDERSTAND,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013%3A14&version=KJV
“Oh, look.....two tax-paid American ambassadors were just in Jerusalem,
getting their orders from the US tax dollar-dependent Jewish state.”
Simple minds inculcated with antifa gibberish and hard core anti Semites likely believe that. Fools.
The US has an essential, strategic interest in regime change in Iran.
- They have sworn our destruction
- They have emphasized that animus by killing or maiming thousands of US troops, both directly and indirectly.
- They refuse to give up the means by which they hope to destroy us
Most people not blinded by anti Semitism, like YOURSELF can see that without a great deal of trouble.
Thanks for the smile.
In a way I think it’s a distraction. I think there will be some strikes, maybe of a lot of strikes, but I don’t see much use unless it’s coordinated with something on the ground from within. I want the Iranian people to rise up, probably with the help of the Mossad and CIA, and throw out these awful Ayatollahs and install a decent form of government.
If Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz under the current U.S. administration, Washington would very likely respond with a limited but forceful military operation to reopen the waterway, while the economic consequences would be severe as long as the strait remained shut.
Iran can temporarily disrupt the Strait using mines, small‑boat attacks, missile threats, or “temporary closures” during drills, but it cannot permanently seal a 2‑mile‑wide shipping lane without a full‑scale war.bbc+1
If Iran actually tried to block commercial traffic and refused to yield to sanctions or pressure:
U.S. and allied response would be expected:
The U.S. 5th Fleet (Bahrain) and aircraft carrier strike groups are already positioned to clear mines, suppress Iranian coastal defenses, and escort tankers.19fortyfive+1
Multiple analysts and official statements say any attempt to close the Strait would almost certainly trigger a forceful U.S. military response, judged as “necessary and proportional” under international law.habtoorresearch+2
Likely form of action:
Naval‑mine‑clearance operations, air and missile strikes on Iranian coastal radar, missile batteries, and fast‑attack‑boat bases.
Possible targeted strikes on IRGC‑Navy assets and islands (e.g., Greater Tunb, Abu Musa) controlling choke‑points, to degrade Iran’s ability to blockade without initiating a full invasion.jpost+1
Risk of escalation:
Iran would likely respond with proxy attacks in the region, attacks on Gulf‑based U.S. forces, and broader missile strikes, which could spiral into a wider regional war if restraint breaks down.twz+1
So under the present U.S. posture, military re‑opening is the assumed policy; the only real questions are timing, intensity, and collateral‑damage risk.
As long as the Strait is effectively blocked or deemed too dangerous to traverse, effects cascade globally:
Energy shock:
Roughly 20% of global oil and gas exports pass through the Strait.controlrisks+1
Tankers would either be delayed, rerouted, or refused to sail, causing a sharp supply shock and oil‑price spike.oxfordeconomics+1
Inflation and trade disruption:
Higher energy prices feed into transport, manufacturing, and electricity costs, boosting inflation in China, India, Japan, Europe, and the U.S.aljazeera+1
Container and bulk shipping through the Gulf would seize up, hitting consumer goods, food, and raw‑material chains into and out of the Gulf states.unesco+1
Duration‑dependent effects:
Short closures (days–weeks) would cause temporary spikes and volatility but be manageable with reserves, floating storage, and alternative routes.controlrisks+1
Sustained blockade (months) could push the global economy toward stagflation pressure: higher prices plus slower growth, especially in energy‑importing countries.oxfordeconomics+1
Iran’s own pain:
Iran would also suffer, since its own oil exports, LNG, and imports are choked by a closure; it is usually deterred from full, long‑term closure by the self‑harm it would inflict.19fortyfive+1
Militarily: A Strait‑blockage by Iran would likely trigger a U.S.‑led military operation to reopen it, risking escalation.atlanticcouncil+2
Economically: As long as the Strait is blocked, global oil and gas markets, inflation, and trade would be hit hard, with the magnitude depending on how long the closure lasts.bbc+2
If you’d like, the next step can be:
explore how likely such a closure is (Iran’s motives, U.S. deterrence posture) and what countries would be most resilient vs most vulnerable.
