Retired general: Iran should take President Trump’s strike threats seriously
Jack Keane, senior strategic analyst for Fox News, answered questions about President Donald Trump’s recent warning to Iran. Keane said that if he were in the Iranian regime, he’d take Trump seriously. Trump previously warned that if Iran killed peaceful protesters, that the U.S. was locked, loaded, and ready to go. Keane referenced the U.S. strikes on the Iranian nuclear facility as precedence for the need to take Trump seriously.
From Fox News:
“If I was in the Iranian regime, I would take President Trump dead serious here,” Keane warned.
On Friday, President Donald Trump warned in a Truth Social post that the U.S. is “locked and loaded and ready to go” if the Iranian regime shoots and kills protesters.
His message comes as anti-regime demonstrations enter their second week and at least 44 protesters have been killed by Iranian security, according to the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
Keane declared the Iranian regime is at its “weakest point” in 45 years with “no prospect of recovering.”
Noting Trump’s warning under “no uncertain terms,” Keane listed other key differences about the anti-regime protests that stood out to him from previous demonstrations in Iran.
“Politically, [the Iranian regime] can’t meet the social and political and economic aspirations of the people. Economically, they’re in the tank, to be sure, and with no prospect of recovering,” Keane added.
“And, militarily, they just lost a war. They’ve lost their platform in Syria. Their proxies are, by and large, decapitated and almost eliminated, to be sure,” he added. “The result of all of that is they are in a fundamentally weak position, and it’s serious in terms of the regime.”
Additional Reading:
Samsel, S. (2025, January 9). Keane warns Iranian regime to take Trump ‘dead serious’ on protest killing threat amid ongoing demonstrations. Fox News. Link.
Category: Donald Trump, International Affairs, Iran
This can work.
He’s rich and good looking, she’s rich and good looking. I suspect their intellects are similarly high.
Could work.
I can see it now, Iran collapses, then the looney-tunes libtard moonbat liberals turn in their Venezuelan flags for Iranian ones immediately after throwing their Ukrainian and Palestinian ones in the closet while they cuss about Donald Trump!
But, of course!
OH, and if Cuba collapses, yeah, the libtards will go foaming-at-the-mouth crazy blaming DJT for “another war”!
I always perk up my ears and pay attention when Gen. Keene speaks.
Absolutely. I’m still not exactly sure where I stand on US involvement, but I listen when the General speaks.
The Iranian regime’s fall would spell the end of Iran’s support for Russia against Ukraine, as well as end Iran’s willingness to support terrorists like Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi rebels, etc. The more allies Russia loses, the more troubling ammunition starvation becomes to their efforts to keep waging war in Ukraine.
It would also pave the way for one of Donald Trump’s objectives for the area running from Ukraine, through Turkey, Iran, and other countries southwest of Russia, and into Asia… An effective, efficient, stable, lucrative trade route connecting Europe and Asia which pulls the carpet from underneath China’s “Belt and Road” (BRI) initiative.
Trump already accomplished a part of this with the peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan. China’s BRI is showcased to do the same thing as what Trump is trying to also do, but it’s a debt trap that provides crappy infrastructure at high loan obligations which ultimately brings the BRI nation under China’s political control. In a war against China, this is one of the last things that we want to exist.
Trump’s decision to strike Iran if it starts killing protesters is a good move. It encourages the protesters to keep and build their momentum. They are rather hostile to the Islamic regime and they favor a Western style democracy. They’re getting bolder, like burning a major mosque and refusing to wear the hijabs in the open. With the protesters, Iran is starting to look like the time before the Islamists took over.
Iran’s fall would help accelerate us towards having a more peaceful, stable world as well as accelerate the erosion of both Russian and Chinese global influence. The less influence they have relative to American influence, the better for the US should we end up fighting China as a result of Taiwan.
This is just another example of President Donald Trump playing 4D chess.
I understand all that. I’ve also watched Iran’s history from 1979 on, attended college with several young Iranian Air Force lieutenants in the 80’s, and have zero interest in re-instituting a new shah just like the old shah. So, my mind is not made up.
