The casus belli examined: shifting justifications, intelligence contradictions, realities of the nuclear program, religious framing, and cascading global consequences.
Anthony, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The use of the term “Mullahs” indicates a profound ignorance about Shia Islam. Nevertheless, please do share how you came upon this super secret knowledge that we are actually engaged in a religious war to exterminate Twelver Shia Islam.
I am unclear on your point so maybe you can simplify it for me. You come to the lowly AC page and insult our host, talk trash about the synod which you already quit and bless us with a gamma wall of kvetch about nazis and antisemitism. You should realize that we have heard these arguments 6 million times already. Its just so tiring.
I have seen no corroborative reporting, and the source is hostile to Christianity, so take it as it comes. I suspect that lawsuits will be filed, which may point to the real truth.
Troops noticing lesser instances are pretty moot when the Commander in Chief, Secretary of Defense, and other major officials all share the same sentiments, and in the case of Hegseth, have openly stated their false religious motivations.
Greatly appreciate this clear layout of what facts we have in this ongoing conflict.
Appreciate also the acknowledgment of "Source generation: Anthropic Opus 4.6" Was this just for gathering the dozens of sources cited as a reading list, or for a nearly complete generation?
The structure, topics, and evidentiary framing was 100% creative; i.e. this human. Some technical topics, e.g. the nuclear fuel chain and weapon development, were summarized (mostly from Scott Horton) and handed back to Opus for cleanup. Grammarly rescued some bad sentences.
1. Dospensationalists are wrong annoying and crazy. 2. Rubio and Johnson leveled with us and gave the real reason for the war. 3. Trump lied in an attempt to avoid this from fueling growing anti-Isreal and antisemitic sentiment in this country. This of course won't succeed in that end. 4. Now that we are in a state of war no matter how unadvised it is necessary to do whatever possible to subdue Iran.
We cannot afford a “whatever it takes” approach, especially if we got lied into the war. If oil stays above $100 for a sustained period, the world economy is cooked. We are going to need to eat humble pie on this one, much as we did in Afghanistan. The greatest disaster will be landing Marines and expecting them to fight their way to Tehran while being showered with roses.
I don't think Trump is planning on landing Marines except at Kharg Island and maybe a few commando raids but not invasion. Your right on the importance of economics in this. I am hoping Trump lifts sanctions on Russian oil to help suppress oil prices. But yeah this could be damaging to MAGA which would be very sad. On the otherhand Trump has pulled rabbits out of hats so many times I am inclined to trust his judgment. Time will tell . I have plenty of doubts and fears about this but am unwilling to give up hope that this won't work out for America.
The irony. We have lifted sanctions on Iran to allow it to sell oil so that the damage from the economic war would be reduced, and Russia is financing everything it needs to finish off in Ukraine thanks to us. Amazing timeline.
So much for 5-D chess. :I No excuses. They knew what it would do. Poor Australia with the gas. :O I find the timing very suspicious. Right around Christianity's Holy Week where the actual dates when we will celebrate the Triumphal Entry up through the Resurrection actually line-up with 33 AD. Hmm! Almost like someone knows their Bible. :D
Latest Hegseth press conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy78U3MBwlE Sounds like he's slurring some of his words. Either substances or he's dead tired/stressed while still trying to do schtick.
Yep, the third temple and red heifer stuff is next-level Shia Twelver eschatology equivalent. The weird thing is that this is not the eschatology of Hegseth's church, so unclear if he is freelancing or just that retarded.
Well yeah, when I found out that Hegseth attended a church affiliated with D Wilson, I was pretty spooked. Guy has been on the Gottestdienst Crowd!! I would advocate for a reinvitation and some pointed ambush questions about zionism, because Ramirez had just made a huge case about how you can't let some unorthodox definitions of Christian nationalism ruin the term for everyone.
NOW - Netanyahu: "Jesus Christ has no advantage over Genghis Khan. Because if you are strong enough, ruthless enough, powerful enough, evil will overcome good."
