2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran

[deirdre]

Again, google "Rubio backtracks"

i am aware the liberal media is pushing that narrative. and as i said i am personally happy for the misinterpretation. but this is Metabunk, not Propaganda Central. We are supposed to strive to share accurate information.

 

[NoParty]

i am aware the liberal media is pushing that narrative. and as i said i am personally happy for the misinterpretation. but this is Metabunk, not Propaganda Central. We are supposed to strive to share accurate information.

That'll teach me to waste my time. Okay, back to ignoring you. Good luck pushin' that water uphill for the good ol' GOP!

"It is a well-known fact that reality has a liberal bias." Stephen Colbert, 2005 (as blowhard Bill O'Reilly-ish charcter)
https://www.c-span.org/clip/white-h...reality-has-a-well-known-liberal-bias/4916294

 

[Giddierone]

The claim that the US/Israel bombed the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' school in Minab on February 28, 2026 needs it's own thread.
(edited)

 

[NoParty]

The claim that the US/Israel bombed a girls school needs it's own thread.

Although it is clearly part of "2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran"
the fact that the gov seems to be dragging it's feet on telling us what they do & do not know, re. the tragedy of the
Shajareh Tayyebeh girls school, suggests that there may (eventually) be a lot to look at, on this... So, yes, agreed.

 

[John J.]

Then the problem of keeping the population of Iran from starving

Why would there be famine in Iran if it were occupied?
(I agree that an opposed occupation would be ghastly, with a steady flow of casualties).

 

[deirdre]

Although it is clearly part of "2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran"

current events threads arent really meant for analyzing. separate issues or debunks should always go in seperate threads. have you forgotten that?

 

[deirdre]

Good luck pushin' that water uphill for the good ol' GOP!

you're just mad you got caught believing Trump.

 

[Ann K]

The "right" did not post that.

I think you are saying (carelessly) "the American right did not post that".

Here, to complicate matters, is a screen grab of a post on "X" that claims to know who "Nioh Berg" is. I haven't verified it.

 

[deirdre]

I think you are saying (carelessly) "the American right did not post that".

i think i am responding to the context of No Parties actual posts attached to my response.

I do see and appreciate @NoParty editing his initial post to add a disclaimer.

is a screen grab of a post on "X" that claims to know who "Nioh Berg" is.

she is suspiciously pretty. regardless your screengrab doesnt make the poster "the right".

 

[JMartJr]

Why do you all of a sudden take Trump at his word? You think Trump is giving you the truth here and Rubio is the one sugar-coating?!?!

I thought you think Trump lies all the time. No? But then you claim I'm "sane-washing" for "ignoring Trump's crazy shit"? You can't have it both ways.

FWIW, my take on this is not that one or the other of them is lying, or wrong, or exaggerating -- it is that the administration as a whole does not have a defined position, nor any clear understanding of what its goals are in attacking Iran, nor on why they did it.

In normal administrations, the folks at the top would have had meetings on this in which pros and cons were argued, then everybody got on the same page, an official position was reached and the President would then order whatever action was to be carried out with everybody understanding what was being done and why. That does not seem to be the case here, given that there is no agreement among the leadership in the current US regime as to why the attack was launched, nor what the goals are that would define success.

Compared to past administrations, of either party, this is amateur hour.

 

[fizzBuzz]

Now I remember why I needed to stop wasting time, responding to your posts!

First, google "Rubio backtracks" to see that virtually everyone realizes that he changed his position radically after Trump contradicted him.
So, when you say: "I trust Rubio's words on things like this," are you saying you trust Monday Rubio (3/2) or Tuesday Rubio (3/3)?

Secondly, your attempted straw man, claiming that somehow my post could--in some alternate universe--be interpreted to mean that I
"all of a sudden take Trump at his word" is beyond absurd. Trump does exaggerate almost everything, and he also lies and gaslights
(blatantly & so incompetently that his lies are revealed every day!) constantly. Saying whatever he thinks will improve his image is his
default mode...truth is entirely unimportant, relative to flogging his fragile ego. I would be genuinely surprised if he has any grasp of the truth, at this point...as it absolutely never matters to him. That he has already given 6 or 8 conflicting (and, in some cases, mutually exclusive)
"explanations" for starting this war of choice, is 100% proof that some, most or all of the excuses are false.

