.
- Rubio and Ratcliffe talked about the intelligence behind the strikes, the possible timing and the potential “offramp”— if the Iranians were to give up nuclear enrichment at upcoming talks.
- And yet Rubio never mentioned that the administration was considering a regime-change operation.
- Barbara Leaf, a retired career diplomat who was an assistant secretary of state in the Biden administration overseeing Middle East policy, said it was obvious that Mr. Trump was heading inevitably toward military action, noting he deployed a second carrier strike group to the region in the midst of the talks.
- “That was evidence of war planning,” she said. “You don’t need that for more leverage in diplomacy. I was never in any doubt he would go for a military strike.”
- Karoline Leavitt, said Mr. Trump made a “courageous decision” to take on a threat that no previous president had been willing to confront.
T=1772654357 / Human Date and time (GMT): Wed, 4 March 2026 at 19:59:17
___
Politico: Trump supporters are shocked — The White House cannot explain why to bomb Iran
SOURCE: https://news-pravda.com/world/2026/03/04/2125606.html
___
How Trump Decided to Go to War
President Trump’s embrace of military action in Iran was spurred by an Israeli leader determined to end diplomatic negotiations. Few of the president’s advisers voiced opposition.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Mileikowsky) of Israel walked into the Oval Office on the morning of Feb. 11, determined to keep the American president on the path to war.
For weeks, the United States and Israel had been secretly discussing a military offensive against Iran. But Trump administration officials had recently begun negotiating with the Iranians over the future of their nuclear program, and the Israeli leader wanted to make sure that the new diplomatic effort did not undermine the plans.
Over nearly three hours, the two leaders discussed the prospects of war and even possible dates for an attack, as well as the possibility — however unlikely — that President Trump might be able to reach a deal with Iran.
Days later, the U.S. president made clear publicly that he was skeptical of the diplomatic route, dismissing the history of negotiating with Iran as merely years of “talking and talking and talking.”
Asked by reporters if he wanted regime change in Iran, Mr. Trump said it “seems like that would be the best thing that could happen.”
Two weeks later, the president took the United States to war. He authorized a vast military bombardment in conjunction with Israel that swiftly killed the country’s supreme leader, pummeled Iranian civilian buildings and military nuclear sites, thrust the country into chaos and triggered violence across the region, leading to the deaths so far of six U.S. troops and scores of Iranian civilians. Mr. Trump has said more American casualties are likely as the United States digs in for an assault that could last weeks.
In public, Mr. Trump appeared to take a circuitous path to military action, alternating between saying that he wanted to strike a deal with Iran’s government and that he wanted to topple it. He made little effort to try to convince the American public that a war was necessary now. And the limited case he and his aides made included false claims about the imminence of the threat that Iran posed to the United States.
But behind the scenes, his move toward war grew inexorably, fueled by allies like Mr. Netanyahu who pushed the president to strike a decisive blow against Iran’s theocratic government; and by Mr. Trump’s own confidence after the successful U.S. operation that toppled the Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January.
This reconstruction of Mr. Trump’s decision to launch a sustained attack against Iran is based on the accounts of people with direct knowledge of the deliberations, as well as those on all sides of the debate, including diplomats from the region, Israeli and American administration officials, the president’s advisers, congressional lawmakers and defense and intelligence officials. Almost all spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive discussions and operational details.
The U.S. decision to strike Iran was a victory for Mr. Netanyahu, who had been pushing Mr. Trump for months on the need to hit what he argued was a weakened regime. During a meeting at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in December, Mr. Netanyahu had asked for the president’s approval for Israel to hit Iran’s missile sites in the coming months.
Two months later, he got something even better: a full partner in a war to topple the Iranian leadership.
In a statement Monday, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said Mr. Trump made a “courageous decision” to take on a threat that no previous president had been willing to confront.
