First and Foremost I am NOT the POTUS. Thankfully for some nations. Nor do I have any influence in policy, again thankfully for some nations.
The current POTUS is not, never been, nor has ever been exposed to being a warrior to the best of my knowledge.
He is / was a businessman turned politician. I honestly don't expect much more than a Woodrow Wilson repeat of his type of term.
He far exceeds what we could have been left with.
At the very least, they have been set back, rather than be once again just given money to pursue their quest. Does one actually think that the other candidate (s) would have been tougher or actually succeeded in stopping their Nuclear program?? One simply must "give the Devil his due" so to speak.
What did two old long in the tooth Senior Non-Comm's come up with???
step one eliminate all non nuclear power plants, disable every bridge connecting into Tehran, eliminate any building that has the IRG or militia.
step two eliminate the existence of Kharg island completely. ( to be completed within 1 hour of step 1)
Accept NO Surrender or terms except unconditional. No other terms are acceptable.
step three escalate step 1 and two, to the extreme prejudice on a increasing scale. Without a foot inside the country. Make any location that a missile or drone come from uninhabitable. Nuclear power plants are now on the table. Simply put make it un survivable as Violently and as fast as one can for the regime.
The part that sucks for You and I Jeremy is we are no longer privy to the plan and the actual intel. So yeah it sucks I agree.
And I am EXTREMELY grateful I was never stupid enough to run for President or political office.
I agree, and respect your views. America somehow always ends up standing in the blast zone of conflicts that were burning long before we showed up. This one’s no different.
On one side, you’ve got Shiite extremist groups backed by Iran—structured, disciplined, and driven by deeply rooted religious belief. For many of them, this isn’t just geopolitics, it’s a holy war. The idea of mujahadeen, martyrdom, and the long arc of ideology tied to faith and power means this fight isn’t measured in policy cycles—it’s generational. Antisemitism is often baked into that worldview, fueling a mission that goes far beyond borders or negotiations.
On the other side, you’ve got Israel—a nation-state with an organized military, acting through a mix of security concerns, territorial realities, and national survival. Not a single ideology, but a country responding to constant threats, where survival isn’t theoretical—it’s immediate.
And then there’s the U.S. For us, it’s framed as strategy—the cost of being the country that’s always asked, or pushed, to pick a side. That’s where the disconnect lives. One side sees a forever war. The other sees survival. Meanwhile, Americans are watching it through a completely different lens—rising costs, shaky markets, and the creeping fear of economic collapse. It’s less about ancient history and more about whether you can still afford normal life—whether a family trip to Disneyland is even realistic anymore. And through all of it, most Americans trust what they’re told. That’s the system. So when the message becomes “we were two weeks away from catastrophe,” people take that at face value.
But zoom out for a second. We’ve heard “death to America” for decades. Americans have been killed. We responded. We took out people responsible. But what happens next? Do you really think a ceasefire suddenly makes that hatred disappear? Or does it create a deeper need to avenge the martyrs that were just lost? Because history suggests something uncomfortable—every strike creates the next wave. Not always, not universally, but enough to keep the cycle alive. That’s the trap. You remove a threat, and you plant the seed for another. And even if you could wipe out every target on a map, you’re still left with the ideology. You can’t bomb belief out of existence. When something is framed as a holy war, it doesn’t end clean—it adapts. Sometimes it shifts from bullets to economics, from battlefields to pressure points—because they know where our priorities are.
That’s why this starts to feel like a half-measure, no-clear-end win. We’re the GWOT kids—the “Global War on Terror.” But think about that phrase. If it’s global… if it spans decades… if it never really ends… at what point does it start to resemble something bigger? And could anyone honestly say we “won” it? Instead, we call them forever wars now—conflicts that cost more than we can measure, with outcomes that never quite match the sacrifice.
And here we are again, standing at the edge of another version of the same question—only this time, maybe a little less certain that we understand how it ends.
