Fox News also reports the results of its latest poll which finds 56% oppose the ongoing American military action against Iran, including 40% who "strongly" oppose. "Disapproval of President Donald Trump’s handling of Iran hit a record high in July," Fox writes.

"A majority of voters oppose U.S. military action, and nearly two thirds think the conflict will last at least a year," the report says.

This as The Wall Street Journal does an entire investigative report which should be laughably obvious to any careful observer to what's been going on and the deepening quagmire the US is getting itself into:

As the war in Iran enters its fifth month, Trump is increasingly frustrated that a conflict he once thought would be over in a matter of weeks has dragged on with no end in sight, administration officials and others close to the president said.

Some of Trump’s advisers now worry that the war—which has resulted in higher prices, falling approval ratings and the deaths of more than a dozen U.S. servicemembers—is consuming his presidency and damaging Republicans’ already dim prospects in the coming midterm elections.

Alarmingly, the WSJ noted that Trump seems in "revenge mode" against Tehran, and apparently sees no other options than to try and keep bombing his way out of it. Of course, this script has been written many times - not only during the "Global War on Terror" and this millennium's "forever wars" - but going all the way back to the Vietnam war.

The war is said to be taking a heavy "toll" on Trump and his top officials. According to more of what's also been glaringly obvious for anyone who has had a shred of independent thought:

The war is splitting the conservative coalition over which Trump once had an iron grip, worrying some Republicans close to the White House. Longtime Trump allies such as Fox News host Laura Ingraham have used their platforms to express concerns about how the war might affect Republicans in November’s midterm elections. On Monday, she said the “clock is ticking” to the midterms.

“Netanyahu has led us into a horrible conflict filled with lies,” Steve Bannon, a longtime Trump adviser, said. “People can see with their own eyes what’s going on.”

While this part about Netanyahu is true, it is ultimately President Trump who made the decision, after for years prior - and especially on the campaign trail - articulately spelling out that attacking Iran and starting new Mideast wars would be one of most idiotic foreign policy moves a president could make.

Perhaps the utter folly of Operation Epic Fury has finally begun to dawn on the president. WSJ also observed that "Last month, the president was so excited at the prospect of signing the memorandum of understanding with Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz that he was dismissive of Republican allies who said the Iranians would never stick to the agreement, according to a senior administration official. He wanted it to be over, Trump told them."

https://www.zerohedge.com/geop...ight-us-strikes-iran

I disagree with many of the article’s premises.

It was not folly to attack Iran; it was prudent. However, their only card to play has to have been closing the Strait of Hormuz, and they played it. That HAS to have been anticipated.

When the story broke that Saudi Arabia was utilizing the pipeline in the Red Sea, my first thought was the Houthis in Yemen. Again, that HAS to have been anticipated.

One of the clearest signs that the US actually thought the MOU would be honored was rotating aircraft and other forces back to the US, that we are now shipping back to the ME.

The only way this ends is via two options: 1. The US backs down, gives concessions to Iran, and turns the other cheek for a “deal” (not viable, desired, or the right thing to do). 2. Such destruction is brought upon the Iranians that they no longer have the capacity to generate income or weapons (via oil, infrastructure, and other attacks).

“It is easier to start a war than to end it.”
— Gabriel García Márquez

And no, that doesn’t mean I was opposed to the start of the war for what were obvious good reasons. More and more, though, I am reminded of all the times wars were started without any clear appreciation of how they were going to end and especially what the capabilities of the enemy were.*

In this case I can only wonder why that was, especially if it’s true that the President truly believed that a sort-of written agreement would somehow bind this enemy to a particular course of action. It’s not a real estate deal that can be enforced by a court order and saddling someone with a bad business reputation. Did he get bad advice from the people who should have known better? Perhaps. There seems to be a lot of that going around in this Administration as well.

* And for anyone who still believes that Iran isn’t causing us meaningful difficulties beyond the closure of the strait, I can only recommend looking at some actual news reporting sources. Here is one I check every weekday. I don’t agree with all of his comments and “analyses,” but facts are facts.
https://www.youtube.com/@S2Underground

I’ll repeat my earlier stance… I believe that if Iran had touched off even just a dirty bomb in Tel Aviv or a US shipping port, people would feel very different about this conflict.

quote:

“It is easier to start a war than to end it.”
— Gabriel García Márquez

That about sums it up...

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

Did he get bad advice from the people who should have known better? Perhaps. There seems to be a lot of that going around in this Administration as well.

I mentioned this several weeks back, and I hold firm to that. Again, I can only comment directly on how Trump handled Venezuela, but once he achieved the most difficult part, he backed down from the next step (supporting the opposition), based on comically bad intelligence and advice.

It’s an own goal, and I hope one he rectifies by the end of his term, but it’s not likely.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I'm beginning to think they like being bombed.

There is a lot of truth to this statement. The IRGC hardliners and clerics who control the government have wanted a holy war with the "Great Satan" for years. Dying as martyrs for the cause is the greatest victory they can achieve, in their minds. There is no rational discourse or negotiation with an opponent like that. They love the war and want it to last forever.

The background questions are, 1) do the majority of the Iranian people agree with that position, and 2) if not, can we apply pressure that would make them want to overthrow their government without radicalizing them against us in the process. If there is no internal help from the Iranian people, there is no chance for lasting victory short of a full-on ground invasion. Bombing bridges and the energy grid isn't likely to win any hearts and minds.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
doom and gloom because your pants are on fire over iran. And of course its trumps fault. Yeah I know you say you supposedly voted for him.

Just for reference, I strongly support Trump and what he has done in Iran. I’ve said this more than once, I think he is receiving poor intelligence (he himself has said so, including in the recent election interference announcement - the agencies are withholding information), and that is leading to less than ideal outcomes.

Trump wants to do the right thing, and that is more than grounds to support him. In the case of the Middle East, sometimes the right thing, or anything close to it, is impossible. They’ve been at war with each other for 3000 years, I don’t think we will solve that.

I recommend that we

1. Carpet bomb a donut around Pickaxe to remove any iranians and continue to do so during the following actions
2. Air assault one 4000-man brigade combat team to the mountain site
3. Air assault another bct to the nuclear nanantz site
4. Helo in the iaea technologists
5. Enter the facilities
6. Film the truth
7. Remove any enriched using helo heavy lift
8. Set charges on equipment inside and exit
9. Blow equipment in place
10. Reenter and verify destroyed
11. Set charges for interior rooms and access tunnels
12. Blow up all interior spaces
13. Remove all bct personnel by helo

Much easier to write than to do.

First things first....regain control of the SOH. Without it, Iran loses its most significant avenue of leverage.

^^^^^
President Trump said that we would take out an Iranian bridge or power plant for each attack on a ship passing through the Strait of Hormuz. That will greatly reduce such attacks, I think.

^^^ Yes, take full control of Hormuz, take away any and all leverage. We can’t keep doing this song and dance routine, now we have it, now they have it, ships are passing through, uh oh, now they’re not passing through.