(no message)

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/25/us/politics/trump-iran-military.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Get humiliated and then celebrated when Obama and Kerry sucked up to them.

Link: https://www.businessinsider.com/iran-humiliated-us-navy-obama-stopped-under-trump-2018-3

Iran has the leverage. Not us.

We are begging.

Obama was successful in getting JCPOA implemented. It was working. Then came voters like you who were born with horrible judgment.

Without officially declaring war beforehand. They still came to negotiate with you, reluctantly though. Don’t be so self centric like many American pundits do. Just think this, if China kills POTUS without declaring a war against US, then asks for negotiation with US, will you negotiate with them without any conditions? Please put yourself in others shoes. The ceasefire agreement is phony. We can criticize it from many perspectives, but not from ass-kissing.

Excerpts:

President Trump often celebrates his unpredictability, declaring that it keeps allies and adversaries alike off balance.

But in recent weeks, he has seemed trapped, his presidency gradually consumed by a war he cannot find his way out of.

He has discovered limits on his power that he could have scarcely imagined as he began full combat operations on Feb. 28, when he set out goals for a swift end to Iran’s nuclear program and the overthrow of the country’s government.

Five months later, those goals remain almost entirely unaccomplished. And Mr. Trump, once confident that overwhelming force would enable him to pursue in Iran what he proudly called the “Venezuela model” — a change of government to one amenable to U.S. control — is now hesitant to plunge back into major combat operations that his intelligence agencies assess are unlikely to work as well in Tehran.

Having entered the conflict with little strategy for victory, he now is struggling for a face-saving way to exit.

A month ago, he exuded confidence that he had found the way to declare victory. On June 17, Mr. Trump signed with a flourish — at the Palace of Versailles, where World War I officially ended in 1919 — a hastily written, 14-point cease-fire agreement.

At the time, Mr. Trump said that a new, more “reasonable” set of Iranian leaders had seen the light, and were being driven by economic interests.

“I believe they have had enough,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with The Times on June 14. He argued that he was able to get the deal because he was threatening a massive attack, prompting Iran to fold.

“We were going in for the big one, and they said, ‘Please don’t do it, we will make a deal.’ And we made a deal right after that,” he said.

It lasted only two weeks.

The Iranians who negotiated the deal appeared to have been in conflict with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, whose forces opened fire on ships that refused to use the channel of the Strait of Hormuz that Iran controls. While Mr. Trump said in the recent interview with The Times that Iranian leaders wanted billions of dollars in Iranian overseas funds unfrozen and oil shipments flowing, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps seems more interested in demonstrating control.

Now Mr. Trump has three main options: military escalation, economic crackdown or declaring victory and getting out.

Each option seems unpalatable, for different reasons.

On Friday, after signaling all week that he was planning a return to major combat operations in Iran, he pulled back. In briefings, according to several officials, aides cast doubt on whether a massive bombardment, one that cut off electricity and went after Iran’s resilient missile capability, would result in Iran’s return to meaningful negotiations.

But his real hesitation may come from the fact that the war has depleted U.S. stockpiles of missile interceptors. In April, the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that half the U.S. inventories of some key interceptors might have already been used. After 13 consecutive nights of attacks and counterattacks this month, those numbers, some officials say, have reached critically low levels, and were a factor in Mr. Trump’s decision in recent days to hold off on a major escalation in the war.

U.S. officials now worry that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping of China could be factoring the shortages into calculations of their next moves, in Ukraine and Europe for Mr. Putin and perhaps against Taiwan for Mr. Xi.

Mr. Trump’s second option is to let sanctions sink in, hoping that further crackdowns on oil exports, enforced by the renewed blockade of shipments into and out of the Strait of Hormuz, will have their intended effect.

But those are slow, and Mr. Trump has been predicting economic collapse in Iran since he first pulled out of the Obama-era nuclear deal in 2018 and imposed what he called crushing controls on Iran. Eight years later, the regime lives, under a new leader who could be more dedicated to a covert nuclear program.

That strategy may yet work. But it will require a costly, continuous U.S. military presence, and the possibility of on-again, off-again exchanges of fire that risk more American lives and more attacks on Gulf allies.

The third option is to declare victory and go home. Mr. Trump seemed to be headed that way a month ago, when he said he had chosen a cease-fire and negotiations because he did not want to risk a depression that would invite comparisons to Herbert Hoover.

