Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Joy Behar Can't Figure Out Why Trump Didn't Tell Iran He Was Going To Bomb Their Nuclear Sites
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 12:34:37 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <gk8o5kdqjl8hceui444h5sp3p8h384cru3@4ax.com>
References: <103gon1$2ntcm$10@dont-email.me> <103h7cr$2s8jt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 18:34:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c1bcce86795626354c1075c5e9acedee";
	logging-data="3038204"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ICBIctNqBB4ni6jAWwlkVNJhhJzBcF4I="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rlvDtLAam1WwwGQFfGdMgfWX2+s=

On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 12:16:26 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>On 2025-06-25 4:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> “The View” host Joy Behar complained about President Donald Trump’s decision
>> to strike Iranian nuclear sites, first objecting to the fact that he did not
>> exhaust the two week window he’d set for such an attack, and then to the fact
>> that he had not warned Iran ahead of time that he planned to carry out the
>> attacks.
>> 
>> Behar addressed the topic on Monday’s broadcast of the midday talk show,
>> along with her regular cohosts — and ABC News chief Washington correspondent
>> Jonathan Karl pushed back when she suggested that the Trump administration
>> had been out of line in attacking the Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities.
>> 
>> “So on Thursday, the White House said that Trump was going to make a decision
>> on Iran in the next two weeks, that’s what he said, remember that?” Behar
>> began. “Okay, he was going to give diplomatic negotiations more time to play
>> out. And then less than 48 hours later, this attack was underway. So what
>> changed and what was he actually trying to accomplish here?”
>> 
>> “Look, the two weeks measure was clearly a little bit of a head fake,” Karl
>> replied. “I mean, not entirely. I wouldn’t say the decision was finally made.
>> All indications are he didn’t actually make the decision to so-called pull
>> the trigger until Saturday … and then the attack commenced.”
>> 
>> Karl went on to say that he really believed Trump wanted “a Kim Jong Un
>> moment” where Iran’s Supreme Leader came to the table and made an eleventh-
>> hour deal, but that he made the decision to move forward with an attack when
>> it was clear that would not happen.
>> 
>> 	Behar serious questions why Trump didn’t tell the Iranians he was
>> 	going to bomb their nuclear weapons enrichment facility:
>> 
>> 	Behar: So, why did he keep it a secret for the surprise version?
>> 	pic.twitter.com/RcCwemhuc6
>> 
>> 	— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 23, 2025
>> 
>> “So, why did he keep it a secret — a surprise version?” Behar asked,
>> apparently questioning why Trump did not broadcast his plans to attack prior
>> to execution.
>> 
>> Karl said it was “absolutely a diversion,” adding, “all indications were that
>> the B-2s were flying towards Guam, everybody thought, okay, we’re getting in
>> position to be ready. They wanted to have some element of surprise.”
>> 
>> 
>You've got to feel sorry for the legacy media in the wake of Trump's 
>apparent success in taking Iran down a peg or two. You just KNOW they 
>want to continue "the Resistance" but they're really struggling to find 
>something to criticize. The best they can do is react to him saying 
>"fuck" in front of their media colleagues and raising questions about 
>just how effective the bunker-busters were. Joy Behar's claim that Trump 
>wasn't being nice because he failed to telegraph the attack by the B2's 
>is a particularly desperate attempt to find something - ANYTHING - that 
>will resonate with their leftist compatriots.

I wouldn't say he took Iran down at all. They and everyone else knew
their military couldn't stand up to the American, let alone the
Israeli. So everyone knew that if America decided to attack there
wasn't much to be done to try to stop them. 

However, it's also been reported that for the past few weeks there
were cargo trucks visiting each of the enrichment sites. The sort that
would be used to move the enriched uranium. These trucks then went off
to other sites where the contents were unloaded. So in all likelihood,
at best, we destroyed the equipment used to enrich the uranium.

The experts are also saying this likely delayed the Iranians by about
3 to 4 months. Lastly from what I'm hearing reported it's not clear
what damage, if any, was actually done to the equipment in the major
site. We definitely did damage to the outside but the reports where of
no major rescue efforts. The sort one might expect if we did the sort
of damage the military was going for.

>My perception is that Americans are VERY happy that someone has finally 
>done something about a regime that has been screaming "Death to 
>America!" and "Death to Israel" for over 40 years and that has supported 
>its rhetoric by many fatal attacks on Americans and Israelis over those 
>years.

Sure, it's a feel good moment. Much like the attack on Iraq. The
problem and question is, what happens next. My thought is that this
will convince Iraq to push forward with building an actual nuclear
weapon. That would lead other nations, including the USA, to be more
cautious when dealing with Iraq.

>Personally, I'd like to see America and Israel do everything they can to 
>help the many, many enemies of the Iranian theocracy overthrow their 
>oppressors, including supplying small arms if necessary, to enable them 
>to overcome the regime's defenders in the IRGC. The vast majority of 
>Iranians want the current regime gone and Israel has tried to help by 
>eliminating as many top IRGC people as possible but they may need still 
>more help so that should be provided. I feel sure the fanatics defending 
>the regime will melt away like Assad's defenders did when push comes to 
>shove. Then Iran can do a massive reset to get back on track as a 
>prosperous and Western-friendly nation.

Sounds nice but how often has that worked out for the best? It seems
like everything we try to do militarily in the Middle East fails to
achieve any long term success. At best we achieve short term goals
like bombing a location or killing a leader, but nothing lasting.
Bombed sites get rebuilt and new leaders rise to power, but nothing
really seems to change. I don't know what the right move is. Maybe the
best we can hope for is to keep the pot from boiling over?