Exactly.
The President acceded to a “cease fire” that only gave America’s sworn enemy time to regroup, and Iran an opportunity to demonstrate that it cannot be trusted to meet the terms of any treaty or agreement, as Barack Obama cynically and foolishly pretended when he sold out our country and Israel’s in the “palettes of cash for lies” deal.
Iran is in the grip of a sick culture that cannot accommodate the modern world. I’m sure Trump will be assailed by the usual suspects for calling the Iranian leadership “scum,” and probably the Pope as well, because, you know, humanity, redemption, yada yada.
Islam is a religion that celebrates lying to the enemy as a virtue. To trust the current Iran regime is a death wish.
Ethics Alarms 
Jack, actions like this are why many folks are willing to put up with Trump’s many narcissistic own goals. Ethically he is a hopeless case, but as Lincoln said of US Grant “He fights”
Bingo.
It’s pretty much exactly as I expected it would go. He extended an olive branch as a diplomat would knowing full well they’d violate it and give us further moral justification to continue the campaign.
Literally every rational media outlet would have reported it that way if it had been a Democrat president (except we know a Democrat president would never have had prosecuted that destructive of an actual against a bad regime anyway).
But they didn’t. It was reported automatically as “America lost to Iran”.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2026/06/19/friday-open-forum-as-obama-gives-his-most-unethical-quote-yet/#comment-905592
”Overall the MoU (whatever that means) is an aspirational not binding document that looks like an opportunity for Trump to simultaneously stall on taking further military action against the IRGC as well as to give the IRGC a chance to appear reasonable and (as they will) squander that chance and so allow Trump to say “at least I tried” (as if that would be received amicably by anyone already predisposed to hate Trump).
If not, the MoU will just be another dumb round like the JCPOA in what may be our only strategy with the IRGC – commonly referred to as “cutting the grass” – a strategy built around periodically ransacking the IRGC’s efforts to get nukes to set them back. An unsustainable strategy.
No, the ethical evaluation of the MoU is that we should wait and see what the final ink says before we decide that we’ve “surrendered” in a 47 year long war that we’ve mostly ignored. It’s not good that the IRGC can use the MoU as basically material to “dunk” on us.
If we were an ethical and serious people (including our allies): the IRGC would be under incessant bombardment, the Battle of Hormuz would have begun, Iran’s Persian Gulf islands would be occupied, Israel would be untethered to prosecute Hezbollah, special forces and Marine raids would be harrying the southern coast of Iran rooting out and destroying the weapons emplacements the use to close the Strait of Hormuz, CIA operatives would be prepping the restive Balochis and Kurds, and we’d stack an even worse sanctions regime on them than we ever have…and we’d decide that $1 more at the pump is worth it.
But hey, war is a battle of wills and some belligerents are willing to starve to death before quitting…some belligerents are willing to spend no more than 50c more for gas.”
It was absolutely and even amazingly stupid to have begun this war when the prospect of losing — the US has lost — was predicted and known. Now, he is in a trap and we (the nation) are in that trap: the war cannot continue, but there is no way out without escalation to levels that will do great harm.
It was all predicted, it was all known. See: Robert Pape. The Escalation Trap.
I watched Pape at the beginning. So far, he seems to be right on the general stuff. I don’t know if his overall predictions will be right though.
So what do you and all your experts propose be done?
You seem to be asking what “we” believe would have been the best course for America under Trump presidency?
Or, do you mean “What do you propose be done now, now that The Escalation Trap has been stepped into?”
Wither one. You choose. You’re the armchair expert.
Bill, I am just like you and we are all in the same boat: All we have to go on is what comes through our Internet connection. And all we have access to are the opinions of those who talk and write on the topic.
I am not an “expert” but this I ask: What expert would you, could you, trust? Name your source, please.
Alizia, this is not dueling authorities. I’m sure you’ve come up with ideas or you have found someone who has proposed a solution you can endorse. It’s called “thinking for yourself,” a great American tradition.
