Israel strikes Iran

[Szdfan]

And Israeli hardliners and their supporters in the US.

I can think of plenty of U.S. military actions — including full-scale wars — that didn’t rely on false flags. We’ve invaded or bombed countries for ideological reasons, geopolitical leverage, retaliatory strikes, protecting allies, or even just domestic political optics. None of that requires a conspiracy theory.

If someone wanted to justify a strike on Iran, they wouldn’t need to fake anything. There’s already a long list of provocations, real or perceived, that could be used as a pretext. That doesn’t mean the justifications are good, but they don’t need to be fabricated to be politically useful.

We should absolutely scrutinize motives and narratives. But not everything requires a false flag to be dangerous, misguided, or unjustified.

False flag is a very specific term. But I think the drive for war with Iran will be supported by wide range of justifications that will be exaggerated, distorted, or outright lied about. That could include false flag operations, but will more likely just involve lies and distortions like the famous Iraqi WMD that were never found.

I appreciate the clarification on the term. That said, at one point in this thread, it was being seriously argued that there would be a false flag attack on U.S. soil to justify American involvement in the Israel–Iran conflict.

What we’re seeing now suggests the opposite. The U.S. looks likely to get drawn in without anything that dramatic. No staged attacks, no elaborate cover stories, just a steady buildup of tension, alliance dynamics, and real-world provocations.

That doesn’t mean the eventual justifications will be honest or good. But it does suggest we don’t need conspiracy theories to explain how this kind of escalation happens.

[ken_sylvania]

That said, at one point in this thread, it was being seriously argued that there would be a false flag attack on U.S. soil to justify American involvement in the Israel–Iran conflict.

Are you sure about that? Would you mind pointing me to the post that made such a prediction?

"Could be" is not the same as "will be."

[HondurasKeiser]

That said, at one point in this thread, it was being seriously argued that there would be a false flag attack on U.S. soil to justify American involvement in the Israel–Iran conflict.

Are you sure about that? Would you mind pointing me to the post that made such a prediction?

"Could be" is not the same as "will be."

So at what point in all this should we expect some sort of false flag operation against American soil to properly and fully usher the US into the conflict...?

I read Heir’s post similarly to the way SZD read it.

[Szdfan]

That said, at one point in this thread, it was being seriously argued that there would be a false flag attack on U.S. soil to justify American involvement in the Israel–Iran conflict.

Are you sure about that? Would you mind pointing me to the post that made such a prediction?

"Could be" is not the same as "will be."

So at what point in all this should we expect some sort of false flag operation against American soil to properly and fully usher the US into the conflict...?

I read Heir’s post similarly to the way SZD read it.

Maybe "should" isn't "will be," but it's a lot closer than "could be."

[ken_sylvania]

Are you sure about that? Would you mind pointing me to the post that made such a prediction?

"Could be" is not the same as "will be."

So at what point in all this should we expect some sort of false flag operation against American soil to properly and fully usher the US into the conflict...?

I read Heir’s post similarly to the way SZD read it.

Maybe "should" isn't "will be," but it's a lot closer than "could be."

I guess we read it differently...
Considering how it was posed as a question it seemed to me as just a bit of speculation rather than a "serious argument that 'X' would happen." Hopefully intelligent minds can disagree!

[Szdfan]

I read Heir’s post similarly to the way SZD read it.

Maybe "should" isn't "will be," but it's a lot closer than "could be."

I guess we read it differently...
Considering how it was posed as a question it seemed to me as just a bit of speculation rather than a "serious argument that 'X' would happen." Hopefully intelligent minds can disagree!

Absolutely. It’s a minor point. I’m more concerned that we’re getting into a war with Iran in the next couple of days.

[temporal1]

Pray for peace. At least, resolution without further military violence.

“G7 summit: Trump says he's leaving for 'obvious reasons' “ | LiveNOW from FOX / 3min

Description:
President Donald Trump is leaving the Group of Seven summit in Canada a day early, citing the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. Before his departure Monday night, Trump posted a warning on social media: "Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!"

Speaking Monday after leaders gathered for a group photo, Trump said he's leaving for "obvious reasons."

"President Trump had a great day at the G7, even signing a major trade deal with the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Keir Starmer," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a post. "Much was accomplished, but because of what’s going on in the Middle East, President Trump will be leaving tonight after dinner with Heads of State."

The conflict between Israel and Iran has dominated the G7’s closed-door discussions, and Trump’s dramatic statement from the summit added to the tension. His message repeated a familiar line from recent days: "IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON."

The 51st G7 summit, the 57th annual meeting of the organization G7, is being held from 16 to 17 June 2025 in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada.[2][3] This is the 2nd G7 summit to be held in Kananaskis since the 28th G8 summit in 2002.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51st_G7_summit

[Ken]

According to Netanyahu. Iran has been weeks away from having nuclear weapons....since 1995

[JohnH]

Much like how Russia said they’d win in just 2 weeks. And America, win the war on terror in 2 weeks.

[Ken]

Tucker Carlson embarrasses Iran warmonger Ted Cruz. I'm not normally a big Tucker Carlson fan, but credit where credit is due, he nails it here. These people have no idea what they are doing.