The Two Americas Celebrate in the Street

posted by Christopher Chantrill at American Thinker 

Last weekend the Two Americas had their separate celebrations. One America celebrated the Army that George Washington assembled 250 years ago to fight the War of Independence against King George and his regal flunkeys. The Other America conducted thousands of mostly peaceful protests against the idea of Kingship.

So we are all agreed on one thing: No Kings! Although our Democrat friends elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt for President four consecutive times in the 1930s and 1940s until he died in office, just like a king. It was Gen. Washington, the hero of the Revolutionary War who could have been King, that declined the honor after winning the Revolutionary War. And then, after being elected twice as President of the United States, he declined to run for President for a third term.

What then should we think of the kingly nationwide injunctions of our unelected federal judges countermanding the executive orders of Donald Trump, democratically elected president of Our Democracy? Uneasy is the head that wears the crown of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg.

Kingship, like many things, is in the eye of the beholder.

For instance, the Pearl Project has identified 198 separate Democratic organizations orchestrating Saturday's NO KINGS demonstrations. Can you spell A-s-t-r-o-t-u-r-f? Of those organizations, 141 are 501(c) non-profits. Where is Lois Lerner, who stood alone on the bridge defending Our Democracy to deny 501(c) status for the kingly Tea Party?

The thing I love about our beloved Democrat friends is that, because they fight for the Oppressed Peoples against the White ICE Oppressors, they cast themselves into the role of helpless victims when they conduct their astroturfed regime-approved mostly peaceful protests.

But the protesters at the NO KINGS events are not helpless victims; they are all middle class and educated class. Barely a former enslaved person to be seen. What are they thinking?

You know what? I am genuinely interested in how our liberal friends think. For instance, I walk almost every day by a house that has a handmade HANDS OFF! sign on the fence. On Friday, the householder was out mowing the lawn, so I asked her, all friendly like, what prompted the sign. She said got the idea from Indivisible:

Indivisible Project is a registered 501(c)(4). Indivisible Action is a Hybrid Political Action Committee. They are separate organizations.

And now, right next to the HANDS OFF! banner, she has two NO KINGS posters. Indivisible is also involved in NO KINGS. I forgot to ask her whether she would be at the peaceful protest or the Antifa riot.

But I understand how our liberal friends feel. They and theirs pretty well ran the table for over a century, and all was right with the world. Now, all of a sudden, Trumps and Farages -- and Melonis! -- and other would-be kings are coming out of the woodwork and shaking the foundations of the kingly liberal cathedral.

In the next regime, experts will agree that today’s modern state was the most unjust and hegemonic state since Augustus Caesar. And here’s a bit of confirmation in a curious message from an anonymous gay civil servant in the UK.

Life as a civil servant in Whitehall means accepting the politically correct worldview without question and being thankful for it. Features of this include, as you might expect: ‘gender-neutral’ toilets; Pride flag lanyards; being expected to celebrate the Trans Day of Visibility; and pronouns listed in email signatures…

The effect is to ‘inclusively’ ensure that only conformists are hired and promoted, and meanwhile to cancel any heretics who might not adhere to the general groupthink.

Now we understand how Sir Humphrey Appleby, of Yes, Minister, could get PM Liz Truss out of there in ten minutes flat.

Here’s another take, from a report contrasting the Army Parade and the NO KINGS protests. The NO KINGS protesters are mostly retirees, apparently, and one woman said:

"I'm just so scared. I'm 74 years old. I worry about everything. I just, I just am so scared and upset, and I don't -- I don't understand why people voted for this person."

Experts agree that old people -- especially older women -- are more inclined than younger adults to experience anxiety.

Never mind. Shakespeare knew it all, centuries ago:

                               All the world’s a march,
And all the men and women merely marchers;
They have their demos and their rallies;
And one person in xer time plays many parts,
Xer acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Singing ancient social justice hymns to MLK;
And then the student with xer self-made sign
Astroturfing protest for a more just world
…
                     Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is protest childishness and mere oblivion;
Sans signs, sans chant, sans mind, sans everything.

But I still have a question: why would any ruling class encourage its supporters to riot in the streets? What’s the point?

X22, And we Know, and more- June 18

 

A Decade Ago, the Start of the Trump Era

posted by Byron York at Townhall 

This time ten years ago, much of the political commentariat, both Democratic and Republican, was having a grand old time making fun of Donald Trump. The real estate/marketing/TV star entered the GOP race for president on June 16, 2015 -- you remember the famous coming-down-the-escalator scene. Watching Trump's announcement, a lot of pundits couldn't stop laughing.

The news was a "gift from heaven," said Jon Stewart, then host of "The Daily Show." Stewart, who had announced he was stepping down but had not yet left, said, "Thank you, Donald, thank you, Donald Trump, for making my last six weeks my best six weeks. He is putting me in some kind of comedy hospice where all I'm getting is just straight morphine." Stewart later added, "Let's dance, clownstick!"

"Clown" became a favorite word in the field of political analysis. The New York Daily News put Trump on its cover the next day with the headline "Clown Runs for Prez," adding "Trump throws rubber nose in GOP ring." (The news story began, "The carload of Republicans running for president now has a clown.") Some Fox News commentators called Trump a clown, too, most notably the late conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who called him a "rodeo clown." (Krauthammer later quipped that he came to regret the "rodeo" part of the insult.)

More serious analysis adopted the "clown" line, too. "If Trump follows through," noted Politico, "his candidacy poses awkward dilemmas for a Republican Party trying to shed the clown-car image of fringe candidates that suck up media oxygen."

Of course, everyone, comedians and pundits alike, predicted that Trump would fail, that is, that he would not become president of the United States. "Here's the sad news," comedian Conan O'Brien said. "Season 15 of 'Celebrity Apprentice' will not air. But not to worry. With Trump running for president, you'll still get to see an irrelevant B-list celebrity not get a job." On MSNBC, veteran journalist Mike Barnicle was asked his reaction to Trump's announcement and started this way: "Can we stipulate for the purposes of this conversation that Donald Trump will never be president of the United States?" Barnicle's oh-so-confident statement was repeated many, many times throughout the commentary world. To add just one example, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza wrote, "Donald Trump will never be president. He knows that. We know that."

Amid all the ridicule being heaped on Trump, one publication, the venerable conservative National Review, outdid everyone else. Its coverage of the Trump announcement, headlined, "Witless Ape Rides Escalator," called Trump a "ridiculous buffoon with the worst taste since Caligula" and "a reality-television grotesque with his plastic-surgery-disaster wife, grunting like a baboon about our country's 'brand' and his own vast wealth."

And so on. Obviously, it all sounded ridiculous in later months when Trump rose in the polls, captured the Republican nomination, and won the presidency. But even in the early months, the writers and speakers mentioned above could have saved themselves some embarrassment by checking in on things in Iowa, where by the spring of 2015, Trump had hired respected staff, spent a lot of money, was drawing big crowds, and had spent more time in the state than rivals Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio combined. "By the various measurements journalists use to evaluate campaigns -- crowds, staff, money, candidate time on the ground -- if the Trump campaign were being conducted by anyone else, journalists would take it quite seriously," I wrote in May 2015.

After his campaign launch, Trump went on to lead the GOP polls straight through until primary and caucus voting began. And then he won the White House. And now, as he is in his second term, it is not too early to say that Trump's trip down the escalator in June 2015 marked the beginning of the Trump era, the most consequential period in our politics in (at least) the last 50 years. It was also the beginning of the end of the Republican Party as it was led by the heirs of Ronald Reagan -- George W. Bush, John McCain, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and others.

The experience of 2015-16 should have made Trump's media adversaries a little more circumspect in their pronouncements. It didn't. Instead, their early mocking of Trump led to years of full-scale rhetorical combat between the new president and the journalists who covered him. Now, some in the media are trying to suppress their instinct to engage in battle with Trump and instead understand what he is doing and what his supporters think about it. For many, it is still a very, very difficult task. But it is the right thing to do.

I Swear the Democrats Are Ridiculous

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

So, what’s with this new trend toward Democrat profanity? The peaceniks have finally found a bomb they want to drop, the one with an F. Every time they talk, it’s F-this and F-that. No surprise that when it comes to dropping bombs, they only want to drop them on us.

