Trump says all Presidents before him were weak and
ineffective with Iran. Something to the effect of, "for 47 years we have had this problem and not one President has done anything about it."
Is it just implicit that the four years from January 20, 2017, to January 19, 2021, are exempted from that statement?
Very accurate statement from Ben Rhodes,
by oviedoirish 
, Oviedo, Florida, Wednesday, April 08, 2026, 12:04 (49 days ago) @ Grantland
writer and former Deputy National Security Advisor under Obama:
In the best case scenario, Trump struck a deal to reopen a Strait that was open before the pointless war he started, with the IRGC demonstrating its control over the Strait and potentially extracting fees plus sanctions relief. Thousands of innocents - including hundreds of children - dead in Lebanon and Iran for no reason. U.S. troops killed and wounded. U.S. embassies and bases in the Middle East badly damaged. U.S. standing in the world obliterated. U.S. munitions badly depleted. Hundreds of billions spent. Prices up everywhere. More global economic fallout to come. Putin strengthened and enriched. Just a catastrophic situation even in the best of circumstances. A profoundly shameful episode in American history no matter what happens next.
I wish we could calibrate this better
I think the war was a mistake, overall. I don’t think it was “pointless”” in the sense that degrading the murderous Iranian regime is a good thing. I think that discussions of this should always begin with that fact. The consequences of how we proceeded, what we said, etc may well prove to be worse than the benefits achieved. But I don’t think that impairing the Mullahs is ever pointless.
Didn't we do that in June?
by domer.mq 
, Wednesday, April 08, 2026, 18:42 (48 days ago) @ Dallasdomer
If you're going to have a "point" to a war, it should be measurable as to whether or not you achieved it. As of now Iran's ruling party is much stronger than it was a month ago. In June of last year our White House told us they eliminated the very concern they claimed they were trying to eliminate again last month.
--
Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.
I guess I am not sure Iran is weaker now than then
I think it’s very hard to know because we have a situation where the only government less trustworthy than our own these days is Iran.
I don’t like the Israeli government and I think BN and the extreme right wing are impediments to long term peace. But I do think that Israel is more secure today than it was a few years ago, in part because what we did in June, combined with Israel’s efforts to degrade its enemies in the region.
I think our govt. is as or less trustworthy than Iran's.
by oviedoirish , Oviedo, Florida, Thursday, April 09, 2026, 05:14 (48 days ago) @ Dallasdomer
I don't believe a word coming out from any of the members of this administration.
CBS is now reporting that the Penatgon is lying.
by domer.mq , Thursday, April 09, 2026, 08:55 (48 days ago) @ oviedoirish
Which, by itself, is remarkable.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-war-kuwait-drone-attack-survivors-us-army/
But further, given palace intrigue, might mean Hegseth is about to need a new job.
--
Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.
That’s maybe going too far
The Trump administration, totally - but rank and file government folks and especially our military are far more trustworthy than the same for Iran.
What does this even mean?
by Regular Joseph , Thursday, April 09, 2026, 13:27 (48 days ago) @ atxND
A US army colonel is more trustworthy than some guy in the IRGC... because he'd be less likely to screw you when selling a used car?
I don't know that any mid-ranking Iranian military guy can be compared to any mid-ranking American military guy in any way that's relevant. I've got no evidence one way or another that their guys are less likely to refuse orders to commit war crimes than our guys. Judged within their own societies you'd have to guess they're morally average on the whole.
You might say well, we live in a democracy and they live in an oppressive theocracy and it's morally incumbent on any human to passively if not violently resist injustice. To which I would say, on that basis how do you hold anyone in the US military in any kind of esteem after going along with this shit? They should have all quit, but that's not a reasonable moral standard, so of course they didn't quit.
Our president and the "regime" of regressive hatred that roughly 35% of our population supports unquestionably has caused more harm to more people in the world than Iran. We and our "proxies" have dropped way more bombs. Caused way more starvation. No debate. We're not the good guys.
I'm not shocked, but I'm disappointed to continue to see comments on this board to the effect of "on net weakening Iran is a good thing". Donald Trump and our cabinet deserve a missile strike as much as anyone out there. Either you don't just get to do that or they should all be assassinated.
Sorry, I was speaking of the cabinet members
by oviedoirish , Oviedo, Florida, Thursday, April 09, 2026, 10:41 (48 days ago) @ atxND
and the subordinates who follow their orders, not the whole govt.
look at General Caine
Seems like a competent and reasonable guy who had major reservations about all this.
Publicly he’s in total lockstep with Hegseth and Trump.
If he disagreed, even in private to his bosses, he’d be fired in 5 minutes.
And speaking of which, what about General George, who actually was fired? Where is his public courage now? Nary a peep.
It seems likely that Trump will soon fire somebody for not
by Joe I , Thursday, April 09, 2026, 10:19 (48 days ago) @ Jay
providing him with all the information he needs to make a proper decision. Anything to deflect from his own mismanagement of well, everything.
More secure short term from a military perspective
by ndphilo , A prison of my own design, Wednesday, April 08, 2026, 20:06 (48 days ago) @ Dallasdomer
Less secure long term having burned goodwill from allies, likely radicalized another generation, and made an actual lasting peace seem like a fantasy. Unless the plan is to keep large swaths of the Middle East in a constant state of wanton destruction, I can’t see how this furthers the long term interest of Israel. Has inflicting misery on millions ever led to a lasting peace or security?
The only party for who there seems a "point"...
by domer.mq , Wednesday, April 08, 2026, 20:10 (48 days ago) @ ndphilo
is Bibi. He's going to fight this "war" until he's dead, at which time it'll be too late to throw him in prison.
--
Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.
It's so fucking sad
by Regular Joseph , Thursday, April 09, 2026, 13:38 (48 days ago) @ domer.mq
Bibi and his political coalition are bent on no holds barred genocidal empire building and the US and Europe have followed along and supported it out of guilt at the Holocaust. It's the deepest irony that I will ever live to see.
Netanyahu talked Trump into this depraved idiocy and now they're undermining any chance for peace by continuing their violent annexation of Lebanon. Fortunately, there are voices in more and more places calling this out. Yes Tucker Carlson, Bernie Sanders, and Hollywood actors, but also religious people of conscience, including Jews. It can't become mainstream fast enough.
He’s even more self-serving than Trump.
by Joe I , Thursday, April 09, 2026, 03:52 (48 days ago) @ domer.mq
- No text -
Holy cow. One mention of Gabbard in that article....
by BillyGoat , At Thanksgiving with Joe Bethersontin, Wednesday, April 08, 2026, 12:17 (49 days ago) @ oviedoirish
"The war-planning group had been kept so tight that the two key officials who would need to manage the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, were excluded, as was Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence."