The war in Iran (or whose war is it anyways?)

Rigby5 said:
"Odd how the Straits of Hormuz are so important, since you would think they would have built more pipelines by now?" R5 #260
Click to expand...
"... by now"?
Until now, there was no need, commerce flowed fairly freely, despite disruption here or there through motorized history.

What has changed is, not only has President Trump glaringly advertised U.S. military limitations.
Trump has simultaneously educated Iran about how powerful its choke hold is on Earth's economies.

It was a dismally amateurish blunder on Trump's part.
Yet it was a predictable if not inevitable consequence of Trump surrounding himself with "yes-men" buffoons.

Any sensible field-grade commander could have / should have warned Trump of these risks before Day #1. They couldn't, after Trump cut them out of the loop.

When Trump bungles as an inept gambling casino owner it harms the casino.
When Trump bungles as president of the United States the harm is both global and severe.
 
This is an American mini-series that is heading to be a soap opera. And in the process, some 'connected' Wall Street wolves are making money out of every sway of stock/bond pricesvalues, especially of energy, financial & defense companies, which, by the way are also owned by the same wolves.

And who are the victims?

The ordinary people, not only Americans, but worldwide.

1779823175741.png

🚨
𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗬 “𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗟 𝗪𝗔𝗥𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗚” 𝗚𝗘𝗧𝗦 𝗔 𝗡𝗘𝗪 𝗗𝗘𝗔𝗗𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘, 𝗣𝗘𝗢𝗣𝗟𝗘 𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗔𝗦𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦

For weeks, the message surrounding Iran has sounded almost the same every time:

• “Very close to a deal.”
• “Just a little more time.”
• “A final warning.”
• “A short delay.”

And each time, the deadline moves again.

Critics argue that repeated delays and shifting timelines make the situation start looking less like clear foreign policy strategy and more like political theater played out in public.

Supporters may say diplomacy takes time and delaying conflict is better than rushing into war.

But opponents argue that constant countdowns create uncertainty for:

• soldiers
• allies
• financial markets
• and ordinary people watching global tensions rise

The larger concern is credibility.

When warnings are repeated again and again without resolution, people eventually begin questioning whether the threats are strategic pressure — or simply political messaging.

Because wars are not television episodes.

And global conflict is not supposed to feel like a cliffhanger that keeps getting another extension.

💬
The bigger question now is this: when governments constantly extend “final” deadlines, does it strengthen deterrence — or weaken public trust in leadership altogether?
 

Looming Iran peace deal shows how Trump’s maximalist goals have shrunk​

Sobering reality for president after three-month odyssey that threatens to take him back to where he started
Robert Tait / Sat 30 May 2026 06.00 EDT

It is an oft-stated principle of warfare that hopes and plans optimistically hatched and trumpeted at its outbreak do not survive first contact with the enemy.
Yet even by that cautionary standard, Trump’s wildly diverging goals and narratives since embarking on war with Iran on 28 February amount to a bewildering odyssey that – in the end – threatens to take him back to where he started.

After weeks of stop-start negotiations, the US and Iran now reportedly stand on the verge of a deal to end the fighting, the most immediate and tangible consequence of which will be the reopening of the strait of Hormuz.

Trump claims to be on verge of peace deal but Iran signals no agreement reached
Read more
www.theguardian.com

Looming Iran peace deal shows how Trump’s maximalist goals have shrunk

Sobering reality for president after three-month odyssey that threatens to take him back to where he started
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

The deeply painful reality is, from this point, 8AM/ET Saturday May 30, after squandering $Billions on Iran Trump will claim victory if he can struggle back to
where the Obama administration left U.S. / Trump.

Without offering much if any precise analytical criticism Trump labeled Obama's 7 party (Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia, U.S. & Iran) a bad deal,
and unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from it.
Trump may pretend his unilateral decision is consequence free.
But as Trump is learning, Iran's negotiators now have explicit reason to distrust U.S. negotiators.
Iran can plausibly argue: you broke the previous agreement. How can we be sure you won't break the next one also?

Meanwhile, presidential claims to the contrary, Trump's global economic downturn would not have occurred
if Trump had not broken his campaign promise against starting a War.

For Trump it was a War of choice,
but is a peace of necessity. And Iran knows it.
 
sear said:

Looming Iran peace deal shows how Trump’s maximalist goals have shrunk​

Sobering reality for president after three-month odyssey that threatens to take him back to where he started
Robert Tait / Sat 30 May 2026 06.00 EDT

It is an oft-stated principle of warfare that hopes and plans optimistically hatched and trumpeted at its outbreak do not survive first contact with the enemy.
Yet even by that cautionary standard, Trump’s wildly diverging goals and narratives since embarking on war with Iran on 28 February amount to a bewildering odyssey that – in the end – threatens to take him back to where he started.

After weeks of stop-start negotiations, the US and Iran now reportedly stand on the verge of a deal to end the fighting, the most immediate and tangible consequence of which will be the reopening of the strait of Hormuz.

Trump claims to be on verge of peace deal but Iran signals no agreement reached
Read more
www.theguardian.com

Looming Iran peace deal shows how Trump’s maximalist goals have shrunk

Sobering reality for president after three-month odyssey that threatens to take him back to where he started
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

The deeply painful reality is, from this point, 8AM/ET Saturday May 30, after squandering $Billions on Iran Trump will claim victory if he can struggle back to
where the Obama administration left U.S. / Trump.

Without offering much if any precise analytical criticism Trump labeled Obama's 7 party (Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia, U.S. & Iran) a bad deal,
and unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from it.
Trump may pretend his unilateral decision is consequence free.
But as Trump is learning, Iran's negotiators now have explicit reason to distrust U.S. negotiators.
Iran can plausibly argue: you broke the previous agreement. How can we be sure you won't break the next one also?

Meanwhile, presidential claims to the contrary, Trump's global economic downturn would not have occurred
if Trump had not broken his campaign promise against starting a War.

For Trump it was a War of choice,
but is a peace of necessity. And Iran knows it.
Click to expand...

It all seems to obvious?
Since the WMD claims about Iraq were so obviously false, the real motive had to be that Iraq has all that oil.
Since Venezuela has never had any even slight drug cartel connection, the real motive of attacking Venezuela has to be all that oil.
Since Iran has never attacked anyone, the real motive of attacking Iran has to be all that oil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top