I guess their consultants are telling them that swearing demonstrates authenticity. Somehow, the more they swear like a sailor – back before the Navy got converted into a woke flotilla of genderqueer fatties under Obama/Biden – the more real they are. “Oh look, a senator spewed issued a profanity, vulgarity, and/or obscenity! We must immediately take them seriously! I mean, it must be a big deal if they’re going to break the norms by swearing!” But of course, like so many other norms, that norm has been blown all to Schiff.

Now, I’m not one of those people who reflexively hate swearing. I can swear up a storm but do it like a man, not a little femboy. I was in the infantry, where colorful language is de rigueur, though I had a very brave combat veteran colonel as my commander, who never swore. It was a little disconcerting to hear him refer to annoying people as “poopy heads” – I am absolutely serious – but the guy was a literal genius and a killer, so he got to say whatever he wanted however he wanted without me second-guessing him.

In contrast, that fat tub of mediocrity, Alexandr Vindman, now retired and no longer embarrassing the officer corps by wearing an Army uniform that fits him like a sausage casing, recently weighed in – figuratively, of course, because he apparently never did – about Kristi Noem when her bodyguards body slammed whoever Alex Padilla is. The leftist has-been’s pathetic fulminating on the Twitter Machine was, like pretty much his entire career, just ridiculous. Better he goes back to swallowing his anger – the only fear this guy ever inspired was in the manager of a Golden Corral when he walked in – than to start directing naughty words at a girl. “Take that, Kristi Noem – you’re not just a fascist! You’re a $@#&%@# fascist because your security won’t let some deranged screaming lunatic get close to you!” Hey, it’s not like a majority of the opposing political party thinks it’s A-OK to murder Republicans. And it’s not like any have tried. Oh, wait. 

Regardless, who’s the person reading that who thinks, “Oh wow, he said, ‘$@#&%@# fascist’ instead of just ‘fascist.’ The ‘$@#&%@#’ put it over the top. I’m convinced!”

It’s their consultants who tell these Democrats that if they proffer their profanity, they will sound more authentic. Of course, Democrat consultants are the same ones who suggested sending the Dylan Mulvaney of the DNC, David Hogge, Jabba the Dem, and Jazz Hands Walz out to convince men to identify with the Democrats. Their latest BS brainstorm just won’t work. It’s so obvious and so calculated that any residual shock value wears off, and it simply becomes tiresome. When you see some SSRI goblin trading her Chardonnay for swear words, it comes across as so transparently fake that you can’t help but laugh. It’s a tantrum, and all it demonstrates is impotence. 

Dems have the worst consultants in the universe, and all seem to use the same one. This phenomenon began spontaneously a few months ago, seemingly out of the blue. Apparently, someone had this genius idea, and the memo was sent out. Before that, swearing was noticeable. If somebody swore, you paid attention because that was a gross violation of the norms. Now, every other tweet, speech, or sign includes something you’d get fined by the FCC for uttering on the air. It’s like their entire vocabulary has been reduced to George Carlin’s seven dirty words.

The message is that things right now are so unusual and so outside the bounds of the ordinary that no one can expect them to do the usual or stay inside the bounds of the ordinary. This is part and parcel of their entire approach to dealing with the populist conservative backlash against their grotesque mismanagement of not just our government but our whole culture. There is a Trump Exception to everything, and that includes decorum. 

But the thing they don’t understand is that the norms that you bulldoze to obtain short-term advantage suddenly spring back once your current opponent has been vanquished. For one thing, the next opponent is going to be even worse – Donald Trump may be a “$@#&%@# fascist” in 2025, but we all know that JD Vance is going to be a “$@#&%@#$@#&%@# fascist” in 2028. And for another thing, as with every norm the Democrats have set fire to like a Los Angeles Waymo, they are establishing a New Rule that our side will start playing by. We’ve already seen it. Rep. Mike Lawler got into a shouting match with some Democrat idiot congressbot and dropped his own F-bomb when discussing it.