Me? I think something has to be done to eliminate the guys running Iran as a destabilizing force in the Middle East and obtaining the ability to bring Death to America and wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, two of their stated objectives over the last fifty years. I’d say destroying their military capability and cutting them out of the world economy and blockading their coastal ports and taking whatever measures are necessary to open the Strait of Hormuz would be good steps, don’t you? If you can think of another way to stop them from having ICBMs and nuclear warheads, I’m all ears. These mobsters want long range nukes as an insurance policy so they can continue running the country as if it’s their personal ATM. So, hit em where they live: their nuclear deterrent plan and the Iranian economy. Maximum pressure. Those are my thoughts.
And those are very good thoughts, Bill.
Alizia, this is not dueling authorities. I’m sure you’ve come up with ideas or you have found someone who has proposed a solution you can endorse. It’s called “thinking for yourself,” a great American tradition.
As it pertains to the population, to perception, to war-time PR, it most certainly is an issue of dueling authorities. The reality: all that we know and receive comes to us by way of 1) media corporations deeply enmeshed in perception management, and/or 2) independent analysts who are perhaps academics (study the region) or those, both on the Left and Right who are populist-oriented (non-associated with corporate/military interests and presenting themselves as concerned for people’s interests).
And please, do not try to insist that you or anyone writing here (I refer to the acute jingoists like Jack and Michael West) are independently thinking! One participant here recommended that Trump use a thermonuclear bomb! and was not chastised for such open insanity! Ethics indeed! You are very confused people. And you all have been informed not by “independent analysis” nor any moral or ethical struggle, but by Fox News type opinion-formation. As Jack said recently: full stop.
If you really want to discuss “independent thinking” and even the possibility of that, let’s. For God’s sake I can’t even believe you said that!
Me? I think something has to be done to eliminate the guys running Iran as a destabilizing force in the Middle East and obtaining the ability to bring Death to America and wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, two of their stated objectives over the last fifty years. I’d say destroying their military capability and cutting them out of the world economy and blockading their coastal ports and taking whatever measures are necessary to open the Strait of Hormuz would be good steps, don’t you? If you can think of another way to stop them from having ICBMs and nuclear warheads, I’m all ears. These mobsters want long range nukes as an insurance policy so they can continue running the country as if it’s their personal ATM. So, hit em where they live: their nuclear deterrent plan and the Iranian economy. Maximum pressure. Those are my thoughts.
All that is quite possibly necessary action from a realpolitik perspective. But at this time, given the extreme political division in the country, given the strategic situation in the Straights, given a whole obvious range of factors launching this war without understanding the consequences and results that were known before it started (The Escalation Trap) was a truly stupid political blunder. I am amazed that some people here refuse to see this and admit it.
I’d say destroying their military capability and cutting them out of the world economy and blockading their coastal ports and taking whatever measures are necessary to open the Strait of Hormuz would be good steps, don’t you?
No one of the ‘allies’ necessary for that project is willing, apparently, to join in. The reasons are numerous, but it seems the main one is that few, maybe no one (?) admires or respects the belligerent way Trump does things. Rule Number One at this juncture of history: You cannot act that way. It is not appreciated and not respected and it evokes resistance. Full stop.
Even if you destroy a good portion of their military, and even if you do much more damage, all they need to do is harass you in the Straights. I told this to Jack over a month ago: the strategy of guerrilla warfare is the issue here. All the weak player need to is keep the far larger enemy pinned down.
The entire belligerent and mindless display, like a huge infantile IDIOT, when Trump declared “the country is yours, take it!”, and all statements afterword, followed by being forced to cave in to Iranian demands, revealed loss not winning.
The better plan would have been a far more strategic long-range plan.
No one of the ‘allies’ necessary for that project is willing, apparently, to join in. The reasons are numerous, but it seems the main one is that few, maybe no one (?) admires or respects the belligerent way Trump does things. Rule Number One at this juncture of history: You cannot act that way. It is not appreciated and not respected and it evokes resistance. Full stop.
That is neither accurate or supportable. First, it was not a NATO situation. Second, the allies that joined in Bush’s Iraq war suffered terrible political backlash, and were gun-shy (literally). Third, the UYK and France and Germany—indeed most of Western Europe, have been swarmed with Muslims. Fourth, they are all anti-Israel and increasingly anti-Semitic. None of that has anything to do with Trump. As Trump said yesterday, we didn’t need them, and still don’t.