Rubio trying to clean up Trump's lies may've fooled some dim MAGAs, but I immediately predicted that it would make Rubio look like a fool,
because Trump would almost certainly go off-script soon. And guess what? Yep! Almost immediately Trump contradicted Rubio,
forcing lil' Marco not only to awkwardly try to revise his Monday pronouncements, to fit Trump's contradictions, and then,
of course, because it's this trash Trump Administration, to try to gaslight the American people into believing that his new (Tuesday)
position was actually not new. [see video]

Again, google "Rubio backtracks" and tell us which of his positions it is that you find credible...and why not the other.
(first 32 seconds is all you need of this clip...notice Rubio tries to "Where you there?" the reporter...but, D'oh!! it was same reporter!!)

Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/B18ZBHcm2Eo

Rubio very clearly explained the situation yesterday. He said this is a question of timing, not of intent. The US was going to strike Iran regardless of what Israel did. Israel striking first affected the timing of when the US struck Iran. In the 3/2 presser, Rubio was talking about the timing of the strike, not the intent to strike. But, unsurprisingly, the clip you provided cuts Rubio short. Shocker. I suggest you watch the full clip.

Rubio's 3/3 press conference (3:29 - 4:34)

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, yesterday you told us that Israel was going to strike Iran and that that's why we needed to get involved. Today the President said that —

SECRETARY RUBIO: No.

QUESTION: — Iran was going to get —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, your statement's false. So that's not what he – I was asked very specifically – were you there yesterday?

QUESTION: Yes. I asked a question.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Okay. No, did – were you the one that – because somebody asked me a question yesterday – did we go in because of Israel. And I said – you asked me that, you, that follow up. And I said no. I told you this had to happen anyway. The President made a decision, and the decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ballistic missile program, that Iran was not going to be allowed behind its ability to conduct these attacks. That decision had been made. The President systemically – made a decision to systematically destroy this terroristic capability that they had, and we carried that out. I was very clear in that answer. This was a question of timing, of why this had to happen as a joint operation, not the question of the intent. Once the President made a decision that negotiations were not going to work, that they were playing us on the negotiations, and that this was a threat that was untenable, the decision was made to strike them.

That's what I said yesterday, and you guys need to play it. And if you're going to play these statements, you need to play the whole statement, not clip it to reach a narrative that you want to do. All right?​

Source: https://youtu.be/FuCkP2LnmJs?si=FGyg-PmDkrNeXxEp&t=209


Quite funny how he ends his statement with this, isn't it?

you need to play the whole statement, not clip it to reach a narrative that you want to do.

 

[fizzBuzz]

FWIW, my take on this is not that one or the other of them is lying, or wrong, or exaggerating -- it is that the administration as a whole does not have a defined position, nor any clear understanding of what its goals are in attacking Iran, nor on why they did it.

I whole-heartedly disagree with this. Both Rubio and Hegseth have been very clear and unwavering about what the mission is. Just watch their full press conferences. Not clips.

In normal administrations, the folks at the top would have had meetings on this in which pros and cons were argued, then everybody got on the same page, an official position was reached and the President would then order whatever action was to be carried out with everybody understanding what was being done and why. That does not seem to be the case here, given that there is no agreement among the leadership in the current US regime as to why the attack was launched, nor what the goals are that would define success.

??? It really seems like you haven't watched Rubio and Hegseth's press confrerences.

These are quotes from the two of them in recent days:

HEGSETH: The mission of Operation Epic Fury is laser-focused: Destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure and they will never have nuclear weapons.

HEGSETH: This operation is a clear, devastating, decisive mission: destroy the missile threat, destroy the navy, no nukes

RUBIO: The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran's short-range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their navy, particularly to naval assets. That is what it is focused on doing right now and it's doing quite successfully.

RUBIO: Number one is our mission and our focus is the destruction of their ballistic missile capabilities and their ability to manufacture them, as well as the threat posed by their navy to global shipping. That's our objective.

That said, we would not mind, we would not be heartbroken, and we hope that the Iranian people can overthrow this government and establish a new future for that country. We would love for that to be possible. But the objective of this mission is the destruction of their ballistic missile capabilities and of their naval capabilities.

That's just a handful I've found, there may be more. Can you post links to comments that you think have caused confusion?

