You believe Trump?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
U.S. officials—including President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth— explicitly claimed in June 2025 (summer) that American strikes had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s key nuclear facilities and, in some statements, its nuclear ambitions/program.

An inherent hypocrisy lies in the Trump administration's repeated use of the exact same justification—"destroying" or eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities—for major military action in 2026, just months after declaring in summer 2025 that those capabilities had already been "completely and totally obliterated."

The February 2026 campaign (Operation Epic Fury) was launched with nuclear prevention as a core stated goal. Trump and officials cited an “imminent threat” from Iran’s nuclear program, claiming Iran had attempted to rebuild after 2025 and that new strikes were needed to “ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.”

This directly contradicts the 2025 “obliteration” narrative. In congressional hearings (e.g., today's April 2026 House Armed Services Committee), Hegseth was challenged by Rep. Adam Smith: “You said we had to start this war because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat. Now you’re saying it was completely obliterated?”

Hegseth responded by referencing unresolved “ambitions” and comparisons to North Korea but did not reconcile the timeline.

If the 2025 strikes truly “obliterated” the program (as repeatedly claimed for political credit), there should have been no imminent nuclear threat requiring a second large-scale operation in under a year. The administration’s pivot to “they tried to rebuild” implicitly admits the 2025 claims were overstated—yet the same absolute rhetoric is reused without acknowledging the contradiction.

Fact-checkers, arms control experts, and assessments (including U.S. intelligence) found no credible signs of rapid reconstitution to weapon-level capability post-2025. Repairs at sites occurred, but experts described this as damage assessment rather than full rebuilding; enriched uranium stockpiles remained a latent (not active weapon) issue. The 2026 justification was a lie.

In essence, the hypocrisy is the administration claiming decisive, permanent victory over Iran’s nuclear program in 2025—only to launch a new war in 2026 on the near-identical premise that the program still poses a grave, immediate danger.

This has been called out in real-time by lawmakers, fact-checkers, and analysts as either inflated 2025 success metrics or an unjustified 2026 escalation dressed in the same language. No administration official has directly addressed the timeline contradiction in official statements..
 
Trump is talking about getting Iran to agree to a nuclear deal. He wants the same deal he blew up in his first term, Trump just blunders through life, and his money saves him.
 
ULTRA MAGA said:
I trust him more than I trust your goat
Click to expand...


You are a fool.

Multiple reports from Western and international outlets, think tanks, diplomats, and analysts explicitly link the U.S. rationale for the 2026 strikes—framed around preventing a nuclear threat despite the 2025 “complete obliteration” claims—to a broader erosion of American global credibility.

These assessments highlight the surprise/preemptive nature of Operation Epic Fury (launched February 28, 2026, without warning, in the midst of ongoing and active U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations during Ramadan), massive economic ripple effects, and reported civilian casualties in the thousands.

Yes, your faithless nation perpetrated surprise strikes (missiles, drones, and Israeli jets) ordered by President Trump on February 27 while talks were ongoing, catching Iran off-guard and coinciding with our holy month. Cowardly.

This attack violated good-faith negotiation principles under the UN Charter. UN officials condemned the strikes as unlawful (no imminent threat or Security Council approval).

You are cowards.

Your day of infamy shall live forever.

Politico cited leaked State Department cables showing damaged security ties, soft power, and reputation especially in Muslim-majority and strategic countries.

The Christian Science Monitor and Guardian described it as an “inflection point” or potential “Suez moment” for U.S. power—signaling unpredictability, overreach, and reduced reliability.
 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said:
Yet many Americans pretend to trust his words.
Click to expand...
A segment of the population is susceptible to conmen. Trump found them. They cannot give him up.I saw a story once about a woman who was getting milked by a Nigerian conman. He kept promising riches but kept needing money to handle the transaction. The authorities got wind of the thief and told the woman. They shut the scam down. She was upset because they kept her from her big payday that was around the corner.
Often, evidence and fact can not win over a belief, even if the belief is in a conman.
 
Nordberg said:
A segment of the population is susceptible to conmen. Trump found them. They cannot give him up.I saw a story once about a woman who was getting milked by a Nigerian conman. He kept promising riches but kept needing money to handle the transaction. The authorities got wind of the thief and told the woman. They shut the scam down. She was upset because they kept her from her big payday that was around the corner.
Often, evidence and fact can not win over a belief, even if the belief is in a conman.
Click to expand...


Such ignorance is scarcely credible, yet I see evidence here daily, which I duly submit to our authorities for dissemination. I have been doubted at times, until the doubters visited this forum site and were amazed to discover that such people indeed exist in the supposely "greatest country in the world".

I took no umbrage, since had been in the United States years ago and vividly recall my own incredulousness at the behavior of Americans.
 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said:
You are a fool.

