Amid the discussion on tactical war fighting and troop deployments, the overlooked aspect of the current war in Iran is why what happens on the home front matters more than the deadly minutiae of battle thousands of miles away. America has the strongest, most lethal warfighting capability of any country, and yet conflicts are not often solely won by strength alone.
Liberty Nation News’ Leesa K. Donner and Mark Angelides joined forces to try and determine the significance that politics carries in the ongoing war.
War Winning Strategy?
Mark: Leesa, President Donald Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth have spent the last couple of weeks setting out what “mission accomplished” actually looks like. Notably, they’ve been pretty precise in saying this war will be prosecuted and done within a couple of months, and, of course, according to the War Powers Act, Trump only has 60 days from first engagement to get this done before Congress has to authorize it. With this in mind, why are we seeing constant efforts from Democrats in Congress to pull the rug before his allotted time runs out?
It may be that they fundamentally oppose any military operation in general, but surely halting activities while you are in the midst of battle is a recipe for disaster.
Leesa: It appears to be just another form of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). The left feels they must go after Trump hammer and tong until the Republican trifecta of power is reduced – something they see as happening in November. And, let’s face it, the midterms, more often than not, kick the ruling party to the curb in the non-presidential election years.
Nevertheless, there are legitimate questions to be asked about this war. It seems Trump has virtually complete support from the MAGA folks, save a couple of high-profile conservative pundits like Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson. So, he is at liberty to bomb the bejesus out of Iran, but somehow they have kept intact their ability to terrorize and execute their own people. Even the young, promising athletes like 19-year-old champion wrestler Saleh Mohammadi, who was hanged along with two others for protesting in public. The bombing hasn’t stopped this type of activity, which is distressing. So, are we winning the battle but losing the war?
Mark: As the late, great Yogi Berra once noted, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.” In terms of how the ongoing atrocities impact the war, it’s really a double-edged sword. Yes, the regime is continuing the crackdown on what they see as dissidents, but, bringing it back to the homefront, each time the mullahs execute someone, or shoot protesters, they are achieving something that no amount of drone or bombing raids can: pushing Americans who might not agree with the initial operation to say “these people are monsters and they have to go.”
But, of course, that brings us back to the political angle and the November midterms. In 2002, George W. Bush pulled off the almost impossible and increased his party’s majority in the House and actually flipped the Senate to his favor. A lot of people argue that it was 9/11 and his response that pulled out the votes. If public sentiment swings towards Trump, that could make a huge difference, couldn’t it?
And on a similar topic, if the war is over and the US has achieved its aims, won’t voters living in an arguably safer world not give 47 massive kudos in ballot form?
Leesa: For sure 9/11 was a catalyst for Dubya’s midterm success. And this time around in the Oval Office, Trump seems to be a man on a mission: He wants to be seen as the ultimate peacemaker, which may sound odd for a man who seemingly instigated a war. But as is often said, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting – and the president’s mission isn’t finished. Perhaps when all is said and done, the people who inhabit the earth will live in a safer world. That would justify Trump’s efforts now to take out the bad guys like Venezuela’s Maduro and the most recent Iranian Ayatollah, who met an ignominious end.
It seems as if the right is giving the president the benefit of their patience, or at least more rope to prosecute his case against the world leader of terrorism. Meanwhile, over on the left, they keep on with their disruptive tactics in the hope that at least one will work. But as previously written in Liberty Nation, tick tock – time is not on Trump’s side. He’s got to keep the pressure on Iran before that 60-day buzzer sounds.
I’ll give you the last word by tackling this question. If you were one of these lefties, what would you try next to upset Trump’s applecart?
Mark: Great question! If I were on Mission Derail, I would probably adopt a three-pronged strategy. First on the list is that I would flood the Fourth Estate with interviews of my comrades claiming that no plan for an exit exists. I hate to be unoriginal, but we are already seeing this full-court press and cookie-cutter messaging from congressional Democrats and their advocates.
Next, I would be reaching out to foreign nations (behind closed doors) to say that “at some point, Trump is out, and you have to deal with us.” We’ve seen a huge amount of obfuscation on the side of ally nations, up to and including refusing to defend the Strait of Hormuz, upon which so many of these countries rely for their energy supply. And the thing is, they all openly acknowledge that Iran is a threat – either nuclear or through terrorist proxies. There’s something quite Chamberlain-esque in their prevarications.
And lastly, I would – returning back to our original point – try and stop the mission in its tracks, attempt to curtail the plan that is in place, and then claim that there never was a plan.
This is Trump’s gauntlet to run, but that doesn’t mean that he’s playing solo.
