A similar critique applies to Trump’s unhelpful interventions in the Ukraine-Russia war. He never concerned himself with root causes or Vladimir Putin’s dishonourable motives. He favoured what he perceived to be the stronger party and tried to bully Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s president, into quasi-capitulation. When that failed, he petulantly turned his back on Kyiv – although he’s still trying, for reasons only he can explain, to appease the intransigent Putin. Now this pattern of presidential stupidity, impatience and irresponsibility repeats again in Iran.
The thought occurred while reading this: here is a perfectly good and accurate indictment of the Trump administration's malevolent,, or at best, inept intermeddling into the Ukraine war.
While the rule, "false in one, false in all" might be applied to the Guardian's indictment of all facets of the administration's foreign and domestic policy, the inverse might not be true:" right about one, right about all."
Trump clearly got it wrong when he told Zelinski that "he had no cards" to play. Equally, the Guardian might well have it wrong when it says that Trump cannot win.
Just because the Guardian got it right about Ukraine does not mean that it has got it right about Iran. Why? Because the game in Iran is not over. The article proffers as given beyond question that Trump cannot prevail in Iran, that American armed forces are inadequate to bring Iran to heel, that Iran will retain the bomb, control the Strait of Hormuz, dominate its neighbors, and diminish American prestige.
Because the Guardian says it is so does not mean it really is so. Let the bombs fall, let the Iranian people rise up, let us arm them, and let's wait a very short time before we declare failure and go home. A few more weeks of bombing is not war without end, but it might put an end to relying on left-wing speculations as the basis to decide our nuclear fate, better to react to facts on the ground.
