By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Sources suggest President Trump is growing increasingly frustrated with stalled nuclear negotiations with Iran and may be on the verge of launching a significant military operation against the country. This potential conflict, which could involve extensive air and naval deployments, is rumored to be imminent, with some advisers estimating a 90 percent chance of kinetic action in the coming weeks. Such a war, potentially with Israeli assistance, could destabilize the entire region and negatively impact the Republican party in upcoming midterm elections, despite recent talks mediated by Oman appearing to make some progress.
Read the original article here
It appears there’s a growing sense of alarm among those close to the former president, suggesting he might be dangerously close to initiating a major conflict. The narrative paints a picture of a leader feeling cornered, perhaps “fed up” with mounting domestic pressures and the potential fallout from past associations, leading to a desperate consideration of drastic international action.
The underlying sentiment is that a desire for distraction is a primary motivator. With significant scandals, particularly those connected to Jeffrey Epstein, casting a long shadow and generating increasing calls for accountability, the idea of a large-scale military engagement is seen as a potent, albeit destructive, way to divert public attention. This “rally around the flag” effect is viewed as a potential tactic to shift the national focus away from personal troubles and onto a perceived external threat.
Compounding this concern is the perception of a narcissistic personality at play. It’s suggested that such individuals often thrive on chaos and require constant “narcissistic supply.” When that supply wanes, or when they feel threatened, the impulse might be to create a dramatic situation that reasserts their perceived strength and importance, even if it means endangering lives.
Furthermore, there’s a recurring criticism that this potential escalation might be driven by a need to avoid facing consequences. The very idea of a leader contemplating war as a means to escape accountability for personal transgressions is presented as deeply disturbing and indicative of a severe lack of suitability for power.
Adding to the sense of unease is the perceived inconsistency in past rhetoric versus potential future actions. There are reminders of previous claims of wanting peace or focusing on domestic issues, which are now being contrasted with the possibility of initiating conflict, raising questions about sincerity and reliability.
The specific mention of Iran as a potential flashpoint seems to stem from past actions and ongoing tensions. The decision to withdraw from an agreement aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is cited as a move that, in retrospect, may have contributed to the very problem that could now be used as a pretext for war. This is seen as a cyclical and self-inflicted wound, creating a justification for conflict where one might not have existed before.
The very idea that a leader could be contemplating war not for strategic national interest, but as a personal distraction from legal and ethical entanglements, is a source of considerable distress. The potential for American lives to be endangered in such a scenario, solely to serve as a political maneuver, is a deeply worrying prospect for many.
The situation is further complicated by observations of unusual military movements, such as a significant number of aerial refueling tankers and AWACS aircraft being spotted in strategic locations. These movements are interpreted by some as indicators that something substantial is being prepared, lending an air of urgency to the concerns about an impending conflict.
The critique extends beyond the individual, pointing to a broader societal failing. The observation that “the least suitable people” often end up in positions of power is a lament that echoes through these discussions, suggesting a flaw in the human capacity to identify and elevate truly qualified and ethical leaders, often favoring traits like greed and a lack of empathy.
The article highlights a stark disconnect between the potential severity of initiating a major war and the perceived domestic issues that might be driving such a decision. The notion that war could be launched as a “distraction” from scandals, particularly those involving heinous crimes, underscores a profound concern about the erosion of ethical governance and the prioritizing of personal survival over national well-being.
Ultimately, the core of the concern is that a leader, feeling cornered and desperate, might be on the verge of making an impulsive and catastrophic decision that could have devastating global consequences, all in an effort to escape personal accountability. This is viewed not just as a political failure, but as a profound threat to peace and security.