POTUS Trump into this failed war and now we see Joints Chief Caine wants out! Now the US homeland is unsecured, we are at risk, even in Asia due to a clusterfuck failure! did they do this to fuck 47?
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military is experiencing a “beyond critical” shortage of advanced missile interceptors in Europe largely driven by President Donald Trump’s war with Iran, a U.S. defense official in Europe and a NATO official told The Associated Press, raising concerns about vulnerabilities in NATO countries to a potential Russian attack.
The U.S. defense official said the most concerning shortfall involves Patriot missile interceptors, which can shoot down Russia’s high-speed ballistic missiles. The NATO official confirmed the low inventories of Patriots among American and NATO forces in Europe. Both spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters.
And people on this stack wonder why, apart from based on the IQ scores which back them up, the rest of the world thinks yanks are, let me put this politely for the censorship bot, "unintelligent."
If Iran gets a bomb it will be POTUS Trump's doing. Here's the view from Malaysia:
"The gravest danger in the present war is not that Iran has already decided to manufacture a nuclear weapon. There is no verified evidence of such a decision.
The danger is that another major US escalation could convince Tehran that remaining a non-nuclear state inside the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) no longer provides protection, recognition or even the elementary security that the treaty was supposed to guarantee.
Washington may therefore produce precisely the outcome that it claims to be trying to prevent.
Iran is approaching its NPT red line. Withdrawal from the treaty is no longer discussed merely as rhetorical retaliation.
Iranian institutions, including its parliament, have examined it as a practical response to attacks upon safeguarded nuclear facilities, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s failure to condemn those attacks, and the suspicion that information gathered through inspections has found its way into US and Israeli targeting processes.
In late March 2026, a triple-urgency bill proposing Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT was uploaded to the Iranian parliament’s legislative system, although it had not yet been debated or adopted.
The NPT permits withdrawal when a state concludes that ‘extraordinary events’ have jeopardised its supreme interests. Iran can plausibly argue that the bombing of its nuclear facilities by nuclear-armed states constitutes precisely such an event.
Iranian officials who advocate withdrawal have stressed that such a step would not necessarily signal a decision to manufacture a bomb. Alaeddin Boroujderdi, a member of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, argued in March 2026 that Iran should leave the NPT while insisting, “We are not seeking a nuclear bomb.”
Such a move would, however, terminate or radically reduce the inspection system through which the IAEA monitors Iran’s nuclear material.
That distinction is legally significant but strategically thin. Once Iran has left the treaty, restricted inspectors and increased enrichment, other governments will necessarily assume that it is preparing a weapon.
Reporting by Transition Protocol shows that Iran has decided to move its uranium stockpile to 90% enrichment. Iran had accumulated roughly 440kg of uranium enriched to 60% before inspectors lost the ability to establish the location and condition of the entire stock.
Uranium enriched to 60% is already far beyond the level ordinarily required for civilian power generation, although it is not in itself a nuclear weapon. Enriching this material to about 90% would bring it into the range conventionally described as weapons-grade.
READ MORE:Trump's West Asia miscalculation
Conversations with people in Iran have revealed that Iranian authorities have instructed the nuclear establishment to prepare to process much of this material towards 90% if the US escalates again. Enriching uranium, converting it into a suitable form, constructing an explosive device and developing a deliverable weapon are related but distinct stages.
Nevertheless, if the intelligence is accurate, the direction is unmistakable. Another major US attack could cause Iran to leave the NPT, enrich uranium to weapons-grade, and move to threshold deterrence.
Tehran might then assemble a device without testing it, or it might conduct an underground or demonstrative detonation to remove any doubt that it had crossed the threshold. Such a detonation would constitute an entirely new stage in the history of West Asia. But it would be the consequence of an existential war, not evidence that Iran had always secretly intended to reach this point.
Korea vs Libya
The choice Iranian strategists confront is increasingly described through two precedents: North Korea and Libya.
Libya surrendered its embryonic nuclear and missile programmes in 2003. It transferred equipment and documents to the US, accepted intrusive inspections, and sought normal relations with the West. Washington and London presented Muammar Gaddafi’s decision as proof that disarmament would produce security and international rehabilitation.
Eight years later, Nato used a UN resolution ostensibly intended to protect civilians to conduct a war for regime change. The Libyan state was destroyed, and Gaddafi was captured and killed.
North Korea followed the opposite course. It withdrew from the NPT in 2003, tested a nuclear device in 2006, and gradually developed a survivable nuclear and missile capability. North Korea has endured sanctions, isolation, military exercises and repeated threats.
Yet no US government has attempted a full-scale invasion or regime-change war against it. Washington negotiates with Pyongyang under conditions fundamentally different from those it imposed upon Baghdad, Tripoli or Tehran because the consequences of attacking North Korea cannot be confidently controlled.
The lesson drawn in Tehran, Pyongyang and elsewhere is devastatingly simple: Gaddafi relinquished his deterrent, opened his country and received no durable guarantee against Western attack. His compliance removed an obstacle to regime change rather than ensuring Libya’s sovereignty.
This is not an endorsement of nuclear proliferation. Nuclear weapons are instruments of mass destruction, and their abolition remains a human necessity. It is an explanation of the strategic calculation produced by Western conduct.
The nuclear powers have failed to fulfil the NPT’s disarmament bargain, protected Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal, attacked non-nuclear states, and demanded that selected adversaries remain permanently vulnerable. They have turned nuclear possession into the most credible insurance policy against forcible overthrow.
Iran has so far resisted this logic. Its official position remains that nuclear weapons are religiously prohibited, militarily unnecessary, and incompatible with its declared doctrine.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated after earlier attacks that Iran had not abandoned this policy and continued to regard the production, stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction as inhuman and un-Islamic. He also explained that Iran raised enrichment to 60% to demonstrate that threats and pressure would not compel capitulation.
Yet doctrines are not immune to changes in material circumstances. If a state is repeatedly attacked while observing a prohibition, and if its attackers openly discuss destroying its government (even with nuclear weapons), its leaders will inevitably reconsider whether moral restraint has become strategic exposure. The debate within Iran has already moved from whether nuclear weapons are desirable to whether nuclear latency may become indispensable for national survival.
Should Iran cross the threshold, it would almost certainly present the decision as the construction of a shield, not preparation for an offensive war. Iran has repeatedly said that it does not seek territorial conquest, nuclear coercion or attacks upon neighbouring peoples.
Its immediate purpose would be to convince Washington and Tel Aviv that no campaign to destroy the Iranian state could proceed without unacceptable consequences.
A deterrent, however, cannot be made entirely safe by declaring it defensive. Other governments cannot know future intentions with certainty. An Iranian weapon could stimulate nuclear hedging by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt or others.
READ MORE:How Iran plans to bankrupt America
Israel might attempt a preventive attack before Iran completes weaponisation. The transition period – between enrichment to 90% and the establishment of a credible deterrent – would be particularly dangerous. Miscalculation could produce the catastrophe that all parties claim to oppose.
That is why the decisive responsibility now lies with the states choosing whether to escalate.
If the US attacks again, intensifies an economic siege designed to break the Iranian state, or makes negotiations indistinguishable from an ultimatum, it will strengthen those in Tehran who argue that the Libyan road ends in death and only the North Korean road guarantees survival.
Iran appears to be preparing to endure rather than capitulate. It is hardening its command arrangements, preserving missile and drone capacity, and organising for a prolonged economic war.
Tehran’s wager is that it can absorb immense pressure until the US coalition confronts mounting military costs, commercial disruption and political disagreement (particularly after the US mid-term elections in November). The nuclear question now sits inside that wider strategy of survival.
The choice is therefore stark. Washington can accept a verifiable agreement that recognises Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear technology, guarantees non-aggression, and restores credible inspection. Or it can continue a war that destroys the remaining constituency for restraint inside Iran.
If it chooses escalation, it should not pretend to be surprised when Iran concludes that treaties provide no shield, inspections bring no safety, and only possession of the ultimate weapon prevents another Libya. –Globetrotter
So what? What do we need Patriot missiles in Europe for? Is Estonia contemplating a blitzkrieg? Don't you dare say Russia is the threat--they can't even roll over Ukraine, an indefensible prairie so flat that when Henryk Sienkiewicz wanted to write about it in his famous "Trilogy" he used Nebraska as his model, having never been to the Ukraine himself.
All the Patriot missiles in Europe have done for us is cause Russia an additional point of mistrust, following on the broken promises not to extend NATO (another useless dinosaur) towards their borders.
Well, no. Russia-Ukraine war is a distraction only. Russia is NOT allowed to win until certain time. If Russia was allowed to win, they would take over the entire Europe+ in few days, if not hours. Please don’t be propagandized. We need to know reality.
Also, soon Russia will be unleashed to take over former satellites. It will not take them long to do so. You will see with your own eyes and hopefully wonder about this post🤔
I understand that you are discussing other people‘s lies in their news but how about taking it a step further.
Based on these lies, we are down so much weaponry just going against a country that can’t even fight back. That is basically what the message is
So you want me to believe that the best of the best which have many years of military experience came out of places like West Point the naval Academy in the Air Force Academy and other places through ROTC are a bunch of incompetent boobs who don’t know how to stockpile weapons so that way, if we had to fight Russia or China or the entire Middle East or all of the above, we would be done in about a week. Sorry no more weapons.
How about we stop this stupidity and we stop putting down all of these military people other than Donald Trump because Donald Trump has only been there for three years and we have people that have been there for 25 and 30 years across administrations.
Trump 2.0 is a disaster. I almost didn’t vote for him in 2024 but the propaganda got to me. So now… I’ll probably never vote again because I can’t trust myself to make the right decision.
Especially when the elections are rigged. Trumps behavior after 2020 was very suspicious. And all the lawfare? What a joke. The grift is real and I really really hate his kids. Barron Trump will never be president. He’s a joke too. Melania? Bought and paid for.
Hey Substack AI, you propagandist and censor. There wasn't even any profanity in my comment. Prove that my premises or logic and conclusions are wrong. You can't. It's the truth that offends you. Research "US war crimes" and "US paedophilia abriad" or"age of consent for US military and exemptions." Research Mai Lai and Abu Ghraib and Minab school strike etc etc. Someone can make a comment like I did in the Russian Federation's RT and not be censored for it but to you censorship and propaganda bots the truth is a terrible thing that must be distorted or hidden.
Leadership in Iran had to be taken down as they had plans and part of their plans were Nukes.
We should also take our stolen money back that Obama gave them in cash $112 billion without authorization. We could take it back in oil. There are many reasons I will not go into here but we needed to go there and all is just fine. You will see in the end. We shouldn't need missiles after this. The whole world will be under a new system so this had to be done. Also better to deal with nut jobs with no nukes than nut jobs with nukes. There is a lot of good people in Iran but the leadership really sucks. They murder their own people by the thousands. They make Mohamed proud. Kill, Kill, Kill, and Rape, Rape, Rape and then Kill some more. One more thing, Russia has always been our friend. Name one thing they have done against America.
It's not just Hegseth. It's your pal Rubio and all the other Neo-Con chickenhawks in the War Party, the guys who danced on Massey's "grave," and at the grass-roots level it's the heretical "Christian Zionists." The question is whether Trump is such a fool that he could be led by the nose like this. A question which I'm afraid answers itself.
Exclusive: US Patriot missile stocks in Europe are ‘beyond critical’ due to Iran war, officials say https://apnews.com/article/patriot-missiles-iran-war-russia-ukraine-trump-09c7d8030a2e11fbd8ee3f7176b3f2d4
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military is experiencing a “beyond critical” shortage of advanced missile interceptors in Europe largely driven by President Donald Trump’s war with Iran, a U.S. defense official in Europe and a NATO official told The Associated Press, raising concerns about vulnerabilities in NATO countries to a potential Russian attack.
The U.S. defense official said the most concerning shortfall involves Patriot missile interceptors, which can shoot down Russia’s high-speed ballistic missiles. The NATO official confirmed the low inventories of Patriots among American and NATO forces in Europe. Both spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters.
And people on this stack wonder why, apart from based on the IQ scores which back them up, the rest of the world thinks yanks are, let me put this politely for the censorship bot, "unintelligent."
If Iran gets a bomb it will be POTUS Trump's doing. Here's the view from Malaysia:
"The gravest danger in the present war is not that Iran has already decided to manufacture a nuclear weapon. There is no verified evidence of such a decision.
The danger is that another major US escalation could convince Tehran that remaining a non-nuclear state inside the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) no longer provides protection, recognition or even the elementary security that the treaty was supposed to guarantee.
Washington may therefore produce precisely the outcome that it claims to be trying to prevent.
Iran is approaching its NPT red line. Withdrawal from the treaty is no longer discussed merely as rhetorical retaliation.
Iranian institutions, including its parliament, have examined it as a practical response to attacks upon safeguarded nuclear facilities, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s failure to condemn those attacks, and the suspicion that information gathered through inspections has found its way into US and Israeli targeting processes.
In late March 2026, a triple-urgency bill proposing Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT was uploaded to the Iranian parliament’s legislative system, although it had not yet been debated or adopted.
The NPT permits withdrawal when a state concludes that ‘extraordinary events’ have jeopardised its supreme interests. Iran can plausibly argue that the bombing of its nuclear facilities by nuclear-armed states constitutes precisely such an event.
Iranian officials who advocate withdrawal have stressed that such a step would not necessarily signal a decision to manufacture a bomb. Alaeddin Boroujderdi, a member of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, argued in March 2026 that Iran should leave the NPT while insisting, “We are not seeking a nuclear bomb.”
Such a move would, however, terminate or radically reduce the inspection system through which the IAEA monitors Iran’s nuclear material.
That distinction is legally significant but strategically thin. Once Iran has left the treaty, restricted inspectors and increased enrichment, other governments will necessarily assume that it is preparing a weapon.
Reporting by Transition Protocol shows that Iran has decided to move its uranium stockpile to 90% enrichment. Iran had accumulated roughly 440kg of uranium enriched to 60% before inspectors lost the ability to establish the location and condition of the entire stock.
Uranium enriched to 60% is already far beyond the level ordinarily required for civilian power generation, although it is not in itself a nuclear weapon. Enriching this material to about 90% would bring it into the range conventionally described as weapons-grade.
READ MORE:Trump's West Asia miscalculation
Conversations with people in Iran have revealed that Iranian authorities have instructed the nuclear establishment to prepare to process much of this material towards 90% if the US escalates again. Enriching uranium, converting it into a suitable form, constructing an explosive device and developing a deliverable weapon are related but distinct stages.
Nevertheless, if the intelligence is accurate, the direction is unmistakable. Another major US attack could cause Iran to leave the NPT, enrich uranium to weapons-grade, and move to threshold deterrence.
Tehran might then assemble a device without testing it, or it might conduct an underground or demonstrative detonation to remove any doubt that it had crossed the threshold. Such a detonation would constitute an entirely new stage in the history of West Asia. But it would be the consequence of an existential war, not evidence that Iran had always secretly intended to reach this point.
Korea vs Libya
The choice Iranian strategists confront is increasingly described through two precedents: North Korea and Libya.
Libya surrendered its embryonic nuclear and missile programmes in 2003. It transferred equipment and documents to the US, accepted intrusive inspections, and sought normal relations with the West. Washington and London presented Muammar Gaddafi’s decision as proof that disarmament would produce security and international rehabilitation.
Eight years later, Nato used a UN resolution ostensibly intended to protect civilians to conduct a war for regime change. The Libyan state was destroyed, and Gaddafi was captured and killed.
North Korea followed the opposite course. It withdrew from the NPT in 2003, tested a nuclear device in 2006, and gradually developed a survivable nuclear and missile capability. North Korea has endured sanctions, isolation, military exercises and repeated threats.
Yet no US government has attempted a full-scale invasion or regime-change war against it. Washington negotiates with Pyongyang under conditions fundamentally different from those it imposed upon Baghdad, Tripoli or Tehran because the consequences of attacking North Korea cannot be confidently controlled.
The lesson drawn in Tehran, Pyongyang and elsewhere is devastatingly simple: Gaddafi relinquished his deterrent, opened his country and received no durable guarantee against Western attack. His compliance removed an obstacle to regime change rather than ensuring Libya’s sovereignty.
This is not an endorsement of nuclear proliferation. Nuclear weapons are instruments of mass destruction, and their abolition remains a human necessity. It is an explanation of the strategic calculation produced by Western conduct.
The nuclear powers have failed to fulfil the NPT’s disarmament bargain, protected Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal, attacked non-nuclear states, and demanded that selected adversaries remain permanently vulnerable. They have turned nuclear possession into the most credible insurance policy against forcible overthrow.
Iran has so far resisted this logic. Its official position remains that nuclear weapons are religiously prohibited, militarily unnecessary, and incompatible with its declared doctrine.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated after earlier attacks that Iran had not abandoned this policy and continued to regard the production, stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction as inhuman and un-Islamic. He also explained that Iran raised enrichment to 60% to demonstrate that threats and pressure would not compel capitulation.
Yet doctrines are not immune to changes in material circumstances. If a state is repeatedly attacked while observing a prohibition, and if its attackers openly discuss destroying its government (even with nuclear weapons), its leaders will inevitably reconsider whether moral restraint has become strategic exposure. The debate within Iran has already moved from whether nuclear weapons are desirable to whether nuclear latency may become indispensable for national survival.
Should Iran cross the threshold, it would almost certainly present the decision as the construction of a shield, not preparation for an offensive war. Iran has repeatedly said that it does not seek territorial conquest, nuclear coercion or attacks upon neighbouring peoples.
Its immediate purpose would be to convince Washington and Tel Aviv that no campaign to destroy the Iranian state could proceed without unacceptable consequences.
A deterrent, however, cannot be made entirely safe by declaring it defensive. Other governments cannot know future intentions with certainty. An Iranian weapon could stimulate nuclear hedging by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt or others.
READ MORE:How Iran plans to bankrupt America
Israel might attempt a preventive attack before Iran completes weaponisation. The transition period – between enrichment to 90% and the establishment of a credible deterrent – would be particularly dangerous. Miscalculation could produce the catastrophe that all parties claim to oppose.
That is why the decisive responsibility now lies with the states choosing whether to escalate.
If the US attacks again, intensifies an economic siege designed to break the Iranian state, or makes negotiations indistinguishable from an ultimatum, it will strengthen those in Tehran who argue that the Libyan road ends in death and only the North Korean road guarantees survival.
Iran appears to be preparing to endure rather than capitulate. It is hardening its command arrangements, preserving missile and drone capacity, and organising for a prolonged economic war.
Tehran’s wager is that it can absorb immense pressure until the US coalition confronts mounting military costs, commercial disruption and political disagreement (particularly after the US mid-term elections in November). The nuclear question now sits inside that wider strategy of survival.
The choice is therefore stark. Washington can accept a verifiable agreement that recognises Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear technology, guarantees non-aggression, and restores credible inspection. Or it can continue a war that destroys the remaining constituency for restraint inside Iran.
If it chooses escalation, it should not pretend to be surprised when Iran concludes that treaties provide no shield, inspections bring no safety, and only possession of the ultimate weapon prevents another Libya. –Globetrotter
Vijay Prashad "
So what? What do we need Patriot missiles in Europe for? Is Estonia contemplating a blitzkrieg? Don't you dare say Russia is the threat--they can't even roll over Ukraine, an indefensible prairie so flat that when Henryk Sienkiewicz wanted to write about it in his famous "Trilogy" he used Nebraska as his model, having never been to the Ukraine himself.
All the Patriot missiles in Europe have done for us is cause Russia an additional point of mistrust, following on the broken promises not to extend NATO (another useless dinosaur) towards their borders.
Well, no. Russia-Ukraine war is a distraction only. Russia is NOT allowed to win until certain time. If Russia was allowed to win, they would take over the entire Europe+ in few days, if not hours. Please don’t be propagandized. We need to know reality.
Also, soon Russia will be unleashed to take over former satellites. It will not take them long to do so. You will see with your own eyes and hopefully wonder about this post🤔
I understand that you are discussing other people‘s lies in their news but how about taking it a step further.
Based on these lies, we are down so much weaponry just going against a country that can’t even fight back. That is basically what the message is
So you want me to believe that the best of the best which have many years of military experience came out of places like West Point the naval Academy in the Air Force Academy and other places through ROTC are a bunch of incompetent boobs who don’t know how to stockpile weapons so that way, if we had to fight Russia or China or the entire Middle East or all of the above, we would be done in about a week. Sorry no more weapons.
How about we stop this stupidity and we stop putting down all of these military people other than Donald Trump because Donald Trump has only been there for three years and we have people that have been there for 25 and 30 years across administrations.
Omg… that was not misleading! It was all purposeful. Ugh… As per ALL global org, USA must go down. I am tired of reiterating the plan.
Trump 2.0 is a disaster. I almost didn’t vote for him in 2024 but the propaganda got to me. So now… I’ll probably never vote again because I can’t trust myself to make the right decision.
Especially when the elections are rigged. Trumps behavior after 2020 was very suspicious. And all the lawfare? What a joke. The grift is real and I really really hate his kids. Barron Trump will never be president. He’s a joke too. Melania? Bought and paid for.
Oh for goodness sake, Te! Have you forgotten what Americans voted for? Let me remind you. Americans wanted:
1) Self-disseminating mRNA shots that would make mandates unnecessary by being able to vaxx the uninjected through "shedding" on them;
2) A Presidential Commendation for Fauci;
3) The non-release of more than a million pages of the Epstein files;
4) Israel First;
5) Big spending on a new forever war.
You got what you wanted.
👍
Hey Substack AI, you propagandist and censor. There wasn't even any profanity in my comment. Prove that my premises or logic and conclusions are wrong. You can't. It's the truth that offends you. Research "US war crimes" and "US paedophilia abriad" or"age of consent for US military and exemptions." Research Mai Lai and Abu Ghraib and Minab school strike etc etc. Someone can make a comment like I did in the Russian Federation's RT and not be censored for it but to you censorship and propaganda bots the truth is a terrible thing that must be distorted or hidden.
Leadership in Iran had to be taken down as they had plans and part of their plans were Nukes.
We should also take our stolen money back that Obama gave them in cash $112 billion without authorization. We could take it back in oil. There are many reasons I will not go into here but we needed to go there and all is just fine. You will see in the end. We shouldn't need missiles after this. The whole world will be under a new system so this had to be done. Also better to deal with nut jobs with no nukes than nut jobs with nukes. There is a lot of good people in Iran but the leadership really sucks. They murder their own people by the thousands. They make Mohamed proud. Kill, Kill, Kill, and Rape, Rape, Rape and then Kill some more. One more thing, Russia has always been our friend. Name one thing they have done against America.
We also have to mine and refine the rare earth elements needed for this technology and not depend on China
It's not just Hegseth. It's your pal Rubio and all the other Neo-Con chickenhawks in the War Party, the guys who danced on Massey's "grave," and at the grass-roots level it's the heretical "Christian Zionists." The question is whether Trump is such a fool that he could be led by the nose like this. A question which I'm afraid answers itself.