Interesting analogy. Being an American I hope none of my country men are gunned down at the causeway. Despite the elite’s “slavish devotion” to Israel I think the young people who will have to fight it realize Connie has been revealed as a bloodthirsty shrew who richly deserves her comeuppance. At least I pray it will be so. Hear me oh God!
I agree don’t really know where to start. American foreign policy desperately needs a divorce from unilateral support for Israel, but it’s not going to come from Trump. American and Israeli intelligence have been in bed for a long time probably pre 1967 war. It’s quite possible America was totally complicit and in fact engineered the Israeli attack. This situation is on the edge of a knife, I don’t think GAE survives another invasion rebuild like the Iraq disaster. Thanks as always for telling the truth. “They cannot conquer forever.”
You correctly observe that strategists and planners of countries like those in BRICS must have taken note. But to me it appears that even a significant portion of the general public in the West is becoming aware of this.
In 2003, President Jacques Chirac refused to send French troops or offer any support for the invasion of Iraq (which was based on a blizzard of American deceit). Chirac was dubbed the 'Leader of the Arab world' by the 'Arab Street' (popular opinion) as the only world leader to openly oppose and strongely rebuke G.W. Bush for the illegal invasion of Iraq.
During an interview in 2004, the subject of nuclear wepaons in the Middle East came up and the French president stated that even a single nuclear bomb in the arsenal of an arab country or Iran would effectively 'neutralize' Israel's nuclear arsenal.
And here in lies what I believe to be the true issue: Israel does not believe that Iran would use a nuclear weapon against them (or anyone else) in a surprise attack.
Israel would lose the ability to bully, issue ultimatums, and annihilate its enemies without facing assured nuclear destruction. MAD would neutralize Israel's military checkmate.
Therefore: Iran--or any Arab country--cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.
This is about preserving Israel's ability to bully its neighbors.
I do not support the brutal ayatollahs of Iran; however, I do not believe that they are insane. The islamic leadership is rational--yes, murderous--but not suicidal. What Iran wants is deterrence--a nuclear deterrent that Israel wants exclusively for itself.
Great analogy Morgoth and important closing point.
I can’t stop thinking why the Labour government announced that a public enquiry on the Pakistani (almost exclusively) grooming gangs occurred at approximately the same time that Israel attacked Iran. It is known that Iran and Pakistan are allies, this even confirmed recently by a Pakistani military man who said they too are preparing and will support Iran. So what a great time then to whip up English lads against Pakistanis….and even better if they are allowed to show their distaste by joining the armed forces and fight Muslims. The timing is just too coincidental for me.
I think that the biggest issue the US government has regarding Iran is that as things stand, they pose absolutely no threat to America. However, Israel desperately wants war with Iran, and most US politicians have been bribed and blackmailed into putting their interests before ours.
This is why you hear their oh-so-clever turn of phrase, "threat to American interests." Normies hear this and assume, oh that means some kind of overarching global strategy that I just don't understand. We don't want that threatened!
In truth, none of it need be our concern. The price of oil would probably skyrocket if the two (Iran and Israel) lit each other up, but we just watched our elites shut down the world economy over a flu that threatened Boomers and fat people so let's not pretend that is a factor. In reality the continuing existence of Israel (or Iran for that matter) in no way affects the lives of the vast majority of Americans. The "American interests" they are talking about is
A few days ago, I was quite devastated to hear Colonel Douglas Macgregor say on a podcast that Netanyahu has far more votes in the House and Senate, than President Trump. It bothered me, because I'd never before considered such an obvious fact. Is The Don, Sonny? Because that suggests the political structure of America is La Commissione and Bibi is capo di tutti i capi!
The fact is that Western elites have become predictable and arrogant. (Truer words have rarely been spoken).
As one of those "white boys from Alabama..." I hope this can end quickly but there seems to be no better time for Israel to push and push hard with the Boomers quickly aging and dying off and their influence at least with Americans under 45 waning this seems to be the perfect moment for them to go all the way. What do you think??
