Israel strikes Iran

[temporal1]

prayers for all as this conflict progresses.

special prayers for President Trump to be led by God to right paths as he navigates this critical challenge.
prayers for what many believe is his core consistent passion to avoid/minimize violent military action.

this is a test.

he has so many cruel enemies. foreign and domestic.

God give him strength, direction, wisdom. for everyone’s sake.

And that’s why he directed the military to send a third carrier group, a fleet of aerial refuelers to the area. His actions are anything but peace. These are aggressive moves for an actual engagement. I don’t have access to the marine assault ships so I don’t know if we are actually invading or just going to drop bunker busters.

For those paying attention, (yet not consumed with TDS, a major distortion of reason) this move may be Trump acting out his commitment of peace through strength, hopefully, a SHOW of strength will be the effective message.

Trump has been unique in being able to weather the worst storms directed at him, then become vindicated in due time.
Over+over+over.

i’ve been watching him “at this” from the time he tried to counsel Zelensky to “find a path” with Russia. Before Russia crossed the line. Z rejected his advice. (i’m convinced, not on his own.) Z had already been seduced.

Trump has been consistent since. He’s no whiny pushover. He’s serious. Peace/“no killing” on any side, is his priority.
He offers tangible incentives, motivators. He doesn’t leave others to just figure it out on their own.

We’ll see.
If my guess is in the ballpark, for everyone’s sake, i pray for success.

DanZ summed it up years ago. (i’ll try to locate his words.)

I’ve said this before- but I think his aggressive and unpredictable negotiating style may advantage him with dictators and autocrats - like Kim Jong Un, over and against more diplomatic and placating presidents like Obama.

^^Not to mention Neocons and their pet protracted and failng wars. $$$$

Related:
2018 / Military spending
viewtopic.php?t=1259

[temporal1]

Has Trump actually invaded Iran or said he plans to?

^^i’ve seen repeated statement (from Trump) that he has approved a PLAN, he has NOT ordered an attack.
He has no interest in announcing details.

He’s also said his SOLE interest is in removing nuclear capabilities/hope from Iran. Limited and precise. Full stop.

[JohnH]

Has Trump actually invaded Iran or said he plans to?

He just spent over billion dollars to send thousands of air strikes against the Houthis. How did that work out? Did they accomplish anything? Did they destroy the Houthis' missile capability?

Now he is contemplating the same thing against Iran which is a far more distant target in a much larger country that has vastly more resources to cover up, bury, and hide its nuclear capabilities.

If air strikes against Iran prove as ineffective as those against the Houthis, will the US just concede defeat and go home? Or will it escalate? What do you think? What is the end-game here when US air strikes turn out not to have worked? This is exactly how small military actions become big ones and how we incrementally work our way into large scale war.

The U.S. has had a policy of suppression of the Houthis for a long time now, through multiple administrations.

The original question was - has he actually invaded Iran or said he's going to? As far as I can tell, the answer is "no". We are occupying a purely defensive position right now.

[Ken]

Has Trump actually invaded Iran or said he plans to?

He just spent over billion dollars to send thousands of air strikes against the Houthis. How did that work out? Did they accomplish anything? Did they destroy the Houthis' missile capability?

Now he is contemplating the same thing against Iran which is a far more distant target in a much larger country that has vastly more resources to cover up, bury, and hide its nuclear capabilities.

If air strikes against Iran prove as ineffective as those against the Houthis, will the US just concede defeat and go home? Or will it escalate? What do you think? What is the end-game here when US air strikes turn out not to have worked? This is exactly how small military actions become big ones and how we incrementally work our way into large scale war.

The U.S. has had a policy of suppression of the Houthis for a long time now, through multiple administrations.

The original question was - has he actually invaded Iran or said he's going to? As far as I can tell, the answer is "no". We are occupying a purely defensive position right now.

So what do you think the end game is if tactical air strikes don't accomplish the objective of eliminating Iran's nuclear program? We just shrug and say "oh well, they won" ??

Every military action should have a end game. What does success look like and what is the response in the event of failure? And the lack of an end game is what gets us sucked deeper and deeper into a war that we didn't necessarily intend to be involved in.

[JohnH]

So what do you think the end game is if tactical air strikes don't accomplish the objective of eliminating Iran's nuclear program? We just shrug and say "oh well, they won" ??

Every military action should have a end game. What does success look like and what is the response in the event of failure? And the lack of an end game is what gets us sucked deeper and deeper into a war that we didn't necessarily intend to be involved in.

So far, it's Israel's fight (which they are more than capable of winning). It's their sphere of influence and their part of the world.

[Jazman]

So what do you think the end game is if tactical air strikes don't accomplish the objective of eliminating Iran's nuclear program? We just shrug and say "oh well, they won" ??

Every military action should have a end game. What does success look like and what is the response in the event of failure? And the lack of an end game is what gets us sucked deeper and deeper into a war that we didn't necessarily intend to be involved in.

So far, it's Israel's fight (which they are more than capable of winning). It's their sphere of influence and their part of the world.

There are hints? that our leader may get us involved... We've been told here many times that he's not that kind of president (unlike past ones) What will the movement say or do if that happens?

[Jazman]

I don’t think Trump was ever the peacenik that people projected on him. What’s interesting to watch is the split within MAGA between the anti-war and more pro-war factions. Tucker Carlson’s interview / fight with Ted Cruz that’s viral right now is an expression of that.

He actually ran as one in 2016, opposing war in the middle east. Here is a short 2 min clip from one of the 2016 primary debates. Curious how he may be changing his tone now:

I'm not doubting the campaign rhetoric, but his disposition/character has NEVER said "peacenik" to me... Nobody with skin as thin as his...or the off the cuff reactionary pattern and the temper to boot - has the temperament capable of principled/courageous skills/principles to choose nonviolence, non-revenge, de-escalating means of interacting with other nations. (He doesn't act this way with real people around him, especially not opponents; why would he do it with nations?)

[JohnH]

There are hints? that our leader may get us involved... We've been told here many times that he's not that kind of president (unlike past ones) What will the movement say or do if that happens?

Except we aren’t involved yet (other than a defensive posture, which is something that has been the case for decades now whenever Iran was sabre-rattling).

I really don’t get it when people gripe about a President doing things he hasn’t even done yet. I do hear a lot of rhetoric warning Iran not to directly attack American assets/people. But no rhetoric saying we’re going to launch a war into Iran like happened in Gulf War 1 or 2.

[temporal1]

Except we aren’t involved yet (other than a defensive posture, which is something that has been the case for decades now whenever Iran was sabre-rattling).

I really don’t get it when people gripe about a President doing things he hasn’t even done yet. I do hear a lot of rhetoric warning Iran not to directly attack American assets/people. But no rhetoric saying we’re going to launch a war into Iran like happened in Gulf War 1 or 2.

yes, it’s tiresome.

“speculation is the enemy of peace.” speculation must be the bread+butter of the internet.

i’m hopeful 2016-era TDS will be found to be an authentic treatable illness.
it causes many otherwise lucid people to lose their minds.

[barnhart]

In the last 150 years, most large wars have been ideological in nature and the president does not, to my eye, appear driven by ideology. But don't forget historically war has been more primal, driven by emotion like conquest, hate, distrust and fear. Just because war driven by ideology seems less likely doesn't reduce the threat of war, sowing seeds of conquest, domination and superiority is also a path to war.