US President struggles to explain why he launched another Middle Eastern war

1. High on Maduro op (Real estate developer mentality, "you're as good as your last deal").

2. Needed to do something to swing midterms.

I've given my thoughts about this on HN before the current escalation [0] and given the recent vague statement by Hegseth about how this will not be a "politically correct war" I think this is why we are seeing conflicting messaging - we are fine toppling Iran into a Libyan or Syrian style civil war due to Iran's status as a nuclear threshold state and do not care if mass civilian casualties arise.

No administration can admit that publicly because of the destabilizing nature of it's implication with regards to the rules based order. Increasingly, I think Fiona Hill might be right [1] about how we've entered a polycrisis in 2022. Interesting times...

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092612

[1] - https://xcancel.com/FrankRGardner/status/2027098560647348410...

> [Trump] also told The New York Times on Sunday that he had picked “three very good choices” among Iran’s officials to take over the country. A day later he told ABC that the US and Israeli strikes had been “so successful” the candidates were “all dead”.

So I guess Trump will basically audition new leaders by killing the ones he doesn't want.

Something about being president just makes people want to do it

First, it was about regime change. Now that shit hits the fan, he is moving the goalposts. We have seen him do this live a thousand times and getting away with it. Why would it be different this time?

It’s also interesting to see how the Administration runs a top-notch disinformation campaign against the American people on this.

They hit Iran without declaring war, or UN approval, or having any substantial reason on paper the public could use to trace if the initial goals of the operation are reached and in what timeframe.

So they took away the key measurement indicator of effectiveness / if the action was reasonable and effective, for the public as a reference point.

Most people would call a banana a lengthy fruit, but if you put it next to a giraffe, it’s no longer that lengthy. We need reference points for making good decisions.

You can see that they continue this pattern and build a narrative of US superiority on that, so people quickly forget about that this president broke with key democratic principles, by denying the public and Congress to have a lengthy discussion about if this war needed to be fought at exactly this time and day, before six servicemen die in two days.

I am especially surprised how weak journalism has become as a Checks & Balances tool in the US.

First comes Rubio, the smartest of the bunch, and preps the media about the goals of the operation. That gets pushed into mainstream with most US media being owned by people who rely on favourable treatment by the president. So they sing the song of the billionaires.

The journalists need to put food on the table and not ruin their careers, so we see them play along, thinking that’s only a few more years of Trump. The people who speak up get publicly roasted and insulted by the president himself or shut up with his army of lawyers.

Then after the initial blow on Rubio softened the narrative, they put the big dog in front of a mic and everyone feels stupid asking the President the same questions they already got answers from Rubio, so they don’t.

You watch him pick a random CNN guy/gal and tell them how much they suck at their job and that they are truly the worst, then he goes back to have a Big Mac brunch watching prepared reels of stuff the us army destroyed in Iran to a Kid Rock soundtrack. Journalism is dead in the US if that is the norm by now.

It’s also not like he got warned about the risks of this operation by the highest US General, right?

Dan Caine is pretty good at his job.

If you read between the lines in his rant about it. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0zrwzr519o

"He has not spoken of not doing Iran, or even the fake limited strikes that I have been reading about," Trump added. "He knows only one thing, how to win, and, if he is told to do so, will be leading the pack."

All of this is true. The Joint Chief of Staff is bringing the President options, this also includes possible scenarios of escalation and their consequences.

You can be damn sure they informed Trump about any and all risks. Including Iran attacking the region’s energy infrastructure and neighbours.

But pay special attention to the last part. "If he is told to do so, will be leading the pack."

Not just that he treats a man that did more for the American public than he could ever do in a hundred years of his reign like a lapdog. He really doesn’t understand his own military as Commander-in-Chief.

If these people need to be told to do so, because they are resisting, you’re wrong as Commander to force your will on them. They do know better than the guy temporarily having a political position, because they dedicated their life to serving the American people. They think beyond four or eight years a president thinks.

They will gladly go to war and die for their country any day of the week if they are convinced it’s the right thing.

But it looks more like "being told to do so” resulted in the loss of life of six people by now, dozens injured and the whole region being on fire with billions in damage and loss of civilian life in 13! unrelated countries that got dragged into this conflict by now.

I think the American public needs to step up their game and you better do it fast, before the US becomes just two letters in the word rUSsia.

SSDD. Same System Different Donald.