As others have said, an interesting analogy. War with Iran would be absolute folly, and as you said, the costs would be dumped onto the despised whiteboys. However, there are reasons to be hopeful, with the military families forbidding their sons to serve, and many others refusing to take the bait after the escalations of the past decade. Still, some remain brainwashed enough to drive to the tollbooth.
The elites have already proven their willingness to remain loyal to the modern Crusader state of Israel, despite the massive hypocritical contradictions this engenders, ie fight against supremacy, oppression and apartheid, unless it's Zionism and then it's fine! Side with the poor brown oppressed refugees, unless they're Palestinian, in which case they can go eat white phosphorous rounds! And so on. Of course, the Left does not fail to notice this, which leads to their golem disobeying orders, as you noted in an article last year.
As for Russia/Ukraine, I must remind you that while Russia has taken some hits in their proxy war against NATO, they're still winning, with Putin's war machine becoming stronger through combat experience, ironing out its inefficiencies, and revving up a war economy. Ukraine was meant to be a bear trap, but they're the ones being attrited, lured to their death by an illusion of patriotism woven by the powers-that-be. I estimate that, at the time of writing, Russian losses are ~100k, and Ukrainian losses are ~500k (keeping with the 5:1 estimated ratio).
I bring this up because a largely fictional version of the Russo-Ukrainian War is fed to the Western public, and we've seen this same propaganda apparatus take aim at China and Iran to lesser extents. If WWIII pops off, which is now in the cards, I fully expect GAE to gloriously win to death until it all comes crashing down.
Good take Morgoth. On reading this it made me think of Moe Green vs Michael Corleone in Vegas - “First of all you’re all done, the Corleone family do not even have the muscle anymore … you’re getting chased out of New York by Barzini and the other families… I talked to Barzini I can make a deal with him and still keep my hotel”.
On hearing this from Moe, the idea of sudden escalation with coordinated leadership strikes begins to form in Michael’s mind, even if it is high risk. It also has the advantage of forcing other non involved families to pick a side and it creates a news cycle that the Corleone’s can influence (another trick that appeals to Michael post the deaths of Solozzo and McCluskey). While this is all Hollywood - gangsters will do desperate gangster stuff when they feel like it.
This episode seems to me to be designed to prompt normie Americans to question America's unquestioning support for Israel. The Trump base, personified by Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, is staunchly opposed to American involvement and I think that this feeling is going to spread. Israel is already seen as the World's leading troublemaker and this is just going to compound that in people's minds. I don't expect America to get involved in any way.
My sense of the trigger, the flight to strike Iran, was initially that someone in the CIA decided to light the fuse. I feel my nose was smelling the same air as you after reading this article. Unfortunately, the people who set these traps are the best in the world at it, where one is damned if one does, and damned if one doesn't. Who is really playing Barzini here? I can't think that it's just a certain nation in the middle east. There has to be someone above that.
'Israel Built Its Case for War With Iran on New Intelligence. The U.S. Didn’t Buy It.
American spy agencies stand by their assessment that Iran hasn’t decided to build a nuclear weapon, but Trump now says Tehran is ‘very close.’'
The Wall Street Journal published this story this morning.
The comment section is scathing.:
• Susan Grill
1 minute ago
I think Iran has a right to exist, as much as any other country. They are willing to have talks. They have appeared reasonable in the past in various cases, such as how they responded to attacks in a measured way. Meanwhile, the leader of Israel, who is also under the shadow of his past conduct being investigated, just wants to get rid of them, similar to the threats Iran has made about Israel in the past. This absolutist thinking is not something the U.S. should support.
Reply
Share
• DL
Douglas L
3 minutes ago
Send the Israel-first Americans to go fight.
Reply
Share
• RW
Randy Wilhelm
4 minutes ago
Isreal is walking us down the Iraq weapons of mass destruction and Trump is buying it like it's a gold toilet.
