Israel v Iran conflict

[Jaymoss]

USA join conflict

https://news.sky.com/story/fordow-is...-iran-13386910

[downquark1]

So I told you a Trump betrayal was on the cards. This was the US' most justifiable type of intervention, anything else will be harder.

Next, it depends if Iran will escalate in retaliation and if Netanyahu wants to push harder or if Iran will drop it and lick wounds.

A big part of MAGA and Trump's support was anti-interventionist and anti-war. The Democrats were warmongers, and he was the candidate of peace. It was the excuse some former Democrats, such as Tulsi Gabbard, gave for switching sides.

Gabbard now says Iran would produce a nuclear weapon in weeks after previously saying, in March, they were nowhere near a bomb. So she has flipped.

It's going to be interesting to see who sticks with him and who doesn't now. To be fair, I have seen some of them flip and condemn Trump. There are many now though who suddenly think the US should intervene.

[papa smurf]

confirmed my suspicion that Trump is insane, so much for no more wars ,he has quite possibly lit the blue touch paper on a shit storm.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

A big part of MAGA and Trump's support was anti-interventionist and anti-war. The Democrats were warmongers, and he was the candidate of peace. It was the excuse some former Democrats, such as Tulsi Gabbard, gave for switching sides.

Gabbard now says Iran would produce a nuclear weapon in weeks after previously saying, in March, they were nowhere near a bomb. So she has flipped.

It's going to be interesting to see who sticks with him and who doesn't now. To be fair, I have seen some of them flip and condemn Trump. There are many now though who suddenly think the US should intervene.

I don’t the average US citizen gives a monkeys about them dropping bombs in a far away land.

But they absolutely will not accept deployment of troops.

So as long as he sticks to fighting this from 35,000 feet, I think he’ll be fine.

Incisive analysis as always from the BBC’s Frank Gardner.

[downquark1]

I'm leaning towards Iran will fire some things back and then this will be used to cap the issue. Just need to see what Netanyahu does.

[noel43]

Originally Posted by downquark1

So I told you a Trump betrayal was on the cards. This was the US' most justifiable type of intervention, anything else will be harder.

Next, it depends if Iran will escalate in retaliation and if Netanyahu wants to push harder or if Iran will drop it and lick wounds.

Cos he did trump anounced at 2 rockets on isreal at 8

Originally Posted by downquark1

So I told you a Trump betrayal was on the cards. This was the US' most justifiable type of intervention, anything else will be harder.

Next, it depends if Iran will escalate in retaliation and if Netanyahu wants to push harder or if Iran will drop it and lick wounds.

Now let’s not overstate your predictive prowess old boy. What you actually said was:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Trump is very close with Israel and is currently bickering with his anti-war base so it looks like a betrayal may be on the cards.

Which as predictions go is fairly well hedged

It’s certainly true that Trump has betrayed his MAGA base though, and it probably oughtn’t be such a surprise. Trump is a malignant narcissist and ultimately he’s powerless in the face of anything that causes him narcissistic injury. Netanyahu has looked strong and decisive on Iran, and in Trump’s low-brow world view, someone else being strong makes Trump look weak. And he can’t handle that. Hence he immediately started associating himself with what Israel was doing in Iran and talking about what ‘we’ are doing when in reality, until now, US involvement has almost certainly gone no further than a minimal-to-modest contribution to anti-air defence.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s certainly true that Trump has betrayed his MAGA base though, and it probably oughtn’t be such a surprise. Trump is a malignant narcissist and ultimately he’s powerless in the face of anything that causes him narcissistic injury. Netanyahu has looked strong and decisive on Iran, and in Trump’s low-brow world view, someone else being strong makes Trump look weak. And he can’t handle that. Hence he immediately started associating himself with what Israel was doing in Iran and talking about what ‘we’ are doing when in reality, until now, US involvement has almost certainly gone no further than a minimal-to-modest contribution to anti-air defence.

No, this is nonsense. Trump has made contradictory promises to people and Netanyahu has forced the issue so he had to inevitably betray someone.

Just like Musk the other week.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Incisive analysis as always from the BBC’s Frank Gardner.

If Alan Partridge did conflict analysis.

Originally Posted by downquark1

No, this is nonsense. Trump has made contradictory promises to people and Netanyahu has forced the issue so he had to inevitably betray someone.

Just like Musk the other week.

In what way is my analysis of who he has chosen to betray, and why, nonsense? Are you suggesting he’s not a narcissist and/or that his decisions are not best understood with that in mind?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Chris

In what way is my analysis of who he has chosen to betray, and why, nonsense? Are you suggesting he’s not a narcissist and/or that his decisions are not best understood with that in mind?

I remain somewhat agnostic about how much Trump is a genuine narcissist and how much it is a facade. But he didn't do this to look strong, or at least that is not the sole reason, because he now looks weak to his anti-war base. Like Netanyahu's poodle. Iran had not challenged the US directly so he needn't do anything. Either decision can be spun as strong or weak.

https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2029109/

Russia resolutely condemns the United States’ strikes on several nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, carried out in the early hours of June 22, following recent attacks by Israel.

This reckless decision to launch missile and aerial strikes on the territory of a sovereign state, regardless of the justifications offered, constitutes a blatant violation of international law, the UN Charter, and relevant resolutions by the UN Security Council, which has consistently and unequivocally deemed such actions unacceptable. Particularly concerning is the fact that the strikes were executed by a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Irony is not merely dead, now its corpse has been run over by a steamroller, thrown into a wood chipper, set on fire, and the ashes were thrown into the air during a gale-force wind…

[1andrew1]

Looks like Putin's orange poodle has slipped the leash and Netanyahu has adopted him.

You'd almost be mistaken for thinking that Israel was the World Power here and not the USA!