Confused by Trump's Zigs and Zags Over Iran? Read His "Art of the Deal"

[mystery-ak]

Confused by Trump's Zigs and Zags Over Iran? Read His "Art of the Deal"
Richard Pollock


Everyone is confused about President Trump’s Iranian strategy. Is his policy to seek the full blown devastation of Iran regime or to simply seek a compromised deal? Were the thirteen days of air attacks on Iran only pin pricks or devastating strategic hits?

Are Trump’s threats just empty talk? Or will the conflict end with Iranian surrender, the defeat of its proxies, the full, unfettered opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and regime change?

Except for early in the war, talk of regime change has disappeared from virtually all of Donald Trump’s goals. His main public advocate appears to be his Secretary of State Marco Rubio who has not publicly advocated regime change for a very long time.

Rubio said at a news conference in Manilla this week, if the administration is forced to attack Iran again, it will be a “head for an eye.” This takeoff of the Biblical law that one should take an “eye for an eye” served as good theatre. But is this a real policy or just bravado?

Now, after a major new surge of unprecedented offensive U.S. military assets into the region, nightly American air strikes have suddenly ended.

More confusion.

more
https://richardpollock.substack.com/p/confused-by-trumps-zigs-and-zag-over?r=29579&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

[DefiantMassRINO]

I've never been a fan of proportional response.  It can be useful as a delay tactic, but it's a terrible strategy - it leads to stalemates.  In wars of attrition (men, money, resolve), stalemates are losses.

I'm not confused by Trump's "process", but I am disappointed that we are drawn into, yet, another Middle East war with no clearly defined operational, strategic, and disengagement parameters.

As we burn through our weapons' stockpiles faster than we can replace them, we degrade our ability to militarily confront Russia, China, or other aggressors around the world.

[mystery-ak]

I've never been a fan of proportional response.  It can be useful as a delay tactic, but it's a terrible strategy - it leads to stalemates.  In wars of attrition (men, money, resolve), stalemates are losses.

I'm not confused by Trump's "process", but I am disappointed that we are drawn into, yet, another Middle East war with no clearly defined operational, strategic, and disengagement parameters.

As we burn through our weapons' stockpiles faster than we can replace them, we degrade our ability to militarily confront Russia, China, or other aggressors around the world.

Word!