But exiting comes with costs. If Mr. Trump leaves Iran with its near-bomb grade nuclear fuel buried under rubble and with the Strait of Hormuz under de facto Iranian control, he will have failed to address the problem that triggered his attack and created a vast new one for energy markets.

It would define his legacy. And it would make clear that there are more constraints on his power than he believed in January, when he declared that his reach was limitless.


Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/26/us/politics/trump-trapped-in-iran-war.html

So, the question is: Are the three options in the article (military escalation, economic crackdown or declaring victory & getting out) better than the option of doing nothing. I think a strong case can be made that they are better than having done nothing.

The regime change objective was a failure. I’m also perplexed at how the Iranians are still able to shut down the strait. I’d think that our overwhelming military superiority should be able to secure the area. We own the air!

Successes…we’ve damaged Iran’s far-reaching military capabilities. They aren’t attacking Israel. Their support Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthies (sp?) has been degraded.

Long term consequences…how long will it take for the world economy to recover?

(no message)

DFH's point, though, is not without merit. Trump probably should have realized that the Iranian regime's resolve (and willingness to sacrifice their own people for their cause) was at least as signficant as Israel knew the resolve of Hamas would be. So, he should be prepared to deal with them forcefully.

Something else he may have miscalculated: He may have underestimated the desire of the Iranian people to step up and throw out their Islamist leaders. If they don't have the resolve to do that, then they better be resolved enough to start doing without power plants, etc. (assuming Trump sticks to his guns on this effort).

(no message)

(no message)

Trump assumed a walk in the park Venezuela redeux, followed by regime change.

He gravely miscalculated.

Iran not losing is how they win -- the ability of the regime (a horrible outfit indeed) to survive and drag out Trump's involvement -- knowing the growing costs, lack of achieving objectives, and growing dissent among Americans -- gives Iran more leverage to dictate Trump's exit.

As may of us posted as the ceasefire, it better for us to cut our losses vs escalation. Neither option is a good one. And we have no allies.

Nuclear capability. I’m still waiting for gas to get above $5 a gallon. I know you want Iran to beat Trump but I don’t see it happening. He may have to wipe that place off the face of the planet because those goat fuckers deserve it.

comprehend it until reality hit...typical MAGA "Thinking"...

can never, ever criticize anything a Democrat says or does (because of that weird partisan code you have to follow), I am free and intellectually honest enough to call it as it is.

Intellectual honesty - try it sometime.

just stop at one and 'spike the football' ;-)

The Buck stops with DJT...not JB, KH, or any other Dem. I can help you generate that list if the items don't come to mind right away...You've just signed up for a ton of work...

(no message)

Are you vying for Ty's top spot of most logically-challenged poster?

says or does” is a patently false narrative. Your narrative along with many MAGAmorons on this forum. And in the end, you people, you really don’t criticize republicans. But more important, you support trump his family and all politicians who support them. They are thieves and they’re stealing and destroying much of this country. But you support them anyway.

(no message)

To their credit and bravery, Ukraine found a way to survive through their drone campaign.

This thread is about Iran and Trump’s colossal poor judgment in launching an unlawful and unjustified war that has jeopardized our national security and economy.

You voted for incompetence. Own it, cheerleader.

Another country help the every day American?

The Biden administration defended Ukraine to protect democratic sovereignty, uphold the international rules-based order, and deter authoritarian aggression.

Strategic and Geopolitical Goals:

Deterring Aggression: Preventing unprovoked border changes by major powers to discourage similar actions globally, such as by China in the Indo-Pacific

Protecting Democracy: Safeguarding a sovereign, democratic nation from being overrun by an autocratic neighbor

Strengthening Alliances: Galvanizing NATO unity and expanding the alliance, which reinforced collective security in Europe.

Security and Defense Motivations:

Weakening a Threat: Degrading the conventional military capacity of Russia, a primary adversarial threat to U.S. and European security, without deploying direct American combat forces.

Escalation Management: Balancing robust military and economic aid with cautious restraint to prevent the conflict from triggering a direct U.S.-Russia confrontation or World War III.

Up with it happening. Being on the protected list must be nice.

the U.S. can churn out 600+ Patriots/yr...which are the type Ukraine needs to defend Kiev and other key locations...so,DJT can keep them afloat by ending his war with Iran. Again...he should have listened to his Military advisers and not put us in this situation.

(no message)