If this keeps up, everybody’s going to be swearing all the time, and then swearing won’t mean anything. Again, I’m not against swearing in the appropriate context, but the appropriate context is not every single context. If you look at my novels – and you should go pre-order my new one, American Apocalypse: The Second American Civil War – you will find that I rarely use profanity, obscenity, or vulgarity. It’s not because I’m afraid to speak those words; I constantly have to watch myself during broadcast appearances lest I let one fly. It’s because they tend to turn off a significant number of my readers. My folks don’t like to see them because gratuitous cursing offends them, and I’m the weird kind of author who likes people liking his books. I’m funny about that. Sure, a choice dirty word is sometimes the right word, but sometimes it's not, and that’s where we’re headed.

In the end, I think this stupid fad will fade away because it’s counterproductive. Sure, it may make Dems feel tough and believe they’re demonstrating authenticity, but that’s an illusion. People who dislike it will be offended, which will turn them off. People who are not offended will simply become tired of it. If everybody uses abnormal words, those abnormal words become normal, and then what? Where do you go from the F-bomb? The super F-bomb? In the military, you try to keep your reserves as long as possible because once you commit them, you’ve got nothing left. And that’s the problem for the Democrats. Other than a bunch of dirty words, they shout while pounding on the podium; they’ve got nothing else.

Iranians Chant for Shah’s Return As Terrorist Regime Collapses

 

Catherine Salgado  | 11:21 AM on June 18, 2025   |   PJ Media

In Tehran, Iranians are reportedly chanting enthusiastically about the anticipated fall of the “Islamic Republic” regime and the potential return of the Crown Prince, heir to the ancient throne of Persia.

While it is unclear exactly the extent of the damage Israel has inflicted on Iran and whether or not the current genocidal regime will fall because of it, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi confirmed that Iranian soldiers and officials have reached out to him, and he urged the Iranian people to rise up, announcing he already has a plan for renewing Iran should he come to power again.

Clips are circulating online of Iranians chanting a slogan that has been translated: “This is the final battle — Pahlavi will return!” In recent years, many tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets to protest the Islamic regime, with thousands of them arrested, raped, tortured, or killed. The protesters (especially the women) who survived are no doubt hoping for the current regime to collapse. Iranian dissidents have been among the strongest supporters of Israel in the current conflict.

Related: Trump Says USA Controls Sky Over Iran, Posts ‘UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER’

In his message, Pahlavi condemned the violence, cowardice, and destructiveness of Ayatollah Khamenei and co., and confidently predicted that the collapse of the regime there is irreversible. “We are prepared for the first hundred days after the fall, for the transitional period, and for the establishment of a national and democratic government — by the Iranian people and for the Iranian people,” he vowed. Pahlavi is an advocate for a Westernized, secularized government in Iran.

The return of Pahlavi could benefit Jews as well, and not only because the current dictatorial and collapsing regime is dedicated to wiping out Israel. A popular X account called “The Persian Jewess” reminisced about the days of the monarchy, “Since the rise of Islam in Iran, Iranian Jews were oppressed, shoved in ghettos, raped, tortured, murdered forced to convert, and treated like second-class citizens. Then in 1925 the Pahlavis came to power and instituted reforms that recognized Iranian Jews as equal citizens for the first time in millennia. For 54 glorious years, we flourished.”

She added, “When Khomeini came to power, we were forced to flee, our hearts mourning all that Iran once was and could have been under the Pahlavis. And in the 46 years since, we have not forgotten the family who broke us free from our chains, and ended our oppression.”

While we often view the past through rose colored glasses, it is true that the royal family that was ousted thanks to Jimmy Carter and the current Iranian dictator regime had displayed an unprecedented amount of tolerance for Muslim rulers. According to Encyclopedia Iranica:

Under Reza Shah, the equal rights that were granted to members of the religious minorities by the Constitutional Revolution of 1906-09 were enforced. The ensuing social changes enabled Jews to rise in status and become more assimilated within the broader society… The Reza Shah era witnessed the repeal of all of the discriminatory laws applying to Jews. Jews were accorded the right to serve in the military and to enroll in state schools (in the late 1920s, Reza Shah subjected the Jewish schools to the general education system, to have governmental license and an Iranian name… Jews started to leave the Jewish quarter (maḥalla) and reside wherever they wished. They had the right to hold government jobs and keep shops in the bazaars. They took advantage of the opportunity and opened shops in commercial areas outside of the Jewish quarters.

Unfortunately, many Iranian Muslims still had a negative view of Jews in accord with their religion’s antisemitic sacred texts, but Iranian Jews were doing better in terms of securing their rights than they had since Islam gained a stranglehold on Iran. And Westernized Iranians, including Muslims, were increasingly open-minded. 

That was the key — the shah, though hardly a saint or a democratic ideal, was open to Western influences and Western ideas. He still held views which Americans would find antithetical, but he was more willing to reform his nation than most Muslim leaders in history have been. That is why he was better than the terror-sponsoring, tyrannical, fanatically anti-American and anti-Israeli Islamic regime in control now — and why his son’s return could be a major victory.

Please support PJ Media’s efforts to bring you all the latest news on the conflict between Iran and Israel. Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT for a 60% discount on your new annual membership.

Photo: AP Photo/Susan Walsh

https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2025/06/18/iranians-chant-for-shahs-return-n4940913

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

I Think It's Pretty Clear That Transgenderism Is Just a Political Tool at This Point

posted by Brad Slager at RedState 

Democrats have a long, proud history of defending indefensible things, sometimes to the point where the logical reasoning for doing so escapes anyone with two brain cells to rub together. 

Transgenderism is one of those issues. 

My viewpoint about gender dysphoria has always been that if you wanted to indulge in it, then fine, but do it the same way everyone else who has a kink indulges in theirs; don't make it everyone else's business. Everyone has a lifestyle, everyone has their preferences, they sometimes get a little weird, but society doesn't need to be forced into participating in it either through social pressure, corporate normalization, or academic indoctrination. 

I don't see "50 Shades" fans forcing everyone at the workplace to take part in a "bondage awareness day." We're aware it exists. We don't need to be reminded every five seconds. 

In fact, if it wasn't for the excessive activism, transgenderism would've faded into the shadows of society where it came from long ago. It's been artificially propped up, advertised, and rewarded for years now, and it's pretty clear the resources for its continued time in the spotlight came from government. Ever since Donald Trump was elected, there's been a significant turn away from transgenderism to the point where even corporations have tapped out and refused to participate, including signaling their virtues about it on "Pride Month," which is a month that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for all this forced participation. 

The Corporate Collapse of Pride Month Was Inevitable

Watch this clip of Senator John Kennedy confronting NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing last Tuesday. As you'll see in the video, Kennedy points out the millions of dollars spent primarily on the "T" of the LGBT community, for various things such as improved access to gender-affirming care, development of 3D avatars to help people with their gender dysphoria, and $2.3 million to Brown University to study how the pandemic affected the LGBT community. 

The NIH is spending your tax dollars on lgbtq propaganda. Here’s some of the wasteful spending:

- $142K to study how to use Telehealth to improve access to gender affirming care
- $120K on a grant to “develop 3D avatars that help people work through gender dysphoria.”
- $2.3M to… pic.twitter.com/t2tKOuxQjn

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 16, 2025

I think this perfectly highlights something I've been saying for some time about the transgender community. 

The thing is, gender dysphoria is real, but the vast majority of people identifying as anything other than what they are do not have it. It's a trendy mind virus that made you look like you were cool enough to be accepted by the popular parts of society, gave you clout among your peers, and an edge in some professional and academic circles. 

Now that the benefits of identifying as "non-binary" or "gender-fluid" or "agender" are drying up, the pull to do so will dissipate. It's already starting to happen with corporations backing away. 

If Democrats ever get back into office, and get control of the purse strings, I'm sure we'll see a resurgence, because transgenderism is ultimately a political tool with a lot of benefits. 

For one, transgender people are typically hard-leftists and will vote blue no matter who. The LGBT community has always been a reliable source of votes, and though the LGB part has begun to sour on the left, the TQ+ is still a great recruiter of the youth. 

Which brings me to the next point. The TQ+ community is wildly good at infiltration and indoctrination of the youth. Still assisted by the legacy media, Hollywood, and influencers, the youth fall into the idea that all the transgender stuff is legitimate, cool, and an indicator that you're different, just like everybody else. The hope is that these gender-fluid youths will bring their gender-fluidity into the voting booth, where they will also become loyal Democrat voters. 

