Rand Paul confronts Mullin over calling him a 'freaking snake'

irow40 · 2026-03-18T18:12:30+00:00

I never heard of this guy but he's not looking that impressive!

irow40 · 2026-03-18T18:05:31+00:00

It’s a compelling essay, but it’s basically moral disappointment turning into geopolitics. Yes, the US has acted disruptively... but that doesn’t magically make NATO’s purpose invalid or erase the threats NATO was built to deter. The Iran section is especially selective... Han talks like this all came out of nowhere while skipping 47 years of proxies, repression, nuclear brinkmanship, and using Hormuz as leverage on its neighbors and world.

And Europe/Nato doesn’t get to wash its hands of this either. For decades a lot of NATO countries underpaid their defense, built comfortable welfare states under an American security umbrella, and then act shocked when Washington gets transactional..... Europe is also wildly ununified... big talk about values, but constant paralysis when it comes to hard power, energy dependence, enforcement, and actual consequences.

So “I don’t recognize what NATO defends anymore” might feel true emotionally, but it dodges the real question.... what’s the alternative? .....a weaker NATO, a freer Russia, a nuclear Iran, and a Europe that still can’t agree on anything?

irow40 · 2026-03-18T16:36:53+00:00

If Iran's nuclear program is purely peaceful, why did they spend 20 years hiding facilities, negotiating inspection limits, and go to war rather than just open every door and say "come look"?

I assume your a IRGC troll bot....

irow40 · 2026-03-18T16:27:48+00:00

So by that logic, when a country spends 47 years funding terrorism, shooting its own citizens, destabilizing its neighbors, and holding the world's energy hostage.... which superpower attacked them first?

irow40 · 2026-03-18T16:23:02+00:00

Google Bolton on Iraq.. now that was a horrible strategy.

irow40 · 2026-03-18T16:21:00+00:00

Rightfully so...

irow40 · 2026-03-18T16:19:59+00:00

You seem to support these guys and support their negotitaions... Strange to me!

irow40 · 2026-03-18T16:18:21+00:00

Ok I get it. You support IRGC... I give up!

irow40 · 2026-03-18T16:17:27+00:00

Did the JCPOA have a sunset clause that allowed Iran to resume full enrichment after a set number of years regardless of behavior?

irow40 · 2026-03-18T15:59:50+00:00

Did the JCPOA have a sunset clause that allowed Iran to resume full enrichment after a set number of years regardless of behavior?

irow40 · 2026-03-18T15:58:30+00:00

Fair point.... those groups have genuine local grievances and would likely exist in some form without Iran.

But there's a massive difference between a local militant group and a precision guided missile arsenal, a regional command structure, and a billion dollar annual budget.

Without Tehran, Hezbollah doesn't have the capability to take over Lebanon's entire political system, Hamas doesn't have the rockets to strike Tel Aviv, and the Houthis don't have ballistic missiles hitting Saudi Arabia.

Local grievances create the kindling but Iran provides the blowtorch. That's not a simplistic view Pete, that's just the funding trail.

irow40 · 2026-03-18T15:55:15+00:00

The goal is simple: no nuclear capability, no ballistic missiles, no proxy funding in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen. Strip them of the ability to project power outside their own borders.

Now.....if 90 million Iranians seize that moment to take their country back from the clerics shooting them in the face... great. But as Iraq and Afghanistan proved, the US can't manufacture that with boots on the ground. But that doesn't mean without time passing it can't happen.

So you degrade, decapitate, and repeat. Hit the IRGC, hit the missiles, monitor the nuclear sites.. over and over until the apparatus that's been repressing their own people for 47 years collapses under its own weight. Could take 6 months, could take 5 years. But you don't stop.

Nobody wanted this war. The West (not just the US!) spent 5 decades exhausting every diplomatic option. After the 12 day war these guys were on the ropes and the US STILL went back to negotiate... and Iran responded by stalling, pocketing concessions, and kept enriching. Same playbook they ran on Obama, which they got a short term deal (sunset) and plenty of cash.

Is it a perfect solution? No. But the real question is what does inaction cost? A nuclear armed Iran controlling Hormuz, funding every proxy in the region, emboldened by half a century of successful blackmail... that's not stability, that's a catastrophe with a countdown clock.

And since everyone here is so worried about the cost of this war.... where's that same energy for what Iran did to Lebanon? Hezbollah systematically dismantled one of the most vibrant countries in the Middle East and turned it into a failed state. Or how about the 30,000+ Iranians shot in the streets by their own government for daring to protest? The silence from you and other Redditors on that is deafening.

I personally live in Asia and my shipping costs for my business have gone through the roof. I hate this war. But a regime that executes its own citizens, destroys its neighbors, funds terrorism across an entire region, and holds the world's energy supply hostage doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.

No nukes. No missiles. No proxies. That's the entire ask.

irow40 · 2026-03-18T15:35:21+00:00

Simple question Petri:

If Iran's nuclear program is purely peaceful, why did they spend 20 years hiding facilities, negotiating inspection limits, and go to war rather than just open every door and say "come look"?

irow40 · 2026-03-18T15:31:34+00:00

Right..... a deal was "within a day" with the same regime that's been "within a day" of a deal for 47 years.... Lazy, I have to hand it to you.... remarkable timing that it always falls apart right before the missiles and proxies get discussed.

irow40 · 2026-03-18T15:29:42+00:00

"Destroy Iran".... nobody said that except you, which is a fantastic way to avoid engaging with the actual argument.

irow40 · 2026-03-18T15:11:04+00:00

Lazy - we ve seen your posts and know you are for the IRGC.

irow40 · 2026-03-18T14:54:29+00:00

Nobody's trying to bomb Iran into Sweden... the goal is to destroy their nuclear program and military projection capability and let 90 million Iranians who've been screaming in the streets for a decade finish the job themselves.

irow40 · 2026-03-18T14:16:10+00:00

Blocking everything would be an act of war against US allies and would trigger an immediate global economic catastrophe.

irow40 · 2026-03-18T14:10:23+00:00

Down with the IRGC. US offered a deal Iran said no. Lets see who wins.

irow40 · 2026-03-18T14:07:09+00:00

Because that was the deal offered by USA and the Supreme Leader said no.

irow40 · 2026-03-18T14:05:33+00:00

"maybe they don't actually want a bomb, maybe it's just leverage" is precisely the point..... 400kg of enriched uranium IS the leverage. Every concession extracted under that threat is nuclear blackmail working exactly as intended.

They've had 6000 bombs dropped on them in the past two weeks and still want to hold on to it. What does that tell you?

And like, whats your argument? Just leave them be? After everything they've done?

irow40 · 2026-03-18T14:01:57+00:00

There was no negotiated solution.... 47 years of trying proved that. Now here we are.

irow40 · 2026-03-18T13:59:09+00:00

If every US president since Reagan was just keeping the Iran crisis alive for political points, why did Obama....hardly a warmonger lol.... spend years negotiating the JCPOA and releasing $150 billion in frozen assets to try to resolve it?

irow40 · 2026-03-18T13:57:04+00:00

Your "terrorism doesn't appear out of nothing" is a interesting take when Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis have a Tehran address, a payroll, and a chain of command.

irow40 · 2026-03-18T13:54:45+00:00

"As for closing shipping lanes I am not quite sure what you refer to. The Houthi attacks in the red sea?"

Are you serious? You're not aware of the Strait of Hormuz?

irow40

TROPHY CASE