Posted on 06/20/2025 8:51:43 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
President Trump is weighing powerful arguments from both sides.
President Donald Trump is facing a serious dilemma regarding Israel and Iran. He stands for three things that may soon come into direct conflict with each other. He is, above all, America-First, but he is also a self-proclaimed crusader for peace and a transactional, pragmatic chief executive. That first identifying trait suggests Trump will protect American interests at all costs, eschewing the nation-building of previous presidents. The second translates to avoiding another foreign war, this time in Iran. The third calls for a pragmatic, realistic assessment of Iran’s ongoing threat to US national security and the ripe opportunity before him to eliminate it once and for all.
How will the 47th president reconcile these competing visions? What makes it a particularly wrenching choice for Trump is that he is hearing compelling arguments from opposite directions. MAGA purists like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson argue that involving ourselves in another war in the Middle East would be a certain disaster along the lines of Iraq and Afghanistan. But conservative hawks such as Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) argue that all the ducks are in a row at this moment in time to take down a rogue regime that has for decades been calling for death to Israel and America.
The middle ground would be for the president to continue his current strategic ambiguity, fully supporting Israel’s efforts to dismantle the regime in Tehran without committing to direct American military involvement. But the Israelis do not appear to have the capacity to take down Iran’s most fortified uranium enrichment plant at Fordow without the “bunker busters” that only the US military possesses. If that facility remains intact, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei may well believe he can withstand the ongoing...(Excerpt) Read more at libertynation.com ...
It’s not about being a dove. It’s about recognizing that some smart people thought through a long time ago and that it wasn’t such a good idea to provoke Russia and not a good idea to stir up trouble in the middle east.
Realists vs appeasers.
How did the U.S. provoke Russia? All of our presidents in the 21st century have bowed prostate before them, starting with Bush and Obama. Why is the U.S. now a vassal state of Russia?
We supported a coup in a country next door to Russia.
“How did the U.S. provoke Russia? All of our presidents in the 21st century have bowed prostate before them, starting with Bush and Obama. Why is the U.S. now a vassal state of Russia?”
By expanding NATO eastward then color revolutionizing former boarder states, setting sanctions as far back as 2010 to mess up Russia financially. Then interfered in an election in the Ukraine, starting a civil war, Installed a puppet government who prompt starting a military build up and well, you can see how that’s progressing.
We've been told that Iran has been on the threshold of producing a nuke for years, maybe decades. Would a nuclear Iran be any more threatening than nuclear N. Korea, Pakistan, China or Russia?
If Israel wants to overthrown the Iranian regime, they are welcome to do so. Just don't ask for our soldiers or other assets to do so. Trump promised to keep us out of forever wars. Let's hope he keeps his promises and doesn't become another stooge to foreign interests or intelligence lies.
What’s a “long time” to you? Last month? Who are these “smart people”? Then you add “stir up trouble”.
Russia is doing the provoking or do invasions and helping Muslim terrorist not qualify?
They have been doing since they formed the USSR.
Iran has been killing our people since 1979, has avowed to destroy us at their first chance, and named us the Great Satan.
The US is constantly trying to calm the ME.
The smart people understand the difference between cowardice and courage. Between appeasement and victory. Your smart people will wait until we are nuked then unleash a nuclear war.
The United States should be isolationist by nature and interventionist in rare, exceptional cases. That's the only legitimate political stature for a country that is supposed to be built on the idea of limited government. A government that pisses away thousands of lives and trillions of dollars on military campaigns in Islamic sh!t-holes halfway around the world while facilitating an invasion of Third World peasants here at home has no moral claim on any loyalty from its citizens anymore.
Well I don’t recall Russia proxies doing sudden attacks.
You should familiarize yourself with the Maidan coup of 2014.
‘We must start WW III in order to avoid WW III.’
Yeah, no. Hell no.
We also broke a treaty say we would not push NATO into Ukraine.
Who is MAGA?
Some say Trump is MAGA so not supporting Trump means you are not MAGA. There can be no divide in this definition.
Others say Trump is part of MAGA but does not define it. MAGA means you can accept the parts of Trump you agree with and discard the rest and still be MAGA. Under this scenario MAGA can split.
Then there are the queslings who say any disagreement with Trump is because you’re not a Grandmaster or Master Negotiator and cannot see the yet to be realized Trump policy. They say MAGA is Trump only because Trump will never betray MAGA because he is MAGA. The circular logic can hurt your brain.
So if you don’t agree with 500,000 Chinese students, Chinese made iPhones, not sending them all home, it’s only because you don’t believe in Trump (therefore you’re not MAGA) and his yet to be realized master plan that sends them all home, removes Chinese students, and brings home the iPhone.
So if you close your eyes and click your heels and repeat “There’s no place like MAGA” and believe with your heart that the plan will happen because Trump, then you are MAGA.
One nuke popped off anywhere changes everything. Aviation shuts down, world commerce shuts down. More countries will then want nukes.
You think Poland and the Baltic States want to be under the rule of Baldo Stalin?
Eliminating Iranian nukes avoids a world war. Unless you believe Iran won’t make a nuke or, ignoring everything they have said and done, having made one won’t use it.
The consequences of Iran using a nuke on the US or Israel is WW. Either of us will respond in kind.
A nukeless Iran means no WW.
You cannot recall something you never learned.
“You think Poland and the Baltic States want to be under the rule of Baldo Stalin?”
Well. I think getting your country destroyed in service of the west would be considered worse.
Well, sh!t happens. When armies fought with swords, pikes and archers, the crossbow “changed everything,” too. Nobody back then was delusional enough to believe that they could unilaterally stop their neighboring countries from developing crossbows, did they?
If I was the leader of a country that had no nuclear weapons, I’d be breaching my legal and moral obligations to my citizens if I did NOT do whatever was necessary to acquire them.
Thinking of it in those terms might change the perspective a bit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.