Basically, Trump wants what Putin has. Putin can: attack other countries for whatever fabricated reason that he can invent, steal as much of his country's resources as he desires, cause the death of hundreds of thousands of his citizens without any concern, or even acknowledgement, and with only feeble and ineffective objections from them, destroy his own economy to where the per capita GDP is less than half of the average of all of the ten countries that left the Soviet Union's orbit, and not worry about the courts' bothering him for trivial offenses like murdering anyone who offends him, rigging elections and destroying the environment . Much of that is on Trump's wish list, and the attack on Iran is just checking another box. However, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while, and it's quite possible that the attack could result in a better world for almost everyone, both inside and outside the Country, even if the original motivation was to just commandeer their oil and other resources. The Iran government is weaker than it has been since the Revolution, and perhaps, with help, the Iranian people can summon the energy and will to create a better life for themselves. The question is "Do we have the collective humanity and national will to help them?" It's hard to be optimistic, but maybe hopeful.
I do not know what the approx. 30 million Shia Muslims in Iraq might do if the regime in Iran was not quite so totalitarian, but I know for certain the Regime has not thought about it.
A Congress whose members were committed to our Constitution would have already submitted articles of Impeachment against the President and each of his appointed agency heads over this - and all other - unconstitutional acts.
However, our actions in this unconstitutional, undeclared, and unexplained war against Iran depend only on the mercurial whim of a Felonious Oath-Breaker.
Therefore, none of your postulations matter, JVL, since each - no matter how plausible or not - relies upon some reasoned thought.
JVL, Whew, none of that sounds good. Unfortunately, some of it could be plausible. Much of it can even be true. Most of it is unknown. The only thing we really know for sure is Trump is at the center of this and we do, by now, know Trump. He only does anything if it will directly benefit him. That being the case, polling says he's underwater on everything and it even includes his new war adventure. So why did he do it? What does he get? To solve this crime mystery novel, look for the clues. Sometimes it's good to ask yourself some questions, like say, why is Jared involved? Why were he and Witkoff the peace emmissaries? What's do Trump, Witkoff and Jared share in common? I don't know, maybe it's they love when they get moolah from the mullahs. Or am I just being obtuse.
As I am reading this, Little Marco is answering questions from the press. One thing (out of many) that struck me as absurd was his excuse for not informing Congress: “Notifying 538 members of Congress is not possible”. Within seconds of hearing him say this I read the above paragraph that basically said “democracy is inconvenient”. That is the intention!! Checks and balances, Congressional oversight, and all of the other things that slow down impulsive behavior are meant to be inconvenient.
My money is on D, which I do think has a greater than 50% chance of happening, perhaps but for the differences between the US perception of that outcome and Israel's. It's easy to see the Republican Guard or the next-in-line Mullahs taking control of the government and then striking a "deal" with the US that is just enough for Trump to declare victory and move on, even though (or, more accurately, because) it leaves the country in the hands of a despotic regime. Despotic regimes that are friendly to Trump are not only acceptable, they are welcomed by the Trump administration. Trump would just have to convince Bibi that this was good for Israel too, which wouldn't be a layup since Bibi has almost certainly found out that the next president of the US will be far less friendly to Israel that Trump is. That's why it's maybe a 55% likely outcome rather than a 75% likely outcome.
The Republican Guard runs Iran, and the Ayatollah is just the head. Unless TRG is removed somehow, not much will change, except that they're a little *more* pissed off at us for killing their figurehead. They'll put a new guy in charge the minute we leave and crack down on their own ppl some more. And so it goes.
US "regime change" in Iran started with President Eisenhower. It is well documented that the CIA directed and sponsored a coup against democratically elected prime minister Mossadegh in 1953. The Shah was a constitutional monarch; the coup made him into a bloody king with absolute powers, which he used to enrich his family and terrorize Iranians until the Islamic Revolution expelled him. That's how the brutal regime of the Ayatollahs started: a reaction to US regime change.