Reply
1
Share
• DL
Douglas L
8 minutes ago
The Felon talking like a tough guy towards Iran after Israel did the dirty work to prove they’re a paper tiger. He’s the one who tried to convince them not to go through with it.
Reply
Share
• AA
A Arguello
11 minutes ago
Netanyahu wants our sons to die for his country. Time to cut this liar lose and he can deal with Iran by himself.
Reply
1
Share
• IT
Ian Thomas
13 minutes ago
Trump mouthing off on Truth Social with threats to kill the Iranian religious leader. Americans will be a target throughout the world for a generation if he follows through.
I’m not convinced that Trump is to intending a war with Iran. Apart from his stated position of being opposed to “forever wars”, he did, not very long ago, fire a bunch of intelligence and military advisors who were pressing for such a war. However, Trump is Trump so who knows.
Excellent post, Morgoth. Sorry about all you’ve been put through recently.
I have a soft spot for the late Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain’s Ambassador to the USA during the Blair years. He always did his duty by his political masters, but his personal thoughts were revealed later. For instance, he said that Blair's approach to the USA was, essentially, to "get up the arse of the Americans and stay there."
When asked which country had the most “Special Relationship” with the USA, he replied immediately: “Israel.” He added that no other country comes close.
I remember that stalwart journos at the BBC and other outlets back in the 80s and 90s would often wonder why America the big dog doesnt rein in Israeli aggression in the region.
They dont wonder any more now, do they? they know the tail wags the dog as it were
How does Trump's long-stated policy of not wanting Iran to have a nuclear weapon indicate a slavish devotion to Israel? I see many people starting from the premise that Israel is wagging the dog and working backwards instead of listening to Trump's words and watching his actions. He has articulated his strategic interest and outlined his tactics for achieving that strategy, and now he is pursuing those tactics. I think this is a lot less mysterious than people make it out to be.
The assumption that Iran is working toward a nuclear weapon is an Israeli one, as is the idea that Iran would immediately use a nuclear weapon against Israel or America if it did have one.
Maybe it's just a coincidence that Trump has adopted the same stances as Israel, I doubt it.
I'm not sure I understand your logic. The assumption that Iran having a nuclear weapon would be negative for US interests and that Iran is working toward one is Trump's assumption. He has stated it many times, including today. Why do you think that Trump adopted that stance due to Israeli pressure versus his own strategic analysis? Trump has shown himself to be an independent thinker, perhaps the only one in American politics. I'm not sure why we would doubt his independence on this issue.
Right, I think your analysis makes sense if you start from that premise. I am just saying I don't understand why you are starting there. In other words, why do you think Trump is lying about his stated rationale for this conflict?
I believe the problem Trump has is aligning his Zionist sympathies with the story he told his base that he would refrain from more wars.
From what I gather, it has just come to light that Tulsi Gabbard informed Trump that Iran was not working toward a nuclear weapon, and he replied ''I don't care''.
Now, all that being said, if Trump stands back and Israel comes out the loser in this conflict, then I will have to correct my analysis of the situation. So we shall see.
Yes, Tulsi appears to disagree you with Hegseth and Trump has chosen to believe his other advisors. I don't think it's correct that Trump promised no more wars, that would be a crazy thing to promise because that would exclude necessary military engagements. What I think Trump promised is no more endless or pointless wars. So here's my question: let's say Israel achieves its goal, which Trump is also said is his goal, and destroys Iran's nuclear capability. That would seem to vindicate Trump's decision making because he would have achieved his goal without using US forces? Additionally, let's say the US does use military force to destroy Iran's nuclear capability via bombing, achieving Trump stated goal with no casualties. In that case to, it would seem Trump's decision making would be vindicated. If either of those scenarios occurs, do you think that will show that Trump was pursuing, successfully, his stated policy goals? On the other hand, I would certainly agree that if the US uses American ground troops to invade Iran that would show your analysis to be correct.
