You mean like having your social media history checked at the border?
14 Likes
The only reason that Iran wants nuclear weapons is because they are threatened and attacked by those that do have them. Iranâs nuclear ambitions were well under control until Trump renegad on the limitation treaty. He actually created the current situation.
However, I am pretty sure that the current attacks are nothing to do with this. All he has done is to demonstrate that the US is a bad actor and unreliable ally.
6 Likes
He never fucking fails to amaze. 
Welcome to the Anfield Noise KarolineâŚ
11 Likes
I see where youâre coming from, but I think that view leaves out a few things about Iran and the nuclear deal.
First, Iranâs nuclear ambitions didnât start because of Trump. They go back decades and were already a major international concern long before he came into office. The whole reason the nuclear deal existed in the first place was because there were serious doubts about Iranâs intentions and whether the restrictions would actually stop them from eventually getting a weapon.
Trumpâs argument for pulling out of the deal was that it only delayed the problem rather than solving it. A lot of the restrictions were temporary, and the agreement didnât really address Iranâs missile program or its support for armed groups across the region. From that perspective, he believed the deal would eventually allow Iran to become a nuclear-threshold state once the limits expired.
I also donât think itâs fair to say the current tensions are simply because the US is an unreliable ally. The reality is that many countries in the Middle East, including ones that strongly support the US, have been worried about Iranâs regional influence for years. That concern didnât start in 2018.
None of this means every decision Trump made was perfect, but I think his position was based on the idea that a short-term agreement wasnât enough to prevent a long-term nuclear threat. Whether people agree with that or not, itâs a different argument than simply creating the problem.
Just my take anyway.
1 Like
I get why you feel that way, and Iâm not trying to âjump through hoopsâ for anyone. Iâm just trying to explain why I see the situation differently.
To be honest, I donât think any of us here have the full picture of whatâs happening behind the scenes. These kinds of geopolitical conflicts are complicated, and every government involved is acting based on its own interests and security concerns.
My point wasnât that everything Trump does is automatically correct, just that there are arguments behind the decisions that some people find convincing.
Iâm definitely open to hearing other perspectives though. Thatâs kind of the point of a forum discussion.
1 Like
With respect , youâre not expounding anything new in your reading , and what you are attributing to be Trumpâs historical position is actually only at the prompting of Netanyahu , as is this whole sorry mess we find ourselves in today.
4 Likes
Just curious @anon8517609, what are your thoughts on Israel, and its involvement?
2 Likes
You donât need a degree in political science to be able to tell what Trumpâs motives are, or to figure out the gist of the discussions taking place behind closed doors. Trump has always been an immoral idiot, who fumbles from one catastrophe to the next.
Surely, you donât believe that he removed Maduro because of the âdrug ringâ he was allegedly heading. Nor he is attacking now Iran because itâs about to acquire nuclear weapons, when less than a year ago he was boasting for months about how he had crippled Iranâs nuclear programme.
Iranâs nuclear ability is a factor but in my opinion itâs not the overriding concern that led to this war. This has more to do with doing Netanyahuâs bidding and gaining control of more oil reserves.
As usual he never bothered to think about the consequences or even how he would accomplish his own nebulous objectives.
3 Likes
On the decline of fertility in the developed world?
You met @LuisSuarez yet?
1 Like
just spat my tea outâŚ
9 Likes
On one hand, this is a free forum, on the other hand, itâs a forum about Liverpool FC. I feel that the discussion about politics here doesnât warrant a registration solely to âprovide another perspectiveâ, especially considering the track record of people having that âother perspectiveâ arguing in bad faith. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
10 Likes
I see what you did theređ
1 Like
Why the 2nd assault?
Following the U.S.-led strike on Iranian nuclear production facilities on February 28, 2026, President Donald Trump declared that the operation had âobliteratedâ Iranâs nuclear program and was necessary to prevent a nuclear war that could have led to World War III.
No reason to attack again if their Nuclear Plan has been âobliteratedâ
4 Likes
Because , err ⌠they still had some enriched uranium and they were building missiles so fast that they would have had an impenetrable umbrella to protect them building another bomb from scratch even without all the centrifuges and stuff that weâd already obliterated.
That was the rationale.
What arguments? You havent actually presented any.
No one outside of Iran believes Iran should be allowed to get nuclear weapons. Jumping straight form that to âand that is why weâre right to do what weâre doingâ is not a different argument, it is no argument at all. It is missing the 30 steps you have to take in between, none of which Trump did nor are you asking him to do before you will support him starting a war.
7 Likes
From Israelâs perspective, Iran getting nuclear weapons is basically viewed as an existential threat. Iranian leaders have openly talked about opposing the Israeli state for years, and Israel is a very small country geographically, so even the possibility of a hostile nuclear power in the region is something they take extremely seriously.
Because of that, Israel has always pushed very hard, both diplomatically and sometimes militarily, to stop Iran from reaching that point. A lot of their strategy over the years has been about delaying or disrupting Iranâs nuclear progress through sanctions, intelligence operations, or pressure on allies like the US.
At the same time, I understand why people criticise Israelâs involvement. Some argue that Israeli pressure on the US makes diplomacy harder and increases the risk of escalation. Others point out that military actions or covert operations can make the whole situation spiral further.
Personally, I think both things can be true at once. Israel genuinely sees Iran as a serious threat to its survival, but actions taken to counter that threat can also raise tensions and make the situation more volatile.
Thatâs part of why this issue is so difficult, every side believes itâs acting defensively, but the result can still be a cycle of escalation. I donât think thereâs an easy solution, which is probably why the situation keeps coming back to the same underlying problem.
1 Like
I think thatâs a fair criticism in terms of questioning motives, honestly, nobody outside the inner circle really knows the full reasoning behind these decisions. But Iâm not convinced itâs as simple as âTrump doing Netanyahuâs biddingâ or chasing oil either.
For one thing, the current conflict didnât just appear out of nowhere. The escalation is tied to the wider regional situation and things like the fighting over shipping. When Iran started attacking ships and threatening the passage there, it created a huge international crisis because supposedly 20% of the worldâs oil supply passes through that.
The U.S. and Israel framed their strikes as targeting military and nuclear-related infrastructure tied to those threats. For example, U.S. forces carried out a major airstrike, hitting dozens of Iranian military sites they said were linked to missile storage and naval mining operations used to disrupt shipping.
Now that doesnât automatically mean the justification is correct, plenty of people inside and outside government are questioning it. In fact, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official recently resigned arguing that Iran did not pose an imminent threat, which shows thereâs serious disagreement even within the administration.
Where Iâd probably differ from you is on the idea that this is purely about oil or control of resources. If the goal were to seize Iranian oil, the strikes likely would have targeted oil infrastructure directly, but so far those facilities have largely been avoided while military sites were hit instead.
At the same time, I do agree with one of your broader points: the consequences of actions like this are incredibly hard to predict. Weâre already seeing global oil prices spike and major economic disruption because of the conflict, which suggests the situation may be far messier than anyone anticipated.
So I guess where I land is somewhere in the middle: I donât think the motivations are as simple as personal incompetence or oil grabs, but I also donât think governments are always transparent about their real strategic goals. Like most wars, itâs probably a mix of security concerns, alliances, domestic politics, and miscalculation.
Yes Benjamin. 
Your 1st post on a football forum. FFS!
2 Likes