US Attacks Iran 2026

[Ernie]

I'm sorry that you are involved.

Only on MN.

As well as other places where people do not feel a need to take responsibility for the actions of their fellow countrymen.

[mike]

I assume that much of the objection to the war is political in nature, and would be different if the other party were in power. The opposition always has its job to do.

One of the things that made me pretty sure Trump was going to do something like this in Iran was the fact that many liberals in addition to conservatives were pushing for something to be done about Iran. If the US can clearly point to its goals having been accomplished in Iran at some point, this will be politically beneficial for the president. It's all about winning. If America 'wins' (take the Maduro raid and subsequent happenings in Venezuela), people will quiet down and it give the President political capital. If it's not a clear win, it will cost him and his party. This was the risk domestically speaking with the Iran action. We'll see.

But on the other hand, Trump seems to be acting not at all like a politician with his finger in the wind and his eye on the polls. He appears to be doing what he thinks is the right thing to do without regard for what people think in the short run, generally speaking. I suspect he thinks that in the long run, winning will make people forget the short term pain or uncertainty. In some ways it is good to have a leader who operates this way, but in other ways, I'm not sure. He really is risking a lot with respect to international relations in his second term, whether by tariffs, the Ukraine war, and now his military actions. I guess only time will tell.

[Soloist]

But on the other hand, Trump seems to be acting not at all like a politician with his finger in the wind and his eye on the polls. He appears to be doing what he thinks is the right thing to do without regard for what people think in the short run, generally speaking. I suspect he thinks that in the long run, winning will make people forget the short term pain or uncertainty. In some ways it is good to have a leader who operates this way, but in other ways, I'm not sure. He really is risking a lot with respect to international relations in his second term, whether by tariffs, the Ukraine war, and now his military actions. I guess only time will tell.

My impression is he did not plan this very well. The military is very capable of taking advanced targets on and to point clearly to this being short sighted, they did not attack until there was 2 CV’s in the area. Catch though is they had no plan for what happens when they achieve air supremacy and their enemy doesn’t roll over.
Now we are seeing a scramble with assault carriers with marines being sent. Consider how many ships took part in Iraq… we didn’t plan for anything past air assault.

[JohnH]

I'm sorry that you are involved.

Only on MN. And ... well, I am in fact involved with some of the victims.

... you're involved with victims in places like Iran and Israel?

That's exactly what counterintelligence chief Joe Kent claimed when resigning his position today; that there was no immediate threat to the US from Iran.

I have seen similar claims from multiple sources.

There's obviously been a big change of heart (or mind) with Mr. Kent, and he hasn't told us why. He used to be complaining that his political opponents didn't support Israel enough. He has previously spoken in favour of hardline action against Iran. So what changed?

[ohio jones]

My impression is he did not plan this very well. The military is very capable of taking advanced targets on and to point clearly to this being short sighted, they did not attack until there was 2 CV’s in the area.

Gonna take more than 2 of these to make a difference.

[Bootstrap]

I'm sorry that you are involved.

Only on MN. And ... well, I am in fact involved with some of the victims.

... you're involved with victims in places like Iran and Israel?

Syria, to a lesser extent Iran (from earlier years). Close relatives of victims in Lebanon and Gaza. Not with victims of the current Iran war.

That's exactly what counterintelligence chief Joe Kent claimed when resigning his position today; that there was no immediate threat to the US from Iran.

I have seen similar claims from multiple sources.

There's obviously been a big change of heart (or mind) with Mr. Kent, and he hasn't told us why. He used to be complaining that his political opponents didn't support Israel enough. He has previously spoken in favour of hardline action against Iran. So what changed?

I have no idea. But he is hardly alone.

[JohnH]

Only on MN. And ... well, I am in fact involved with some of the victims.

... you're involved with victims in places like Iran and Israel?

Syria, to a lesser extent Iran (from earlier years). Close relatives of victims in Lebanon and Gaza. Not with victims of the current Iran war.

Could you enlighten us who the victims in Iran and Syria are victims of?

[ohio jones]

Could you enlighten us who the victims in Iran and Syria are victims of?

The Great Satan. And I do not mean the United States.

[barnhart]

My impression is he did not plan this very well. The military is very capable of taking advanced targets on and to point clearly to this being short sighted, they did not attack until there was 2 CV’s in the area.

Gonna take more than 2 of these to make a difference.

I would like one of these as a commuter car.

[barnhart]

But on the other hand, Trump seems to be acting not at all like a politician with his finger in the wind and his eye on the polls. He appears to be doing what he thinks is the right thing to do without regard for what people think in the short run, generally speaking. I suspect he thinks that in the long run, winning will make people forget the short term pain or uncertainty. In some ways it is good to have a leader who operates this way, but in other ways, I'm not sure. He really is risking a lot with respect to international relations in his second term, whether by tariffs, the Ukraine war, and now his military actions. I guess only time will tell.

My impression is he did not plan this very well. The military is very capable of taking advanced targets on and to point clearly to this being short sighted, they did not attack until there was 2 CV’s in the area. Catch though is they had no plan for what happens when they achieve air supremacy and their enemy doesn’t roll over.
Now we are seeing a scramble with assault carriers with marines being sent. Consider how many ships took part in Iraq… we didn’t plan for anything past air assault.

This is an element of this administration that I find disquieting, a deep conviction that their ideas are so much better that they shouldn't be questioned or opposed. VP Vance responded to a question about previous military engagements by saying they were done by stupid people so this will clearly be different. This aligns with my observation that the president believes in the positive thinking theology of his youth where reality is "manifested" by saying or acting on what you wish to be true and acknowledging reality is a moral failure.