- Joined
- Jun 14, 2024
Even though I generally agree with your point, I'm not sure how not getting involved would be an L for Trump.and now with the looming prospect of American military and economic involvement in an Israel/Iran skirmish, the rational decision will be for him to take yet another L on that front.
Trump generally presented himself as the peace candidate, and not getting involved in more wars would be consistent with that. I guess you could argue it would make Trump and America look weak, but seeing how utterly devastated Iran has been by just Israel, I don't think that's a good faith analysis of the situation. The United States absolutely could go in right now and trounce Iran much like we did the Iraqi Armed forces, but domestic concerns (and lessons learned from the previous middle eastern wars) make us not want to do so. That's less weakness and more prudent restraint.
Furthermore, I don't think this is comparable to something like Russo-Ukraine and Trump's rhetoric RE: the Biden admin on that. Israel and Iran have hostilities forever now, and this isn't the first time they've come to blows. Ignoring the more underhand aggression like Stuxnet or MOSSAD assassinations, they lobbed missiles at each other under Biden too.
Finally, doing nothing, absent some more developments, ultimately results in long term strategic gains for the US. It's definitely not in American strategic interests for Iran to have the bomb. The current conflict has set that back, in addition dealing a blow to the government of an enemy state. And the US, as of now, has essentially paid nothing new for this (yes, we ultimately paid billions to Israel and so bankrolled this, but that money isn't a new payment for this strategic gain.)
I don't see how this is an L for Trump. Certainly its not a resounding win for someone who has said they want to deescalate global conflict, but it seems more a stalemate at worst.