Post election prediction

[wes4dbt]

Strongly agree with both of these sentences.

Truthfully, I can't find a honest justification for invading Iran, with or without a coalition.

Nuclear threat, terrorism, human rights violations? Russia and North Korea have had these things for a long time, no invasion. Lately Israel's human rights violation have been on full display, no invasion. If we're honest without ourselves, what is Iran doing doing that we haven't already tolerated from other countries?

[FunkyDexter]

Truthfully, I can't find a honest justification for invading Iran, with or without a coalition.

Just to be clear, I don't think the argument is that a coalition would have just the attack that's been made. But rather it's an argument for how to proceed from where we are now, the attack having already been made, failed and the ensuing consequences have been engendered, including a more hardened and extremist theocracy than the one we've lived with for the last half century which has now been taught the lesson that they cannot rely on any promises from the West.

My contention is that Iran will no longer be interested in any kind of negotiated diplomatic peace. They came to the table twice in the last year and were attacked twice as a consequence - they have no trust left in America, Israel or any allies of either one. At this point they will their only hope of not being attacked in the future as being the development of a nuclear capability and a willingness to use it. The recent attack may have degraded Iran's delivery capability but that is easily rebuilt, as is their ability to enrich uranium. Further, their existing stocks of depleted uranium haven't even been touched.

So Trump's options are
1. Pull out. Iran will develop a deliverable nuclear capability with 2 years.
2. Pull out but attack again if Iran continues to develop a nuclear capability, which they inevitably will so this would be an endlessly repeating cycle.
3. Reach a diplomatic conclusion which, given that they're winning, would involve endorsing Iran's right to develop a nuclear capability and, by inference, making the same endorsement for every other country in the world leading to global proliferation.
4. March on Tehran, overthrow the Ayatollah, install a puppet government and maintain a supportive occupation long enough to legitimise that government - essentially what we tried and failed to do in both Iraq and Afghanistan - with all the same connotations and risks of failure.

None of these are good options. They're all terrible options, in fact, but I think I would argue that option 4 is the least terrible for the world. Given that, I would argue that a coalition backed by some international body (e.g. the UN) would add an arguably undeserved but, none the less, important veneer of legitimacy to the action. I don't believe it "justifies" but I don't think any of these options are morally justifiable.

The right option would have been to see through the diplomatic negotiations that were being held in Feb/March. According to Oman these were going well and Iran appears to have been engaging in good faith but Trump and Netanyahu chose to blow those up because they, in my opinion, just wanted to massage their small man egos. Even better would have been to stick with the deal Obama negotiated which, again, was working and saw UN inspectors in Iran confirming that they were not developing a nuclear capability but Trump blew that one up because he clearly suffers from ODS. Sadly, Trump, though his own massive narcism and insecurity, has precluded any good option that was ever available and now we're left trying to cobble something, anything together from all the really bad ones.

[wes4dbt]

I never thought you were advocating Iran should be invaded. My comment was just me whining about hypocrisy.

I like this term "veneer of legitimacy".

Because us humans are so innately self serving that's a heavily used tool.

[FunkyDexter]

I like this term "veneer of legitimacy"

Veneers are important, just ask my dentist.

I wanted to get across that none of this is actually legitimate, it's a war of aggression, plain and simple. But once your in that war, appearances can be important.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Nobody can guess what Trump will do, and I won't even try, but I'm not surprised to hear that some of his advisors are suggesting he declare victory and leave. He might be shallow and desperate enough to do that. On the other hand, he might realize that's a lie too big to sell.

[wes4dbt]

Nobody can guess what Trump will do, and I won't even try,

Yeah, I stopped trying too. I rarely listen to what he says. Though you can't help but read quotes of his in the news. All you can do is wait to see what he actually does.

but I'm not surprised to hear that some of his advisors are suggesting he declare victory and leave. He might be shallow and desperate enough to do that. On the other hand, he might realize that's a lie too big to sell.

He has already tried to sell that BS and even the Reps. wouldn't buy it. But that doesn't mean he wont try again. Now he's trying to sell that they have achieved regime change.

“The one regime was decimated, destroyed, they’re all dead. The next regime is mostly dead,” he said. He suggested that Iran had moved onto its “third regime,” and that American negotiators were speaking to “a whole different group of people,” who have “been very reasonable.”

Alright!!! We've won the war and also have a regime change. Glad that's all over.

[PlausiblyDamp]

Nobody can guess what Trump will do, and I won't even try, but I'm not surprised to hear that some of his advisors are suggesting he declare victory and leave. He might be shallow and desperate enough to do that. On the other hand, he might realize that's a lie too big to sell.

I think this lie about being victorious might be too hard to believe for most people...

Realistically the best result achievable right now is the Strait of Hormuz is open again, which was the situation before this war started.

