By John Q. Hosedrinker 
U.S. intelligence reports indicate that claims of Iran possessing missiles capable of reaching the United States in the near future are likely exaggerated. Assessments suggest it could take until 2035 for Iran to develop a militarily viable intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from its existing satellite-launching technology, even with potential foreign assistance. While Iran has a significant ballistic missile program, experts note it is years away from developing the technology needed for an operational ICBM that could strike the U.S. homeland.
Read the original article here
The assertion by the former president that Iran is on the cusp of possessing missiles capable of reaching the United States lacks corroboration from U.S. intelligence assessments, according to informed sources. This claim appears to be an amplification of reality, leaning more towards exaggeration than established fact.
It’s quite a surprise, isn’t it, when pronouncements from high office aren’t grounded in the very intelligence agencies meant to provide such foundational information? The question naturally arises: where does this kind of assertion originate? Is it a deliberate fabrication, perhaps intended to divert attention from other pressing domestic issues, like the lingering questions surrounding the Epstein files?
This narrative feels familiar, echoing past justifications for military action. It brings to mind the pre-invasion claims about weapons of mass destruction supposedly hidden by Saddam Hussein, a precedent that serves as a stark reminder of how pretexts can be manufactured to initiate conflict. The desire to engage in a military confrontation with Iran seems to be a recurring theme, with various pronouncements serving as convenient excuses.
Whether the underlying motivation is a simple desire to employ military force, or a more calculated effort to distract from controversial domestic and international policies, the pattern is concerning. Such actions can be perceived as unhinged, posing a significant threat to global stability. The notion of associating the former president with intelligence is, for many, a fundamental contradiction, an oxymoron where the emphasis clearly falls on the latter part of the term.
This latest pronouncement seems to swap the well-worn phrase “weapons of mass destruction” for “missiles” – a subtle shift in terminology, perhaps, but the underlying intent to create alarm may be similar. The current generation of rhetoric, some might argue, lacks the persuasive power and “rizz” of past campaigns, making the reliance on such unsubstantiated claims even more pronounced.
Historically, government figures who sought to manipulate public opinion or gain advantage were often characterized by their intelligence, charm, and smooth articulation. While one might still be fooled, there was a certain art to it. In contrast, the current approach, characterized by a more blunt and forceful delivery, can feel almost insulting in its perceived lack of subtlety.
The question then becomes: why is this particular lie different from the multitude of others? It seems to be simply another instance of a characteristic communication style, a weaponized mouth deployed for mass distraction. This situation bears an uncanny resemblance to the lead-up to the Iraq War, a period where intelligence was similarly disregarded. The desire to engage Iran, even back then, was palpable, but it was overshadowed by the immediate focus on Iraq.
It would be far more noteworthy if this individual were to convey factual information. The persistent inability to speak truthfully is a defining characteristic, making honesty an almost impossible feat. When has the absence of actual evidence of weapons ever deterred a Republican president from pursuing military engagement?
The former president’s declaration was almost predictable. The realization that a diplomatic resolution with Iran was unattainable, coupled with the understanding that initiating a war, particularly one involving American ground troops, would be politically disastrous for him and his party, likely led to this approach. While the MAGA base might overlook various transgressions, a direct conflict with Iran is a deeply sensitive issue. Consequently, he felt compelled to convince his supporters of the necessity of an attack, by any means necessary.
One might question the motives of U.S. intelligence agencies, or at least the perceived outcome of their work. Iran already possesses missiles with the capability to strike regional allies and, theoretically, even Europe, although direct evidence of the latter remains unseen. Considering the increasingly close military cooperation between Russia and Iran, particularly concerning drones and other military hardware, it’s not entirely implausible that knowledge regarding intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) could have been shared, perhaps originating from Russian or North Korean expertise.
Indeed, Iran’s Khorramshahr missiles are acknowledged to be North Korean variants, possessing considerable range. Their Sejjil missiles also demonstrate significant capabilities, and the recent introduction of hypersonic technology presents a further variable. Therefore, it is not an unreasonable assessment to suggest that Iran is steadily progressing towards developing long-range missile capabilities. However, this perspective comes with a caveat: a skepticism towards relying solely on certain media outlets for such critical assessments.