It is true that Trump categorically ruled out an Iranian bomb years before his presidency. But were not negotiations between the United States and Iran ongoing concerning this topic when the war started? If this was all in accordance with Trump´s position, how could the negotiations been in good faith?
I think Trump correctly understood that negotiations are not an end in themselves. He wanted to achieve his strategic objective, and he felt the best way to achieve that objective was to apply force when he wasn't getting the concessions he wanted. That is at least what he has said. He said he gave them a deadline and he is punish them for now meeting it. He could be lying, but I'm not sure why we would think he is lying.
I would assume that if one party was very serious about such a deadline, that that would be communicated very clearly to the other party, if only for the reason that the consequences of missing the deadline carry a very high likelihood of derailing the negotiations for good. It is evident that the Iranians were not aware of the deadline being that serious. I would posit that the most "economical" (in the sense of Ockhams Razor) explanation is that the decision to strike was not made by the US President and that, by referring to the deadline, he is rationalizing after the fact to create the appearance that he is more in control of events than he actually is.
That could certainly be true. But I think it's more likely that Trump is an independent actor who chose to use force to get what he wants. I think you are absolutely correct the Iranians did not think the deadline was serious, and Trump has said the same. The way he chose to show them it was serious was to use force, which is pretty consistent with how he's operated in general. I think there's sometimes a little bit of incongruity on this issue where Trump is seen as a giga chad alpha male (which he is!) and yet is expected to show maximum restraint on this issue even though he is dealing with a much weaker party.
Interesting analogy. Being an American I hope none of my country men are gunned down at the causeway. Despite the elite’s “slavish devotion” to Israel I think the young people who will have to fight it realize Connie has been revealed as a bloodthirsty shrew who richly deserves her comeuppance. At least I pray it will be so. Hear me oh God!
We really have to push back, this beginning to get out of hand.
I agree don’t really know where to start. American foreign policy desperately needs a divorce from unilateral support for Israel, but it’s not going to come from Trump. American and Israeli intelligence have been in bed for a long time probably pre 1967 war. It’s quite possible America was totally complicit and in fact engineered the Israeli attack. This situation is on the edge of a knife, I don’t think GAE survives another invasion rebuild like the Iraq disaster. Thanks as always for telling the truth. “They cannot conquer forever.”
You correctly observe that strategists and planners of countries like those in BRICS must have taken note. But to me it appears that even a significant portion of the general public in the West is becoming aware of this.
In 2003, President Jacques Chirac refused to send French troops or offer any support for the invasion of Iraq (which was based on a blizzard of American deceit). Chirac was dubbed the 'Leader of the Arab world' by the 'Arab Street' (popular opinion) as the only world leader to openly oppose and strongely rebuke G.W. Bush for the illegal invasion of Iraq.
During an interview in 2004, the subject of nuclear wepaons in the Middle East came up and the French president stated that even a single nuclear bomb in the arsenal of an arab country or Iran would effectively 'neutralize' Israel's nuclear arsenal.
And here in lies what I believe to be the true issue: Israel does not believe that Iran would use a nuclear weapon against them (or anyone else) in a surprise attack.
Israel would lose the ability to bully, issue ultimatums, and annihilate its enemies without facing assured nuclear destruction. MAD would neutralize Israel's military checkmate.
Therefore: Iran--or any Arab country--cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.
This is about preserving Israel's ability to bully its neighbors.
I do not support the brutal ayatollahs of Iran; however, I do not believe that they are insane. The islamic leadership is rational--yes, murderous--but not suicidal. What Iran wants is deterrence--a nuclear deterrent that Israel wants exclusively for itself.
Great analogy Morgoth and important closing point.
