Frankly, bullshit. Harris did not seemed more pro war or aggressive, unless you live in deep conservative bubble.
America has a lot of Iran hawks, especially in goverment/military circles. They got their way.
Trumps military/war track record so far is a.) Iran war b.) Venezuela kidnapping c.) pro-Russia stance in Ukraine d.) board of peace composed of dictators and murderers e.) regular boatsmen murders f.) trying to steal Greenland. The Harris "refuses to take pro-palestinian side and refuses to abandon Israel entirely, but still not enough for pre-Israel side to accept her" is weak sauce.
Harris has a background as a prosecutor and has a track record of being literate and processing stacked feet thick piles of paper.
The force pushing to bomb Iran has always been Israel, the counter force has always been detailed backlogs of military exercises that relentlessly conclude that to be a bloody stupid idea.
It was predictable that Harris would take good advice (and perhaps follow that), and equally predictable that Trump would bluster his way forward and ignore the existing weight of experience and prior exercises.
FWiW I would not have predicted that Trump would stick himself into Iran ... I honestly thought he was stupid, just not that stupid. Although the Obama deal was famously one of his weird tic like bugaboos .. correctly factoring in how much room the former POTUS occupied in the Trumple cranium was likely where I failed.
You say that as if all the other presidents' wars in the middle east were shown to be good ideas and they were smart to follow that advice and kill all those people their generals wanted to kill. Iran seems to have not been nearly as terrible as Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya, or Syria. The death toll is only around 10000. What's the problem? Don't say oil prices increased because that's a good thing.
That would be entirely your take on things I did not mention.
> The death toll is only around 10000.
What's the population of the suburb you live in? About that?
> What's the problem?
\1 Trump started by destroying an agreement hard fought for by multiple countries that actually contained enrichment.
\2 The US has lost the bulk of post WWII soft power built up over decades as a result.
\3 Iran has splintered into independent smaller groups any one of which can go rogue with nuclear weapons / dirty bombs.
\4 Other states (eg: North Korea) are now fully emboldened and have ramped up their actual nuclear weapon production.
... etc.
There's a long long list of problems here - all could have been circumvented by a competent POTUS with a full experienced diplomatic cadre.
This comment shows you're being disingenuous. If a war killed 4 people, you'd be asking how big my family was. You can obviously understand the significance of that figure and it's nothing to do with suburbs.
Trump and the day drinker were the first senior US officials to take that seriously - Trump kicked that off by neutering a working and workable international agreement that capped HEU levels and allowed routine inspection and on site monitoring agreement, with more stupidity following.
Harris, and most other "traditional" (non MAGA) candidates typically follow the advice of the core military and intelligence services; it's unlikely any career politician would have jumped into open assault on either alleged drug boats or Iran.
it would be a different case, and very likely a different iranian response if israel had started the war, and the US did its more typical "is nearby and shoots down missiles flying overhead"