When you look at what has been lost to get back to a starting point though it is hard to sell it as anything other than a mess.

1. At least 15 confirmed US soldiers killed.
2. At least 200 US soldiers injured
3. Countless innocent deaths at the hands of the USA e.g. the school early in the conflict.
4. Complete lack of trust in USA being relied upon to negotiate openly and honestly.
5. The damage to the USA's reputation regarding it's aircraft carriers after one had to be sent for repairs as the toilets failed, and another being attacked to the point it has "retreated" from the immediate area to a safer distance.
6. The failure for Trump to understand why NATO (a defence pact) wouldn't join in on an attack shows how little he understands international relationships. The resulting lack of support from "allies" again highlights the damage to the country's reputaton.
7. The resulting economic damage with escalating oil prices as a direct result of USA's actions further damages the country's reputation.
8. Just the financial cost to the USA of this war alone is damaging the economy.
9. Iran was negotiating regarding not having nuclear weapons, that is now off the table and they will be back to developing them.

Does returning to more or less where this started really stack up against the losses and problems?

[wes4dbt]

Does returning to more or less where this started really stack up against the losses and problems?

Of course not. This war is unwanted and always has been. But Trump made the decision and now he is stuck trying to find an outcome that he can sell as a win. The cost of doing that doesn't factor in. Nothing can really be done about it without the support of several republican members of congress. But that hasn't happened because they are more worried about their political future than they are about the costs to the US/World.

[wes4dbt]

Well, Bondi is out. Just the latest in a long line of appointees to be fired. Trump isn't happy his revenge campaign hasn't been successful. It's tough to prosecute innocent people (especially ones with money) and carryout unconstitutional policies.

What a nightmare it must be to work for Trump.

[PlausiblyDamp]

Must be awful to have sold your soul to protect a man like Trump, all the lies, conver ups, and blind devotion; only to have him discard you.

Admittedly it isn't surprising at all, given how he blatantly ares about nobody but himself. Equally I honestly don't feel even a shred of sympathy for someone who did what she did to protect Trump, and she knew exactly what he was doing and still protected him.

Loyalty is a one way street to trump, obvious to anyone who sees how he behaves.

[FunkyDexter]

I think she's going to face much worse. At the very least she's getting disbarred and, if it's proved she lied to congress (which shouldn't be difficult) she's facing prison time.

[wes4dbt]

I think she's going to face much worse. At the very least she's getting disbarred and, if it's proved she lied to congress (which shouldn't be difficult) she's facing prison time.

I'm not as optimistic about that as you. Though there are people who will try to make that happen. It the democrats can flip congress at the mid terms then the odds increase.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I would expect Trump to pardon her if it even looked possible.

[wes4dbt]

Could Trump keep her from being disbarred??

I'm not convinced that she will be, just curious.

[FunkyDexter]

I don't think he'll protect her, he didn't protect Giuliani. She's no longer useful to him.

Just wanted to say that I'm glad you guys got your airmen back. That could have been nasty if the Iranians had got to him first.

[wes4dbt]

I don't think he'll protect her, he didn't protect Giuliani. She's no longer useful to him.

Just wanted to say that I'm glad you guys got your airmen back. That could have been nasty if the Iranians had got to him first.

Giuliani hasn't been charged of any federal crimes. He was indicted for state level crimes but not brought to trial. Trump did pardon him in 2025.

I would think Trump wouldn't want Bondi to be making any deals with prosecutors.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I don't think he'll protect her, he didn't protect Giuliani. She's no longer useful to him.

Just wanted to say that I'm glad you guys got your airmen back. That could have been nasty if the Iranians had got to him first.

My initial thought was the same, but Bondi was so tightly attached to his generously sized rump that he may have further use for her. After all, she's still subpoenaed by Congress, and didn't fail for lack of trying, just for lack of having anything tangible to go on.

[PlausiblyDamp]

Of course not. This war is unwanted and always has been. But Trump made the decision and now he is stuck trying to find an outcome that he can sell as a win. The cost of doing that doesn't factor in. Nothing can really be done about it without the support of several republican members of congress. But that hasn't happened because they are more worried about their political future than they are about the costs to the US/World.

So it looks like his latest "solution" to a problem entirely of his own making is "a whole civilisation will die", thank god Trump won the election - just think how dangerous Kamala would have been if she was in power...

[jpbro]

Yeah, I'm beginning to think the FIFA Peace Prize isn't all it was cracked up to be...

[PlausiblyDamp]

Yeah, I'm beginning to think the FIFA Peace Prize isn't all it was cracked up to be...

I love how he talks about "Complete and Total Regime Change" despite it being the same president, and the Supreme Leader is the son of the previous one; hardly what Trump has described.

I think the "God Bless the Great People of Iran" after basically threatening to kill all of them lacks sincerity really...