Yes it is. Interestingly, there is a new development I had not encountered before in how public figures such as Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are framing the term “Zionism.” Including in this interview. They claim that if you affirm the modern State of Israel’s right to exist, then you are automatically a Zionist. Do you support modern Israel’s right to exist? Then you are a Zionist. No, that does not make one a Zionist.
I would define Zionism, in its proper historical context, as something far more specific. It is not merely a statement about the existence of a political entity. It is a movement rooted in the belief that the Jewish people have a particular, divinely theological entitlement to the land of Palestine. Redefining “Zionism” to mean someone who simply believes the modern State of Israel has a right to exist is incorrect. A state’s right to exist is a matter of international law, recognized borders, and political legitimacy. Affirming that does not make one a Zionist.
This is an intentional sleight of hand meant to redefine terms. It is attempts to hide the theological implications of their support behind the veneer of secular geopolitical norms.
Also interesting to note that while Hegseth has been pacifying MAGAists with promises of a lethal and masculine military with a no-dresses policy, it seems like our American dead so far have had a statistically high percentage of women. 2/6 of the KC-135 crew were women. Possibly one of the pilots of the safely-ejected F-15s was a woman. Woman involved in general missile strike deaths.
I honestly had no idea we had so many women so forward, doing active combat ops and in forward basing.
Was this percentage of women killed in Iraq/Afganistan?
It's wicked we're facilitating this and Americans are cheering it and celebrating their own dead daughters as war heroes.
There are more thorough thematic treatments of this issue throughout the Bible, but this is a single-verse reference that's pretty helpful:
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." Deut 22:5
"pertaineth unto a man" is the כְּלִי of a גֶּבֶר, the equipment/apparatus of a warrior.
Even women not forward deployed, but train with military equipment and wear the uniform would fall under this category. This would go along with organizations like police and fire fighting. In a military context, I think women could only serve in a medical capacity on home (non-forward) bases only.
Women learning how to handle a firearm (or other arms, like archery) would probably be different from the above. Even carrying perhaps. But in any case she ought not "gear up" like a man. If she feels unsafe, the men around her ought to be addressing the issues on her account. Also hunting, that's not a martial/warrior matter, as far I know.
So there may be nuance on the edges that could be debated and discussed in good faith, but general martial service is not debatable.
I heard Joe Kent in a great interview on the Megyn Kelly show. He is a real hero. But I was shocked that his wife, who was in the military also and killed in Syria, left for her deployment not that long after her second child was born. So she and her husband were both deployed, and her 3-year-old and 18-month-old boys were at home. This is absolutely wrong. I don't believe that women should ever be in combat roles, but I most definitely believe that sending a mother with young children into combat is evil and should not be allowed.
Last point: note that the North American theater is also primed for major action. Panama in light of Hormuz + recent Ecuadorian deployment, complementing the Venezuelan operations on the other side of the canal. Then you have the beginnings of a Cuban siege.
All that speedboat turkey shooting got everyone warmed up.
I completely agree with your analysis of the Israeli lobby's info war against all critics - not blindly for the war = antisemitic.
I completely disagree with your analysis that a simple nuclear device has no strategic impact. If smuggled into NY, San Francisco, and LA harbors their detonation would have war winning impact for Iran - that is, regime change in DC. I believe this is a real threat for a host of reasons including: North Korea's shift from plutonium to uranium, the known financial support Iran has provided to North Korea's weapons program, the presence of Iranian nuclear scientists at tests of North Korean nuclear devices, and North Korea's comments last June about providing nukes.
I believe such a scenario is a real and present danger that only annihilation of the theocratic islamist government in Iran will address.
I've included San Francisco in the likely target list because the Chinese would insist (the center AI research in the US) - and it is them, and them alone, who have the deciding vote on the delivery - North Korea is their creature.
President Trump in his typical way is doing the right, if ugly, thing - for the wrong reason, and on a timeline dictated by Bibi and friends. A proper timeline would have had visible identification of Quds and Hizballah cells in the US neutralized first but, what is is better than what could have been.
May God bless our sailors and aircrews and may Iran's Christians have an Easter with celebration.
