Nice summary. For all those screeching on both sides, just remember President Trump has more information about what’s going on and what’s at stake than any of these sideline quarterbacks. We elected Trump because we trust him to make the right decision and use his position and power to do so.
In my view as an old Jew who doesn’t know much I think the missing piece in this very interesting analysis is the nature of the Arab/islamist mind. I believe this analysis starts with the assumption that all the players are rational actors in a western sense. The mullahs are not rational actors. Among other things they come from a core belief that the death of any all infidels is a righteous act. And any lie is justified to obtain the death of infidels especially of course Jews and Christians. Therefore agreeing to a ceasefire is playing Trump. It is meaningless.
I don't disagree--I think you're spot on actually. But the ceasefire, if breached by Iran, will give Trump the predicate to show the rest of the world just how extreme Iran's regime is willing to be. And then make them pay for it. Good luck to them if they try and pull the victim card after that. Thanks for reading Joseph--always room for an old Jew at TWT! :)
I think the ayatollah has a death wish. He’ll push Trump’s buttons to see how many he can take with him. I’ve read that the philosophy of his sect calls for the end of the world.
Yes, I think we are well aware of this. But there is international pressure they are held accountable to. And, if we’re aware of this, don’t you think Trump is as well?
I disagree. Even if Iran got the bomb, I’m certain that MAD would work just as it has for the US/USSR and India/Pakistan conflicts. Remember the USSR wanted to “bury” us. The risk is one side mistakenly believing it is being attacked or a rogue general, e.g. Doctor Strange Love. Ideology and/or religion drive most conflicts. If it weren’t for US hard support for Israel, Iran would be treated kinda like North Korea was.
Hi Tom—I’m not sure you’re right. North Korea’s economic and technological strength is seen as third-class, while Iran is a genuine, serious world player with the ideology of a third world terror state. Plus there’s the fact that they’ve consistently armed terrorist proxy groups for the last 2.5 decades which, to my knowledge, North Korea has not. I don’t think anyone is really willing to rely on MAD to tame a heated and hateful rivalry which Iran has shown will dictate their foreign policy even to their own detriment.
Yours is definitely the consensus view. But if Israel was filled with any other ethnic group than Jews, I doubt there would be the massive alarm and support of the US. It would be like India/Pakistan. I’m pretty sure Iran views the US as arming a terrorist country. Also, the fates of Iran, Libya, N Korea, Ukraine, etc. has taught the world a lesson: if you don’t want to be messed with, get a nuclear deterrent.
I like your game theory angle on these events. However, I think you're missing some crucial information that changes the outcome dramatically.
First, most countries outside the West view this US strike as an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation in violation of international law. China, Russia and Turkey have all declared support for Iran, with Russia even hinting that Iran could acquire nuclear weapons through allies without building them. Pakistan has a dirty bomb, North Korea the same. And more will acquire nuclear weapons in the future, if only to protect themselves against US aggression.
Second, the nuclear facilities weren't actually destroyed according to intelligence reports. Meanwhile, Israel has been pointing at Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades while reportedly maintaining hundreds of nuclear warheads themselves, hidden from the world and supervision. That's quite a double standard.
Third, the track record matters. Previous US interventions in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya haven't brought stability or democracy - they've radicalized populations and created enemies for life. Americans often underestimate how deeply honor-bound Middle Eastern cultures are. When Muslims are humiliated repeatedly over decades, they don't forget, and they’ll certainly don’t forgive until the score is settled. They will sooner starve their people, mutilate their women and sacrifice their children if they feel their honor is jeopardized. But far worse, this attack seems to be uniting Shiites and Sunnis against a common adversary - something that’s not happened before and potentially very dangerous for long-term stability for the whole world. So while I certainly can understand why this looks as successful dealmaking from a US perspective, there is also this perspective that the US has overreached and we will all suffer the consequences. Because one thing you can count on: the Muslims will retaliate.
