By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The conflict between the United States and Iran, while outwardly presented as a clash of ideologies, involves a strategic struggle for public opinion on both sides. Iran aims to influence American sentiment against President Trump by inflicting casualties on U.S. forces, while U.S. and Israeli airstrikes target Iran’s internal control and missile capabilities. President Trump’s approach, marked by shifting rhetoric and a gamble on swift military action, faces domestic challenges, particularly with his base’s reluctance for ground wars and the ongoing Epstein scandal. The outcome hinges on the Iranian people’s response to U.S. pressure and their willingness to instigate internal change, with potential parallels drawn to past interventions like Kosovo.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump rode to power on a promise to end America’s “forever wars,” a sentiment that resonated deeply with a populace weary of prolonged military engagements. His rhetoric painted a stark contrast to the established foreign policy, suggesting a decisive shift away from perpetual conflict. This promise was not just a talking point; it was a cornerstone of his appeal, a beacon of hope for those who believed the nation had become entangled in endless and costly overseas interventions. Yet, as events have unfolded, a different narrative has emerged, one that casts a long shadow over that initial pledge and suggests a profound disappointment for many who once believed in his vision of peace.
The notion that America might be embarking on yet another protracted conflict, particularly one that contradicts such a firm campaign promise, is something many find unforgivable. There’s a deep-seated frustration when a leader appears to contradict their most potent campaign planks, especially when those planks concern the lives of American citizens and the nation’s standing in the world. The very idea that the United States could be drawn into a new war, after hearing so much about extricating itself from existing ones, feels like a betrayal of trust. It’s the kind of shift that leaves people questioning the sincerity of the original message and the judgment of those who supported it.
This perceived hypocrisy is particularly galling because it seems to be met with a remarkable level of cognitive dissonance from certain segments of the population. For those who championed Trump and his “America First” agenda, there’s an apparent willingness to overlook or even reframe actions that seem to directly contradict his stated goals. It’s as if the desire to support the leader eclipses the scrutiny of his policies, leading to a situation where a new war could be met not with outrage, but with a surprising, or perhaps disturbing, level of acceptance and even enthusiasm from his base.
The lack of a clear, unifying congressional debate or vote on initiating new military actions often adds to the unease. When significant foreign policy decisions, particularly those that could lead to war, are made without robust democratic deliberation, it raises questions about the rule of law and the accountability of leadership. The absence of such processes can feel like a sidestepping of fundamental democratic principles, further fueling the sense that important decisions are being made in a vacuum, driven by motives that may not align with the national interest.
Indeed, the idea that a leader might initiate a significant military escalation without the explicit, democratically sanctioned approval of Congress, as some suggest, undermines the very foundations of democratic governance. This lack of formal authorization for war, when coupled with the potential for drawn-out conflict, becomes a focal point for unforgivable actions. It’s a scenario where the president, in essence, assumes a power that has historically been a check on executive overreach, leading to a profound sense of unease about the direction of the nation.
Furthermore, the echoes of past rhetoric, where Trump himself warned against starting a war with Iran, only amplify the current disappointment. This creates a situation where his current actions are not only contrary to his own campaign promises but also to his previous pronouncements. This kind of volte-face, especially on an issue as grave as war, leads to a feeling of being misled and a deep-seated resentment that is difficult to overcome.
The observation that a leader’s approval can seemingly skyrocket for actions that were previously met with staunch opposition is a telling sign of political dynamics. It suggests that loyalty to a personality can override adherence to principles, allowing for a redefinition of what is acceptable or even desirable. This shift in public opinion, driven by partisan allegiance rather than policy evaluation, is a core element of what many find so fundamentally wrong and, indeed, unforgivable.
The notion that such significant geopolitical shifts might be driven by external influences, rather than purely American interests, also adds a layer of concern. If the United States is perceived to be entering a conflict not for its own reasons, but at the behest of another nation, it raises serious questions about national sovereignty and the true objectives of American foreign policy. The idea that American lives could be lost for reasons that don’t directly serve the nation’s security or its core values is a particularly bitter pill to swallow.
Ultimately, the promise of ending “forever wars” was a powerful one, and its potential negation, by embarking on new conflicts, represents a profound disappointment for many. It’s not just about a change in policy; it’s about a perceived betrayal of trust and a questioning of leadership’s integrity. For those who heard and believed Trump’s pledge to bring American soldiers home and end prolonged military engagements, the prospect of another war is not simply a policy disagreement, but an unforgivable offense. The hope for a more peaceful future, articulated so clearly during his rise, has been overshadowed by the specter of renewed conflict, leaving a lasting stain on his legacy for those who feel that promise was broken.