All I will say or can say in response is “We will all see how this turns out”. Our thoughts, perceptions and desires are, in the larger scope, irrelevant.
I did not and I do not desire for MY OWN SIDE to suffer negative consequences. I voted for Donald Trump with relatively high hopes for all that he campaigned on. And though you listed some accomplishments, and you were right, in my opinion this will not turn out well.
I will be vindicated (in my opinion) or I will be embarrassed for having it. I wager (70%+ certainty) that my analysis is correct.
Whether it turns out well is irrelevant to the question of whether it was the responsible thing to do. It was.
No, it was exactly NOT the right thing to do, and if it turns out as I predict, it was reckless and IRRESPONSIBLE
I cannot figure your stance out. It is not realism. It is romantic political idealism (?)
As usual, you don’t explain why you think it was wrong, just giving the opinion that it was. In contrast, I have several times listed why it was unquestionably correct and justifiable. I’m not going to write it again. Do your homework.
I can only imagine what a delight you’d be in January of 1942.
Your criticisms are all the same: cynical, personal, kind of vicious. But what you do not seem to understand is that I am interested in the welfare of the country.
This is not 1942!
Sigh, in the words of Inogo Montoya “I don’t think that means what you think it means”. You keep stating your opinion as if it is an established fact.
What word? “Loss”?
He extended an olive branch as a diplomat would knowing full well they’d violate it and give us further moral justification to continue the campaign.
You what amazes me? You are not a political realist. A realist would know, understand and take into account that the Israel/US war began while negotiations were on-going with an absolutely treacherous assassination campaign.
And you can even use the words “olive branch extended”! as if there is any “good faith” on the US / Israel part or anyone’s part.
Do you even understand that Iran, even if they eat donuts 🍩 made by Satan and served by Satan, has clear and obvious objectives that it is setting out to achieve?! And that if it were possible that the US, certainly Israel, would resort to any means within political reason to destroy Iran?!
Trust them when they are on their knees, secure in the knowledge that they have been reduced to pre-industrial status and unable to protect themselves or feed their population.
Then trust them only as far as you can throw a supertanker.
We now have transhuman communists inside the United States who have curiously aligned with a religion that is hostile to the secularism the communists so ardently believe in. What a time to be alive. Apparently, queers for Palestine wasn’t an aberration in this weird contradictory ideological atmosphere.
Iran is run by a military junta, much the same as Pakistan, Cuba, various African countries from Egypt to the Congos, Venezuela and others. The guys in these juntas are guns and tanks guys, and they own all the businesses in their respective countries. They are not politicians or diplomats or even bureaucrats; they are mobsters. They will use everything at their disposal to fight off any attempt to wrest their sources of income from them. They’ll let someone reduce their country to rubble and then crawl out from the rubble and reassert control over the inevitably reconstructed economy. Think of Saddam Husein and Muammar Qaddafi. The were both willing to be hunted down like dogs and shot while hiding in a hole in the ground. I don’t know what the solution is for dealing with these guys. But we certainly ignore them at our peril.
If we were an ethical and serious people (including our allies): the IRGC would be under incessant bombardment, the Battle of Hormuz would have begun, Iran’s Persian Gulf islands would be occupied, Israel would be untethered to prosecute Hezbollah, special forces and Marine raids would be harrying the southern coast of Iran rooting out and destroying the weapons emplacements the use to close the Strait of Hormuz, CIA operatives would be prepping the restive Balochis and Kurds, and we’d stack an even worse sanctions regime on them than we ever have…and we’d decide that $1 more at the pump is worth it.
A good example of “doubling-down” on a bad idea. The general will of those who elected the man was “do not start wars”. But he started a very serious war when there was not the needed “popular support”. And the sector that did not elect him, and hates him, and is deranged, definitely cannot be counted on! So: a completely stupid political blunder.
It is so much simpler to see the true facts.