Hi Jeanette--I think the countries you listed have a lot more to lose than to gain if they were to facilitate Iran's nuclear ambitions. In any case, Russia's Medvedev immediately dismissed any suggestion Russia will supply nukes to Iran yesterday. They may be allies but that would in itself be a huge violation of international law. Regarding the nuclear facilities not being destroyed--I think you'll find that is a (tiny) minority view, and most likely just a piece of political non-intelligence designed to disrupt the narrative of a successful raid. See the note we posted earlier today on this (https://substack.com/@thewholetruth1/note/c-129295685) for evidence. As far as uniting Shiites and Sunnis, that really doesn't seem to be the case--if anything the Abraham accords has proved the exact opposite trend. You seem to be addressing the foreign policy of the Bush administration and the NeoConservatives, not the modern 'MAGA' middle east policy, which isn't seeking to overthrow anyone if not necessary.
Ha ha ha, but I am the self-anointed queen of the minority perspective and very comfortable in that position, thank you very much! I don't know about the US information flows, here in Europe even the MSM admits the nuclear installations were not destroyed and we're so far up the US arse, that if we admit these things, they're probably true.😉
For the record I do like to point out that I did not say that Russia would supply Iran with nukes, but I do agree with the Russians that allies can. I don't consider each nuclear power today a US ally. For instance, remember Pakistan hiding Osama Bin Laden in a compound right next to their military academy for six years while you were out searching every cave in Afghanistan?
We don't have to be on the same page. I don't mind being wrong and I sure hope you're right! In my opinion, winning a battle is not the same as winning a war. Time will provide us the true answer. :)
I’ll accept that settlement :) As you say: time will tell, and we all need to be fully prepared to continually re-evaluate our perspectives as new facts come to light. Otherwise we’re just succumbing to dogma which is how one ends up with egg on their face!
Nice summary. For all those screeching on both sides, just remember President Trump has more information about what’s going on and what’s at stake than any of these sideline quarterbacks. We elected Trump because we trust him to make the right decision and use his position and power to do so.
Exactly—I don’t believe he’s capable of ‘selling out’ so any bad decisions will be the result of bad info. Thanks for reading, Ruth :)
In my view as an old Jew who doesn’t know much I think the missing piece in this very interesting analysis is the nature of the Arab/islamist mind. I believe this analysis starts with the assumption that all the players are rational actors in a western sense. The mullahs are not rational actors. Among other things they come from a core belief that the death of any all infidels is a righteous act. And any lie is justified to obtain the death of infidels especially of course Jews and Christians. Therefore agreeing to a ceasefire is playing Trump. It is meaningless.
I don't disagree--I think you're spot on actually. But the ceasefire, if breached by Iran, will give Trump the predicate to show the rest of the world just how extreme Iran's regime is willing to be. And then make them pay for it. Good luck to them if they try and pull the victim card after that. Thanks for reading Joseph--always room for an old Jew at TWT! :)
I think the ayatollah has a death wish. He’ll push Trump’s buttons to see how many he can take with him. I’ve read that the philosophy of his sect calls for the end of the world.
I believe it—it’s really the only plausible explanation for their suicidal behavior and crazy rhetoric
Yes, I think we are well aware of this. But there is international pressure they are held accountable to. And, if we’re aware of this, don’t you think Trump is as well?
Well said!
I disagree. Even if Iran got the bomb, I’m certain that MAD would work just as it has for the US/USSR and India/Pakistan conflicts. Remember the USSR wanted to “bury” us. The risk is one side mistakenly believing it is being attacked or a rogue general, e.g. Doctor Strange Love. Ideology and/or religion drive most conflicts. If it weren’t for US hard support for Israel, Iran would be treated kinda like North Korea was.
In any case, thanks for reading and we appreciate your perspective!