The baby-shah (son of the old Shah who has bee living in US since Dada was kicked out) was on 60 Minutes last night advertising to be the US friendly new Iran leader if we just help him out. Saying all the right things trump wants to hear. The one thing he couldn’t acknowledge when asked was, the brutality of the regime his Dad had. That is a tell, if you can’t be honest about history Daddy’s history, you are open to repeating it
First, as the tyrant is feeding his malignant narcissism by lashing out with the military abroad and trying to justify a biography with a name like Trump, Breaker of Nations (of course first and foremost the US): now is a good time to point out his belief that US soldiers, or really anyone who sacrifices for the country, are suckers and losers. It's good to highlight, as we see these casualties come in, and it may help reduce support for the regime. And it's just morally right, and it shows how broken the corporate media is that we don't see more of this. That's what the Dems should be doing: however bad Iran is, should a guy who thinks you're a sucker, a guy who doesn't want to be seen with wounded vets, who doesn't want to visit a military gravesite, should this guy be sending Americans to die at his whim? It would sure as hell give me second thoughts.
And we need to highlight any slush funds or financial gains, direct or indirect, to the Trump family from this. Soldiers, and the country, need to understand that the tyrant sees the US patrimonially, like a king, it's his property, the country and its people's lives exist to make him and his family money. If it's true as we see in the media that MbS was urging Trump to do this, or other Middle Eastern potentates, then it is absolutely fair to point out how much money the tyrant and his family have gotten from these regimes.
And it is absolutely worth pointing out to the public and the troops that the tyrant has reduced our military to the status of mercenaries---they fight for whoever pays the tyrant. Their lives are merely those of slave-soldiers like the Mamelukes---they're not fighting for America, they're fighting for whoever pays the gangster-in-chief, so sadly while they may be trying to be patriotic, they're serving no patriotic purpose, they're just rent-a-soldiers who do the bidding of foreign potentates, mediated through the gangster running the country. They're like Hessians whose lives were sold to King George.
There's nobility in serving your country, which is the case in a democracy, where those in uniform serve a polity through a social compact. In a tyranny, a monarchy, there is no social compact, so there is no polity to serve. There's nothing particularly noble about serving the whims of a tyrant, it's merely mercenary work, and I don't want to insult anyone in uniform, but it's a sad fact, and it's one they should think about and be aware of and we should help them be aware of it so they can make decisions about whether they want to play that role.
And that’s sort of true. You can just do stuff, if you ignore the law."
Actually, I partially disagree with this idea.
What both Trump 1.0 and 2.0 have demonstrated is that the executive can do more if they want to. But it doesn't necessarily have to be illegal/unconstitutional.
In Trump 2.0, it seems Trump affirmatively likes to break norms/laws/etc., but it's not necessary. For example, the Trump admin could have gone to Congress and gotten an authorization to use force against Iran. Sure, it would have required some actual work and extra steps, but this Congress would easily rubberstamp whatever the admin concocted.
I think the lesson here for future Democrats (and both of the sane Republicans) is that the president can be a little bolder. Less leading from behind, more leading from the front.
It looks to me like Bibi and the dump went and shot themselves and us in the head. Rumor has it that the ayatollah was the one person keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons now that he’s gone and we went and attacked them unprovoked the next regime has no choice but to go the full North Korea in order to stay in power and protect their sovereignty. That goes for basically every country in the world really since it looks like the “dumbroe doctrine” is if I don’t like the leader of the country then I will just attack you and decapitate the regime to install someone I want to work with. This is so dangerous and destabilizing we seriously need to evaluate the consequences of having someone this ill suited for the position of president.
Trump’s forays into Venezuela and now Iran, sinking boats in the Caribbean, ignoring the Constitution and rule of law are appalling. It requires a spineless, gonadless Congress. Right on time, this Republican Congress has delivered nothing in terms of guardrails and oversight. Heaven forbid they actually take action like impeachment or censure against Trump. A pox on the whole bunch!
