War-Pig Lindsey Graham Itching for Another Endless War with Iran — Tells Trump to Go “All‑In” and Join with Israel

Gateway Pundit ^ | Jun. 17, 2025 | by Jim Hoft

[Kazan]

If so, then Israel should be using them and we shouldn’t think about getting directly involved.

[Kazan]

The President has absolutely authority to take military action if there is a threat to the nation.

Iran is not a threat to us. They absolutely do not have long-range nuclear missile capability. Nor has Iran, so far, attacked us, our troops or any interests we have abroad.

That is another reason why Israel should be the one to take military action, not us.

[Its All Over Except ...]

Trump saying yes or no to the United States delivering those types of bunker busters spoken of in the second part instead of letting Israel themselves drop those listed in the first part could mean the difference between Repubs winning or losing in 2026 as Dems are increasingly galvanized, the right is fracturing because of things like Trump backpedaling on deportations for certain sectors like hotel and leisure, letting 280-500k Chinese students cone into the US, etc, and now this.

There are those who like Trump and Elon both but for some reason like Elon more and I imagine Trump has lost their vote. Trump went after Tucker with a slight dig about not being on TV which only hurts Repubs at the polls, and on and on it goes.

And all because “Iraq has WMD’S” oh wait, excuse me, now it’s all over “Iran has WMD’s.”

[Does so]

We could postpone action indefinitely until the Iranians catch up with our drone technology.

(to take out OUR leaders).

[adorno]

The President has absolutely authority to take military action if there is a threat to the nation. Iran is not a threat to us.

Iran is a threat. Russia is a threat. China is a threat. N.Korea is a threat. Anybody or any country that ever says "death to America" is a threat. If they could and had the chance to do it, they would destroy the U.S.

They absolutely do not have long-range nuclear missile capability. Nor has Iran, so far, attacked us, our troops or any interests we have abroad.

Missiles is the only gauge you use to determine a threat?

Iran has INDEED killed our soldiers, in Iraq and elsewhere. If not for Iran, there would be almost (or no) problems ni the middle-east, and no Palestinian issues. And the proxies Iran uses against us and our allies, are also a threat. If Iran was allowed to continue in their quest for fissible uranium, would they not be a threat?

Afghanistan and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were not a threat to American before 9/11 happened. They didn't have missiles an uranium at their disposal either. So, in your way of thinking, they were never a threat to America.

That is another reason why Israel should be the one to take military action, not us.

Israel cannot go it alone. And you can bet your sweet bippy that the U.S. is fully involved in "Israel's battle" against Iran. No way, no how, would Israel be capable of doing what they've done without us. Most of what they have as weapons, came from us, including the fantastic fighter jets and anti-missile technology, and the bunker=buster bombs.

This business about it not being our war or our interests, is just bull or full-blown denial of the reality in the middle east and elsewhere. We don't have to wait for a nuclear missile to strike us before we classify Iran as our enemy.

You should be on Iranian TV talking your trash.

[Starboard]

“Better to quash the smaller conflicts ‘now’, than to have to spend a not more time and materiel and shed huge amounts of blood, in a much larger conflict which may turn out unmanageable.”

************

There is never a shortage of conflicts in this world. We have to wisely choose and pick the one’s you’re going to get involved/entangled in and that’s something that needs to be subject to scrutiny and debate, whenever possible, as they are grave and consequential matters of national importance.

[adorno]

There is never a shortage of conflicts in this world.

If you are or get involved in them, directly or indirectly, you can't pick and choose which ones are worth handling. They may all be dangerous, if not soon, later. so, better to deal with them while still manageable than when they get more dangerous and unmanageable and very costly.

[Starboard]

Better to have healthy debate on serious commitments rather than having self-serving policy makers who live in their own bubble do it for us. Most especially when American lives might be put on the line.

[del griffith]

I wonder how many against Lindsay’s position have now changed their tune.