C. Jordan said:
Sam Lowry said:
D. C. Bear said:
HuMcK said:
"did all of NATO refuse to go to war because we used our capital up after 9/11?"
They refused because the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has nothing to do with policing the Strait of Hormuz. It's humiliating that we even asked them too, and doubly so that we did it after insulting them and saying we didn't need their help. A more competent President who hadn't already pissed away his political capital (which, as you insinuate, is not unlimited) would have attempted to form a coalition of willing partners before kicking the hornets nest.
People like Whiterock live in a partisan fantasy. Listening to them is useful insofar as it's a window into the MAGA spin machine, but it's mostly just them trying to support their wishful thinking with carefully curated numbers and statistics.
Afghanistan has nothing to do with the North Atlantic.
When Trump decided to strike Iran, he should have done so with the purpose of getting rid of the criminal regime that has been in charge there for the better part of a half century.
He did exactly that. Now what?
You're right. Odd he doesn't talk about that anymore.
It looks unlikely he'll even get a deal as good as Obama got.
Possible, but the rest of the Gulf States might be even less friendly with Iran, might be the best we can hope for.
You can't just go to war with China, or Russia, so you try to make sure they are out on an island with few friends, few opportunities to seize power. Apparently you can't beat Iran either, so you do the same.