Basically, Trump wants what Putin has. Putin can: attack other countries for whatever fabricated reason that he can invent, steal as much of his country's resources as he desires, cause the death of hundreds of thousands of his citizens without any concern, or even acknowledgement, and with only feeble and ineffective objections from them, destroy his own economy to where the per capita GDP is less than half of the average of all of the ten countries that left the Soviet Union's orbit, and not worry about the courts' bothering him for trivial offenses like murdering anyone who offends him, rigging elections and destroying the environment . Much of that is on Trump's wish list, and the attack on Iran is just checking another box. However, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while, and it's quite possible that the attack could result in a better world for almost everyone, both inside and outside the Country, even if the original motivation was to just commandeer their oil and other resources. The Iran government is weaker than it has been since the Revolution, and perhaps, with help, the Iranian people can summon the energy and will to create a better life for themselves. The question is "Do we have the collective humanity and national will to help them?" It's hard to be optimistic, but maybe hopeful.
I do not know what the approx. 30 million Shia Muslims in Iraq might do if the regime in Iran was not quite so totalitarian, but I know for certain the Regime has not thought about it.
A Congress whose members were committed to our Constitution would have already submitted articles of Impeachment against the President and each of his appointed agency heads over this - and all other - unconstitutional acts.
However, our actions in this unconstitutional, undeclared, and unexplained war against Iran depend only on the mercurial whim of a Felonious Oath-Breaker.
Therefore, none of your postulations matter, JVL, since each - no matter how plausible or not - relies upon some reasoned thought.
Nice try, though.
JVL, Whew, none of that sounds good. Unfortunately, some of it could be plausible. Much of it can even be true. Most of it is unknown. The only thing we really know for sure is Trump is at the center of this and we do, by now, know Trump. He only does anything if it will directly benefit him. That being the case, polling says he's underwater on everything and it even includes his new war adventure. So why did he do it? What does he get? To solve this crime mystery novel, look for the clues. Sometimes it's good to ask yourself some questions, like say, why is Jared involved? Why were he and Witkoff the peace emmissaries? What's do Trump, Witkoff and Jared share in common? I don't know, maybe it's they love when they get moolah from the mullahs. Or am I just being obtuse.
As I am reading this, Little Marco is answering questions from the press. One thing (out of many) that struck me as absurd was his excuse for not informing Congress: “Notifying 538 members of Congress is not possible”. Within seconds of hearing him say this I read the above paragraph that basically said “democracy is inconvenient”. That is the intention!! Checks and balances, Congressional oversight, and all of the other things that slow down impulsive behavior are meant to be inconvenient.
My money is on D, which I do think has a greater than 50% chance of happening, perhaps but for the differences between the US perception of that outcome and Israel's. It's easy to see the Republican Guard or the next-in-line Mullahs taking control of the government and then striking a "deal" with the US that is just enough for Trump to declare victory and move on, even though (or, more accurately, because) it leaves the country in the hands of a despotic regime. Despotic regimes that are friendly to Trump are not only acceptable, they are welcomed by the Trump administration. Trump would just have to convince Bibi that this was good for Israel too, which wouldn't be a layup since Bibi has almost certainly found out that the next president of the US will be far less friendly to Israel that Trump is. That's why it's maybe a 55% likely outcome rather than a 75% likely outcome.
Thank you, JVL.
The Republican Guard runs Iran, and the Ayatollah is just the head. Unless TRG is removed somehow, not much will change, except that they're a little *more* pissed off at us for killing their figurehead. They'll put a new guy in charge the minute we leave and crack down on their own ppl some more. And so it goes.
Superb, JVL.
US "regime change" in Iran started with President Eisenhower. It is well documented that the CIA directed and sponsored a coup against democratically elected prime minister Mossadegh in 1953. The Shah was a constitutional monarch; the coup made him into a bloody king with absolute powers, which he used to enrich his family and terrorize Iranians until the Islamic Revolution expelled him. That's how the brutal regime of the Ayatollahs started: a reaction to US regime change.