Multiple reports from Western and international outlets, think tanks, diplomats, and analysts explicitly link the U.S. rationale for the 2026 strikes—framed around preventing a nuclear threat despite the 2025 “complete obliteration” claims—to a broader erosion of American global credibility.

These assessments highlight the surprise/preemptive nature of Operation Epic Fury (launched February 28, 2026, without warning, in the midst of ongoing and active U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations during Ramadan), massive economic ripple effects, and reported civilian casualties in the thousands.

Yes, your faithless nation perpetrated surprise strikes (missiles, drones, and Israeli jets) ordered by President Trump on February 27 while talks were ongoing, catching Iran off-guard and coinciding with our holy month. Cowardly.

This attack violated good-faith negotiation principles under the UN Charter. UN officials condemned the strikes as unlawful (no imminent threat or Security Council approval).

You are cowards.

Your day of infamy shall live forever.

Politico cited leaked State Department cables showing damaged security ties, soft power, and reputation especially in Muslim-majority and strategic countries.

The Christian Science Monitor and Guardian described it as an “inflection point” or potential “Suez moment” for U.S. power—signaling unpredictability, overreach, and reduced reliability.
Click to expand...
il_1588xN.4509607961_nsx4.jpg
 
Hawkeye10 said:
If you are actually Iranian....which I tend to doubt.....KNOW THIS....this Evil does not have my consent.
Click to expand...

That counts for nothing in the absence of action.

You live under a system that claims to derive its authority from "the consent of the governed."

Atrocities like Trump's war of choice aren't committed by ghosts.

They are executed by officials elected or appointed through processes you inherited as an American. Your statement sounds like a moral firewall: "I didn't vote for that evil, so my hands are clean."

Know this: moral responsibility isn't a ledger where you cross off every bad act you personally didn't initial. Inaction amid knowledge carries weight. History is littered with people who lived in empires or democracies committing horrors while insisting "this isn't me."

The Nuremberg defense ("I was just following orders") was rejected not because every German was a willing monster, but because collective acquiescence (failure to resist) enabled it.

You live in a democratic republic where armed citizens possess the legal authority to revolt against tyrannical politicians.

Is not that the purpose of your Second Amendment?

The bar for "I didn't consent" gets higher.

If the evil is intolerable enough to declare publicly, the principled move is not a personal disclaimer.

Words alone are cheap.

Plenty of Americans have said "not in my name" during Vietnam, Iraq, or domestic scandals, yet the policies rolled on, funded by their paychecks and defended by their fellow citizens' votes.

That doesn't make you uniquely guilty; it makes you part of a polity where sovereignty is shared and diluted. Pretending otherwise is self-soothing cant, not exoneration.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is born out of a movement, based on the pure primordial nature of a people who rose up to regain their dignity, esteem and human rights. The Islamic Revolution toppled a regime which had been put in place through a coup. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the manifestation of true democracy in the region. The discourse of the Iranian nation is focused on respect for the rights of human beings and a quest for tranquility, peace, justice and development for all through monotheism.

Your revolutionary ancestors, could they but see you, would tell you the same.
 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said:
That counts for nothing in the absence of action.

You live under a system that claims to derive its authority from "the consent of the governed."

Atrocities like Trump's war of choice aren't committed by ghosts.

They are executed by officials elected or appointed through processes you inherited as an American. Your statement sounds like a moral firewall: "I didn't vote for that evil, so my hands are clean."

Know this: moral responsibility isn't a ledger where you cross off every bad act you personally didn't initial. Inaction amid knowledge carries weight. History is littered with people who lived in empires or democracies committing horrors while insisting "this isn't me."

The Nuremberg defense ("I was just following orders") was rejected not because every German was a willing monster, but because collective acquiescence (failure to resist) enabled it.

You live in a democratic republic where armed citizens possess the legal authority to revolt against tyrannical politicians.

Is not that the purpose of your Second Amendment?


The bar for "I didn't consent" gets higher.

If the evil is intolerable enough to declare publicly, the principled move is not a personal disclaimer.

Words alone are cheap.

Plenty of Americans have said "not in my name" during Vietnam, Iraq, or domestic scandals, yet the policies rolled on, funded by their paychecks and defended by their fellow citizens' votes.

That doesn't make you uniquely guilty; it makes you part of a polity where sovereignty is shared and diluted. Pretending otherwise is self-soothing cant, not exoneration.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is born out of a movement, based on the pure primordial nature of a people who rose up to regain their dignity, esteem and human rights. The Islamic Revolution toppled a regime which had been put in place through a coup. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the manifestation of true democracy in the region. The discourse of the Iranian nation is focused on respect for the rights of human beings and a quest for tranquility, peace, justice and development for all through monotheism.

Your revolutionary ancestors, could they but see you, would tell you the same.
Click to expand...
WAY too many words.


Thank You will be Fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top