A war continuous until one side has caused the other more suffering than it can take.
When dealing with the Middle East we keep underestimating the amount of hardship the people I these countries can endure or be forced to endure.
When dealing with the Middle East we keep underestimating the amount of hardship the people I these countries can endure or be forced to endure.
The article is in large parts about how that's not true. It makes the point that the very existence of the Iranian regime hinges on its opposition to the US, to capitulate would mean for the leaders to lose all support, be overthrown and likely die: so there's no level of suffering that it "can't take anymore". And similar in the US, the leadership cannot survive politically to a capitulation. Hence endless escalation on both sides.
Trump has more flexibility. Really all he needs is an endpoint that FOX News is willing to describe as a US victory. He cares more about image and perception than reality. So, in that space, there is probably room for some negotiated outcome.
And I expect that (or something like it), will in fact satisfy core MAGA voters.
I'm in another country so not fooled but at same time I don't get to vote in US so I don't matter.
Translation: "The victor is not victorious if the vanquished does not consider himself so”
The often missing asymmetry reflects something deep in the mindset of large portion of western population.
Inflation means hardship.
Iran is the first conflict in many years that might inflict tangible suffering on the American people.