I was stationed with an Iranian American who remembers Iran from the time of the Shah. He recounted the benefits of living in Iran under the Shah compared to what they have now.
The Islamic regime in Iran, like other radical Islamists, believe that they will fulfil a manifest destiny… The entire world under the banner of Islam. When the Iranian leadership describe the United States as “the great Satan,” they’re describing us as the leading adversary… To wit, leading adversary in the way of global Islamic law.
Having been a student of history for nearly half a century, and a current events buff since the summer of 1982, the choice is a no brainer… Especially when patterns emerge in both history and current events that do not bode well for the United States if some of them are allowed to continue.
The current Islamic regime is behind a lot of the destabilization happening in the middle east via proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. If mass protests succeed in toppling the Iranian regime, a lot of that destabilization efforts would lose their wind. The engagement that we’d be able to leverage in the aftermath would go further to stabilize the region than a military intervention.
I understand that your mind is made up, so is mine. I’ve accurately predicted geopolitical events and have supported courses of actions that many said would “get us all killed” but I knew would end up being beneficial rather than detrimental. My support for Reagan’s policies was one of those instances.
No, my mind is not made up. I was quite clear about that. I understand that the current regime has to go, that’s obvious to everyone but the mullahs running it. What I do not want is another CIA backed Pahlavi style shah, and the US repeating history. Iran was a very western styled nation as long as you stayed on the right side of the Shah. If you strayed, SAVAK was at your door. So until I see some sort of plan for after the current regime falls, I’ll remain uncommitted either way.
Your mind is made up with regards to not having a stance, right now, for or against US involvement with Iran. This is reiterated with your having zero interest in reinstituting a new Shaw like the old one and your not being committed either way. My response indicated that my mind was set with going forward with the “Trump Plan”, partly mentioned in my posts. Where we disagree on this point is where your mind is made up. I’m ready to go forward, you’re not ready to hop onboard yet.
President Trump is running a different show now than what was ran in the last century. Just as Trump and his team scrutinizes who takes leadership positions in the Trump Administration, done with a “what makes business sense”, they scrutinize who they get behind when it comes to international politics.
Absent from the mid 20th Century, and present now, is widespread social media and how it allowed generations to connect with each other and form their own identity independent of their older generations. The Internet has allowed them to “move closer” to each other than they are to their older generations within their own countries. The protests happening in Iran are driven by the younger generations, younger Millennials and Generation Z, who are going to play a major role on who gets selected as their leaders. Iran is not the only place, see “Generation Z protests.”
One of the many trends I’ve found with Donald Trump is that he thinks several steps ahead (he has played chess). He has a plan, and for that plan to be put in place the regimes in certain countries must fall and certain wars must end. What Trump has offered Ukraine, Venezuela, and the nations he brokered a peace deal with provide a hint on how Trump will move forward with Iran. This focuses on Trump’s bigger plan for a counter to the BRI.
So my mind is made up by not being made up. Ok. Good talk.
SFC D: So my mind is made up by not being made up. Ok. Good talk.
That’s not what I’m arguing. There’s the decision to not take a stance, and then the decision to obtain information, or wait for more information, to have a stance.
You assumed I was talking about the latter when, in fact, I was talking about the former. The thread of my argument was centered on your decision wait things out before deciding whether to take a stance or not.
“That’s not what I’m arguing.”
That’s the problem, right there. You’re so wrapped up in winning an “argument “, that you’ve failed to see that you are the only one arguing. My mind is not made up on the level of US involvement. It’s just that simple. There’s no argument required. I’m neither disagreeing with your points or agreeing with them.
“wait for more information, to have a stance.”
That is exactly what I am doing. Your “argument” was a strange flex. What was the point of explaining what I was quite clear about?
SFC D: That’s the problem, right there.
The problem is that you’ve oversimplified a statement you made in a way that missed the point I was making in your response to me above.
