Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned President Trump against a strike on Iran and described the potential risks of military escalation.Credit...Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times
The president was dissuaded from moving ahead with a strike by advisers who warned that it could escalate into a broader conflict in his last weeks in office.
WASHINGTON — President Trump asked senior advisers in an Oval Office meeting on Thursday whether he had options to take action against Iran’s main nuclear site in the coming weeks.
The meeting occurred a day after international inspectors reported a significant increase in the country’s stockpile of nuclear material, four current and former U.S. officials said on Monday.
A range of senior advisers dissuaded the president from moving ahead with a military strike. The advisers — including Vice President Mike Pence; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Christopher C. Miller, the acting defense secretary; and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — warned that a strike against Iran’s facilities could easily escalate into a broader conflict in the last weeks of Mr. Trump’s presidency.
Any strike — whether by missile or cyber — would almost certainly be focused on Natanz, where the International Atomic Energy Agency reported on Wednesday that Iran’s uranium stockpile was now 12 times larger than permitted under the nuclear accord that Mr. Trump abandoned in 2018.
The agency also noted that Iran had not allowed it access to another suspected site where there was evidence of past nuclear activity.
Mr. Trump asked his top national security aides what options were available and how to respond, officials said.
Read more ....
Update: Trump asked for options to attack Iran nuclear site, was talked out of it: reports (Global News/Reuters)
WNU Editor: According to the New York Times President Trump wanted to know last week what are the military options to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. So the President who focused in the past year to bring peace to the Middle East will be the same President who will now engulf the entire region into a bloody and wide-ranging war .... and all of this a few weeks before he leaves office?!?!?!? And we know this because four anonymous sources ran to the New York Times and Reuters to tell them so!?!?!? This is why it is hard for me to believe anything that the US main stream media now publishes when it comes to Trump.
5 comments:
So WNU, are you telling me that the man who ordered the killing of Soleimani, the man who has a hard-line stance (justifiably) against Iran, would not seek such a course of action?
I very much think he would; it's inline with Trump's usual stance and Trump is feeling bitter and angry still over the election. Those emotions also play into it.
6:31 AM
Maybe. Maybe he is looking for a surgical strike against the nuke facilities.
Maybe the New York Times is lying again,. They have so often.
Maybe, but why. the Israelis did a good job of trashing some nuke facilities last year without airstrikes. He know this, so why not let the Israelis do it and take the risk.
Maybe he considered it, because he believes a );Biden admin would give Tehran pallets of cash in the middle of the night and so he needs something to set them back before the literally empty suit gets into office.
Trump is the guy consistently ordering withdrawal in Afghanistan, Syria and Africa (drawdown). The only reason really to strike Tehran now would be fear of O'biden pumping the Shia terrorists full of cash.
What the NY Times has done to this country under the mantle of free speech is disgraceful. I'll leave it at that.
Maybe one more thing: if you keep sharing links to that garbage propaganda piece of shit outlet, you're part of the problem. Some media outlets need to just disappear. This one is long overdue and filled its koffers by spreading lies and division. I could not think of a greater disservice a man or woman can do than spread this filth
"you keep sharing links to that garbage propaganda piece of shit outlet, you're part of the problem"
I did share a link for 2 reasons.
First, last spring Dr. Fauci time said it would take years to get a vaccine. Web search engines are set up for the hoi polloi such that the most recent news articles pop up in the 1st pages of a search returns. It make it harder to find articles that relate to what "movers and shakers: said at the time before they adjust fire, re-spin and prevaricate.
So I took what I could.
Second, if get it from the horses mouth then maybe avid readers like Fred Lapides will believe that Dr. Fauci gave such a terrible prediction.
It occurred to me in the last week that although search engines do not allow you to set date ranges and this might be because 20 years ago it was easier to program or people wanted the latest, that such an arrangement makes it easier for The Ministry of Truth, nowadays
Your search engine gives you the feeling of choice and of power, but in reality it is just "50 First Dates", which suits the Ministry of Truth just fine.
Nice left handed compliment, which was not a compliment at all, but merely posted to try to drag Trump down.
What does an idiot do?
Pull out of Afghanistan after 19 years of no result. I guess if you are Potomac Class Genius, you stick with the sunk cost fallacy.
Pull out of Syria. No one is pushing hard for any type of positive result. ISIS is gone and the Iranian and Russian can continue mop up. What is wrong with leaving? Obama does not give shit about the Christian Iraq. He showed us as much with his statistically improbable refugee policy. He has voiced no support for them. The Left has voice no support for the Kurds. The Left has voiced no support for our former allies in Anbar. So why are we there again now that ISIS is gone?
Trump wants to reduce the footprint in Africa. I disagree, but it would have benefits. Every 2 years it seems like Vice.com or some other left wingnut pub will piss and moan like a liberal guy in heat about how many bases we have worldwide and in Africa. So lets pull out some of those bases. when the Left proposes that we add some there because of some problem, then let us have that discussion followed by an agreed upon policy. The policy won't be agreed upon for long, because arch liberals have the attention span of a ferret. Look how long the Left stuck with their cherished Kony campaign. Is it idiotic to withdraw from bases in Africa, when the Left uses that as a pretext for unrest at home?
I guess being an idiot is having the lowest Black and Hispanic unemployment in 50 years.
Or maybe none of that is idiotic and the idiot is 10:16 AM who is a foreign troll or an arch liberal wingnut.
Post a Comment