Posted on 07/22/2026 9:18:31 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Los Angeles Times recently published a "News Analysis" headlined: "Trump, long a critic of 'forever wars,' may be stumbling into one with Iran."
The analysis offers legitimate grounds for criticizing President Donald Trump. He has described the objectives of the war against Iran in different ways. He has made changing predictions about its duration. He has repeatedly suggested that an agreement was near, only for negotiations to collapse. He promised no more endless Middle East wars, yet the conflict has continued for months, American servicemembers have died, and the administration has not clearly defined what victory looks like.
All fair questions. But the article omits the most important question of all: Why did the war begin?
Similarly, recent analyses in Time, The Washington Post and Politico raise many of the same objections. Yet, here, too, none address the threshold question: Was Iran close to obtaining a nuclear weapon—and if so, how close?
Trump, from the beginning of the war, said the primary purpose was to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte publicly agreed with Trump and said Iran was close to acquiring a nuclear and ballistic-missile capability "which is posing a threat not only to the region, the Middle East, including posing an existential threat to Israel, it is also posing a huge threat to us here in Europe."
Was that assessment correct?
The Times quotes three experts who explain why Trump may be "stumbling" into a "forever war." Yet the article does not ask any of them whether Iran was close to producing a nuclear weapon. It does not ask what Iran might have done with one. And it does not ask what they would have proposed to prevent it.
Suppose Iran was nowhere near a bomb. Suppose its nuclear program posed no imminent danger and could have been contained indefinitely through inspections, sanctions and negotiations. In that case, Trump's decision to use military force becomes far harder, if not impossible, to defend.
But suppose Trump and Rutte were right. Suppose Iran was approaching the point at which it could produce a nuclear weapon along with increasingly capable missiles. It could intimidate its neighbors, protect its terrorist proxies and trigger a regional nuclear-arms race.
That would not automatically prove that every Trump decision was wise. It would not excuse shifting explanations, unrealistic timelines, failed ceasefires or poor planning, if that was the case. But it would establish that the president did not simply awaken one morning and decide he felt like bombing a country. It would establish that he took action when previous presidents chose not to—an action no other country on earth was willing or able to undertake.
Americans cannot intelligently judge this war when major news organizations discuss its costs while barely mentioning the danger it was intended to prevent.
Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed recently denounced "a war we should have never started." Yet the interviewer never asked: Was Iran close to a nuclear weapon? If not, what evidence disproves that claim? If so, what would you have done about it, if anything?
Sanctions? Iran endured them for years.
Negotiations? Iranian negotiators broke the memorandum of understanding before the ink was dry.
Inspections? Those work only when inspectors receive genuine access without notice and only if Iran allows the inspectors to inspect.
Containment? That means accepting the risk that the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism remains determined to acquire a nuclear weapon while hoping deterrence works forever.
That is what serious analysis looks like.
Critics may conclude that military action was unnecessary, disproportionate or counterproductive. But they must confront the alternative. What was the likelihood that Iran would obtain a bomb? How soon? What would the consequences have been if and when Iran achieved this objective? And what nonmilitary policy had a realistic chance of stopping it?
An analysis that calls the conflict a potential forever war, while refusing to analyze the threat that caused the war, is not analysis. It is a prosecution brief.
The public deserves scrutiny of Trump's inconsistencies, predictions and strategy. But it also deserves scrutiny of Iran's nuclear progress, intentions and capabilities. This is not too much to ask from a "news analysis."
A Forever War, with three months of combat.
Support for Iran War Tumbles Among MAGA Voters in New Poll...
We’ve only been at it for about 4 months. You would think its Viet Nam. 🙄
Drone and missile technology, which has also been given to proxies and used outside of US/Iran, has changed the terms of the conflict.
Ever seen a map of Iran missile sites? They have/had thousands of them dug in every hundred yards for miles along parallel ridge lines like the Appalachians. If you are going to address any issue Iran feels can be affected by their launches, you’d better either address it now, or have a complete solution for a 500-member NOE drone swarm.
Larry elder is a very libertarian guy but he gets it exactly right here despite the Rand Paul style libertarian foolishness.
shrugs. it’s often a good idea when finding yourself down a deepening hole to stop digging and climb out before it caves in on you. he can always go back to digging later.
Funny how we are more concerned with casualites caused by this war than by the casualites we routinely accept in Chicago. I suppose those Black Lives don’t matter. /s
Hardly. CNN yesterday said Trump has 83% support of his party.
“Trump, long a critic of ‘forever wars,’ may be stumbling into one with Iran.”
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
A war that started in 1979.
Where’s John Kerry been?
You got the View all the way down to Goog Morning America being critics about “Trump’s War against Iran” but the silence of John Kerry has been deafening to me.
It was his deal. And the covert cash delivery to Iran consisting of wooden pallets stacked with $400 million in foreign currencies. And that was only part of a larger $1.7 billion settlement and coincided with a prisoner swap under Obama.
John Kerry was so proud of “his work” to make Iran a nuclear weapon free Iran.
You would think John Kerry would be out there on all the networks every hour of every day.
Does he think Trump is doing a great job?
or
Is there something he’d done during his “negotiations” he fears may be exposed?
John Kerry was the go to man on Iran/Nuclear even though he was not even elected.
Support for Iran War Tumbles Among MAGA Voters in New Poll...
Mostly due to the extended cease-fire which allowed Iran to bring in equipment from outside the country and dig up whatever they could from the rubble to try to save anything undamaged.
We’ve only been at it for about 4 months. You would think its Viet Nam.
Less than 2 months when to add in the wasted time with the “cease-fire”. That’s why loss of support among those who had supported it before.
You are right, they are trying to compare this to Vietnam. There’s nothing comparable to Vietnam war with this Iran war.
Vietnam was not a direct threat to the US. Iran is a crazy religious monkey with a hand granade wanting to have The Button.
This is probably week number 3 or 4 of actual combat. The cease-fires started around week two after if was said that they only needed 2 more weeks.
Secretary Rubio’s very valid point is being ignored: Iran was getting close to having enough missile capability to immunize itself against action to stop it whenever it got “too close” (whatever that actually means) to producing nukes.
None of these Trump critics admit this. In fact, many claim Iran already has that immunity, therefor we can’t successfully do anything of a military nature, short of our own nukes, to reign in the Iranian regime. That view is nonsense, however, success in this endeavor DOES depend upon how ornery Trump is.
Elder should be smarter than this. Americans are intelligently judging this war on the basis of the information they have available to them. The costs to them are real, and they have nothing to do with what anyone in the media is reporting. Everything else has just been a jumbled mess of deliberately misleading bullsh!t that has been peddled to them by the Trump administration itself — so they have just tuned it out completely.
We’ve seen this same nonsense before with globalist Republican presidents falling all over themselves to justify endless military intervention in the Middle East because “it’s different this time.” And we are done with it.
People are idiotic who can’t comprehend the real threat the demonic Iran and the globalists, who are both intent to bring on Armageddon, pose.
Easily manipulated fools.
The problem Is Trump is confused and indecisive.
On one occasion he calls them great guys who want to cut a deal and on the other he calls them scums.
War leadership is not something he is capable of.
Armageddon is coming regardless that is a given sooner than you think.
And no end in sight. (BTW we have been in this war for almost 5 months, not 3)
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.