US Attacks Iran 2026

[JohnH]

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.

Doesn't every administration do this?

[Dan Z]

...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.

I think this is a good observation - the Peale philosophy at an early age may have been imprinted on young Donald. It also lines up with the idea that if you declare something true enough times (regardless of whether or not it is), you can affect reality - or at least reality's outcomes.

[R7ehr]

...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.

I think this is a good observation - the Peale philosophy at an early age may have been imprinted on young Donald. It also lines up with the idea that if you declare something true enough times (regardless of whether or not it is), you can affect reality - or at least reality's outcomes.

This theory about the root and foundation of Trumps worldview seems to be pretty solid based on his words and deeds.

[Dan Z]

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.

It looks political, but I think it is deeper than that - I think it is based on trust.

Those who still have trust in President Trump's leadership (including 80% of Republicans) tend to be supportive of his decision to go to war with Iran - even if the decision is weakly articulated. Those who have little trust in him (the vast majority of Democrats, a few Republicans, and an increasing number of independents and informed non-voters) are skeptical of the decision and are not inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. There is a lot of overlap between trust and political loyalties, but I don't think they are synonymous.

...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.

I think President Trump is very intuitive in leadership style - he trusts his gut.

And why shouldn't he? In his way of thinking, his intuition has made him one of the richest men in the world...it has also resulted in him becoming the most powerful person in the world. He's not likely to change tracks now. Trump makes quick, often impetuous decisions, which result in his leadership being quite nimble and consequential, but also reactive, chaotic, and at times ill-informed. This intuitive approach works best in an executive context where he has the power to make decisions unilaterally, and it works worst when he needs to build consensus or pass legislation. He has spent his life as a sole proprietor, and he got voted in to "get things done." Thus, the authoritarian model fits him much better than the democratic model.

[Jazman]

It looks political, but I think it is deeper than that - I think it is based on trust.

Those who still have trust in President Trump's leadership (including 80% of Republicans) tend to be supportive of his decision to go to war with Iran - even if the decision is weakly articulated. Those who have little trust in him (the vast majority of Democrats, a few Republicans, and an increasing number of independents and informed non-voters) are skeptical of the decision and are not inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. There is a lot of overlap between trust and political loyalties, but I don't think they are synonymous.

I would include most of the globe in that camp of distrust... especially not-so-long-in-the-past allies... he has a few dictators and their family/friends elites that might 'trust' him (not sure that's even a 'trust' but something else?) but beyond that, not many else.

[ohio jones]

...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.

I think this is a good observation - the Peale philosophy at an early age may have been imprinted on young Donald. It also lines up with the idea that if you declare something true enough times (regardless of whether or not it is), you can affect reality - or at least reality's outcomes.

This is not the first time in US history that approach has been tried.

[mike]

...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.

I think this is a good observation - the Peale philosophy at an early age may have been imprinted on young Donald. It also lines up with the idea that if you declare something true enough times (regardless of whether or not it is), you can affect reality - or at least reality's outcomes.

This is not the first time in US history that approach has been tried.

Which is why I say that for Trump it is all about winning. Jefferson's declaration was validated not by his saying so, but by the colonial army beating the British. Trump's Norman Vincent Peale-style declarations won't be validated by his saying so, but by whether the American military in fact prevents Iran being a threat to anybody for a long time to come. And for him, the icing on the cake would be regime change, but I don't think he will wait for that in order to put up the mission accomplished sign.

[JohnH]

I would include most of the globe in that camp of distrust... especially not-so-long-in-the-past allies... he has a few dictators and their family/friends elites that might 'trust' him (not sure that's even a 'trust' but something else?) but beyond that, not many else.

Can you enumerate who these dictators are?

Bashar Assad?

[Thomas_muntzer]

Yesterday, Iranian militias shot down a tanker plane in Iraq, adding six more deaths to this absurd war.

This information is incorrect. The tanker was not brought down by enemy or friendly fire, but by a mid-air collision between two US planes, according to US Central Command and various other sources, some of which posted pictures of the damaged tail of the plane that was able to land safely.

The first thing to die in a war is the truth.

The Iranians claim they hit that tanker in Iraq; Secretary of State for War Pete Hegseth confirms what you're saying.

The aircraft carrier USS Ford is heading to the United States for port repairs after a Navy spokesman claimed a fire in the laundry room damaged the carrier, while Iran claims to have struck it with drones.



The same goes for the three F-15s shot down in Kuwait. The Trump administration claims it was a friendly fire incident.

And yesterday, the IRGC released footage showing the impact of an F-35 that managed to make an emergency landing, with no response yet from the Trump administration.



We really don't know, but militarily this war has been a total disaster. The Iranians were much better prepared than Pentagon specialists assumed.

[JohnH]

The regime has repeatedly just posted AI videos. Any videos from them have about zero credibility.