I feel like getting obsessed about the strategic failure of this is missing the forest for the trees.
Why did the U.S. assassinate the leader of a country across the planet in the first place? Because Benjamin Netanyahu wanted us to because he needs our help to create instability in the region so Israel can expand further. That and the billionaire military industrial complex players felt like they wanted some more money.
Name it what it is. Immoral, racist, and a repetition of the same bullshit we’ve been doing in the Middle East for decades. Calling it a strategic failure gives it more value than it deserves.
More people need to read this NYT article. Not only is it astounding the detail and extent of these leaks from the situation room, but what you’re saying is even more true than you might realize.
Netanyahu literally threw a presentation up on a conference call to to persuade Trump to do this for him.
I’m having difficulty getting archive.is to work on my browser right now so here’s the plain link:
> or the longer term risk of the iranian nuclear programme.
According to Netanyahu himself the state of the Iranian nuclear programme has been the same for 30 years: "they're right on the cusp of nuclear weapons". The logical conclusion is then that there is almost no risk, quite the opposite - there is stability.
Note how completely different this is from e.g. NK. Despite being even much more closed off than Iran, the progression through the years was pretty accurate. Went from "they will want to get nukes" to "they've started working on nukes" to "they're close to nukes" to "they have nukes".
"everything Trump touches dies" (the title of a Republican Strategist's book) seems more appropriate.
Apart from literal deaths, this has torched American military and diplomatic credibility across the globe. It was basically guaranteed to, with the only potential slim upside for America being a demonstration that their military might when applied ruthlessly might dramatically punish their victims as a warning to others. And it has so far failed at that.
He’s objectively terrible at making deals, though. He’s apparently incapable of win-win scenarios. His ego demands that he win while the other party loses, where “winning” is defined as “personally stroking his own ego” and “lining his pockets.” His only negotiation tactic is threats and bullying.
Although, in this case, given recent news about prediction market plays, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the whole farce of a “ceasefire” was just prediction market manipulation. (Well, that and TACO Tuesday so Trump could get out of following through on his threat of genocide. One spot of sanity, if you can call it that, in a shit sandwich of the stupidest US foreign policy blunder since the war in Vietnam.)
Some say the stupidest US foreign policy blunder ever, perhaps even the greatest in all history by any leader, dumber even than invading Russia in winter.
The stupidest US foreign policy blunder... so far. Invading Cuba, invading Greenland and dropping out of NATO are all on deck, so let's not pick a winner just yet.
I feel like getting obsessed about the strategic failure of this is missing the forest for the trees.
Why did the U.S. assassinate the leader of a country across the planet in the first place? Because Benjamin Netanyahu wanted us to because he needs our help to create instability in the region so Israel can expand further. That and the billionaire military industrial complex players felt like they wanted some more money.
Name it what it is. Immoral, racist, and a repetition of the same bullshit we’ve been doing in the Middle East for decades. Calling it a strategic failure gives it more value than it deserves.
> I feel like getting obsessed about the strategic failure of this is missing the forest for the trees.
Absolutely, but unfortunately I believe you are too.
Headlines on the Epstein files and social media mentions of them are almost certainly down 70%+ since the assault on Iran. It was a great success!
More people need to read this NYT article. Not only is it astounding the detail and extent of these leaks from the situation room, but what you’re saying is even more true than you might realize.
Netanyahu literally threw a presentation up on a conference call to to persuade Trump to do this for him.
I’m having difficulty getting archive.is to work on my browser right now so here’s the plain link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-wa...
Full article appeared to be accessible to me with a free account, didn't need an NYT subscription to read. Worth the read, thanks for sharing.
EDIT: Worked on my phone, but now on my desktop it's asking for a subscription again. Either way, thanks for the link.
[flagged]
> or the longer term risk of the iranian nuclear programme.
According to Netanyahu himself the state of the Iranian nuclear programme has been the same for 30 years: "they're right on the cusp of nuclear weapons". The logical conclusion is then that there is almost no risk, quite the opposite - there is stability.
Note how completely different this is from e.g. NK. Despite being even much more closed off than Iran, the progression through the years was pretty accurate. Went from "they will want to get nukes" to "they've started working on nukes" to "they're close to nukes" to "they have nukes".
Are you going to offer a “multi sided, unbiased and fairly sophisticated” view yourself or?
The view that trump went to Iran because “regime awful” does not seem to qualify
Huge respect to the Islamic Republic (and its allies!) to have stood up against the Empire.
Iran is going to get so many of their demands met by the oil-addicted Western world.
They might even get all sanctions removed.
I’m not even sure Iran realized they had this much leverage before they were forced to use it.
TACO is misleading. TASAD: Trump Always Seeks A Deal.
"everything Trump touches dies" (the title of a Republican Strategist's book) seems more appropriate.
Apart from literal deaths, this has torched American military and diplomatic credibility across the globe. It was basically guaranteed to, with the only potential slim upside for America being a demonstration that their military might when applied ruthlessly might dramatically punish their victims as a warning to others. And it has so far failed at that.
And the deal is worse than what we already had before he blew up the entire situation for no reason.
TASTWDYCPI: Trump always seeks the worst deal you can possibly imagine
He’s objectively terrible at making deals, though. He’s apparently incapable of win-win scenarios. His ego demands that he win while the other party loses, where “winning” is defined as “personally stroking his own ego” and “lining his pockets.” His only negotiation tactic is threats and bullying.
Although, in this case, given recent news about prediction market plays, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the whole farce of a “ceasefire” was just prediction market manipulation. (Well, that and TACO Tuesday so Trump could get out of following through on his threat of genocide. One spot of sanity, if you can call it that, in a shit sandwich of the stupidest US foreign policy blunder since the war in Vietnam.)
> apparently incapable of win-win scenarios
And this is exactly the opposite of how trade works. Trade only happens if both parties have something to gain from it.
Some say the stupidest US foreign policy blunder ever, perhaps even the greatest in all history by any leader, dumber even than invading Russia in winter.
The stupidest US foreign policy blunder... so far. Invading Cuba, invading Greenland and dropping out of NATO are all on deck, so let's not pick a winner just yet.