Few in the president’s inner circle voiced opposition to military action. Even Vice President JD Vance, a longtime skeptic of American military interventions in the Middle East, argued in a White House Situation Room meeting that if the United States was going to hit Iran, it should “go big and go fast,” according to people familiar with his remarks.
In the same meeting, Mr. Trump’s top military adviser, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, told the president that a war could lead to significant American casualties. Days later, Mr. Trump told the public that his military adviser had been far more reassuring. He wrote on Truth Social that General Caine had said that any military action against Iran would be “something easily won.”
Other administration officials were similarly misleading in private sessions with lawmakers. During a Feb. 24 meeting with the so-called Gang of Eight — the leaders of the House and Senate and heads of the intelligence committees — Secretary of State Marco Rubio made no mention that the Trump administration was considering regime change, according to people familiar with his comments.
Three days later, while flying on Air Force One to an event in Corpus Christi, Texas, Mr. Trump gave the order for a sustained attack that would begin with the killing of the supreme leader.
“Operation Epic Fury is approved,” Mr. Trump said. “No aborts. Good luck.”
The White House insisted that its diplomatic talks with Iran were not mere theater. But it became clear over the past month that there was never the space for a deal that could satisfy Mr. Trump, Mr. Netanyahu and Iranian leaders at once — or one that could put off a war more than a few months.
The talks delivered nothing, but for Mr. Trump they served a different purpose: time to complete the largest American military buildup in the Middle East in a generation and carry out, in Mr. Trump’s words, a war of “overwhelming strength and devastating force.”
In an interview with The New York Times on Sunday, the president said he simply became convinced that Iran would never give him what he wanted.
“Toward the end of the negotiation, I realized that these guys weren’t going to get there,” he said. “I said, ‘Let’s just do it.’”
A Rapid Buildup
In the middle of January, when Mr. Trump first threatened to strike Iran in support of the anti-government protests roiling the country, the Pentagon was in no position to wage a lengthy war in the Middle East.
There were no aircraft carriers in the region. Squadrons of fighter jets were sitting in Europe and in the United States. And the bases scattered across the Middle East that are home to roughly 40,000 American troops were low on air defenses to protect them from an expected Iranian retaliation.
Israel was also not ready for the military campaign that Mr. Netanyahu had discussed with Mr. Trump during the Mar-a-Lago meeting in December. It needed more time to bolster its supply of missile interceptors and to deploy air defense batteries across Israel.
On Jan. 14, Mr. Netanyahu called Mr. Trump and asked him to delay any military strike until later in the month, when Israel’s defense preparations were complete. Mr. Trump agreed to wait.
The two leaders would speak several times in the weeks that followed. Mr. Netanyahu also conferred with Mr. Vance, Mr. Rubio and Steve Witkoff, the lead White House negotiator with Iran. Top Israeli military and intelligence officials flew to Washington, and Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, communicated regularly with Adm. Brad Cooper of U.S. Central Command.
By late January, the protests in Iran had been brutally quashed, but the war planning hummed along. The U.S. military presented Mr. Trump with an expanded range of options, including sending in American forces to carry out raids on sites inside Iran.
Two aircraft carriers and a dozen supporting ships sailed toward the Middle East, and the Pentagon sent fighter jets, bombers, refueling tankers and air defense batteries.
By the middle of February, the Pentagon had put into a place a force that could sustain a military campaign of several weeks.
By then, Mr. Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, were having indirect nuclear talks with the Iranians, under orders from Mr. Trump.
But there were signs that the administration was wary.
“We have to understand that Iran ultimately is governed and its decisions are governed by Shia clerics — radical Shia clerics, OK?” Mr. Rubio told reporters in Budapest on Feb. 16. “These people make policy decisions on the basis of pure theology. That’s how they make their decisions. So, it’s hard to do a deal with Iran.”
The message was apparent: Even though the talks were about dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, the goal could be removing Iran’s leadership.
A telling moment came when Mr. Witkoff spoke to Fox News in an interview on Feb. 21 and described Mr. Trump’s reaction to the Iranian reluctance to agree to “zero enrichment” — that is, to dismantle its ability to produce nuclear fuel.
“He’s curious as to why they haven’t — I don’t want to use the word ‘capitulated,’ but why they haven’t capitulated,” Mr. Witkoff said.
He added: “Why, under this sort of pressure, with the amount of sea power and naval power that we have over there, why haven’t they come to us and said, ‘We profess we don’t want a weapon, so here’s what we’re prepared to do’?”
“And yet it’s sort of hard to get them to that place,” he said.
It was clear to the president’s advisers that he was strongly considering some kind of military offensive. The question was the scale of the campaign and exactly what it was trying to achieve.
Assessing the Options
CONTINUES here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/02/us/politics/trump-war-iran-israel.html
___
Monday 15th September 2025
Anointed Drumpf from Kallstadt
makes first public appearance at RNC
- following the Ear-False-Flag.
credit: News4JAX_2026-01-06
SOURCE:
https://graviolateam.blogspot.com/2025/09/a-biblical-ritual-carried-out-to-anoint.html
___
Lavrov revealed the true intentions of Trump, who unleashed a massacre in the Persian Gulf
___
The True Cost of Trump’s War on Iran
Posted By: SpaceCommando [Send E-Mail]
Date: Thursday, 5-Mar-2026 21:20:05
www.rumormill.news/265779
|
True Cost of Trump’s War on Iran
The current war budget estimates that the total cost could skyrocket to $95 billion if the campaign is prolonged. In just the opening days of the aggression against Iran, US military costs have already torched through $1 billion.The financial bleed started before the first bomb dropped. Moving carriers and troops into position cost $630 million. In combat, the losses escalated fast: three F-15E Strike Eagles downed in Kuwait represent nearly $300 million gone. With over 1,200 targets hit in 48 hours and two aircraft carriers deployed (one successfully struck), the operational burn rate is extreme.
Tomahawk missiles fly at $2 million a pop. THAAD interceptors cost $12.8 million each. Meanwhile, 50,000 US troops are in the theater, with daily carrier operations bleeding millions.
The indirect damage is worse. With the Strait of Hormuz disrupted and oil prices spiking, economists warn of $210 billion in broader economic losses. More than 1,000 Iranians are dead, mostly civilians. US losses are also heavy, with assets across the region incurring unprecedented damage.
US taxpayers are now funding a war that erupted in the middle of nuclear talks, targeting Iranian leadership. The human toll is climbing, and the bill is due. For a public weary of endless conflict, this is Trump’s most expensive gamble yet.
@NewRulesGeo
___
11:55 am CDT 06/03/2026
WTI Crude(April Contract)
88.91 +9.71%
Tech error:
___
eof
The arresting officers said they saw a lot that aroused their suspicion about the men. One of the passengers had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock. Another was carrying two foreign passports. A box cutter was found in the van. But perhaps the biggest surprise for the officers came when the five men identified themselves as Israeli citizens.
VastaaPoistaIn addition, the van in which the Israelis were arrested was “oddly” lacking “equipment typically used in a moving company’s daily duties,” according to the FBI, and residue of explosives was found inside.
And now, thanks to a successful FOIA request, we can examine the FBI’s own files on these individuals. Although names are heavily redacted, the background information is startling.
VastaaPoistaLater, according to a former high-ranking American intelligence official who spoke to the Jewish Daily Forward in 2002, the FBI concluded in its investigation that the five Israelis arrested “were conducting a Mossad surveillance and intelligence mission and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, NJ, served as a front.”
This prescient doozy turned up in the file. Be sure to read last sentence.
"Give us twenty (20) years and we'll take over your media anddestroy your country."
https://www.scribd.com/document/409691150/FOIA-Release-of-9-11-Dancing-Israelis-thru-the-FBI