/snort
Islam does not need sophisticated weaponry. They just want singleness of purpose minds. They have those in most countries all over the world. Witness Mohammed’s pre-meditating murderers doing evil atrocities daily.
Is "the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full" ? (Genesis 15:16)
I see what Jew did there. The world is going to Shia, and war is nothing nuke to them.
Mull this over. All regime change is not equal. These mullahs have got to go. There is a government in waiting already backed by the Iranian population.
MMmmmmmm........a true believer.......nice.
Wanna buy a bridge over the ocean in Arizona.....cheap?
Is the government “backed by the Iranian population” led by Hamid Karzai or Ahmed Chalabi, by chance?
How can you say that? Look at Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. They all went so well.
The arguments of this isolationist Muslim asset have been exposed as specious, but like a cultist, she persist in the same.
Here is a logical examination of the premise that Israel is the costly problem, and that US support of it is deleterious to national interest, thus removing it would be to the advantage of the US - even if we do not include God's promises for support of Abraham's descendants thru his only begotten son.
militant‑Islamist ideology would very likely still oppose the West and Christians even if Israel did not exist or chose not to “resist” them. The conflict does not hinge only on Israel; it rests on a broader ambition to bring the world under the authority of their understanding of Allah, which includes rejecting the sovereignty and values of non‑Islamic states—especially the United States and Christian‑majority nations.jpolrisk+2
1. Core militant‑Islamist goal: global submission
Leading jihadist texts and declarations portray the world as divided into:
“Dar al‑Islam” (the realm of Islam, to be ruled by Sharia), and
“Dar al‑Harb” (the realm of war, i.e., non‑Muslim lands, especially the West), which is to be converted, subdued, or replaced over time.wilsoncenter+1
Al‑Qaeda and ISIS, for example, explicitly call for:
Expelling Western powers from Muslim lands,
Dismantling secular regimes, and
Extending an Islamic caliphate that supersedes nation‑states and non‑Islamic law.perplexity+2
Israel is a major flashpoint and symbolic “Zionist fortress,” but the West is the “far enemy” that these ideologies treat as the primary structural obstacle to Islamic global dominance.stimson+1
2. Why Israel is not the only pretext
Even if Israel:
Did not exist, or
Made profound concessions that satisfied Palestinian political and religious grievances,
militant groups would still have their theological and political grievances against the West:
Criticism of American presence in the Middle East, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, support for “apostate” regimes, and cultural exports are central to jihadist rhetoric.state+1
Many jihadists see Western secularism, democracy, and Christian‑linked culture as inherently hostile to Islam, regardless of Israel policy.pbs+1
Analysts note that while Israel and Palestine intensify rhetoric and mobilize emotional support, the core agenda of global jihad (anti‑West, anti‑secularism, anti‑Christian dominance) would persist even if the Israeli front cooled.diis+1
3. Would attacks on America and Christians still be expected?
Yes, and this is consistent with past patterns:
Al‑Qaeda attacked the U.S. homeland (9/11) as part of a global campaign against the “Crusader‑Zionist” alliance, but the U.S. was the primary target even before the 2000s Israeli‑Palestinian intifada peaked.pbs+1
ISIS and other groups have called for attacks on Western cities, Christians, and Jews worldwide, often explicitly framing them as part of the global jihad project, not just “support for Palestine.”brookings+1
So, if Israel were removed from the picture, many militant‑Islamist currents would still be expected to pursue war against the West and Christians, though the emotional fuel and recruitment rhetoric around Israel would be diminished.jpolrisk+1
4. How to think about this theologically and politically
From a Christian‑apologetic angle, many scholars distinguish:
Islam the religion (with its diverse interpretations and the majority of Muslims who are not militant), and
Militant‑Islamist ideology, which is a political‑theological movement that uses religious texts to justify violence and conquest.pewresearch+1
Your question strikes at the eschatological and political danger of this militant ideology: its core ambition is not just “pushing Israel out” but replacing Western‑style sovereignty and Christian‑linked culture with a global Islamic order, which implies an ongoing conflict with the United States and Christian societies regardless of what Israel does.wilsoncenter+1
If you’d like, the next step can be:
trace how explicitly this global‑submission goal appears in specific jihadist manifestos or in classical Islamic‑theological writings, and then weigh how that fits (or conflicts) with your own apologetic and pastoral concerns.
