Iran

#16,703
#16,703
MontyPython said:
After long last, I gotta ask... wtf is up w your avatar?

You've got some gap toothed, unidentifiable dude (Frodo Baggins?), squirrels with MAGA hats, flying cigarettes... I'm at a loss. Surely this must *mean* something. Or maybe... I'm just old and ignorant. Or both!
Click to expand...

Not to further derail but U2's Beautiful Day came on at the restaurant I'm drinking at today and it was too uncanny to avoid reporting it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Persian Vol and MontyPython
#16,712
#16,712
Good article... If only some Cabinet member (looking at you Vance) had the backbone to force Trump to recognize the very predictable realities of the giant sh*tshow he's created, we wouldn't be stuck in this quagmire.

Donald's choices will continue to degrade from between bad to worse while the economy stumbles and his core constituency slowly comes to realize he's not acting in their interest.

War on Iran Backfired
Foreign Affairs

www.foreignaffairs.com

How America’s War on Iran Backfired

Seventeen years ago, while serving as an Iran desk officer in the U.S. State Department, I asked a more veteran colleague about the latest inflammatory statement by Mahmood Ahmadinejad, then the Iranian president. My colleague responded: “Stop paying attention to Ahmadinejad. Only focus on...
www.foreignaffairs.com www.foreignaffairs.com

Snippet...

"...UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Despite the tactical brilliance of its joint offensive with Israel, strategic success remains elusive for the United States. Trump went to war against a country of 92 million people with no clear plan for what would happen after the guns fell silent. He initially declared that victory would be achieved if the Iranian people rose up and dismantled the Islamic Republic themselves—an extraordinary and unrealistic request. The regime’s horrific crackdown in January produced no meaningful defections from the regime or security services, and government leaders have already shown they are willing to kill as many of their own people as needed to stay in power.

In 2023, while serving as Iran director at the National Security Council, I attended a diplomatic meeting with an Iranian official in the aftermath of a major protest. Surprisingly, the official acknowledged strong opposition to the Islamic Republic. Yet he cautioned that the United States failed to understand that an equal number of Iranians were prepared to die for the regime and pointed out that most Iranians just wanted a better day-to-day life. Although he didn’t break it down into numbers, I began thinking of this as the 20-20-60 ratio. Twenty percent of Iranians are dedicated to the downfall of the Islamic Republic, 20 to its preservation, and the remainder to a better life.

I long assumed that after Khamenei died, the Iranians who wanted a better life would join forces with those strongly opposed to the Islamic Republic and force the country’s leaders down a different path than the one the supreme leader had charted. But the bitter irony is that the U.S. and Israeli approach to the recent war afforded Khamenei a martyr’s death—a gift to the regime, as it diverted attention away from the Islamic Republic’s failures. It elevated Khamenei’s hard-line son and turned much of the nation’s focus toward surviving an external assault. All these outcomes only marginalize the silent majority of Iranians who just want a measure of well-being.

Moving forward, Iran does not need to score major military successes every day. The regime only needs to inflict enough periodic damage to keep regional partners, markets, and the American public jittery. Despite catastrophic damage to the Iranian navy and other branches of the military, periodic drone attacks on tankers attempting to traverse the Strait of Hormuz are probably enough to keep traffic snarled in a shipping channel responsible for a fifth of global oil supply."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#16,723
#16,723
Wait now it makes sense, should have known.

What a loser.


SUSPECTED LEAKING COWARD EXPOSED!

Joe Kent wasn’t in the room; he was CUT from President Trump’s intelligence briefings MONTHS AGO over suspected leaks!

He was deliberately shut out of ALL Iran planning and had ZERO access to the classified evidence proving the regime was racing toward nuclear weapons and posed an imminent threat.

Yet this gutless quitter still stabbed Trump in the back with a whiny resignation letter claiming “no imminent threat” and that Trump was “deceived.”

Pathetic. The administration already knew he was a security risk; now the whole world sees why his opinion is worthless garbage.

Leakers and spineless quitters don’t belong in this White House.

Good riddance!

 
#16,725
#16,725
MAD said:
Wait now it makes sense, should have known.

What a loser.


SUSPECTED LEAKING COWARD EXPOSED!

Joe Kent wasn’t in the room; he was CUT from President Trump’s intelligence briefings MONTHS AGO over suspected leaks!

He was deliberately shut out of ALL Iran planning and had ZERO access to the classified evidence proving the regime was racing toward nuclear weapons and posed an imminent threat.

Yet this gutless quitter still stabbed Trump in the back with a whiny resignation letter claiming “no imminent threat” and that Trump was “deceived.”

Pathetic. The administration already knew he was a security risk; now the whole world sees why his opinion is worthless garbage.

Leakers and spineless quitters don’t belong in this White House.

Good riddance!

Click to expand...

Short answer: there is some reporting about concerns over leaks and reduced access—but the sweeping claim you’re quoting is exaggerated and not fully supported by verified evidence.

Here’s what credible, recent reporting actually says:

What is supported by reporting​

  • Joe Kent did resign (March 2026) as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center over disagreement with the Iran war. (KVIA)
  • There are claims from within Trump-aligned circles that:
    • Kent had been excluded from some intelligence briefings in recent months.
    • This was allegedly tied to concerns about leaks. (The Times of India)
  • Separately, at least one report indicates he had been “sidelined” from producing the President’s Daily Brief late in his tenure. (Wikipedia)

What is NOT confirmed / overstated​

The viral claim you mentioned goes much further than the evidence:

  • ❌ “Cut from briefings months ago”
    • There are claims of reduced access, but not clear, confirmed evidence of a total cutoff for months across all intelligence.
  • ❌ “Shut out of ALL Iran planning”
    • No credible reporting confirms a complete exclusion from all Iran-related planning.
  • ❌ “ZERO access to classified evidence”
    • No verified source states he had zero access to classified intelligence.
  • ❌ “Proof Iran posed an imminent threat that he never saw”
    • In fact, Kent himself publicly argued the opposite—that Iran did not pose an imminent threat. (KVIA)
    • The administration, meanwhile, says it did have such intelligence—this is a dispute, not a settled fact. (New York Post)

Important context​

  • This situation is part of a major internal split inside the Trump administration and its allies over the Iran war. (KVIA)
  • Some Trump allies have attacked Kent as a leaker, while others support him. (The Times of India)
  • Statements about his access and role are coming from political allies, media figures, and anonymous officials, not all independently verified.

Bottom line​

  • ✔️ Partly true: There are reports he may have been excluded from some briefings due to leak concerns.
  • ❌ Misleading/exaggerated: Claims that he was completely cut off, had zero access, or was entirely excluded from Iran planning are not backed by solid evidence.
If you want, I can break down who’s saying what (administration vs. Kent vs. media vs. pundits) so you can see exactly how the narratives differ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan and sonofUT62
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top