[wes4dbt]

So it looks like his latest "solution" to a problem entirely of his own making is "a whole civilisation will die", thank god Trump won the election - just think how dangerous Kamala would have been if she was in power...

I'd say Trumps solution to this problem is the same as he always uses. Bully people into giving him what he wants. This is just the newest attempt, in a long line of ultimatums he has given Iran.

What he will eventually do if Iran wont give him a way to claim victory, I don't know. Because Trump doesn't deal in truths.

"A whole civilization will die tonight"

"we have Complete and Total Regime Change"

He has probably told another 50 lies since that post. But, for now, the Republicans continue to protect him.

[PlausiblyDamp]

I'd say Trumps solution to this problem is the same as he always uses. Bully people into giving him what he wants. This is just the newest attempt, in a long line of ultimatums he has given Iran.

Very true, although I think the stakes on this one are far higher than usual, unfortunately he just doesn't seem to have any other ideas - it is just bully the other side into submission. Not sure how well that will work if the other side isn't going to give in to bullying, and the entire world is watching you attempt to bully another nation....

What he will eventually do if Iran wont give him a way to claim victory, I don't know. Because Trump doesn't deal in truths.

He never has, bit late to expect him to start now.

...But, for now, the Republicans continue to protect him.

This is something I just fail to understand, at what point do the lies, the corruption, the rapes, the obvious mental deterioration, and now the open threat of war crimes / genocide actually get too much for his supporters. Will they even condemn him if he does attempt genocide?

[wes4dbt]

This is something I just fail to understand, at what point do the lies, the corruption, the rapes, the obvious mental deterioration, and now the open threat of war crimes / genocide actually get too much for his supporters. Will they even condemn him if he does attempt genocide?

I don't know. As I previously said,

Nothing can really be done about it without the support of several republican members of congress. But that hasn't happened because they are more worried about their political future than they are about the costs to the US/World.

What or if they have a limit to their submission is unknown. They haven't condemned Israel. But the US isn't unique in that regard. I hope there is a limit.

[wes4dbt]

Remember when the justification for this "police action" was to protect the Iranian citizens?

I'm starting to question if that was really their intention /s

Honestly, No.

Not that I doubt you, it's that there has been an endless stream of differing reasons and I haven't attempted to keep up. I never believed any of them.

[Peter Porter]

It's weird not seeing daily videos from Dil. Hopefully he's ok.

[FunkyDexter]

Yeah, his last post was in this thread. I may disagree with his politics but I hope he's OK.

[FunkyDexter]

Last night was certainly an interesting wait.

[wes4dbt]

I'm glad there wasn't a massive attack on Iran but it doesn't seem to be a cease fire and Iran has closed Hormuz again.

Israel has continued to attack Lebanon and Iran has been attacking the Arab countries today. Both sides version of what the cease fire terms vary significantly.

I would like to hear from the Pakistan mediators what the terms of the cease fire were.

Unless Israel stops it attacks, I don't think there will be a true or lasting cease fire. Even if Israel does stop, the future seems very uncertain.

[FunkyDexter]

The reporting over here is that Pakistan are saying Lebanon was included in the ceasefire deal. I don't really know how reliable that is though.

Either way, yeah, it's quite clear that both sides are singing from different sheets so I doubt this ceasefire will last. It's still a positive, though, because it shows that some sort of ceasefire is at least feasible.

[wes4dbt]

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Trump TACO-ed out, but I don't know how he or any of his supports can spin this into any kind of victory.

The reality is the situation with Iran is much worse. But you know Trump will frame this as a victory and the Rep's will pretend it's true. They know people can see it's clearly a lie but they would rather deal with that than cross Trump.

Side note 1: I'm actually against any sanctions. They are explicitly used to hurt everyday citizens with the hope that those citizens will put pressure on the regime. It's cruel and should be considered a war crime.

It's almost always the citizens that are harmed the most. Sanctions, wars, it not the leaders or the rich that are harmed the most.

[jpbro]

It's weird not seeing daily videos from Dil. Hopefully he's ok.

I think I know where dil is...has anyone seen him and Trump in the same room?



/jk of course...hope you're doing OK dil.

[wes4dbt]

That's textbook Trump.

What a tortured mind he must have to be continually ranting and raging. If it wasn't for the fact he has cause so much harm to people his entire adult life, I could fill sorry for him. But I can't. He is quite a pathetic person.

[FunkyDexter]

Side note 1: I'm actually against any sanctions. They are explicitly used to hurt everyday citizens with the hope that those citizens will put pressure on the regime. It's cruel and should be considered a war crime.

I'm sort of half with you here. Sanctions inevitably hit the people of a target nation before they hit it's leaders and I hate that. Trouble is, I can't think of any other measure that pressures a nation without hitting the population. I guess targeted assassination of the leader but that's got a whole lot of baggage of it's own. I feel like there's got to be a better way but I just can't think of what it is. Talking shops and international bodies (UN, NATO etc) do work up to a point but where a state is absolutely determined to go rogue and commit atrocities, what do we do?

