In a post-WWII era, Trump’s approach to Iran may not be that bad UPDATED

American Thinker ^ | 21 Jun, 2026 | Andrea Widburg

[MtnClimber]

The era of total victory died when the communists made inroads into the Democrat party, so Trump must think outside the box.

As regular readers know, I’ve been completely off from work for almost three weeks so that I could travel to the Far East to help with my new (and first) grandchild. Helping with a newborn tends to put everything in perspective because that fragile little being’s survival is the single most important thing on the agenda. Paying attention to the news took second place to offering whatever practical help I could.

Those of us who saw Iran as an existential threat wanted a total victory (Hitler’s bunker suicide or Hirohito’s complete surrender). Then, we imagined, the free people of Iran would dance in the streets, the Strait would become an uncontested thoroughfare, and all would be joyous across the world.

However, we don’t live in 1945. During WWII, most Americans supported the war and were willing to fight for total victory. It wasn’t until the Korean War that America embraced the idea of fighting not to victory but to unsatisfactory stalemates. This was, in part, because communists began to make inroads into the Democrat party. By the Vietnam era, large segments of young America—people who became the next generation of politicians, teachers, journalists, and entertainers—had concluded that America and its values were not worth defending.

Their views were reflected in a Democrat political class that refused to fund or otherwise support our wars. Democrats, whether in Congress or the White House, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. On the battlefield, our military won wars; in Washington, our politicians lost them.

Moreover, thanks to our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, we learned that occupying Muslim countries after incomplete, sort-of victories is a dead

---

TOPICS: Military/Veterans; Society
KEYWORDS: andreawidburg; dnctrollsonfr; hamas; hezbollah; iran; irgc; tds; yemen

[Liz]

The Iran war was all about Israel wanting regime change, for their actual
purpose of ending Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions and support of terror.

But Trump was not told the whole story and was
duped into the $trillion dollar war blindsided by Israel.

[Liz]

Extremist ministers in Netanyahu’s government continue to scatter dangerous statements, such as Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s remark that “All of Lebanon must burn.”

That statement was immediately interpreted by the United States and by tens of millions around the world as yet a call for another round of “genocide. Netanyahu should instruct his ministers to be silent. They have caused enough damage.

---

FYI-—Itamar Ben-Gvir is a “settler”......a highly polarizing Israeli who serves as one of the Israeli govt’s Ministers, characterized as an extremist and an agent provocateur.

Because of his offensive policies and rhetoric, he has been sanctioned by several nations, including Australia and the United Kingdom. He and his allies are frequently criticized by international bodies—such as the US State Department—for fueling tensions and undermining peace efforts.

HE CANCELLED A RECENT PLAN TO VISIT THE US b/c his MULTIPLE criminal convictions in Israel (which include incitement to racism and support for a terrorist organization) complicated the US visa clearance process.

[FreeReign]

The Iran war was all about Israel wanting regime change, for their actual purpose of ending Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions and support of terror. But Trump was not told the whole story and was duped into the $trillion dollar war blindsided by Israel.

Not at all. Trump's actual purpose as he has stated for decades was to end Iran's nuclear ambitions.

[aimhigh]

In my opinion the rules of war exist only to make wars unwinable and unprofitable . . .

Believe me, these rules of war make continual wars very profitable.

[goodnesswins]

Thx...interesting

[Olog-hai]

Iran still has a lot of allies, with whom they trade, especially in arms.

Isn’t it funny that they keep rejecting every “deal” that gets announced?

[TexasFreeper2009]

the current status quo will persist until the US losses a MAJOR real war itself. Because in order for that to happen, the “rules” will have to be discarded for that country to actually achieve victory over us. And once that happens, everyone will realize there are no rules for war and never were any.

[PIF]

Surrender of the US to Iran is the best policy 47 has come up with to date ...