Doc7505
Diamond Member
- Feb 16, 2016
- 24,484
- 43,489
- 2,430
In a post-WWII era, Trump’s approach to Iran may not be that bad
The era of total victory died when the communists made inroads into the Democrat party, so Trump must think outside the box.
In a post-WWII era, Trump’s approach to Iran may not be that bad UPDATED
The era of total victory died when the communists made inroads into the Democrat party, so Trump must think outside the box.
As regular readers know, I’ve been completely off from work for almost three weeks so that I could travel to the Far East to help with my new (and first) grandchild. Helping with a newborn tends to put everything in perspective because that fragile little being’s survival is the single most important thing on the agenda. Paying attention to the news took second place to offering whatever practical help I could.
Nevertheless, because I’m compulsive, I tried to stay abreast of developments in the Middle East whenever I had downtime. That meant I was about 80% aware of the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with Iran, JD Vance’s (and, apparently, Trump’s) attacks on Israel, and the raging debate about whether the MOU is a good thing, a meaningless thing, or a disaster. I’d like to think that my emotional distance from the whole thing may offer some perspectives that could assuage people’s concerns.
Those of us who saw Iran as an existential threat wanted a total victory (Hitler’s bunker suicide or Hirohito’s complete surrender). Then, we imagined, the free people of Iran would dance in the streets, the Strait would become an uncontested thoroughfare, and all would be joyous across the world.
However, we don’t live in 1945. During WWII, most Americans supported the war and were willing to fight for total victory. It wasn’t until the Korean War that America embraced the idea of fighting not to victory but to unsatisfactory stalemates. This was, in part, because communists began to make inroads into the Democrat party. By the Vietnam era, large segments of young America—people who became the next generation of politicians, teachers, journalists, and entertainers—had concluded that America and its values were not worth defending.
Their views were reflected in a Democrat political class that refused to fund or otherwise support our wars. Democrats, whether in Congress or the White House, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. On the battlefield, our military won wars; in Washington, our politicians lost them.
Moreover, thanks to our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, we learned that occupying Muslim countries after incomplete, sort-of victories is a dead end.
Because we cannot rebuild those cultures from the ground up as we once did (political correctness makes that impossible), we are never more than an alien force hanging on by our fingernails, just waiting for a Democrat president to give away the blood and treasure.
Donald Trump went into Iran (something he couldn’t have done without Israel) with a goal that he achieved and a hope that proved false. The goal was to defeat Iran militarily, and, for the most part, the American and Israeli militaries achieved that goal. Iran’s weapons industry, including its nuclear program, lies in ruins; its air force and navy have been almost destroyed; and three levels of political and military leaders have been killed. (Destroying Kharg Island’s oil infrastructure would have been satisfying, but Trump couldn’t risk the political fallout from a collapse in part of the world’s oil supply, not with the midterms coming up.)
~Snip~
~Snip~
Maybe I’m naïve, but I have trouble believing that Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, both Jewish, would negotiate an agreement that threatens Israel. Moreover, the deal forces the Gulf states to have skin in the game, and that is going to push them closer to Israel, strengthening rather than weakening Israel’s position. If I’m right, JD Vance is the bad cop rather than a Tucker Carlson cutout. (And gosh, I hope I’m right.)
~Snip~
UPDATE: It seems I wasted my time writing this essay. I was listening to Victor Davis Hanson while I was walking the dog, and discovered that he pretty much said what I wanted to say, only better, of course:
Commentary:
As per my usual comments when it comes to WTH is DJT doing, I have no opinion to offer other than I’m sure the President has a plan with contingencies that will be 100% America First.
As been said before, “You cannot know the operation of someone else’s mind.” Especially when it comes to Trump’s mind because he’s proven, again and again, that he operates on much higher, wider, and deeper level than the rest of us.
Trump should be given credit at every available opportunity: he averted an almost 100% chance of nuclear war.
If the Ayatollahs had finished making nuclear weapons, they surely would have used them. In my view, anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
As a very minimum, Tel Aviv and Tehran would’ve been nuked. Would that have spread thereafter?
IMHO, the Trump team has done an unbelievable job in Iran.
As much as I would like to see the IRGC get bombed into the stone age, the current approach by President Trump is by far the better approach for the next 4-6 months.
Iran requires regime change for a long term solution. The IRGC only cares about it's survival and is holding the Iranian people and their lives hostage. They have killed tens of thousands of men, women and children this year alone and they would like nothing more than a humanitarian disaster in Iran to serve their propaganda purposes.
President Trump's MOU is an attempt to build the foundation for regime change and it needs to be given time to work.
“On the battlefield, our military won wars; in Washington, our politicians lost them.”
We have been doing that consistently since the “Korean Conflict”.
That “Conflict” (not war) cost about a million South Korean casualties, and half again that much for North Korea. We lost over 30,000 Americans, many more thousands with some horrific war (and weather) wounds.
For all of Truman’s supposed toughness, I think the only thing he wanted from the Korean Conflict is for it to be over - no regard for the rogue regime in the North.
Vietnam was another “conflict”, (not war), with even more casualties.
The 30+ years of foolishness in the Middle East have had no solid results, other than spending many billions of dollars and untold millions of lives.
There can be no reasonable doubt that:
1. Iran can build missiles that can deliver warheads to Tel Aviv
2. there is no need for Iran to enrich uranium beyond 4% U-235 for Iranian civilian nuclear purposes
3. enrichment of U-235 is the most difficult part of building a nuclear weapon
4. Iran has the ability to build nuclear weapons
5. Iran has long paid proxies to attack Israel
6. “Death to Israel” is a common Iranian sentiment
7. The Iranian leadership would like to destroy the Israeli state and remove Israeli’s Jewish population
8. Iran’s combined possession of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles would be a grave danger to Israelis
9. Israel is right to refuse to compromise its very existence, its safety and its ability to control terrorism and safeguard its citizens to:
a. lower the price of American gasoline under $2.00/gallon,
b. help Republicans in Congress to get reelected,
c. prop up a grossly overvalued American stock market, or
d. increase the sales of the Trump Organization.
Trump knows that DSA Democrats in power is worse than letting up in Iran for now - Phase II starts after the elections.