Side note 2: the prime minister of Pakistan's original post announcing the wind down/suspension had "Draft - Pakistan's PM Message on X" which seems to indicate that it was the Trump administration wrote this up.

Yeah, I heard that. It sounds suspiciously like the pentagon was looking for a get out so hand fed a press release to Pakistan who rubber stamped it. But they didn't consult with Netanyahu who's clearly going to plough on regardless and they didn't even talk communicate within the administration so the 10 points end up being completely incoherent with reality. It's bizarre.

[FunkyDexter]

Also, WTH is going on with Melania's press conference?

[PlausiblyDamp]

Also, WTH is going on with Melania's press conference?

Don't we all occasionally get the urge to call a press conference to announce we never had a relationship with a paedophile that our partner is obviously connected to, that we have been photographed with numerous times, and had repeated communication with?

I mean, if we didn't call a press conference and deny it then it would imply that we were connected and did have a relationship. Makes perfect sense really

[wes4dbt]

I'm sort of half with you here. Sanctions inevitably hit the people of a target nation before they hit it's leaders and I hate that. Trouble is, I can't think of any other measure that pressures a nation without hitting the population. I guess targeted assassination of the leader but that's got a whole lot of baggage of it's own. I feel like there's got to be a better way but I just can't think of what it is. Talking shops and international bodies (UN, NATO etc) do work up to a point but where a state is absolutely determined to go rogue and commit atrocities, what do we do?

I'd have to agree with this. Unless your willing to put boots on the ground, what else you got? Unfortunately the UN and NATO have turned into political tools and not deterrents. I think Israel is a good example of how ineffective they are. They haven't even imposed sanctions on Israel. Israel has been terrorizing and killing civilians in Gaza and other parts of the region for many years and all that's happened is some countries wagging a finger and saying shame on you. Just go to Google and try,

has uk sanctioned israel
has eu sanctioned israel

Nothing really. And the US is even worse, we formally support them and supply them with weapons. I'm just astounded (and disappointed) at the at atrocities that Israel has been committing with no significant consequences.

As for the cease fire, WHAT CEASE FIRE??? Trump got an offramp from his insane threats and Iran didn't sustain any more destruction (that's good). Well, it does seem the US has stopped attacking for now.

The absurd thing is, people don't believe what either side says. lol

[Shaggy Hiker]

Don't we all occasionally get the urge to call a press conference to announce we never had a relationship with a paedophile that our partner is obviously connected to, that we have been photographed with numerous times, and had repeated communication with?

I mean, if we didn't call a press conference and deny it then it would imply that we were connected and did have a relationship. Makes perfect sense really

Yes, certainly. I've almost called a press conference to deny knowing Epstein several times. It's just one of those things that happen in the small hours of the night. I always recover by morning, though. She must not have had proper hydration.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Trump TACO-ed out, but I don't know how he or any of his supports can spin this into any kind of victory.

It is also important to remember that there's no official ceasefire. It is Trump stating that he will not attack Iran for 2 weeks with the 10-point plan being the starting point of fuller peace deal. Just to be clear, Trump was demanding unconditional surrender as of a few weeks ago whereas today, he's saying that lifting primary and secondary sanctions are on the board.

How is the US in any better position today than before this "police action"?

---

Side note 1: I'm actually against any sanctions. They are explicitly used to hurt everyday citizens with the hope that those citizens will put pressure on the regime. It's cruel and should be considered a war crime.

Side note 2: the prime minister of Pakistan's original post announcing the wind down/suspension had "Draft - Pakistan's PM Message on X" which seems to indicate that it was the Trump administration wrote this up.

Well, if those really are the 10 points, then Trump got the unconditional surrender that he wanted. It was just the wrong side that surrendered. I never supported the attack on Iran, but those 10 points would be everything that Iran wanted with nothing that the US wanted. It makes it even more absurd.

[PlausiblyDamp]

Well, if those really are the 10 points, then Trump got the unconditional surrender that he wanted. It was just the wrong side that surrendered. I never supported the attack on Iran, but those 10 points would be everything that Iran wanted with nothing that the US wanted. It makes it even more absurd.

Those 10 points seem to be a lot of concessions on USA's part to reopen the Strait again, that isn't even counting the loss of life (civilian and military), the damage to USA's reputation, and the massive expenditure on military hardware (both consumables used, and assets lost).

[wes4dbt]

Now JD Vance is claiming that it's a different set of 10-points, but they're secret, but at the same time we should have all known that from the get go.

We've had Iran under "Double Secret Probation" for months.

The Trump administration is very good at keeping the truth a secret.