And the best part is that you can sell any and all resistance to the movement as hatred and bigotry, painting your political opposites as evil oppressors. 

Transgenderism provides so many political benefits, it's completely understandable why a selfish group of people like the Democrat Party would push for it so hard. 

But rest assured, the moment transgenderism becomes too unpopular or too expensive to resurrect into the beast it was not long ago, they'll move onto something else. Transgenderism will get dropped like 5th period French, and all that inclusivity and acceptance that the Democrats preached about will be given to some other group more politically useful. 

To be honest, I won't hate that day. Transgenderism has been one of the most damaging things to society in some time, and I don't know a lot of people who will miss it. 

Director Tulsi Gabbard and Director John Ratcliffe Testify to -Closed Door- Senate Appropriations Committee

Sundance reporting for CTH 

With the unusual conflicting information coming from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, about the lower confidence level in Iran’s weaponized nuclear weapons program; and contrast against the weird video she recently posted about Japan and the use of nuclear weapons; and considering that CIA Director John Ratcliffe has remained completely silent (although not surprising for him) about the Iranian nuclear program; there is the potential for this otherwise ordinary senate hearing to deliver some surprises.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard is the only administration official who has said publicly she did not think Iran was trying to develop a nuclear weapon.  President Trump dismissed a question about the intelligence conflict last night, saying “I don’t care what she said, I think they were very close to getting one.”

As DNI, Gabbard has made some strong moves over the past three months in support of President Donald Trump, including the interception of an impeachment construct within the National Intelligence Council inside the CIA, and the beginning deconstruction of the Obama era Intel Community Inspector General (ICIG) construct.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director Ratcliffe will testify together in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee at 10:30am today. It will be interesting to see if the subject of Iran and Israel is brought up by the Senators.  [Livestream Links Below]  WATCH: The senate just changed the hearing to “closed” status.

FUBAR!

I was hoping we would see Ratcliffe and Gabbard questioned together about the same issue.

JD Vance Delivers Message About Iran

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

I cannot give all the particulars to backstop my perspective, however, Vice President JD Vance has traditional training and perspective on leadership within massive organizations, enhanced by his military service. Essentially, ‘never compromise your leadership‘.

Vice President JD Vance would not publish the following message on social media, without previously approving the entire statement through President Donald Trump. If Vance did not discuss this with Trump, Vance would stay quiet. That said, here is the message from JD Vance:

“Look, I’m seeing this from the inside, and am admittedly biased towards our president (and my friend), but there’s a lot of crazy stuff on social media, so I wanted to address some things directly on the Iran issue:

First, POTUS has been amazingly consistent, over 10 years, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Over the last few months, he encouraged his foreign policy team to reach a deal with the Iranians to accomplish this goal. The president has made clear that Iran cannot have uranium enrichment. And he said repeatedly that this would happen one of two ways–the easy way or the “other” way.

Second, I’ve seen a lot of confusion over the issue of “civilian nuclear power” and “uranium enrichment.” These are distinct issues. Iran could have civilian nuclear power without enrichment, but Iran rejected that. Meanwhile, they’ve enriched uranium far above the level necessary for any civilian purpose. They’ve been found in violation of their non-proliferation obligations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is hardly a rightwing organization.

It’s one thing to want civilian nuclear energy. It’s another thing to demand sophisticated enrichment capacity. And it’s still another to cling to enrichment while simultaneously violating basic non-proliferation obligations and enriching right to the point of weapons-grade uranium.

I have yet to see a single good argument for why Iran needed to enrich uranium well above the threshold for civilian use. I’ve yet to see a single good argument for why Iran was justified in violating its non-proliferation obligations. I’ve yet to see a single good pushback against the IAEA’s findings.

Meanwhile, the president has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our military’s focus on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens.

He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president. And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.

But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue. And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people’s goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus.” (source)

Accepting what JD Vance is saying here (emphasis mine) the most Occam’s razor implication is that President Trump is going to authorize U.S. bunker busting bombs, the 30,000/lb deep penetrating bombs [GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)] that only the USA has in the arsenal.

This approach takes the USA activity from “support”, to active operational engagement.   Hence Vance saying “take further action,” and the following message from President Trump, “nobody does it better.”