I can’t stop thinking why the Labour government announced that a public enquiry on the Pakistani (almost exclusively) grooming gangs occurred at approximately the same time that Israel attacked Iran. It is known that Iran and Pakistan are allies, this even confirmed recently by a Pakistani military man who said they too are preparing and will support Iran. So what a great time then to whip up English lads against Pakistanis….and even better if they are allowed to show their distaste by joining the armed forces and fight Muslims. The timing is just too coincidental for me.
Yeah I’ve seen this going around and I don’t buy that it is all coordinated. I think it’s just an internal issue for the UK.
I think that the biggest issue the US government has regarding Iran is that as things stand, they pose absolutely no threat to America. However, Israel desperately wants war with Iran, and most US politicians have been bribed and blackmailed into putting their interests before ours.
This is why you hear their oh-so-clever turn of phrase, "threat to American interests." Normies hear this and assume, oh that means some kind of overarching global strategy that I just don't understand. We don't want that threatened!
In truth, none of it need be our concern. The price of oil would probably skyrocket if the two (Iran and Israel) lit each other up, but we just watched our elites shut down the world economy over a flu that threatened Boomers and fat people so let's not pretend that is a factor. In reality the continuing existence of Israel (or Iran for that matter) in no way affects the lives of the vast majority of Americans. The "American interests" they are talking about is
1. Adherence to bureaucratic orthodoxy
2. Bribes
3. Blackmail
A few days ago, I was quite devastated to hear Colonel Douglas Macgregor say on a podcast that Netanyahu has far more votes in the House and Senate, than President Trump. It bothered me, because I'd never before considered such an obvious fact. Is The Don, Sonny? Because that suggests the political structure of America is La Commissione and Bibi is capo di tutti i capi!
Deus salvet animas nostras 🙏
The fact is that Western elites have become predictable and arrogant. (Truer words have rarely been spoken).
As one of those "white boys from Alabama..." I hope this can end quickly but there seems to be no better time for Israel to push and push hard with the Boomers quickly aging and dying off and their influence at least with Americans under 45 waning this seems to be the perfect moment for them to go all the way. What do you think??
Yeah, I totally agree with this line of reasoning.
As others have said, an interesting analogy. War with Iran would be absolute folly, and as you said, the costs would be dumped onto the despised whiteboys. However, there are reasons to be hopeful, with the military families forbidding their sons to serve, and many others refusing to take the bait after the escalations of the past decade. Still, some remain brainwashed enough to drive to the tollbooth.
The elites have already proven their willingness to remain loyal to the modern Crusader state of Israel, despite the massive hypocritical contradictions this engenders, ie fight against supremacy, oppression and apartheid, unless it's Zionism and then it's fine! Side with the poor brown oppressed refugees, unless they're Palestinian, in which case they can go eat white phosphorous rounds! And so on. Of course, the Left does not fail to notice this, which leads to their golem disobeying orders, as you noted in an article last year.
As for Russia/Ukraine, I must remind you that while Russia has taken some hits in their proxy war against NATO, they're still winning, with Putin's war machine becoming stronger through combat experience, ironing out its inefficiencies, and revving up a war economy. Ukraine was meant to be a bear trap, but they're the ones being attrited, lured to their death by an illusion of patriotism woven by the powers-that-be. I estimate that, at the time of writing, Russian losses are ~100k, and Ukrainian losses are ~500k (keeping with the 5:1 estimated ratio).
I bring this up because a largely fictional version of the Russo-Ukrainian War is fed to the Western public, and we've seen this same propaganda apparatus take aim at China and Iran to lesser extents. If WWIII pops off, which is now in the cards, I fully expect GAE to gloriously win to death until it all comes crashing down.
Good take Morgoth. On reading this it made me think of Moe Green vs Michael Corleone in Vegas - “First of all you’re all done, the Corleone family do not even have the muscle anymore … you’re getting chased out of New York by Barzini and the other families… I talked to Barzini I can make a deal with him and still keep my hotel”.
On hearing this from Moe, the idea of sudden escalation with coordinated leadership strikes begins to form in Michael’s mind, even if it is high risk. It also has the advantage of forcing other non involved families to pick a side and it creates a news cycle that the Corleone’s can influence (another trick that appeals to Michael post the deaths of Solozzo and McCluskey). While this is all Hollywood - gangsters will do desperate gangster stuff when they feel like it.
Michael's cold-blooded Machiavellianism is like the polar opposite to Sonny's hot-blooded rage.
This episode seems to me to be designed to prompt normie Americans to question America's unquestioning support for Israel. The Trump base, personified by Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, is staunchly opposed to American involvement and I think that this feeling is going to spread. Israel is already seen as the World's leading troublemaker and this is just going to compound that in people's minds. I don't expect America to get involved in any way.
My sense of the trigger, the flight to strike Iran, was initially that someone in the CIA decided to light the fuse. I feel my nose was smelling the same air as you after reading this article. Unfortunately, the people who set these traps are the best in the world at it, where one is damned if one does, and damned if one doesn't. Who is really playing Barzini here? I can't think that it's just a certain nation in the middle east. There has to be someone above that.
You underestimate ZOG?
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-built-its-case-for-war-with-iran-on-new-intelligence-the-u-s-didnt-buy-it-55592e81
'Israel Built Its Case for War With Iran on New Intelligence. The U.S. Didn’t Buy It.
American spy agencies stand by their assessment that Iran hasn’t decided to build a nuclear weapon, but Trump now says Tehran is ‘very close.’'
The Wall Street Journal published this story this morning.
The comment section is scathing.:
• Susan Grill
1 minute ago
I think Iran has a right to exist, as much as any other country. They are willing to have talks. They have appeared reasonable in the past in various cases, such as how they responded to attacks in a measured way. Meanwhile, the leader of Israel, who is also under the shadow of his past conduct being investigated, just wants to get rid of them, similar to the threats Iran has made about Israel in the past. This absolutist thinking is not something the U.S. should support.
Reply
Share
• DL
Douglas L
3 minutes ago
Send the Israel-first Americans to go fight.
Reply
Share
• RW
Randy Wilhelm
4 minutes ago
Isreal is walking us down the Iraq weapons of mass destruction and Trump is buying it like it's a gold toilet.
Reply
1
Share
• DL
Douglas L
8 minutes ago
The Felon talking like a tough guy towards Iran after Israel did the dirty work to prove they’re a paper tiger. He’s the one who tried to convince them not to go through with it.
Reply
Share
• AA
A Arguello
11 minutes ago
Netanyahu wants our sons to die for his country. Time to cut this liar lose and he can deal with Iran by himself.
Reply
1
Share
• IT
Ian Thomas
13 minutes ago
Trump mouthing off on Truth Social with threats to kill the Iranian religious leader. Americans will be a target throughout the world for a generation if he follows through.
Reply
Share
I’m not convinced that Trump is to intending a war with Iran. Apart from his stated position of being opposed to “forever wars”, he did, not very long ago, fire a bunch of intelligence and military advisors who were pressing for such a war. However, Trump is Trump so who knows.
When Trump talks, Trump lies. We know this by now, no?
Excellent post, Morgoth. Sorry about all you’ve been put through recently.
I have a soft spot for the late Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain’s Ambassador to the USA during the Blair years. He always did his duty by his political masters, but his personal thoughts were revealed later. For instance, he said that Blair's approach to the USA was, essentially, to "get up the arse of the Americans and stay there."
When asked which country had the most “Special Relationship” with the USA, he replied immediately: “Israel.” He added that no other country comes close.
I remember that stalwart journos at the BBC and other outlets back in the 80s and 90s would often wonder why America the big dog doesnt rein in Israeli aggression in the region.
