Let's talk about Trump wagging the dog on Iran.... - Belle of the Ranch

[TexasTowelie]

Well, howdy there Internet people. It's Belle again. So, today we're going to talk about Trump wagging the dog on Iran.

Some reporting came out and the dynamics are actually pretty normal, but they normally don't become public before things get started and almost never come out before the US population is already primed and is too busy slapping yellow ribbons on their cars to notice. The reporting says that the administration knows it's having trouble convincing Americans to really rally behind the idea of a large operation against Iran. Specifically, they seem to realize that while Republicans support the idea of regime change, they wouldn't if it put Americans at risk. They've come up with a couple of ideas on how to manufacture consent and they're as cynical as they are likely to work.

I want to stop for a second and suggest that if the administration is worried about the optics of a war and how to spin it politically, then well, that war is not a war of necessity. It's an elective war the administration is choosing to pursue.

So this is what came out in the reporting from somebody familiar with the discussion. “There's thinking in and around the administration that the politics are a lot better if the Israelis go first and alone and the Iranians retaliate against us and give us more reason to take action.”

So even though it's been telegraphed well ahead of time, the idea is to try to frame it as a defensive action of the US coming in to help an ally when in reality it's scripted ahead of time. The unspoken part of this is that if Israel was to go first, Iran would respond. In the current dynamics, it would be unlikely for Iran to respond solely against Israel. If US forces were attacked during the response, it would provide the catalyst to get Americans behind Trump's elective war.

Another statement made was, "If we're talking about a regime change scale attack, Iran is very likely to retaliate with everything they've got.” We have a lot of assets in the region and every one of those is a potential target and they're not under the Iron Dome so there's a high likelihood of American casualties and that comes with lots of political risk.

A high likelihood of American casualties. Yes. After weeks of talking about the desire to bring down the entire regime, Iran will respond with everything they have. It's become existential for them.

It is worth noting that the reporting suggests that while the administration wants Israel to go first, they see the highest probability being a joint strike. The run-up to this needs to be questioned and debated in Congress. If there's one thing this reporting suggests, it's that the administration is actively trying to figure out how to get the American people not just to accept a war, but to accept a high likelihood of casualties.

I'm not sure the American people are really willing to accept this, to go after an obliterated program that's only an issue because Trump pulled the US out of the last deal because he thought he could get a better one.

Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.

[ChicagoTeamster]

1. Trump pulled us out of Afghanistan and Syria where we were making progress There's no need to attack Iran.

They're looking to create a cause by having Israel go in first. What would Israel's justification be? Trump already said we destroyed all of their nuclear program and if they had any real threat Israel would have already bombed it like they did to the breeder eactor in Iraq in the 80s.