> This looks a lot like when the U.S. & Israel were running dry on interceptors last year, and made a deal with the Iranians to pretend to blow up Fordow in exchange for ceasing hostilities.

Do you have a citation for this? (Genuinely curious)

> it isn't credible that B-2s flew over Fordow without Iranian permission

It is very credible because a few days before this happened, Israel wiped out Iran's air defense systems with f35 attacks.

The author’s claims that “there was never any credible evidence that Iranian medium- and long-range air defenses against fixed-wing aircraft were attrited to any significant degree“ and that the B-2 is easily to track and target… seem rather questionable. Unfounded even.

> the silence of the Iranian government on this point suggests something coordinated to me

Or, you know, a theocratic autocracy that realizes the perception of its military power is critical to keeping the populace in line?

And admitting to an inability to stop military action on one of their most heavily defended targets by the very enemy they've whipped their supporters into a froth over is a bad look?

In your zeal you seem to have misunderstood the point I was making. The Iranian government did not dispute American claims of having flown over and destroyed Fordow, which is the opposite of the "they'll say anything to look strong" thesis you're advancing.

I think the U.S. whipped the Iranian government's supporters into line by treacherously using peace negotiations as a pretext to target their scientists, helping Israel launch a completely unjustified sneak attack with all the Mossad rats they had hidden in the country, and facilitating the genocide in Gaza. With enemies like that the Iranian government hardly needs help.

So, your conspiracy is that Iran allowed US bombers to strike Fordow, proved by the fact that the Iranian government didn't say anything about it?

I'm not sure how that disagrees with my point.

Honestly can't tell if troll or schizo.

The even weirder option is that they may be right and that I can no longer tell the difference with 100% accuracy. This is very annoying.

I used to be a Skeptic magazine reading, blanket conspiracy doubting "classical liberal." Since this system is predicated on lies, everyone with a base level of commitment to the truth eventually turns their back on the official narratives.

I mean, it's hard to tell what is really going on in Venezuela right now, but as far as I can tell the only truly fragmented or "schizo" worldview would be that the United States was able to hover a Chinook over Caracas and extract Maduro without firing a single shot, without some kind of pre-agreed deal being in place.

I guess we'll see if Trump's blustering that he'll install American oil execs in Caracas pans out, won't we? Given that Chinese officials met with Maduro just before all this, I'm open to the idea that some kind of deal has been made to hand Latin America to the U.S. in exchange for our forbearance elsewhere in the world, so we might see something more serious, but at this point we just have the removal of a single head of state under extremely suspicious circumstances.