SFC D: You’re so wrapped up in winning an “argument “,
I’m wrapped up with explaining the context of one of the things that I said.
SFC D: that you’ve failed to see that you are the only one arguing.
I didn’t fail to see anything. The fact that you and I are disagreeing with each other, and going back and forth about this specific point, is an indication that we are arguing/debating.
SFC D: My mind is not made up on the level of US involvement. It’s just that simple. There’s no argument required.
My initial statement, about your mind being made up, had to do with what I spelled out in my last response, e.g., the decision to not take a stance v the decision to obtain information or wait for more information. I dove beyond what you said to these two decision points.
SFC D: That is exactly what I am doing.
That’s one of the things that you’re doing; however, my statement about your mind not being made up dealt with something other than what you assumed was the case. See above explanation.
SFC D: Your “argument” was a strange flex.
We’re disagreeing with each other on this specific point, so we’re arguing, no quotations required.
SFC D: What was the point of explaining what I was quite clear about?
To clarify what I was seeing, and then subsequently stated. You assumed that I was countering your claim about not having your mind made up about something, when my mention of it dealt with what I just explained in this and in the previous post.
I oversimplified “My mind is not made up”?
Ok. I concede. You win. I am humbled.
This whole thing has been like watching you arm wrestle yourself.
In response to what I said, yes. I detailed what I meant in follow on posts. Our subsequent disagreement showed us to be in argument. Nope, not arm wrestling myself. Your saying that is akin to one of the people engaging in an arm wrestling match insisting that the person he’s arm-wrestling is “arm-wrestling by himself.”
And yet, I still have not made up my mind.
A point that we both alluded to, as detailed in our debate above. I don’t argue to change people’s minds or to get them to make up their minds. I debate for the sake of indefinite disagreement.
“I debate for the sake of indefinite disagreement.”
So, debate where none is required or sought, argument for no purpose or gain?
I stand by my statement. You are arm wrestling yourself.
SFC D: So, debate where none is required or sought,
You’re either having problems grasping the concept of context, or you’re getting high on copium. You posted a comment above, then I responded to it. At this initial point, it wasn’t a debate, but my responding to you as everybody else here is doing on this and other threads… Responding to someone or to the original post.
What happened since then? This is our seventh iteration after my first response. Let me simplify this for you. Let “X” be your response to me, let “Y” be my counter response to you.
What has been happening? If you follow along our iterations… If X, then Y. “X” brings about “Y”. You can’t argue that “no argument is required”, because we had a point of disagreement. You can’t say “none is required” because your response gets mine. As often as you and I have argued on this website, you should’ve figured this out a long time ago. You should’ve also concluded the logical extension to “if X, then Y,” argument continues… If not X, then not Y, argument ends.
SFC D: argument for no purpose or gain?
That’s incorrect. As I’ve stated in previous arguments on this website, as well as on others, I take sadistic pleasure with taking people’s arguments apart and watching them react. There’s a purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph, etc., that I use in an argument against the opposition. It’s to get them to react a specific way. It has worked like a charm with you, just as it has with others in over 22 years of arguing against people online.
SFC D: I stand by my statement. You are arm wrestling yourself. [REPEAT POINT]
I stand by mine, the fact that you and I are disagreeing with each other is proof that we’re arguing and, by logical extension, your cope statement regarding my “wrestling myself” is incorrect. You’re engaging in an arm-wrestling contest with me while telling me that I’m “arm-wrestling myself.”
Enjoy dismantling my argument. I still haven’t made up my mind on Iran. Argue for it, argue against it, do whatever gets your rocks off.
SFC D: Enjoy dismantling my argument.
I am enjoying myself. You revealed your apparent psychological profile to me in previous arguments and continue to do so in this one. I’m leveraging that here.
SFC D: I still haven’t made up my mind on Iran.
Hence my statement and meme stating that I’m not arguing to change anybody’s mind, or to get them to make up their mind, and that I argue for the sake of indefinite argument. Not for your cope explanation for why I’m arguing.
