Hacker News Reader

Comment by DoctorOetker | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

> I think many in the Pentagon are relieved that they were finally able to convince a president of what needed to be done a long time before

Like your other comments, this is abjectly false. Our generals and admirals specifically warned against going to war with Iran.

I am willing to hear you out on this, but the Pentagon employs a lot of personnel, can you demonstrate that the sentiment you describe was actually representative?

Clearly those who do believe in this intervention don't have the same incentive to speak up as those that disagree with it.

It is also rather vague to conflate warnings with disagreement:

They can believe in the validity of an approach but still have the legal obligation to not just inform the president of the values and benefits of such a mission, but also warn him of any potential negative outcomes.

Warning someone about a path of action, is not equivalent to disagreeing with that path of action, it can be their job description to provide such warnings.

That said, I would like to read more about what you are referring to, to make sure we are talking about the same things.

Google is your friend

To get you started: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington...

https://www.axios.com/2026/02/23/iran-strike-trump-gen-dan-c...

From your own source:

> Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine has been advising President Trump and top officials that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, in particular the possibility of becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict, according to two sources with knowledge of those internal discussions.

"that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, "

specifically

"could carry"

Sounds like people doing their job, and informing a president of potential outcomes, precisely what I predicted above. The media always makes things seem more adversarial than what it turns out to be.

Your comments make it clear that you are a propagandist and maybe even a bot. I assume that you can comprehend English, but are choosing to be obtuse. If that is not the case, and you still cannot understand the warnings, ask Claude or some other AI to help you.

Hah, I'm so used to thinking about these missiles as conventional that I forgot it actually means Iran was building the capability to nuke Europe. Or more accurately - to deter Europe with nukes while they export terrorism globally.

The only Middle Eastern country that has illegal nukes and doesn't deny the theories that they would nuke the whole world, including innocent countries when they felt "threatened" and they feel threatened by anything and everything, is not Iran.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't really believe the nonsesne you are writing, and just trolling.

It's not just about Iran, there are videos of some Israeli people bragging about how they throw rocks and fire grenades and rockets at Palestinian settlements, its quite clear that some people including elements of government and military have become quite deranged, which is all the more concerning given their lack of comment clarifying they don't believe in Samson option. Obviously if it was a question like "Do you think Jews control the world and own all the banks?" would be ridiculous question unworthy of an answer, but asking if the Samson option is real or false is a perfectly reasonable question especially given Israeli elements like Pollard are claiming that more extreme version of the option as true. The modern Israeli government has a policy of declaring anything and everything antisemitic, and obviously, the next step after "knowing" something is sufficiently anti semitic is some kind of military action as evidenced by the events of past few years.

Iran has always obliged with inspections of its nuclear program. It has never built any nukes. It had agreed to stop refining nuclear materials in negotiations, and then America and Israel backstabbed it and attacked Iran during the negotiations, to also speak nothing of the various times Israeli military action killed negotiators in progress.

In light of all this, it is now upon you to tell me which is false and which is "trolling".

Which part do you think is wrong?

Do you believe Israel doesn't have illegal nukes? Or are you thinking Israel hasn't yet clarified or denied the extreme version of the so called Samson policy?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com