[War] Trump surrenders to Iran in a humiliating defeat

Just so I’m understanding your point, what specifically is the fake news that Reuters reported as factual and without challenge?

 

They failed at it because they were not committed to it.

Ultimately, my greater point is that war should be very seldom because it requires a long-term commitment that the USA is frankly not willing to do most of the time.

The USA could have rebuilt Iraq; they decided to pull out - that was on them.

 

Iran was/is a problem.

Granted, it is largely a problem we created (Shah and then the removal of the buffer of Iraq).

Iran was one of the two largest and most influential powers in the Middle East.

The issue I have is the timing of this.

We were told less than a year ago that the nuclear capabilities of Iran were destroyed for years.

Also there was no real preparation of explanation to the American people and now there are leaks from inside the administration that we had to go in because Israel was going to go in.

It has now been 40 years that Israel has come to Washington - each and every year and claimed that Iran is on the doorstep of nuclear weapons.

What I don't like is the media coverage of this -- half the media reports that the US is about to collapse and the other half reports that there are no issues at all.

There is ZERO objectivity at this point.

I have no doubt that the USA will be successful at what they are always successful at - destroying the infrastructure and communications in Iran so the government is neutered. However, that isn't enough - Iran has 90 million people, and the second part, nation building is where the USA sucks since Vietnam. That means expending a lot of time and resources, and a 10–20-year commitment at a minimum of US presence and I don't see Trump or any other President committing to that.

 

Murica's strategy:

Murica will be Murica because American's dont understand the other POV towards Murica. Time and time again, we go in bombing countries, tries to install a new regime, fail miserably...then wonder why the world hates us.

 

The Israel lobby has its hook sunk deep in our government and media. It sounds like a stale antisemitic trope but it happens to be true.

Both parties have members who take big money from AIPAC. I can't help but think it's no accident that Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, two of the most ineffectual asswipes imaginable, are minority leaders for the two chambers. Big AIPAC recipients.

The media? Head of counterterrorism resigned yesterday, citing "Iran was no imminent threat" (as reported in the media) as well as how we went to war to appease Israel and its powerful American lobby (not reported in the media; you can read it when they flash his message on the screen but NO TALKING HEAD will utter it aloud, so it passes by like a leaf on the wind).

But, hey, we're not talking much about Epstein, are we? So....MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

 

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-ea...ship-528c6114?mod=WSJ_home_mediumtopper_pos_1

The Journal reviewed the contents of one call between a senior Iranian police commander and an agent of the Mossad, Israel’s foreign-intelligence service.

“Can you hear me?” a Mossad agent can be heard, speaking in Farsi. “We know everything about you. You are on our blacklist, and we have all the information about you.”

“OK,” the commander said in the recording.

“I called to warn you in advance that you should stand with your people’s side,” the Mossad agent said. “And if you will not do that, your destiny will be as your leader. Do you hear me?”

“Brother, I swear on the Quran, I’m not your enemy,” the commander said. “I’m a dead man already. Just please come help us.”

 

My personal view is we’re way past that. All 3 branches are captured in different ways and whatever policy changes were made would get undone sooner or later. The house always wins in this gamified political system.

What made Bernie the opportunity of a lifetime - before he supported Hillary - was that he was the only one who understood that only a literal revolution can make significant unretractable change. He wanted to bring about positive policies too, but he was very clear that even if he won a revolution was necessary. I believe he was willing to be killed for his vision and that’s more critical than the subjective difference between socialistic and capitalistic policies.

In short, the problem is deeper than the citizen-facing government. The source of the problem has to be addressed before the face.

 

See that is the thing with TRUMP
His whole life people have Done the right thing even after he did them wrong
He has screwed over everyone he has dealt with but alot of them hold their nose
and take the deals or do the action because it's the "right thing to do" or "the lesser of two evils"
He is not a good deal maker . .. he is an *******
If he has leverage he uses it to the hilt.
He THOUGHT he had it here. . . .that they all needed that oil so badly they would cave
and help . .. thought he has been as *******
now that it is not working. . . he is saying it's unfair .

Removing Privilege feels like persecution to the privileged

Rocket River

 

That is right. There is no public appetite for thousands of American deaths and trillions of dollars spent on long-term foreign interventions, whether the justification is fighting communism, eliminating weapons of mass destruction, spreading democracy, or combating Islamist terrorism. The one clear exception in the past century was WW2, largely because the US was directly attacked and widespread civilian atrocities were being committed by Nazi and Imperial Japan.

Even in WWII, the US did not initially set out to build new nations. Instead, it focused on defeating enemy regimes, liberating occupied territories, and then supporting reconstruction efforts led primarily by local populations, as seen in postwar recoveries like the Marshall Plan.

By contrast, US interventions in the ME (Iraq, Afghanistan) did not fail simply because of a lack of commitment. They struggled because they tried to impose centralized, democratic systems that lacked local legitimacy in societies with deep sectarian divides and weak institutions. As those efforts failed to produce stable, trusted governance, domestic support eroded and political goals shifted toward exit. In that sense, the withdrawal was more a consequence of failure than its cause.

Even with greater commitment, there is little evidence the outcome would have been different. In many cases, intervention displaced existing power structures without replacing them with ones people trusted, fueling insurgency, instability, and long-term conflict rather than durable state-building. There is little reason to expect Iran to be any different.

 

All of your points are very valid. And I would not have advocated a preemptive strike. In the back of my mind, I gave Iran the benefit of the doubt they were mostly all talk and no action.

However the cat is out of the bag and we know for certain now that given the opportunity, Iran would have used dirty bombs. On civilian targets. And not just at Israel. And once nuclear capability was achieved, it would not be for a defensive posture like N Korea - They would absolutely use it to shape policy in the ME that would be highly unfavorable to the entire world. And I am not referring to economic policy like most normal countries would do. It would be used to push extremist Islam ideology everywhere and we would very likely see a massive uptick with terrorist attacks.

Iran becoming a nuclear power was not a matter of If or a western fantasy, but when.

 

I think every situation is a little different and I agree with you on Afghanistan. I do not agree with you on Iraq though. There were many mistakes made in Iraq that lead to the US pulling out. The effort of nation building by Bush and how the war was fought led to the failure to establish a prosperous nation.

The US destroyed the infrastructure and failed to rebuild it. The grid was destroyed, there was a forced migration of 9 million Iraqis, there was a lack of network to get food to people, which resulted in a massive "brain drain". Oil production capabilities were not ever brought back to what they were prewar.

The US all but completely left out the Iraqi people when it came to decisions on rebuilding the nation.

Iraq had an opportunity to be very successful, and the US botched it because they lacked the actual commitment.

 

What do you base this on?

I am not saying you are wrong, but I am just curious as to the basis.

Also, do you believe that Iran really was weeks from creating a nuclear weapon?

I am very dubious based on the claim having been made many times before and the bombing of the facilities a year ago.

How do you want this all to end?

 

​

 

How can I like this twice?

Asking for a friend.

 

Taco, Taco, Taco Man. I gotta be a Taco Man.

 

So basically Trump is Leroy Jenkins

 

Then why are we there engaged in war you dumbass stooge?

 

This will end when Tehran, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, Amman, and Dubai are uninhabitable from nuclear fallout, and not a single drop of petroleum will come from the Middle East.

America dies with it because we have allowed neoconservatives to sacrifice America to protect their Israeli project. From A Clean Break to Project for a New American Century, US foreign policy is co-opted to eliminate real threats to Israel at the human and material cost of Americans.