SFC D: Argue for it, argue against it, do whatever gets your rocks off.
I’m having a blast arguing against you and watching your reaction.
Honest question, unrelated to our “argument”.
As a site admin, do you really think your argumentative hobby enhances TAH? Or is this just a personal enjoyment for you? Is it about having power over the people here? Is it some deep seated control issue? I really want to know what you get out of this.
In regards to my “cope explanation” for why you are arguing, I cannot explain it. I have no clue why you’re arguing. You just are. I didn’t invite it, I didn’t want it, I don’t understand it. You just ran with it. I’m happy you enjoyed it.
Honest question? More like your frustration over my continuing to hammer you. What we have above is an argument due to our disagreement. It takes two people to engage in an argument. I detailed above what is going on, e.g., if X, then Y. If you’re concerned about the enhancement of TAH, then you wouldn’t give me something to rebut. Yes, this is personal enjoyment. See attached image.
Having power and control issues? Correction, you’re the one who has the need to have power over people. You’ve demonstrated anger issues, control issues, and excessive ego issues in our current and past arguments. By continuing to respond, instead of simply bowing out and causing this to end, you’re demonstrating the need to have power over others, your control issues, etc.
I explained above what I get out of this. You’re actually frustrated that none of your statements have gotten me to back down. This is your true intent given some of your statements.
No quotations needed around cope, as it nicely describes what you’re doing here. You’re engaging in drama protesting my continuing to argue with you when the solution to get our argument to end is simple. Stop responding to me and I’ll stop responding to you.
I explained why I’m arguing with you. You invited the argument by responding to me with a contradiction; it otherwise would’ve been a short discussion. If you didn’t want it, you simply would’ve stopped responding. I’ve attached an image to help you understand.
Dude, I’m not trying to get you to back down. Frustration? Absolutely. I’m frustrated because you are unwilling or unable to articulate why you picked me as today’s chew toy. I’ve picked no side on the US involvement in Iran, I don’t care what side you fall on. Yet somehow, you’ve chosen me as your subject to deliver a lecture on argument, psychology, ego, control, what have you. I did not earn this, I did not attack or disrespect you in any way, your views are your views. Why should I bow out when I’ve done nothing to earn your ire? Why should I back down to a bully?
Nonsense. You’ve used some words above aimed at attempting me to stop responding to you. Repeating your statement about not having your mind made up, e.g., not taking a stance, under the assumption that I was attempting to change the status quo with you. The logical conclusion would be for me to stop “trying to change your mind in terms of having a stance” and thus, stop responding. I clearly argued that changing the status quo with your stance or lack thereof was not my intent, yet you keep repeating this statement after I rebutted it. I clearly articulated why I keep hammering you. I even included a graphic. Don’t want to keep getting hammered? Stop responding to me, bow out. Again, I established above that I was not changing your position, that I was arguing for the sake of indefinite disagreement. Got it, you’re not taking a stance while I’ve taken one. My point-by-point rebuttal to you addressed the arguments that you advanced. I chose you? Again, you responded to me, I responded back. Again, remove your response to not receive a counter response. This isn’t rocket science. You accused me of having a couple of your apparent psychological traits. You “didn’t earn” this? When I detail how your responses get my counter responses, yet you respond, my counter response should not be a surprise or mystery. Why should you bow out? It would resolve the complaint that you’ve repeated in the recent iterations. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t expect me to stop responding to you while you keep responding to me. The latter is what you’re truly complaining about. The fact that you’re ignoring how your continued responses to me get my continued counterresponses seemed to have escaped you. You’ve done nothing, except keep responding despite the fact that I keep rebutting. If you want this to stop, stop responding to me. This requires you to back down. Otherwise, I keep responding. I’ve attached a graphic to show you how you come across to me. Making this about what I’m doing, while ignoring your contribution,… Read more »
Something triggered you. And I’m fully aware that I’ve now caused you to respond. Please, carry on. Bury me with your obviously superior intellect.