 

[NoParty]

Rubio very clearly explained the situation yesterday. He said this is a question of timing, not of intent. The US was going to strike Iran regardless of what Israel did. Israel striking first affected the timing of when the US struck Iran. In the 3/2 presser, Rubio was talking about the timing of the strike, not the intent to strike. But, unsurprisingly, the clip you provided cuts Rubio short. Shocker. I suggest you watch the full clip.

Rubio's 3/3 press conference (3:29 - 4:34)


Source: https://youtu.be/FuCkP2LnmJs?si=FGyg-PmDkrNeXxEp&t=209


Quite funny how he ends his statement this, isn't it?

No, where it cuts off makes no difference.
I clearly stated "...lil' Marco not only to awkwardly try to revise his Monday pronouncements, to fit Trump's contradictions, and then,
of course, because it's this trash Trump Administration, to try to gaslight the American people into believing that his new (Tuesday)
position was actually not new." So you're saying that he successfully gaslit you.
That's fine. But not me, and not most, and that's why "Rubio backtracks" was such a common headline. Listening to more of his
attempted fix, does not make him credible. Especially after Trump so clearly contradicted him. Okay, I'm done engaging you...

 

[fizzBuzz]

No, where it cuts off makes no difference.
I clearly stated "...lil' Marco not only to awkwardly try to revise his Monday pronouncements, to fit Trump's contradictions, and then,
of course, because it's this trash Trump Administration, to try to gaslight the American people into believing that his new (Tuesday)
position was actually not new." So you're saying that he successfully gaslit you.
That's fine. But not me, and not most, and that's why "Rubio backtracks" was such a common headline. Listening to more of his
attempted fix, does not make him credible. Especially after Trump so clearly contradicted him. Okay, I'm done engaging you...

He didn't backtrack. I take this as you were gaslit by headlines. We were always going to strike Iran. Israel affected the timing of when we did that. I'm sorry if this is incomprehensible to you.

To further hit home the fact you're wrong, in the clip you provide, the 3/2 part was clipped to not include the words he said just prior. This is Rubio's full opening statement from 3/2:

The United States conducted this operation with a very clear goal in mind. I haven't gotten a chance to see a lot of reporting. I don't understand what the confusion is. Let me explain it to you, and I'll do it once again as clearly as possible. Perhaps you'll report it that way.

The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran's short-range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their navy, particularly to naval assets. That is what it is focused on doing right now and it's doing quite successfully. I'll leave it to the Pentagon and the Department of War to discuss the tactics behind that and the progress that's being made. That is the clear objective of this mission.

The second question I've been asked is: Why now? Well, there's two reasons why now. The first is it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States. The orders had been delegated down to the field commanders. It was automatic, and in fact it beared to be true because, in fact, the – within an hour of the initial attack on the leadership compound, the missile forces in the south and in the north for that matter had already been activated to launch. In fact, those had already been pre-positioned.

The third is the assessment that was made that if we stood and waited for that attack to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties. And so the President made the very wise decision. We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed, and then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn't act.

Going back to the purpose, the purpose of this is to destroy that missile capability. Why does Iran want that ballistic missile capability? What they are trying to do and have been trying to do for a very long time is build a conventional weapons capability as a shield where they can hide behind, meaning there would come a point where they have so many conventional missiles, so many drones, and can inflict so much damage, that no one can do anything about their nuclear program. That is what they were trying to do, is put themselves in a place of immunity where the damage they can inflict on the region would be so high that no one can do anything about their nuclear program or their nuclear ambitions.

They are producing, by some estimates, over 100 of these missiles a month. Compare that to the six or seven interceptors that can be built a month. They can build a hundred of these a month, not to mention the thousands of one-way attack drones that they also have. They've been doing this for a very long time. And by the way, they've been doing it under sanction. You see the attacks they're conducting right now. They're attacking airports. They're attacking hotels. They are hitting, not just military bases; they're attacking our embassies directly. They're attacking facilities that have nothing to do with war or with military.

And that's a weakened Iran. That's an Iran despite years of sanction. Imagine a year from now or a year and a half from now the capabilities they would have to inflict damage on us. It's an unacceptable risk, especially in the hands of a regime that's run by radical clerics. The ayatollah is a radical – was a radical cleric. That entire regime is led by radical clerics who don't make geopolitical decisions; they make decisions on the basis of theology – their view of theology, which is an apocalyptic one. That has to be taken very seriously as well.

So that was the purpose for what this operation is all about. That's what it's focused on. As the President said earlier today, it is on or ahead of schedule. I will defer to the Department of War to discuss the progress being made at a tactical level. But it was the right decision and an important decision for the safety and security of the world.

Rubio also said this on 3/2:

QUESTION: Are you saying the U.S. was forced to strike because of an impending Israeli action?

SECRETARY RUBIO: No, first – well, two things I would say. Number one is: no matter what, ultimately this operation needed to happen. That's the question of why now. But this operation needed to happen because Iran in about a year or a year and a half would cross the line of immunity, meaning they would have so many short-range missiles, so many drones, that no one could do anything about it because they could hold the whole world hostage.

Look at the damage they're doing now. And this is a weakened Iran. Imagine a year from now. So that had to happen. Obviously, we were aware of Israeli intentions and understood what that would mean for us, and we had to be prepared to act as a result of it. But this had to happen no matter what.

Anyone who thinks he "backtracked" on 3/3 is making things up. He talks about the timing in both the 3/2 and 3/3 press conferences, and he talks about the intent in both the 3/2 and 3/3 press conferences. Why this is so confusing to you all, I have no clue.

 

[Giddierone]

Rubio backtracks

Can anyone trust Marco Rubio? He's been completely, and shamelessly, inconsistent.
For a comprehensive look (too much to quote here) at how Rubio has changed his deeply held convictions on foreign affairs, like Russia and Ukraine, see this list of bills he sponsored and remarks he made about the conflict before becoming Secretary of State, and then compare them to the current situation and the reversal of sentiment — where the administation is no longer taking any actions to condem or punish the invaders. The fact is that this administration no longer even bothers to condemn the daily killing of civilians in by Russian drone attacks and will likely do the same when more civilians inevitably die in this new war.

https://daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu/insights/marco-rubio-russia-and-ukraine

 

[NoParty]

Maybe the Trump Administration really does have an actual plan, but it's soooooo good, that to reveal it, would be dangerous!
Think: The scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, in which the Ark (Trump's Secret Exit Plan, here) is opened & everyone's faces melt.

Republicans would totally believe this, as they believed Trump had a double-secret health plan, that would only be revealed if folks
could be conned convinced to "Repeal & Replace" the Affordable Care Act. Beginning in 2015, Trump told them the secret plan
would be revealed in "two weeks" dozens of times...and after nine years of that, it was somehow lesser in late 2024,
becoming, meekly, "concepts of a plan" [1:30 in vid] in the debate he lost to VP Harris. As with the fictional health plan, the main
reason people keep asking--but not getting--answers to "the Plan" re. Iran question...is because obviously no plan actually exists.
This is why Trump has said 6 or 8 different things (so far...there will probably be more). Obviously they could "Put up or shut up"
to counter the skeptics...but it seems like they don't even have "concepts of a plan" in Iran, in 2026.

[p.s. Many times Trump said that the secret plan was done, complete! But here, years later (2024) he admits:
"If we can come up with a plan..." [1:13 in] unintentionally admitting that his public claims of a "finished" plan, were pure lies]


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p6zZZ3DPGE

 

[deirdre]

The fact is that this administration no longer even bothers to condemn the daily killing of civilians in by Russian drone attacks

to be fair, neither does our main stream media really.

i just scrolled 15 pages of google search (time frame: 1 year) and -as far as amrican media-in jan/feb we've got the "yearly totals" of casualties articles (pbs, npr, la times, bloomberg, cnn, reuters, detroit catholic,) and articles on individual attacks Cbs nov 2025, AP News aug 1, Pbs june 24 and NBC june 4th with the headline "1 million russian troops killed or wounded".

that's it.

 

[deirdre]

Maybe the Trump Administration really does have an actual plan, but it's soooooo good, that to reveal it, would be dangerous!

Hegseth and some military general just gave a break down this morning with maps and laser pointers and stuff. They certainly have a military plan about which targets they want to take out.

If you mean 'do they have a plan for the people of Iran after Mission Accomplished'.. everyone from Trump on down has been pretty clear the answer is "no". The iranians can figure it out.