A comparison of the number of bombs dropped by Iran on the United States over the decades, versus the number of bombs dropped by the United States on Iran, offers a stark contrast. This imbalance highlights a concerning trend where the U.S. appears to be increasingly adopting tactics reminiscent of a state engaged in aggressive foreign policy.
This rhetoric bears a striking resemblance to the consistent messaging employed by Benjamin Netanyahu regarding Iran, albeit with a shift from nuclear weaponry to ICBMs. It’s worth noting that the former president did engage in military action against Iran not long ago, and the consistent pattern of alarmist claims warrants scrutiny. The legacy of past misleading intelligence, such as the infamous “Powell’s joke,” continues to cast a long shadow, making skepticism a rational response.
The notion of a “missile gap 2.0” mirrors the recurring strategy of invoking a WMD crisis as a catalyst for military action, leading to the inevitable conclusion: “We have no choice, bombs away!” The subsequent question of “And after that, sir?” often receives a dismissive or vague response, highlighting the reactive nature of such pronouncements.
While it’s understandable to question the former president’s claims, it’s also important to consider the opposing viewpoints. Some individuals express confusion as to why there’s a desire for the current Iranian regime to remain in power, drawing parallels to previous military actions, such as the bombing of Fordow, which also lacked initial intelligence backing. This sentiment echoes the promises of those who voted for him based on a desire to end protracted wars.
The phrase “Weapons of Mass Destruction Fake Scheme” has become a familiar refrain associated with certain political factions. The former president, in particular, has never seemed overly concerned with factual intelligence, operating instead on instinct and personal conviction. His tendency to lie is so ingrained that he may not even recognize it as such.
The possibility of a “false flag” operation cannot be entirely dismissed, particularly if such claims are aligned with intelligence shared by allies like Israel, which the former president reportedly favors. The “America First” slogan, in this context, takes on a particularly ironic hue. Supporters of intervention in Ukraine, for instance, might see an attack on Iran as weakening a key Russian ally, while also addressing humanitarian concerns regarding the Iranian regime’s human rights record. The surge in activity from Russian and Chinese bots on social media platforms further complicates the information landscape.
The possibility of alternative motivations for such pronouncements is certainly worth exploring. It’s even suggested that the former president might consult with figures like Tulsi Gabbard, whose views might offer a different perspective that could eventually lend some form of legitimacy to his claims. The underlying fear, for some, is that the former president is orchestrating a path to war, potentially to influence an election.
The sentiment of “Nobody wants your damn war, Trump!” reflects a deep weariness with military interventions. The moral justification for bombing countries that engage in severe human rights abuses is a complex issue. However, the credibility of the intelligence used to justify such actions is paramount. When the same intelligence apparatus that previously mischaracterized events is invoked, skepticism becomes a natural response. The reliance on anonymous sources, without transparency or substantiation, further erodes trust.
The rationale for Iran seeking missile capabilities directed at the “great Satan” is, for some, self-evident. Ultimately, attributing intelligence or factual basis to the former president’s pronouncements is seen as inherently flawed. The simple truth, for many, is that such associations are fundamentally incompatible.
While U.S. intelligence has projected that Iran might achieve ICBM capability by 2035, with some analysts suggesting an earlier timeline, the former president’s assertion of “soon” is open to interpretation. This vagueness could stem from a genuine misunderstanding, a distorted recollection of talking points, or a deliberate exaggeration. The absence of concrete proof presented against him suggests that the intelligence community may not support his specific claims.
The parallel to the invasion of Iraq, where intelligence was similarly manipulated, is a recurring theme. The notion that the U.S. government might be orchestrating such actions, perhaps motivated by resource acquisition, as suggested in the case of Venezuela, adds another layer of complexity to the discussion. The lack of named sources within the article itself contributes to a general distrust of the information presented.