Following Trump’s attacks on Iran, an admin official tells Rolling Stone, “The intelligence assessments have not really changed”
After Donald Trump’s decision to strike three Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday, administration officials are barely bothering to pretend the unprecedented — and potentially calamitous — attacks were motivated by new intelligence suggesting Iran was on the brink of having nuclear weapons.
Just months ago, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified to Congress, in her opening statement, that the U.S. intel community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon” and had not reauthorized its nuclear weapons program.
While Trump recently publicly disputed Gabbard’s testimony, according to two administration officials with knowledge of internal deliberations in recent weeks, the president’s decision to strike was not driven by any new U.S. intelligence on Iran.
Iran’s theocratic regime aside (which the US is largely responsible for creating), why exactly are the US (and a handful of other countries) somehow more worthy of having nukes than others?
It’s some bullshit if you ask me.
The question of “do we really want X country having nukes?” seems to come off as: “it’s okay for country Y (the US) to have nukes”.
I for one, am not a fan of anyone having nukes, but if we’re not planning on getting that number to zero, not sure how it’s justified to say a certain country doesn’t deserve them, other than maybe North Korea who are completely unhinged, but how can we draw the line? The USA is literally just committing acts of war because they’ve unilaterally decided that Iran has nukes, without evidence, and that means they’re justified in doing pre-emptive strikes.
I don’t think any country is ever justified in pre-emptively striking another without extremely strong evidence.
I’m thoroughly unconvinced that any war the US has fought other than World War II has been justified.