The baby-shah (son of the old Shah who has bee living in US since Dada was kicked out) was on 60 Minutes last night advertising to be the US friendly new Iran leader if we just help him out. Saying all the right things trump wants to hear. The one thing he couldn’t acknowledge when asked was, the brutality of the regime his Dad had. That is a tell, if you can’t be honest about history Daddy’s history, you are open to repeating it
First, as the tyrant is feeding his malignant narcissism by lashing out with the military abroad and trying to justify a biography with a name like Trump, Breaker of Nations (of course first and foremost the US): now is a good time to point out his belief that US soldiers, or really anyone who sacrifices for the country, are suckers and losers. It's good to highlight, as we see these casualties come in, and it may help reduce support for the regime. And it's just morally right, and it shows how broken the corporate media is that we don't see more of this. That's what the Dems should be doing: however bad Iran is, should a guy who thinks you're a sucker, a guy who doesn't want to be seen with wounded vets, who doesn't want to visit a military gravesite, should this guy be sending Americans to die at his whim? It would sure as hell give me second thoughts.
And we need to highlight any slush funds or financial gains, direct or indirect, to the Trump family from this. Soldiers, and the country, need to understand that the tyrant sees the US patrimonially, like a king, it's his property, the country and its people's lives exist to make him and his family money. If it's true as we see in the media that MbS was urging Trump to do this, or other Middle Eastern potentates, then it is absolutely fair to point out how much money the tyrant and his family have gotten from these regimes.
And it is absolutely worth pointing out to the public and the troops that the tyrant has reduced our military to the status of mercenaries---they fight for whoever pays the tyrant. Their lives are merely those of slave-soldiers like the Mamelukes---they're not fighting for America, they're fighting for whoever pays the gangster-in-chief, so sadly while they may be trying to be patriotic, they're serving no patriotic purpose, they're just rent-a-soldiers who do the bidding of foreign potentates, mediated through the gangster running the country. They're like Hessians whose lives were sold to King George.
There's nobility in serving your country, which is the case in a democracy, where those in uniform serve a polity through a social compact. In a tyranny, a monarchy, there is no social compact, so there is no polity to serve. There's nothing particularly noble about serving the whims of a tyrant, it's merely mercenary work, and I don't want to insult anyone in uniform, but it's a sad fact, and it's one they should think about and be aware of and we should help them be aware of it so they can make decisions about whether they want to play that role.
"“You can just do stuff,” is the shorthand.
And that’s sort of true. You can just do stuff, if you ignore the law."
Actually, I partially disagree with this idea.
What both Trump 1.0 and 2.0 have demonstrated is that the executive can do more if they want to. But it doesn't necessarily have to be illegal/unconstitutional.
In Trump 2.0, it seems Trump affirmatively likes to break norms/laws/etc., but it's not necessary. For example, the Trump admin could have gone to Congress and gotten an authorization to use force against Iran. Sure, it would have required some actual work and extra steps, but this Congress would easily rubberstamp whatever the admin concocted.
I think the lesson here for future Democrats (and both of the sane Republicans) is that the president can be a little bolder. Less leading from behind, more leading from the front.
Iran undergirds Hamas? Let's not forget that for years up to the 10/7 attack Israel undergirded Hamas.
Don't believe me? Check it out (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html?unlocked_article_code=1.QFA.Uy0x.UdhVSOEL47Uw&smid=url-share
It looks to me like Bibi and the dump went and shot themselves and us in the head. Rumor has it that the ayatollah was the one person keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons now that he’s gone and we went and attacked them unprovoked the next regime has no choice but to go the full North Korea in order to stay in power and protect their sovereignty. That goes for basically every country in the world really since it looks like the “dumbroe doctrine” is if I don’t like the leader of the country then I will just attack you and decapitate the regime to install someone I want to work with. This is so dangerous and destabilizing we seriously need to evaluate the consequences of having someone this ill suited for the position of president.
Trump has started a war of choice to benefit Israel and Saudi Arabia, and we're playing intellectual games.
Trump’s forays into Venezuela and now Iran, sinking boats in the Caribbean, ignoring the Constitution and rule of law are appalling. It requires a spineless, gonadless Congress. Right on time, this Republican Congress has delivered nothing in terms of guardrails and oversight. Heaven forbid they actually take action like impeachment or censure against Trump. A pox on the whole bunch!