By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite President Trump’s public assertions of imminent breakthroughs and Iran’s desperate desire for a deal, Tehran has shown no public signs of cooperating with a diplomatic resolution. Trump’s conflicting statements, suggesting Iran is both begging for a deal and afraid to admit it, highlight a disconnect that fuels speculation about whether it is already too late to negotiate an exit from the escalating conflict. The stark differences in demands, with Iran seeking complete cessation of hostilities and reparations, and the US demanding nuclear program limitations, underscore the difficulty in finding common ground for a face-saving exit for both sides.
Read the original article here
It appears to be quite the perplexing situation for former President Trump. He seems genuinely baffled that Iran isn’t simply caving and ending the conflict he initiated. The narrative paints a picture of a leader who, having decided a “war” was effectively won within a couple of weeks, expected immediate capitulation, rather than continued resistance. It’s as if the concept of a protracted conflict, especially one he instigated, is beyond his comprehension.
His expectation that Iran, particularly its current leadership, would readily sue for peace, especially given the deeply personal losses inflicted by American actions under his presidency, seems astonishingly naive. When one considers that key members of the Iranian leader’s family have been casualties of American attacks, the idea of them sitting down for a friendly chat and signing a peace treaty with the architect of those attacks becomes utterly detached from reality.
The underlying strategy, as understood by some, was apparently to launch a swift and aggressive military action, deliver a decisive blow, and then dictate terms of surrender. The vision was likely one of quick victory, handshakes, and a triumphant declaration. However, this scenario appears to have completely overlooked the resilience and motivations of the opposing force. The idea that Trump is baffled by this outcome is, for some, not surprising at all, characterizing his default state as one of confusion.
There’s a strong sense that Iran holds significant leverage, particularly through its control over global oil and food supplies by potentially disrupting vital shipping lanes. They are not in a position where they can be easily bombed into submission. Any move by the US to target Iran’s infrastructure, like its oil facilities, could easily backfire, with Iran retaliating by destroying similar infrastructure in the region.
This understanding of Iran’s capabilities, especially regarding blockade tactics using drone warfare, seems to have been underestimated. The difficulty in countering such strategies, particularly for someone who may not fully grasp the nuances of geopolitical maneuvering, could explain the current predicament. The argument is made that this stems from a fundamental flaw: a disinclination to listen to expert advice, driven by an overwhelming narcissism that prevents him from accepting counsel.
Throughout his career, it seems he has been accustomed to avoiding consequences, whether through bankruptcy or simply moving on to the next venture. This ability to escape repercussions has seemingly not prepared him for an international arena where his pronouncements are not easily sanitized or forgotten by global news organizations. This disconnect between his usual modus operandi and the persistent reality of the situation is reportedly causing him confusion and uncertainty.
The notion that he’s never truly faced significant opposition that he couldn’t simply bulldoze over is a recurring theme. Unlike past situations where he could find new investors or where the political landscape offered more room for maneuver, Iran’s situation is entirely different. They are not beholden to placate him, and his usual tactics of making demands and expecting compliance are ineffective. He lacks the control he’s accustomed to, similar to how he apparently misjudged Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression.
The core of the issue, as perceived, is his deep-seated expectation that others will simply acquiesce to his will. He is reportedly unaccustomed to direct opposition or a spirited defense. This inability to handle defiance, coupled with a perceived lack of strategic thinking – a reliance on mere demands rather than a coherent plan – seems to be a significant part of the problem.
It’s also suggested that authoritarian regimes, facing internal pressures, might actually welcome a foreign conflict. Such a conflict can divert domestic attention away from governmental corruption and malfeasance, creating a sense of external threat that can unify the population, however artificially. This perspective suggests that Iran might be strategically benefiting from the conflict, using it to their advantage.
The economic implications are also noted, with oil prices rising significantly, leading to speculation about market manipulation. The core question for some remains: “He attacked them, why won’t they make a deal?” This perplexity is mirrored by the observation of Iran’s ancient history versus the relative infancy of the United States, coupled with concerns about the impulse control of those given access to nuclear capabilities.
The parallels drawn to past instances of perceived failure or manipulative behavior, particularly regarding election results, suggest a pattern of making things up and disregarding reality. The idea that Iran hates the US more than ever and will resist indefinitely is a strong point, with the argument that Iran can weather this storm, while Trump may not be able to.
Furthermore, Iran’s leadership is seen as not being constrained by public opinion concerning casualties, and that a foreign attack often galvanizes support for the ruling regime. They can exploit the “foreign invader” narrative to suppress internal dissent. The Iranians are reportedly betting on Trump’s domestic approval rating to plummet and anticipating his continued mistakes, including his inability to de-escalate the current conflict.
The potential for Iran to bait Trump into reacting emotionally, simply by mocking him and bruising his ego, is also highlighted. The thought of such an individual in charge during a potential conflict with more powerful nations like Russia or China is a chilling prospect for some, especially given the seemingly inadequate responses to perceived threats, like Iranian drones. The phrase, “Is there a problem with the war you ordered?” encapsulates the perceived disconnect between his actions and the consequences.
The observation that he is “mindfucking stupid it hurts my brain” reflects a strong sentiment of disbelief at his perceived lack of intelligence and foresight. The idea of him attacking specific locations at opportune times to manipulate markets is also raised, with the counterpoint that Iran would likely retaliate.
The comparison to the initial assessment of Russia’s quick takeover of Ukraine points to a similar “bully mentality.” He’s seen as too accustomed to coercing those with something to lose, and unable to comprehend those who have little to lose and who might even view dying for their cause as a positive outcome.
The current situation is described as a failure of intelligence services, suggesting a significant miscalculation in anticipating the regional turmoil and the expected internal revolt within Iran. The belief that Iran might make a deal out of fear of their own people is framed as Trump projecting his own anxieties, fearing removal from office and subsequent imprisonment or death.
The comparison to Vietnam highlights a perceived lack of a coherent exit strategy. Ultimately, the sentiment is that Trump is so fundamentally out of his depth, perhaps even with simple games like Tiddlywinks, that learning or understanding complex international dynamics is beyond him. Some even darkly speculate about nuclear escalation as a potential, albeit extreme, resolution from his perspective.