Hi Tom—I’m not sure you’re right. North Korea’s economic and technological strength is seen as third-class, while Iran is a genuine, serious world player with the ideology of a third world terror state. Plus there’s the fact that they’ve consistently armed terrorist proxy groups for the last 2.5 decades which, to my knowledge, North Korea has not. I don’t think anyone is really willing to rely on MAD to tame a heated and hateful rivalry which Iran has shown will dictate their foreign policy even to their own detriment.
Yours is definitely the consensus view. But if Israel was filled with any other ethnic group than Jews, I doubt there would be the massive alarm and support of the US. It would be like India/Pakistan. I’m pretty sure Iran views the US as arming a terrorist country. Also, the fates of Iran, Libya, N Korea, Ukraine, etc. has taught the world a lesson: if you don’t want to be messed with, get a nuclear deterrent.
I like your game theory angle on these events. However, I think you're missing some crucial information that changes the outcome dramatically.
First, most countries outside the West view this US strike as an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation in violation of international law. China, Russia and Turkey have all declared support for Iran, with Russia even hinting that Iran could acquire nuclear weapons through allies without building them. Pakistan has a dirty bomb, North Korea the same. And more will acquire nuclear weapons in the future, if only to protect themselves against US aggression.
Second, the nuclear facilities weren't actually destroyed according to intelligence reports. Meanwhile, Israel has been pointing at Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades while reportedly maintaining hundreds of nuclear warheads themselves, hidden from the world and supervision. That's quite a double standard.
Third, the track record matters. Previous US interventions in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya haven't brought stability or democracy - they've radicalized populations and created enemies for life. Americans often underestimate how deeply honor-bound Middle Eastern cultures are. When Muslims are humiliated repeatedly over decades, they don't forget, and they’ll certainly don’t forgive until the score is settled. They will sooner starve their people, mutilate their women and sacrifice their children if they feel their honor is jeopardized. But far worse, this attack seems to be uniting Shiites and Sunnis against a common adversary - something that’s not happened before and potentially very dangerous for long-term stability for the whole world. So while I certainly can understand why this looks as successful dealmaking from a US perspective, there is also this perspective that the US has overreached and we will all suffer the consequences. Because one thing you can count on: the Muslims will retaliate.
Regardless--we appreciate your perspective and thank you for reading! :)
Hi Jeanette--I think the countries you listed have a lot more to lose than to gain if they were to facilitate Iran's nuclear ambitions. In any case, Russia's Medvedev immediately dismissed any suggestion Russia will supply nukes to Iran yesterday. They may be allies but that would in itself be a huge violation of international law. Regarding the nuclear facilities not being destroyed--I think you'll find that is a (tiny) minority view, and most likely just a piece of political non-intelligence designed to disrupt the narrative of a successful raid. See the note we posted earlier today on this (https://substack.com/@thewholetruth1/note/c-129295685) for evidence. As far as uniting Shiites and Sunnis, that really doesn't seem to be the case--if anything the Abraham accords has proved the exact opposite trend. You seem to be addressing the foreign policy of the Bush administration and the NeoConservatives, not the modern 'MAGA' middle east policy, which isn't seeking to overthrow anyone if not necessary.
Ha ha ha, but I am the self-anointed queen of the minority perspective and very comfortable in that position, thank you very much! I don't know about the US information flows, here in Europe even the MSM admits the nuclear installations were not destroyed and we're so far up the US arse, that if we admit these things, they're probably true.😉
For the record I do like to point out that I did not say that Russia would supply Iran with nukes, but I do agree with the Russians that allies can. I don't consider each nuclear power today a US ally. For instance, remember Pakistan hiding Osama Bin Laden in a compound right next to their military academy for six years while you were out searching every cave in Afghanistan?
We don't have to be on the same page. I don't mind being wrong and I sure hope you're right! In my opinion, winning a battle is not the same as winning a war. Time will provide us the true answer. :)
I’ll accept that settlement :) As you say: time will tell, and we all need to be fully prepared to continually re-evaluate our perspectives as new facts come to light. Otherwise we’re just succumbing to dogma which is how one ends up with egg on their face!