SFC D: Something triggered you. And I’m fully aware that I’ve now caused you to respond.
Nope, nothing triggered me. Providing the “Y” to your “X” in an “if X then Y” back and forth is not “being triggered”. I’ve followed a routine that I’ve been following in over 22 years. Your responses, which warranted rebuttals, received rebuttals. I’ve addressed you with a point-by-point rebuttal, everything relevant to what I was addressing.
SFC D: Please, carry on.
This goes without saying.
SFC D: Bury me with your obviously superior intellect.
I’m just describing what I’m seeing.
Democrats will be working overtime to undermine the United States and prevent this from happening. Luckily they have their hands full and many of their paid informants and spies disappeared with some of the cuts.
The Taiwan fight likely will happen sooner rather than later. If the Chinese aren’t able to force Vance out in the next election they may go for it.
Check the 45 goals of communism. Many of those points that are still relevant are a direct and indirect parts of the Democrat argument. For example, one of the goals was to leverage protests against efforts to fight against communist initiatives. Look at what where the protests are directed at.
The Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese military have a shortening window before China suffers its demographic implosion.
They did an exercise recently that entailed deploying their bombers beyond the first island chain. They used their latest generation fighter jets as escorts. As slick as their new aircraft look, the aircraft creates a lot of drag, which burns a lot of fuel. To compensate for that, they had a light weapons load. When they got to the first island chain, they abandoned the bomber, which was left alone until the second wave joined them to escort them back to China.
The Chinese destroyer and Coast Guard ship collision showed more damage than what ships should be able to take given the type of collision they had. They didn’t look like they had a version of “Dog Z” based on the gaps in the destroyed part of the ships. This is an indication that it would be easier to sink a Chinese warship than an American one.
To add damage to injury, a Chinese general, one of the authors of “Unrestricted Warfare”, warned the CCP that invading Taiwan would take entirety of the Chinese military and military industrial complex.
The Chinese military shares many of the characteristics that the Russian military showed in Ukraine. Corruption is deeply imbedded in their military, and it’s showing in their military equipment performance in the Thailan versus Cambodia and India versus Pakistan conflicts.
Attached to 1st Brigade,10th Mountain Division when it was activated at Ft Drum, NY, where I was their Reenlistment NCO and “Colonel” Keane was the Brigade Commander. A great officer, easy to talk to and very popular with the troops reenlisting. I spent 6 years supporting 1st Brigade.
At the same time, Major Lloyd Austin was the S-3 (Training) Officer in the 2d Battalion, 22d Infantry(1st Bde) and later as Brigade Executive Officer when he was promoted to Lt Colonel. Never had anybody ask for him to reenlist them in those 6 years.
Lloyd Austin, the only recipient of a participation Silver Star…
Sounds like it was a DEI award like his appointment as SecDef.
LBJ would like a word.
True, he was original and risked more behind.
If you want to see liberal heads explode.
https://limitedmintage.com/product/2025-trump-ancient-series-three-piece-set-w-antique-patina-finish-total-mintage-250-2/
That’s rich!
Oh to be a pneumis—, numisma—, neumisma—-, Fucking Coin Collector right about now!!!
My last “coin collecting” (1 oz silver rounds) was Feb 2023. Three years ago. Silver spot was $20.17/oz, with a $5/oz handling = $25.17/oz.
Seems cheap now. Wish I’d been able to buy more, but I was dumping all my available paycheck into finishing paying off the mortgage.
Who knew?
$76/ ounce today. China is buying ever bit of precious metals they can get their hands on. Mostly gold which has driven it through the roof.
The US holds just over 4% of all known gold in the world. Officially China owns 2300 tons of reserves but it is likely much higher. This versus the US official holdings of around 8100 tons.
“POTUS XLVII”
Should be POTUS MAXIMUS XLVII
HOLY sheepshit, that’s nice, the view of which will make libtard heads explode like artillery warheads!
Kinda resembles Vitellius…