Nikki Haley to Trump: Attack Iran or risk becoming Obama 2.0

[CrusaderFrank]

“Somebody’s children need to be dying somewhere because Raytheon.”
Nimrata

Bibi told me to say that Iran is bad

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nikki Haley urges Trump to make Iran action a 'legacy-defining moment' before leaving office

Former U.S. Amb. to the UN Nikki Haley said Iran has "never been weaker" and urged President Donald Trump to finish the job before leaving office on "Special Report."

www.foxnews.com

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said President Donald Trump nipping Iran in the bud would be a "legacy-defining" move for the commander in chief during an interview Tuesday on Fox News.

Haley discussed ongoing tensions in the Middle East, GOP midterm strategy and more in a wide-ranging interview with "Special Report" anchor Bret Baier.

"You can either have Obama 2.0 where you negotiate another nuclear deal and give them sanction relief and watch this whole thing happen again, or you can actually be strong and nip this in the bud so that we never have to deal with it again," Haley said. "Call it what you want. It's the right thing to do."

Blah, it's like playing whackamole over there. We defeat Saddam, we get ISIS. We fracture the PLO, we get Hamas.

We eliminate Gaddafi, we get a failed state. We take out the Taliban, we get...well...the Taliban.

As much as I'd love to see Iranian leadership get a proper send off to hell, I have zero faith that this would be the end of the story and everyone would live happily ever after.

Neocon / PNAC wing of the GOPe beating the drums again.

Trump.is too busy begging Iran for a nuclear deal like the one he tore up.

 

[1srelluc]

Iran is not Afghanistan nor is it remotely similar.

LOL.....Yeah, they prefer human wave attacks.

 

[Oddball]

She's right. This is the first time in an almost 50 year history that the Mullahs are on the ropes and a significant uprise against them has occurred. Now is the time to strike or we may be missing out on a history altering event.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Iran has a lot of problems.....I see no reason to go meddling right now.

 

[sealybobo]

Nikki Haley urges Trump to make Iran action a 'legacy-defining moment' before leaving office

Former U.S. Amb. to the UN Nikki Haley said Iran has "never been weaker" and urged President Donald Trump to finish the job before leaving office on "Special Report."

www.foxnews.com

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said President Donald Trump nipping Iran in the bud would be a "legacy-defining" move for the commander in chief during an interview Tuesday on Fox News.

Haley discussed ongoing tensions in the Middle East, GOP midterm strategy and more in a wide-ranging interview with "Special Report" anchor Bret Baier.

"You can either have Obama 2.0 where you negotiate another nuclear deal and give them sanction relief and watch this whole thing happen again, or you can actually be strong and nip this in the bud so that we never have to deal with it again," Haley said. "Call it what you want. It's the right thing to do."

Blah, it's like playing whackamole over there. We defeat Saddam, we get ISIS. We fracture the PLO, we get Hamas.

We eliminate Gaddafi, we get a failed state. We take out the Taliban, we get...well...the Taliban.

As much as I'd love to see Iranian leadership get a proper send off to hell, I have zero faith that this would be the end of the story and everyone would live happily ever after.

Neocon / PNAC wing of the GOPe beating the drums again.

Trump Claims U.S. Has Enough Munitions To Fight Wars ‘Forever’ Amid Worrying Reports Of Depletions​

President Donald Trump is claiming the U.S. has “a virtually unlimited supply” of weapons, allowing wars to be fought "forever" in apparent response to multiple reports that the Iran war is depleting America’s stockpile of some munitions.

How much is this costing us?

 

[Independent thinker]

Nikki Haley urges Trump to make Iran action a 'legacy-defining moment' before leaving office

Former U.S. Amb. to the UN Nikki Haley said Iran has "never been weaker" and urged President Donald Trump to finish the job before leaving office on "Special Report."

www.foxnews.com

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said President Donald Trump nipping Iran in the bud would be a "legacy-defining" move for the commander in chief during an interview Tuesday on Fox News.

Haley discussed ongoing tensions in the Middle East, GOP midterm strategy and more in a wide-ranging interview with "Special Report" anchor Bret Baier.

"You can either have Obama 2.0 where you negotiate another nuclear deal and give them sanction relief and watch this whole thing happen again, or you can actually be strong and nip this in the bud so that we never have to deal with it again," Haley said. "Call it what you want. It's the right thing to do."

Blah, it's like playing whackamole over there. We defeat Saddam, we get ISIS. We fracture the PLO, we get Hamas.

We eliminate Gaddafi, we get a failed state. We take out the Taliban, we get...well...the Taliban.

As much as I'd love to see Iranian leadership get a proper send off to hell, I have zero faith that this would be the end of the story and everyone would live happily ever after.

Neocon / PNAC wing of the GOPe beating the drums again.

I disagree. If we don't stand up to these people then we get a world full of Nazis, Saddam, ISIS, Palestinaians, Hamas, and more. Then we have to deal with all of them, all at once. It's not whack a mole.

 

[sealybobo]

She's right. This is the first time in an almost 50 year history that the Mullahs are on the ropes and a significant uprise against them has occurred. Now is the time to strike or we may be missing out on a history altering event.

Let's say I agree with you, which I don't. What about Trump's comments back in 2011?

“Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate,” Trump said of President Obama in a shouty video clip in November 2011. “He’s weak and he’s ineffective. So the only way he figures that he’s going to get re-elected, and as sure as you’re sitting there, is to start a war with Iran.”

“@BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected,” he said in a post on X, then called Twitter, the following January.

Do you think YOU or Republicans would be saying "you know what? Obama was right. This is the first time in an almost 50 year history that the Mullahs are on the ropes and a significant uprise against them has occurred. Now is the time to strike or we may be missing out on a history altering event."

Maybe you would be saying it, but Republicans would most certainly not. And that's sad. Playing politics with EVERYTHING. And honestly, I think this was to distract from the Epstein files. Because Trump's numbers are low. Trump accused Obama of it so why not assume Trump's doing exactly this? Why suggest Obama was going to do this but then be so blind to not see that's exactly what Trump has just done.

You say there has been an uprising? Where?

Will Iranians Rise Up? Here Are the Odds.​

Iranians despised the Ayatollah. That doesn’t mean they’ll side with the United States.

Trump thinks ordinary Iranians will rise up and finish the job. Do you?

For starters, they told me, aerial bombing campaigns have a terrible record at fomenting regime change in any state. Second, Iran has powerful repressive organs with a lot of experience in putting down popular unrest. In addition, Iran’s bureaucracy has been expecting — and preparing for — American attacks for generations. And even if Washington does successfully fracture or defang the Islamic Republic, exhausted and shocked Iranians may be too frightened or focused on survival to flood the streets. The country’s political opposition remains weak, and it is famously fragmented.

In February 1991, as the American military laid waste to the Iraqi armed forces, U.S. President George H.W. Bush made an appeal. Speaking on international television, Bush called on “the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.” They didn’t act immediately. But as soon as America stopped the bombing, thousands of Kurds and Shiites across the country rose up against the Sunni-dominated government, hoping that Saddam’s battered regime and weakened military could finally be defeated.

It wasn’t. Instead, after the protests began, Saddam’s forces deployed helicopters, artillery and ground troops against their own citizens. They then slaughtered upwards of 50,000 Iraqis in less than five weeks. The uprising was put down, and Saddam held onto power for another 12 years.

There are two main reasons why air power has such a terrible record. The first, Pape said, is because bombings often prompt citizens to turn against the domestic opposition — no matter how much they hate the leader. “Even the hint that you are siding with the attacking state is used by rivals to stab you in the back,” he told me. To understand why, he asked liberals to consider how Americans might respond if Iran killed Trump and then encouraged the Democratic Party’s supporters to seize power; conservatives might imagine what would have happened if Iran did the same to Barack Obama. Just because you don’t like your country’s leaders, it doesn’t mean that you want to side with an external enemy who deposes them. The second reason is that bombings by themselves rarely fully decimate a government’s repressive capacity. “In order to save the pro-democracy protesters, you’ve got to be right there,” Pape told me. “You have to have troops on the ground.”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/03/01/iran-uprising-trump-khamenei-regime-change-00806179

 

[sealybobo]

experts said that even many Iranians who loathe Khamenei will not want to do what America is asking of them — especially given rising civilian casualties from the U.S. attacks.

Iranians could run into the second problem: the regime’s substantial capabilities. The Iranian state has multiple institutions that are capable of and responsible for mowing down demonstrators. It has large weapons stockpiles that it has spread out across the country, in part because it expected U.S. hits. That means no matter how far America and Israel go in dropping bombs, they will struggle to truly neuter its security forces.

“The U.S. would basically have to do what it did in Afghanistan and Iraq over the course of several years in the course of a couple of months,” Vaez told me. “I just don’t see how that would be possible.”

Already today, the regime has deployed militias on the streets in order to keep order and prevent upheaval,” Vaez said. Especially after watching thousands of people die at the regime’s hands in December and January — and then scores more die in U.S. and Israeli attacks — he was skeptical the Islamic Republic’s foes would be ready to come together and hold mass protests.

Bombing campaigns may never have incited a successful uprising, but there are cases where foreign air power has helped topple a dictator. In Libya, Obama began striking Muammar al-Gaddafi’s forces after Gaddafi began brutalizing his people. It proved critical. Around six months after the campaign began, rebel forces drove Gaddafi’s government from power.

But that doesn’t mean it will change for the better — or that ordinary Iranians will have a say in what follows. It is possible, perhaps even more likely, that America and Israel have identified or will identify a cooperative regime insider who they will help take charge, as happened in Venezuela. (Alternatively, they might try to install someone from outside the country.) It is also possible that one of the Iranian regime’s many contingency plans will prove effective, and that the country is about to be governed by a new supreme leader. Those contingency plans could fail, but a different regime official or commander might unify the system’s surviving elements and ruthlessly consolidate power. Or the regime might fracture, and different groups will violently compete for control — as happened in Libya’s post-Qaddafi civil war.

Either way, Iranians will have to fight to have their voices heard. And in a moment of great chaos, facing great danger and disruption, protesting for democracy is unlikely to be their first concern.

“I think people are just trying to digest and think about what’s coming next,” Vakil said. “They are going to be focusing on their own survival.”