Turns out it’s not that easy
What a bizarre headline:
Trump would want military action in Iran to be swift and decisive, sources say
Oh, so he doesn’t want it to be slow and futile? What a surprise!
Dumb headline aside, the subject is the usual Trump failure to grasp reality.
Trump has told his national security team that he would want any U.S. military action in Iran to deliver a swift and decisive blow to the regime and not spark a sustained war that dragged on for weeks or months, according to a U.S. official, two people familiar with the discussions and a person close to the White House.
Yes, bro, so would anyone, but somehow the other team never gets the message. That’s why there are so few three hour wars in the history books.
“If he does something, he wants it to be definitive,” one of the people familiar with the discussions said.
But Trump’s advisers have so far not been able to guarantee to him that the regime would quickly collapse after an American military strike, the U.S. official and two people familiar with the discussions said, and there is concern that the U.S. may not have all the assets in the region it would need to guard against what administration officials expect would be an aggressive Iranian response.
Have so far not been able to guarantee him – but if you just give them a few more days they’ll be able to say it?
I think they should put Donny in charge of planning the military strategy.
That should shorten the campaign.
I wonder why it is that in his first term he did hardly anything on the international scene, and now he wants to start a war in almost every continent he can think of. (Has he heard of Australia? Let’s not tell him it exists.)
Distraction from Epstein?
The knowledge that he can get away with anything?
The lack of any meaningful checks on his power?
Securing a triumphal (as he sees it) legacy?
All of the above?
I’m no military expert, but I would think that the success of your attack, and the rapidity of your victory is not going to be helped by announcing it in advance, though feinting via Greenland might just work.
And what happens if the Iranians fall back on George W. Bush’s precedent of “pre-emptive war”, and use Trump’s musings as an excuse to launch a swift, decisive, decapitating, regime-toppling attack on the US first? Wouldn’t they be justified in doing exactly that? What about Greenland, Denmark, or Canada? If every nation defines its own “security” in Trumpian terms, what happens next? Who gets to take over/topple/bomb whom? Or does that kind of bluster only work in one direction?
I guess superpowers aren’t very good Kantians.
At this point, Canada would find very little resistance if they come through Minnesota.
Ah right, distraction from Epstein. I forgot about that. I guess the distraction worked!