This is an overdue action so I'm supportive of the Trump administration move here. The only thing that bothers me is the long term game plan---the Trump admin is so erratic I worry they drop the ball at some point. Being partnered with Israel should provide stability though. And I really hope the Iranian people and Israel can find some peace finally.
Similar experience. I watched WNL op zondag and it is clear the interviewer lives in a leftist echo chamber. When confronted with Iranian refugees thanking Israel and describing the regimes atrocities he was literally stunned into silence or tried to quickly redirect.
Everything needs to be kept on the straight and narrow of “trump bad, israel bad”. And that is a lot of hard work these days ….
"...but also with many ‘bad takes’ like the one that focuses on Trump launching the attack to divert people away from the Epstein files. I take these monocausal explanations with a huge grain of salt, they bring me back to Bill Clinton launching cruise missiles at Saddam Hussein during the peak of the Monica Lewinsky affair. Sure, maybe, but probably irrelevant."
Pieter, I love reading your perspective and well-thought out takes, but I think to equate Trump trying to divert the public from the credible accusations that he has repeatedly raped children with what happened between Clinton and Lewinsky, even if you are just equating the motivation, makes me feel that you are minimizing what Trump has done-the horrendous crimes he is clearly guilty of. I don't think it is fair to call the media pointing this out, a bad take.
But the real issue here is that the motivation is entirely the problem.
If he is indeed starting this war to save his power by distracting everyone from his crimes and further, to prevent the mid terms from taking place, then he has no intention of freeing the Iranian people from the tyranny of a theocratic state and the horrific crimes against humanity the Iranian leaders have enacted. This means that when the conflict has served his purpose, he will leave the country more broken and more dangerous than before, and likely still a theocracy. This is extremely important because Trump has both said he supports regime change and he isn't involved in regime change. The Iranians are mostly, rightfully, celebrating the death of some obvious monsters, and that I understand, but none of us know what is to come and relying on a selfish monster (Trump) to do the right thing, when he is only acting in his self interest makes me very sad about the future for Iran.
As well, the notion "international law" being a "European fantasy" only exasperates the fundamental problem that is going on right now with the super powers, mainly the US and Russia, deciding how they they are going to attack and invade other countries at their will for their benefit. Without at least the fantasy, what do we have??
Thanks Mark. I still don't know how exactly Trump is implicated in the Epstein saga, nor do we have all the details on Clinton's role. It is speculation for now.
What are Trump's real motivations? Going into Iran in an election year is extremely risky in particular if things do not work out. Sadly, it may not and I pointed out it is a gamble as the law of unintended consequences is fully operational here. There is a long list of motivations, including the strategic play with Russia/China, nuclear risks, regional threats, natural resources etc. etc. It took years to fully understand Bush's intentions in Iraq and even now you can construct different narratives over that tragic war. Afghanistan was a clearer one and that failed too.
International law was a justified and great idea to organize the world after WWII. It worked up to a point. Dangerous players will use and abuse international law to their benefit and outsmart the believer when litigating and negotiating conflicts. I am not dismissing it, however in a world of seriously bad actors it has no value. It becomes the right of the strongest and it has been like that forever, historically. If we have to pick between one of the three big powers, US, China, Russia it is not hard to determine which side we should be on I think.
Ach deze Iraniërs..Dank je voor het delen! 🙏🏽
This is an overdue action so I'm supportive of the Trump administration move here. The only thing that bothers me is the long term game plan---the Trump admin is so erratic I worry they drop the ball at some point. Being partnered with Israel should provide stability though. And I really hope the Iranian people and Israel can find some peace finally.
Similar experience. I watched WNL op zondag and it is clear the interviewer lives in a leftist echo chamber. When confronted with Iranian refugees thanking Israel and describing the regimes atrocities he was literally stunned into silence or tried to quickly redirect.
Everything needs to be kept on the straight and narrow of “trump bad, israel bad”. And that is a lot of hard work these days ….
Thanks for this.
"...but also with many ‘bad takes’ like the one that focuses on Trump launching the attack to divert people away from the Epstein files. I take these monocausal explanations with a huge grain of salt, they bring me back to Bill Clinton launching cruise missiles at Saddam Hussein during the peak of the Monica Lewinsky affair. Sure, maybe, but probably irrelevant."
Pieter, I love reading your perspective and well-thought out takes, but I think to equate Trump trying to divert the public from the credible accusations that he has repeatedly raped children with what happened between Clinton and Lewinsky, even if you are just equating the motivation, makes me feel that you are minimizing what Trump has done-the horrendous crimes he is clearly guilty of. I don't think it is fair to call the media pointing this out, a bad take.
But the real issue here is that the motivation is entirely the problem.
If he is indeed starting this war to save his power by distracting everyone from his crimes and further, to prevent the mid terms from taking place, then he has no intention of freeing the Iranian people from the tyranny of a theocratic state and the horrific crimes against humanity the Iranian leaders have enacted. This means that when the conflict has served his purpose, he will leave the country more broken and more dangerous than before, and likely still a theocracy. This is extremely important because Trump has both said he supports regime change and he isn't involved in regime change. The Iranians are mostly, rightfully, celebrating the death of some obvious monsters, and that I understand, but none of us know what is to come and relying on a selfish monster (Trump) to do the right thing, when he is only acting in his self interest makes me very sad about the future for Iran.
As well, the notion "international law" being a "European fantasy" only exasperates the fundamental problem that is going on right now with the super powers, mainly the US and Russia, deciding how they they are going to attack and invade other countries at their will for their benefit. Without at least the fantasy, what do we have??
Thanks Mark. I still don't know how exactly Trump is implicated in the Epstein saga, nor do we have all the details on Clinton's role. It is speculation for now.
What are Trump's real motivations? Going into Iran in an election year is extremely risky in particular if things do not work out. Sadly, it may not and I pointed out it is a gamble as the law of unintended consequences is fully operational here. There is a long list of motivations, including the strategic play with Russia/China, nuclear risks, regional threats, natural resources etc. etc. It took years to fully understand Bush's intentions in Iraq and even now you can construct different narratives over that tragic war. Afghanistan was a clearer one and that failed too.
International law was a justified and great idea to organize the world after WWII. It worked up to a point. Dangerous players will use and abuse international law to their benefit and outsmart the believer when litigating and negotiating conflicts. I am not dismissing it, however in a world of seriously bad actors it has no value. It becomes the right of the strongest and it has been like that forever, historically. If we have to pick between one of the three big powers, US, China, Russia it is not hard to determine which side we should be on I think.