Or, because he has nothing to lose President Trump is taking the strong, direct action that no one else has the gumption to take. He isn’t running again, his TDS detractors will find fault with anything and everything he does, so be bold – lead the way to a free Iran and fewer hostilities in the Middle East.
Jack wrote (above): As usual, you don’t explain why you think it was wrong, just giving the opinion that it was. In contrast, I have several times listed why it was unquestionably correct and justifiable. I’m not going to write it again. Do your homework.
Yes Jack, in fact I have. Mainly, I say it was a ‘strategic blunder’. And I very very clearly have stated why I think that. And like you I am DEFINITELY not going to write it all out again.
I believe that the basis for your idea that it was the “right” thing to do is coherent within the set of predicates that you subscribe to (fairly standard American Neocon). The structure of your view vis-a-vis Israel and the Middle East is extremely reductionist and limited. And your geo-political philosophy seems to me from the Reagan Era. That era has passed and I do not believe it will return.
At this point, according to the sources I listen to, and if their reporting is accurate, Iran is in a stronger position than before. I would suggest that you yourself listen to Pape (who appears to have ‘called it” accurately). That is his term: Escalation Trap. The situation has been made worse, not better.
You know that I tend to see Israel as a “problem state”. I already explained why, I won’t do it again. You regard that critique or observation as “anti-Semitic”. I do not see a solution for Israel except that it become a state that incorporates all the peoples in its region into one state. Perhaps like South Africa. But that will not happen, so to survive it must morph into semi-fascist nation, and indeed that is on-going. It is not impossible that the ultimate solution, maybe the only solution, is an act of annihilation of Iran.
I do not think you kniw very much as all about the region, about israel today, and I do not think you really care that much. But you hold yo the traditional bellicose position that is similar to Christian Zionism. Ultimately? Your stubborn perspective is destructive, therefore irresponsible.
That is what I think.
This isn’t “Strategy Alarms.” If somewhere within the acres of words you pour out every day you actually explained your idea of geopolitical strategy (and why you are qualified to opine on it, I must have messed the lesson. perhaps because it is irrelevant to this blog and why the topic of the Iran war was taken up at all. For I hope the last time, here are the ethical justifications of why the President of the United States was within ethical bounds to attack Iran.
1. Iran has committed repeated acts of war against the United States since 1979, while the US has, since 1979, engaged in no legitimate provocation. Iran can be correctly said to have been in a perpetual state of war against the U.S., and Presidents before Trump, especially Obama, irresponsibly “kicked the can down the road”…as with infrastructure repair, immigration and the National Debt.
2. Iran spreads terror across the region. Bush’s “War on Terror” was never declared over (or won) and if fighting Iran isn’t part of the War on Terror, nothing is.
3.Iran has pledged to wipe out Israel, and has a nuclear program to accomplish that. Israel is a close and loyal ally of the U.S.
4. The U.S. policy is that a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran is permanently unacceptable, because it is unacceptable.
5. Non-lethal diplomacy is futile with Iran, because Islam directs Muslims to lie to their adversaries. It is also a religion that encourages violence
6. The United States has superior military strength, as the relative casualties of the war so far has borne out.
7. The World, especially Russia and China, needed to be reminded that the U,S, remains a force for deterrence in the world, and that at leaser under current leadership, the US is not afraid to show its military power and use it.
8. At least 30,000 protesters died in Iran’s streets in early January. (George Orwell in “1984”: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.”) Iran’s people’s protest underscored the Iran regime’s barbarism. The war with Iran gives these people an opportunity to take back their nation. If they don’t, that’s their failing. Trump has given them a chance.
9. The war is absolutely constitutional.
10 The “war of choice” criticism is disingenuous, As I have written before (as have many others) almost all US wars, except for WWII, have been wars of choice.
No part of all that is misunderstood by me, and my basic argument is: 1) it was at this moment a strategic blunder, and 2) Trump and our nation is now in an Escalation Trap.
I understand your framework thoroughly.
Did you hear that Trump is trying to overturn the 4-1 win of Belgium 🇧🇪 over the US 🇺🇸
(Kidding!)
I’m sure somewhere in the Axis media the headline “Trump said to be considering trying to over-turn US World Cup loss (sources)” is lurking.