Advocating abandoning support of Israel is actually against the best interests of the US in a world of geopolitics:
You’re highlighting a crucial contemporary layer: the way militant‑Islamist actors are tactically aligned with Russia against U.S. global dominance, and that this alignment is not dependent on Israel’s existence.
1. How the “militant Islam–Russia” axis already works
Russia has cultivated alliances or de‑facto partnerships with various Islamist‑linked or Islamist‑tolerated actors:
Iran: formal military‑economic axis, including drones, intelligence, and proxy‑cooperation.twz+1
Syria (Assad regime): backed by Russia, increasingly accepting Iran’s militia‑network, including Hezbollah‑type groups.stimson+1
Some Islamist‑inflected actors in the Sahel, the Caucasus, and other regions where Moscow treats jihadists as useful against U.S./NATO influence, even if it publicly disavows them.responsiblestatecraft+1
The shared goal is:
Breaking U.S. geopolitical dominance,
Expanding Russian influence,
and weakening NATO‑style institutions—Israel is a factor in the region, but not the center of this grand‑strategy alignment.cnn+1
2. Why this would persist even if Israel vanished
If Israel were removed from geopolitics (or withdrew from resistance):
The U.S.–Russia rivalry over Europe, the Middle East, and global institutions would still exist.
Russia would still seek to weaponize Islamist or Islamist‑sympathetic forces against:
U.S.‑aligned states (e.g., Gulf monarchies),
U.S. military presence,
and Western‑style governance.twz+1
From the militant‑Islamist side, aligning with Russia can be framed as:
A temporary “tactical” partnership with a non‑Muslim power against the “greater evil” (U.S. domination),
Exactly as classic jihadist theory allows cooperation with non‑Muslims against a more immediate threat, as long as the ultimate goal remains global Islamic authority.wilsoncenter+1
So yes:
Militant Islam would still be expected to clash with the West even without Israel,
And Russia would still have an interest in working with, or at least tolerating, militant‑Islamist proxies to weaken U.S. hegemony—making this a structural feature of the current order, not just a byproduct of the Israel conflict.hoover+1
3. Theological and strategic implications
Theologically, this fits the pattern you’ve been tracing: militant‑Islamist ideology seeks worldwide submission to their understanding of Allah, and any powerful non‑Islamic political order—especially the U.S.‑led West—is a target.stimson+1
Politically, it means:
Even if Israel were pacified or removed, the United States and Christian‑majority democracies would still be in the line of fire, both in direct jihadist rhetoric and in great‑power proxy‑warfare.jpolrisk+1
As a summation:
Israel is not the root cause of U.S. conflict with militant Islam or with Iran–Russia influence. U.S. support is best understood as a costly but strategically useful investment that helps contain broader regional threats and maintain a key ally in a volatile region. Removing that support would not clearly reduce U.S. burdens or increase U.S. safety, and would likely leave the U.S. more exposed to the very forces its critics fear—while eroding moral and political trust at home and abroad.
“MMmmmmmm........a true believer.......nice.”
Yes, I truly believe you have an intrinsic hatred of Jews.
And it manifests for everyone here to see, every time you post. And yes, I’m calling you on it.
It’s just so gratifying to hear about your own great love for your
fellow man............ so beautifully stated. Thank you for posting.
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.