President Trump ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, despite lacking new intelligence indicating imminent nuclear weapon development. This contradicts recent testimony from the Director of National Intelligence stating Iran was not building nuclear weapons. Administration officials confirmed the decision wasn’t based on new intel, attributing it instead to protecting U.S. interests and addressing the Iranian nuclear program’s threat potential. The attacks, therefore, represent a significant escalation without the pretense of imminent threat previously employed in justifying military action.
Read More
President Trump announced a U.S. military strike on three Iranian nuclear sites, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan, directly escalating the ongoing conflict. The operation, involving B-2 stealth bombers and large-yield bunker-buster bombs, aimed to severely damage Iran’s nuclear program, a move described as “very successful” by the President. This action follows weeks of Israeli attacks and comes despite Iranian threats of retaliation and the potential for wider regional conflict. The decision marks a significant departure from Trump’s previous campaign promises and raises serious concerns about escalating tensions in the Middle East.
Read More
During a House Armed Services Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined to deny the existence of Pentagon plans for potential military action in Greenland, responding vaguely to pointed questions from Representative Mike Turner. Hegseth’s evasive answers followed previous statements by the Trump administration expressing interest in acquiring Greenland, even suggesting the use of force. This refusal to definitively rule out an invasion aligns with the administration’s history of considering military options for territorial acquisitions, as evidenced by past discussions regarding the Panama Canal. The ambiguity surrounding these plans has fueled speculation about the true extent of U.S. intentions towards Greenland.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker