
Operation Epic Fury is not at all optional — but IS clearly limited
NY Post
Critics of the US bombing of Iran slam it as an unnecessary “war of choice” all too likely to bog our nation down in another quagmire like Iraq; Secretary of State Marco Rubio left no doubt Monday that it’s not in any way optional, and that President Donald Trump’s goals are clear, rational and limited.
The strikes, though extensive, are focused on a very well-defined goal: to deny Tehran a “conventional weapons” shield that it can “hide behind” while building nuclear bombs.
Such protection, explained Rubio, would make the cost (in lives and treasure) of using military force to keep it from getting nukes far higher than it is now — likely too high.
Without action now, there’d “come a time where they have so many drones” and missiles that could inflict “so much damage that no one can do anything about the nuclear program.”
Tehran would, in effect, be putting itself in “a place of immunity.”
And it was well on its way there: Rubio cited estimates of Iranian production at more than 100 missiles a month, far outpacing “the six or seven interceptors that can be built” — “not to mention thousands of one-way attack drones.”

Walk into almost any dinner party or gathering and mention Ozempic or other GLP-1s. The reaction is nearly always the same: People lower their voices. They hesitate. They start qualifying what they mean before they’ve even said it. What should be a straightforward conversation about a medication quickly turns into a moral debate about whether using it is acceptable at all.












