Here’s a deep-dive, forensic-style analysis that contextualises Trump’s most recent claims, the intelligence community’s contradictions, the echoes of Iraq War-era WMD rhetoric, and Peter FitzSimons’s sharp critique. Linked sources and clear timelines are included throughout:
On June 17, 2025, Donald Trump took to Truth Social (and later reiterated in media) to declare that U.S. forces had carried out a “very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan.” He specified that a “full payload of BOMBS” was dropped on the Fordow site, and that “all planes are safely on their way home.” This was no longer hypothetical – Trump was describing actions taken, including one on the deeply embedded Fordow facility.
At the same time, investigative outlets like Reuters and ABC note the capability of U.S. B‑2 stealth bombers carrying massive bunker‑buster munitions – like the GBU‑57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator – required to reach such fortified targets.
Here’s the clash:
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, during congressional testimony in March 2025, stated that National Intelligence concluded Iran “is not building a nuclear weapon,” and Supreme Leader Khamenei had not authorised such a program.
Despite this, Trump has repeatedly dismissed her assessment. In a tense press moment, a reporter asked him directly: “But your intelligence agencies say Iran isn’t building nukes…” Trump sharply cut in: “Why should I believe you? What intelligence? Tulsi Gabbard? She’s wrong!.”
Fact-checkers confirmed: Gabbard’s assessment reflected the consensus; Trump’s contradiction stands in direct opposition to his own intelligence leaders.
Trump’s public dismissal of his intelligence chiefs harkens back to the 2002–2003 period when President George W. Bush insisted Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, despite a lack of credible evidence. That narrative was used to justify the invasion of Iraq – later shown to be based on faulty intelligence.
Peter FitzSimons, echoing this comparison, said: “It feels like ‘they have weapons of mass destruction,’ all over again.”
Similarly, The Independent ran a scathing analysis titled “Trump’s WMD moment,” noting how he once criticised the Bush-era for WMD lies, and is now rewriting intelligence again to justify military action.
Fordow is a fortified underground uranium enrichment site near Qom, built deep beneath a mountain—thought purposely designed to resist airstrikes .
The IAEA (UN nuclear watchdog) has reported that Iran has produced “highly enriched” uranium there, but explicitly classified it as undeclared nuclear material and not evidence of a weaponisation program .
Analysts warn using a GBU‑57A/B bunker‑buster could still fail to neutralise the site entirely, and even if successful, the fallout (radioactive or political) could be significant.
The Pentagon views the “capability” as there – but final decisions are political.
Timeline and geopolitics:
March 2025: Gabbard testifies to Congress about Intel’s view of Iran – no weapon-building.
April–May 2025: Trump issues ultimatums to Tehran via letters and sanctions, but also engages in parallel nuclear-framework talks.
Mid-June 2025: Israel launches Operation Rising Lion – a series of airstrikes across Iran including Natanz; U.S. involvement is unclear but Trump announces U.S. readiness to strike too.
June 17: Trump announces bombings of Fordow, Natanz, Esfahan.
Following days: Intelligence sources tell CBS News the president had approved planning steps against Fordow, pending Iran’s response.
The Jerusalem Post analysis suggests Trump has shifted from bluffing to doing, staging a strike to preserve his reputation as decisive – possibly driven by the need to match his “warrior” image.
By doubting his Director of National Intelligence, Trump is elevating his instincts and narrative over verified facts – a textbook example of political spin overriding institutional analysis.
Gabbard’s intelligence assessment receives relatively little public attention – while Trump’s bold rhetoric and claims dominate headlines, inflaming fears and reawakening memories of past war-time deceptions.
As a veteran journalist, FitzSimons highlights the slippery slope: once leaders can override intel to justify war, the checks and balances that prevented unchecked military action during the Iraq era are weakened.
Iran’s response: Tehran has threatened retaliation if attacked, while its continuing uranium enrichment raises suspicions – even if not evidence of a bomb-making effort.
U.S. decision-making: Reports indicate Trump retains final approval power and is weighing plans for further strikes – or pause – based on Iran’s actions.
Regional escalation risk: This could turn into a regional conflict involving Israel, Iran, and the U.S. invoking a scenario not seen since 2003 – and that once spiraled into prolonged war.
Trump has declared actual attacks – not threats – on Iran’s nuclear sites, claiming military success, while his own intelligence community says Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.
He has publicly rebuked his intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, undermining the credibility of her assessment.
This brings us uncomfortably close to a modern WMD narrative: preemptive strikes based on overriding evidence, risking regional war – even as FitzSimons warns, “Same con, different continent.”
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
By James Moore There are four madmen presently threatening the safety of every human…
Michael Springer’s debut novel, The Flower Bed, is an ambitious and emotionally charged thriller that…
Monash University Media Release The US has joined the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran,…
By Denis Hay Description Australia’s defence strategy. Australia faces a pivotal choice: continue escalating military…
By Walt Zlotow Director of Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard sure caved quickly ahead of Trump’s…
⚖️ 1. Conflating Criticism of Israel with Antisemitism Criticising Israel’s military and political actions -…
View Comments
Interesting that the Coalition has endorsed the strikes, calling them "proactive action".
My question to Hastie, is whether he wants us to enter another shitshow like Iraq, at the behest of a maniacal effwit.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-22/government-opposition-response-us-strikes-iran/105446620
So, Richard Marles, are you going to try to send us off to another one of USAnia's totally pointless overseas wars?
Opening chapter of 1984 includes the three slogans of the party....
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
those words seem to ring very true today.
🧵THREAD: “Same con, different continent” – what does it really mean?
A breakdown of one of the most devastatingly simple critiques of recycled lies, colonial power plays & modern propaganda 👇
1/
You might’ve heard the phrase:
“Same con, different continent.”
It’s not a historical quote. No, Peter FitzSimons didn’t say it.
It’s satire—a scalpel, not a slogan.
2/
What it means is simple:
👉 The lies used to justify exploitation, invasion or control are often the same, just dressed up for a new place and time.
Iraq in 2003. Iran in 2025. Africa in the 19th century. Australia in 1788.
The con never really changes.
3/
Governments & empires have always had PR departments:
“They have weapons of mass destruction”
“We’re bringing peace”
“They need civilising”
“It’s in the national interest”
Different victims, same script.
4/
That’s the point:
🎭 Same theatre
📜 Same script
🌍 Different continent
The phrase exposes the repetition of deceit, especially when used to justify war, colonisation, or corporate resource grabs.
5/
It’s satire—yes. But it’s also historical memory.
It calls out the pattern.
It demands we stop falling for it.
And it reminds us that truth often arrives long after the damage is done.
6/
So no, it’s not a quote from a famous historian.
It’s better than that.
It’s a shorthand for a thousand years of rinse & repeat imperial BS.
Use it freely. And use it when the next “crisis” rolls in pre-packaged with talking points.
7/
Final word?
When someone says “Same con, different continent,”
they’re not being glib.
They’re being accurate.
Because the lies might move—but the pattern doesn’t.
🧵/end
#SameConDifferentContinent #Satire #Geopolitics #MediaLiteracy #AusPol #Misinformation
You could substitute country to be more correct in this instance (even though it's not a real quote), of course, but con and continent sound better together.
Why does Media refrain from calling out this untruth - (from Marles in The Guardian today):-
However, while repeating calls for a de-escalation in the conflict, Marles restated the government’s position that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program was a threat to the region and “stability of the world”.
Is there any fact-checking going on in Australia? If not, why not??