I never argued against a dirty bomb (which we have been promised for 30 years) because there is no reliable evidence that Iran has pursued such a device. If you are talking about a gun-type device, there is no evidence that Iran was ever developing such a detonator.
North Korea? We have just reconfirmed that any state opposed to US policy and without a meaningful nuclear threat is a fool. The escalatory dangers from this war are profound, and game theory dictates rapid nuclear armament with a much more aggressive first strike doctrine.
We have only begun to see how the threat landscape will change, and it will be extremely precarious.
I find this post very concerning. You usually confine yourselves to issues concerning the LCMS. I fail to see why this posting, the longest I have ever seen by you, is here. Based on social media postings I see from LCMS members and interested parties, I have concerns about a latent, and not so latent antisemitism that seems to be appearing within the LCMS. If I saw this article posted without attribution I would have guessed it came from Tucker Carlson. It is very one sided to say the least.
Where is any opinion expressed in this article? Do Christians not exist in the real world with concerns about the public square? What exactly is the "latent antisemitism" in this article?
I think they are sincere, but shocked that there can exist a recitation of the known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns that cannot be packaged as a Fox News or MSNBC segment; aka an intelligence report.
I also see a Lutheran tendency towards vehement denial of replacement theology that can be mistaken for antisemitism. While you may not be antisemitic, I definitely see antisemitic tendencies among confessional Lutheran social media posts.
You take every anti-Iran intervention source at face value with no examination of competing viewpoints. For example, you say that US intelligence declares Iran no imminent threat. This is the same intelligence apparatus, however, that declared Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was roundly criticized for faulty intelligence. Why would we rely on US intelligence produced during the Obama/Biden years when ta number of the people in charge, like John Brennan are known Islamophiles and one of Obama’s most senior advisors was born in Iran. Why do you trust what these people say when we know for a fact that they lied and fabricated information to try and bring down the first Trump administration.
You do not give credence to the avowed hatred of the US by the mullahs in Iran and their killing of numerous Americans, beginning with 241 US Marines in Lebanon in 1983.
When someone says they want to kill you and annihilate you, and then commit terrorist acts to bring this about, you should take them at their word, and act accordingly. You seem to rely on Iranian statements that they are not pursuing a weapons program without any objective examination of the facts. Do you deny that they have already produced ballistic missiles capable of hitting all major European cities?
I feel that if Ad Crucem News existed in 1938 you would have hailed the efforts of Neville Chamberlain and concluded that peace was achieved and Adolf Hitler was no imminent threat to Europe.
Thank you for engaging. I want to respond to several of your points because I think several of them rest on logical errors that undermine your argument, even if your underlying concerns about Iran are legitimate.
On PBS Frontline: You dismiss the reporting by attacking the institution rather than the substance of what was reported (genetic fallacy). The question is not whether PBS as an organization has ever employed problematic individuals, but whether the specific intelligence trail documented in the Frontline investigation is accurate. Your NewsBusters link is an opinion blog about PBS coverage of antisemitic attacks; it says nothing whatsoever about the Iran reporting in question. If you believe Frontline got specific facts wrong, name the facts.
On Lutheran antisemitism: I'll engage this one directly because it matters. You concede I may not be antisemitic, then suggest the article is a dog whistle to antisemitic tendencies, and leave the insinuation hanging (poisoning the well / guilt by association). This introduces suspicion about my motives to discredit the argument without actually refuting it. If my presentation of Israeli nuclear doctrine or US intelligence assessments is wrong, show me where it's wrong. My denominational affiliation is not evidence of anything except where I go to church on Sunday.
On US intelligence credibility: The Iraq WMD failure was an undeniable institutional disaster. But "intelligence was catastrophically wrong in 2003, therefore intelligence assessments are unreliable now" does not follow (non sequitur / hasty generalization). Every assessment must be evaluated on its own sourcing and methodology. You then compound this by dismissing analysts based on who they are. Brennan is an "Islamophile," an unnamed advisor was "born in Iran", rather than identifying what specifically is wrong with their analytical conclusions (ad hominem). A person's biography is not a refutation of their professional work product and you falling into prejudice rather than analysis. And I would note: if we cannot trust any US intelligence product because some analysts may be politically compromised, then you also cannot selectively rely on US intelligence to make the affirmative case for Iranian weapons development. You cannot have it both ways (special pleading).
On the Chamberlain analogy: Comparing anyone who counsels caution about military intervention to Neville Chamberlain is rhetorically lazy and analytically empty unless you establish the structural parallel (false analogy). In 1938, Germany had openly rearmed in violation of Versailles, remilitarized the Rhineland, annexed Austria, and was massing troops on the Czech border. You would need to demonstrate that Iran's current military posture represents a comparable imminent threat in kind, scale, and timeline, not simply assert it by invoking Hitler.
This is a textbook case of what Leo Strauss called reductio ad Hitlerum. It is the shuffle to compare an opponent's position to appeasement of Hitler in order to shut down debate rather than win it on the merits. Notice that it is always Hitler who gets invoked in these comparisons, never Tojo, even though Imperial Japan's militarist expansionism, surprise attacks, war crimes, and Pacific theater aggression would be an equally serviceable (or equally strained) analogy. Hitler is chosen not because its meaningful, but you're desperate for an emotional payload.
On taking threats seriously: I do take Iranian rhetoric seriously, which is precisely why the article examined the actual state of Iran's capabilities rather than simply echoing their propaganda. "They say they want to kill us, therefore military action is the only rational response" (false dilemma / begging the question) skips over the very policy question under debate. Taking a threat seriously means assessing it honestly (its nature, its imminence, and the range of available responses) not reflexively concluding that military action is the only rational answer. Please argue the conclusion, don't assume it.
I welcome substantive disagreement with my analysis. But the disagreement needs to engage with what I actually wrote, not with what is easier to argue against (straw man).
Not a good piece for once. Sources stated here are largely biased with a leftist leaning. The problems here are many. First, No one left or right has access to actual first hand intelligence and cannot verify any of these claims from secondary sources. Second, the language used by the President is often laced with hyperbole and his comments are largely unscripted. Context is everything in any conversation. To point out contradictions between staff is a waste of time when the contexts are not considered. Third, yes the US should butt out a whole lot more but the President has been proved correct on multiple occasions. The missile strike attempt on Diego Garcia being the latest example. As a former soldier I appreciate the admin‘s approach to hitting first. Our ROEs of the past have cost us too many lives because we so many rounds we were supposed to soak up before fire could be returned.
You can look at all the IAEA documentation firsthand. The other sources are sources.
An administration should have a modicum of message discipline in a war situation. The chaos in communication is a mirror image of the chaos in the admin and military.
The supposed missile launch in the direction of Diego Garcia (it never came close) has not been verified ITO who actually fired it.
What was the admin hitting first? 200 school girls?
What in the world are you talking about? I have never seen anything resembling a neo-nazi component in the LCMS. Stop slandering our Synod!
Well, there we are, red heifers unite for the Third Temple.
This is terrible, patronizing boomercon slop based on a single revisionist source. It is not informing anyone; it is managing their opinions.
Anthony, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The use of the term “Mullahs” indicates a profound ignorance about Shia Islam. Nevertheless, please do share how you came upon this super secret knowledge that we are actually engaged in a religious war to exterminate Twelver Shia Islam.
You're reinforcing the point.
Would you like to compare the eschatology of Twelvers, Wahhabists (with whom the US is now in league), radical Likudniks, and Dispensationalists?
I am unclear on your point so maybe you can simplify it for me. You come to the lowly AC page and insult our host, talk trash about the synod which you already quit and bless us with a gamma wall of kvetch about nazis and antisemitism. You should realize that we have heard these arguments 6 million times already. Its just so tiring.
I have seen no corroborative reporting, and the source is hostile to Christianity, so take it as it comes. I suspect that lawsuits will be filed, which may point to the real truth.
Troops noticing lesser instances are pretty moot when the Commander in Chief, Secretary of Defense, and other major officials all share the same sentiments, and in the case of Hegseth, have openly stated their false religious motivations.
https://www.adcrucem.news/p/what-do-we-really-know-about-the/comment/233641993
A tour de force.
Well done on the meticulous reasoning and panoramic--comprehensive--analysis.
Greatly appreciate this clear layout of what facts we have in this ongoing conflict.
Appreciate also the acknowledgment of "Source generation: Anthropic Opus 4.6" Was this just for gathering the dozens of sources cited as a reading list, or for a nearly complete generation?
The structure, topics, and evidentiary framing was 100% creative; i.e. this human. Some technical topics, e.g. the nuclear fuel chain and weapon development, were summarized (mostly from Scott Horton) and handed back to Opus for cleanup. Grammarly rescued some bad sentences.
Thanks for clarity!
Wow! I am very impressed and thankful for this well-organized and detailed information.
1. Dospensationalists are wrong annoying and crazy. 2. Rubio and Johnson leveled with us and gave the real reason for the war. 3. Trump lied in an attempt to avoid this from fueling growing anti-Isreal and antisemitic sentiment in this country. This of course won't succeed in that end. 4. Now that we are in a state of war no matter how unadvised it is necessary to do whatever possible to subdue Iran.
We cannot afford a “whatever it takes” approach, especially if we got lied into the war. If oil stays above $100 for a sustained period, the world economy is cooked. We are going to need to eat humble pie on this one, much as we did in Afghanistan. The greatest disaster will be landing Marines and expecting them to fight their way to Tehran while being showered with roses.
I don't think Trump is planning on landing Marines except at Kharg Island and maybe a few commando raids but not invasion. Your right on the importance of economics in this. I am hoping Trump lifts sanctions on Russian oil to help suppress oil prices. But yeah this could be damaging to MAGA which would be very sad. On the otherhand Trump has pulled rabbits out of hats so many times I am inclined to trust his judgment. Time will tell . I have plenty of doubts and fears about this but am unwilling to give up hope that this won't work out for America.
We've got several amphib groups underway.
The irony. We have lifted sanctions on Iran to allow it to sell oil so that the damage from the economic war would be reduced, and Russia is financing everything it needs to finish off in Ukraine thanks to us. Amazing timeline.
So much for 5-D chess. :I No excuses. They knew what it would do. Poor Australia with the gas. :O I find the timing very suspicious. Right around Christianity's Holy Week where the actual dates when we will celebrate the Triumphal Entry up through the Resurrection actually line-up with 33 AD. Hmm! Almost like someone knows their Bible. :D
Surprised you didn't include Hegseth's speech about rebuilding the third temple. I'm sure you've seen it before.
https://nitter.net/ky_statesman/status/2034618641904279755
Interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsusLOXvhI4
Original presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTz8YEHIRuM I'd like to find the source publication, but I'm not going to dig into it now.
Then there's this bit from Fox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_ng4-0ImxE
Latest Hegseth press conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy78U3MBwlE Sounds like he's slurring some of his words. Either substances or he's dead tired/stressed while still trying to do schtick.
Yep, the third temple and red heifer stuff is next-level Shia Twelver eschatology equivalent. The weird thing is that this is not the eschatology of Hegseth's church, so unclear if he is freelancing or just that retarded.
Well yeah, when I found out that Hegseth attended a church affiliated with D Wilson, I was pretty spooked. Guy has been on the Gottestdienst Crowd!! I would advocate for a reinvitation and some pointed ambush questions about zionism, because Ramirez had just made a huge case about how you can't let some unorthodox definitions of Christian nationalism ruin the term for everyone.
Isn't Hegseth Catholic?
He is a member of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), which was founded by Doug Wilson.
I had no idea! I was sure I'd read he was Cathollic. Thanks for the information.
NOW - Netanyahu: "Jesus Christ has no advantage over Genghis Khan. Because if you are strong enough, ruthless enough, powerful enough, evil will overcome good."
https://x.com/disclosetv/status/2034713271517794575?s=46
Truly vile and obnoxious.
Yes it is. Interestingly, there is a new development I had not encountered before in how public figures such as Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are framing the term “Zionism.” Including in this interview. They claim that if you affirm the modern State of Israel’s right to exist, then you are automatically a Zionist. Do you support modern Israel’s right to exist? Then you are a Zionist. No, that does not make one a Zionist.
I would define Zionism, in its proper historical context, as something far more specific. It is not merely a statement about the existence of a political entity. It is a movement rooted in the belief that the Jewish people have a particular, divinely theological entitlement to the land of Palestine. Redefining “Zionism” to mean someone who simply believes the modern State of Israel has a right to exist is incorrect. A state’s right to exist is a matter of international law, recognized borders, and political legitimacy. Affirming that does not make one a Zionist.
This is an intentional sleight of hand meant to redefine terms. It is attempts to hide the theological implications of their support behind the veneer of secular geopolitical norms.
https://youtu.be/tox2hr4dddM?si=YctcJQ6aAa-4_n8k
Also interesting to note that while Hegseth has been pacifying MAGAists with promises of a lethal and masculine military with a no-dresses policy, it seems like our American dead so far have had a statistically high percentage of women. 2/6 of the KC-135 crew were women. Possibly one of the pilots of the safely-ejected F-15s was a woman. Woman involved in general missile strike deaths.
I honestly had no idea we had so many women so forward, doing active combat ops and in forward basing.
Was this percentage of women killed in Iraq/Afganistan?
It's wicked we're facilitating this and Americans are cheering it and celebrating their own dead daughters as war heroes.
Any woman in uniform is an indictment, but to send them into combat is a death cult.
Military service is reserved via the order of creation for men alone. Likewise, we should not have girls and women involved in any martial arts, etc.
There are more thorough thematic treatments of this issue throughout the Bible, but this is a single-verse reference that's pretty helpful:
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." Deut 22:5
"pertaineth unto a man" is the כְּלִי of a גֶּבֶר, the equipment/apparatus of a warrior.
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/22-5.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3627.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1397.htm
Even women not forward deployed, but train with military equipment and wear the uniform would fall under this category. This would go along with organizations like police and fire fighting. In a military context, I think women could only serve in a medical capacity on home (non-forward) bases only.
Women learning how to handle a firearm (or other arms, like archery) would probably be different from the above. Even carrying perhaps. But in any case she ought not "gear up" like a man. If she feels unsafe, the men around her ought to be addressing the issues on her account. Also hunting, that's not a martial/warrior matter, as far I know.
So there may be nuance on the edges that could be debated and discussed in good faith, but general martial service is not debatable.
I heard Joe Kent in a great interview on the Megyn Kelly show. He is a real hero. But I was shocked that his wife, who was in the military also and killed in Syria, left for her deployment not that long after her second child was born. So she and her husband were both deployed, and her 3-year-old and 18-month-old boys were at home. This is absolutely wrong. I don't believe that women should ever be in combat roles, but I most definitely believe that sending a mother with young children into combat is evil and should not be allowed.
Last point: note that the North American theater is also primed for major action. Panama in light of Hormuz + recent Ecuadorian deployment, complementing the Venezuelan operations on the other side of the canal. Then you have the beginnings of a Cuban siege.
All that speedboat turkey shooting got everyone warmed up.
Dear Ad Crucem,
I completely agree with your analysis of the Israeli lobby's info war against all critics - not blindly for the war = antisemitic.
I completely disagree with your analysis that a simple nuclear device has no strategic impact. If smuggled into NY, San Francisco, and LA harbors their detonation would have war winning impact for Iran - that is, regime change in DC. I believe this is a real threat for a host of reasons including: North Korea's shift from plutonium to uranium, the known financial support Iran has provided to North Korea's weapons program, the presence of Iranian nuclear scientists at tests of North Korean nuclear devices, and North Korea's comments last June about providing nukes.
I believe such a scenario is a real and present danger that only annihilation of the theocratic islamist government in Iran will address.
I've included San Francisco in the likely target list because the Chinese would insist (the center AI research in the US) - and it is them, and them alone, who have the deciding vote on the delivery - North Korea is their creature.
President Trump in his typical way is doing the right, if ugly, thing - for the wrong reason, and on a timeline dictated by Bibi and friends. A proper timeline would have had visible identification of Quds and Hizballah cells in the US neutralized first but, what is is better than what could have been.
May God bless our sailors and aircrews and may Iran's Christians have an Easter with celebration.
I never argued against a dirty bomb (which we have been promised for 30 years) because there is no reliable evidence that Iran has pursued such a device. If you are talking about a gun-type device, there is no evidence that Iran was ever developing such a detonator.
North Korea? We have just reconfirmed that any state opposed to US policy and without a meaningful nuclear threat is a fool. The escalatory dangers from this war are profound, and game theory dictates rapid nuclear armament with a much more aggressive first strike doctrine.
We have only begun to see how the threat landscape will change, and it will be extremely precarious.
I find this post very concerning. You usually confine yourselves to issues concerning the LCMS. I fail to see why this posting, the longest I have ever seen by you, is here. Based on social media postings I see from LCMS members and interested parties, I have concerns about a latent, and not so latent antisemitism that seems to be appearing within the LCMS. If I saw this article posted without attribution I would have guessed it came from Tucker Carlson. It is very one sided to say the least.
Where is any opinion expressed in this article? Do Christians not exist in the real world with concerns about the public square? What exactly is the "latent antisemitism" in this article?
These guys have to be bots or are being paid to spam this site. Must be over the target and taking antidrone fire.
I think they are sincere, but shocked that there can exist a recitation of the known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns that cannot be packaged as a Fox News or MSNBC segment; aka an intelligence report.
You assert that Israel’s security doctrine of having nuclear weapons is a reason for the war. You imply that Israel forced Trump’s hand.
You assert that Israel “laundered” intelligence it gained from assets within Iran citing PBS Frontline as the source. PBS is known to be an unreliable source and has documented antisemitic persons on its staff. For reference see - https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/clay-waters/2026/03/17/after-weeks-anti-semitic-terror-attacks-pathetic-pbs-warns
I also see a Lutheran tendency towards vehement denial of replacement theology that can be mistaken for antisemitism. While you may not be antisemitic, I definitely see antisemitic tendencies among confessional Lutheran social media posts.
You take every anti-Iran intervention source at face value with no examination of competing viewpoints. For example, you say that US intelligence declares Iran no imminent threat. This is the same intelligence apparatus, however, that declared Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was roundly criticized for faulty intelligence. Why would we rely on US intelligence produced during the Obama/Biden years when ta number of the people in charge, like John Brennan are known Islamophiles and one of Obama’s most senior advisors was born in Iran. Why do you trust what these people say when we know for a fact that they lied and fabricated information to try and bring down the first Trump administration.
You do not give credence to the avowed hatred of the US by the mullahs in Iran and their killing of numerous Americans, beginning with 241 US Marines in Lebanon in 1983.
When someone says they want to kill you and annihilate you, and then commit terrorist acts to bring this about, you should take them at their word, and act accordingly. You seem to rely on Iranian statements that they are not pursuing a weapons program without any objective examination of the facts. Do you deny that they have already produced ballistic missiles capable of hitting all major European cities?
I feel that if Ad Crucem News existed in 1938 you would have hailed the efforts of Neville Chamberlain and concluded that peace was achieved and Adolf Hitler was no imminent threat to Europe.
Thank you for engaging. I want to respond to several of your points because I think several of them rest on logical errors that undermine your argument, even if your underlying concerns about Iran are legitimate.
On PBS Frontline: You dismiss the reporting by attacking the institution rather than the substance of what was reported (genetic fallacy). The question is not whether PBS as an organization has ever employed problematic individuals, but whether the specific intelligence trail documented in the Frontline investigation is accurate. Your NewsBusters link is an opinion blog about PBS coverage of antisemitic attacks; it says nothing whatsoever about the Iran reporting in question. If you believe Frontline got specific facts wrong, name the facts.