They dont wonder any more now, do they? they know the tail wags the dog as it were
How does Trump's long-stated policy of not wanting Iran to have a nuclear weapon indicate a slavish devotion to Israel? I see many people starting from the premise that Israel is wagging the dog and working backwards instead of listening to Trump's words and watching his actions. He has articulated his strategic interest and outlined his tactics for achieving that strategy, and now he is pursuing those tactics. I think this is a lot less mysterious than people make it out to be.
The assumption that Iran is working toward a nuclear weapon is an Israeli one, as is the idea that Iran would immediately use a nuclear weapon against Israel or America if it did have one.
Maybe it's just a coincidence that Trump has adopted the same stances as Israel, I doubt it.
I'm not sure I understand your logic. The assumption that Iran having a nuclear weapon would be negative for US interests and that Iran is working toward one is Trump's assumption. He has stated it many times, including today. Why do you think that Trump adopted that stance due to Israeli pressure versus his own strategic analysis? Trump has shown himself to be an independent thinker, perhaps the only one in American politics. I'm not sure why we would doubt his independence on this issue.
I believe Trump’s strategic analysis or rooted in what is best for Israel.
Right, I think your analysis makes sense if you start from that premise. I am just saying I don't understand why you are starting there. In other words, why do you think Trump is lying about his stated rationale for this conflict?
I believe the problem Trump has is aligning his Zionist sympathies with the story he told his base that he would refrain from more wars.
From what I gather, it has just come to light that Tulsi Gabbard informed Trump that Iran was not working toward a nuclear weapon, and he replied ''I don't care''.
Now, all that being said, if Trump stands back and Israel comes out the loser in this conflict, then I will have to correct my analysis of the situation. So we shall see.
Yes, Tulsi appears to disagree you with Hegseth and Trump has chosen to believe his other advisors. I don't think it's correct that Trump promised no more wars, that would be a crazy thing to promise because that would exclude necessary military engagements. What I think Trump promised is no more endless or pointless wars. So here's my question: let's say Israel achieves its goal, which Trump is also said is his goal, and destroys Iran's nuclear capability. That would seem to vindicate Trump's decision making because he would have achieved his goal without using US forces? Additionally, let's say the US does use military force to destroy Iran's nuclear capability via bombing, achieving Trump stated goal with no casualties. In that case to, it would seem Trump's decision making would be vindicated. If either of those scenarios occurs, do you think that will show that Trump was pursuing, successfully, his stated policy goals? On the other hand, I would certainly agree that if the US uses American ground troops to invade Iran that would show your analysis to be correct.
It is true that Trump categorically ruled out an Iranian bomb years before his presidency. But were not negotiations between the United States and Iran ongoing concerning this topic when the war started? If this was all in accordance with Trump´s position, how could the negotiations been in good faith?
I think Trump correctly understood that negotiations are not an end in themselves. He wanted to achieve his strategic objective, and he felt the best way to achieve that objective was to apply force when he wasn't getting the concessions he wanted. That is at least what he has said. He said he gave them a deadline and he is punish them for now meeting it. He could be lying, but I'm not sure why we would think he is lying.
I would assume that if one party was very serious about such a deadline, that that would be communicated very clearly to the other party, if only for the reason that the consequences of missing the deadline carry a very high likelihood of derailing the negotiations for good. It is evident that the Iranians were not aware of the deadline being that serious. I would posit that the most "economical" (in the sense of Ockhams Razor) explanation is that the decision to strike was not made by the US President and that, by referring to the deadline, he is rationalizing after the fact to create the appearance that he is more in control of events than he actually is.
That could certainly be true. But I think it's more likely that Trump is an independent actor who chose to use force to get what he wants. I think you are absolutely correct the Iranians did not think the deadline was serious, and Trump has said the same. The way he chose to show them it was serious was to use force, which is pretty consistent with how he's operated in general. I think there's sometimes a little bit of incongruity on this issue where Trump is seen as a giga chad alpha male (which he is!) and yet is expected to show maximum restraint on this issue even though he is dealing with a much weaker party.