On Lutheran antisemitism: I'll engage this one directly because it matters. You concede I may not be antisemitic, then suggest the article is a dog whistle to antisemitic tendencies, and leave the insinuation hanging (poisoning the well / guilt by association). This introduces suspicion about my motives to discredit the argument without actually refuting it. If my presentation of Israeli nuclear doctrine or US intelligence assessments is wrong, show me where it's wrong. My denominational affiliation is not evidence of anything except where I go to church on Sunday.
On US intelligence credibility: The Iraq WMD failure was an undeniable institutional disaster. But "intelligence was catastrophically wrong in 2003, therefore intelligence assessments are unreliable now" does not follow (non sequitur / hasty generalization). Every assessment must be evaluated on its own sourcing and methodology. You then compound this by dismissing analysts based on who they are. Brennan is an "Islamophile," an unnamed advisor was "born in Iran", rather than identifying what specifically is wrong with their analytical conclusions (ad hominem). A person's biography is not a refutation of their professional work product and you falling into prejudice rather than analysis. And I would note: if we cannot trust any US intelligence product because some analysts may be politically compromised, then you also cannot selectively rely on US intelligence to make the affirmative case for Iranian weapons development. You cannot have it both ways (special pleading).
On the Chamberlain analogy: Comparing anyone who counsels caution about military intervention to Neville Chamberlain is rhetorically lazy and analytically empty unless you establish the structural parallel (false analogy). In 1938, Germany had openly rearmed in violation of Versailles, remilitarized the Rhineland, annexed Austria, and was massing troops on the Czech border. You would need to demonstrate that Iran's current military posture represents a comparable imminent threat in kind, scale, and timeline, not simply assert it by invoking Hitler.
This is a textbook case of what Leo Strauss called reductio ad Hitlerum. It is the shuffle to compare an opponent's position to appeasement of Hitler in order to shut down debate rather than win it on the merits. Notice that it is always Hitler who gets invoked in these comparisons, never Tojo, even though Imperial Japan's militarist expansionism, surprise attacks, war crimes, and Pacific theater aggression would be an equally serviceable (or equally strained) analogy. Hitler is chosen not because its meaningful, but you're desperate for an emotional payload.
On taking threats seriously: I do take Iranian rhetoric seriously, which is precisely why the article examined the actual state of Iran's capabilities rather than simply echoing their propaganda. "They say they want to kill us, therefore military action is the only rational response" (false dilemma / begging the question) skips over the very policy question under debate. Taking a threat seriously means assessing it honestly (its nature, its imminence, and the range of available responses) not reflexively concluding that military action is the only rational answer. Please argue the conclusion, don't assume it.
I welcome substantive disagreement with my analysis. But the disagreement needs to engage with what I actually wrote, not with what is easier to argue against (straw man).
Ad Crucem has Jewish family. We are not anti Semitic.
Vance in cabinet meeting today (March 26th):
... "the Holy Week that celebrates the return of Jesus Christ to Jerusalem."
Not that *begins* with that and culminates in the Crucifixion/Resurrection, but that's the whole theme! Return to Jerusalem!
Context is Vance commending troops to be comforted by this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEakBgryB9w
Vance speaks briefly fairly early on. It's still live streaming currently.
Not a good piece for once. Sources stated here are largely biased with a leftist leaning. The problems here are many. First, No one left or right has access to actual first hand intelligence and cannot verify any of these claims from secondary sources. Second, the language used by the President is often laced with hyperbole and his comments are largely unscripted. Context is everything in any conversation. To point out contradictions between staff is a waste of time when the contexts are not considered. Third, yes the US should butt out a whole lot more but the President has been proved correct on multiple occasions. The missile strike attempt on Diego Garcia being the latest example. As a former soldier I appreciate the admin‘s approach to hitting first. Our ROEs of the past have cost us too many lives because we so many rounds we were supposed to soak up before fire could be returned.
You can look at all the IAEA documentation firsthand. The other sources are sources.
An administration should have a modicum of message discipline in a war situation. The chaos in communication is a mirror image of the chaos in the admin and military.
The supposed missile launch in the direction of Diego Garcia (it never came close) has not been verified ITO who actually fired it.
What was the admin hitting first? 200 school girls?