Will Trump 'Fight to Win' in Iran? - WSJ Editorial
We have to start winning wars again. . . . And now we never win a war. We never win. And we dont fight to win. We dont fight to win. You either got to win or dont fight it at all.
President Trump spoke those words in February 2017, a sentiment he has often repeated. We hope he recalls them now as Iran escalates its retaliation and imposes costs on the U.S. and the world economy. Will Mr. Trump still fight to win?
(snip)
The regimes strategy in response is now clear: Target the production of oil in the Persian Gulf and its flow through the Strait of Hormuz. If it can raise the price of oil high enough for long enough, it believes it can force Mr. Trump to call off the bombing campaign. Irans advantageits only oneis that it can employ asymmetric means to impose that economic pain. Drones are cheap to produce and hard to intercept when they swarm a target. Mines can be laid cheaply, and do great damage to U.S. ships if undetected. The U.S. hasnt been as prepared to counter these threats as it has been against Iranian missiles. Any ideas, Secretary Hegseth?
(snip)
Mr. Trump began the war with the straightforward aims of eliminating Irans missile threat, what remained of its nuclear program, and its navy. These are well on the way to being accomplished. But Irans counterpunch means that reopening the Strait and reducing Irans veto power over its traffic will now have to be a goal. As a conflict evolves, war aims have to change as well.
This may mean a longer campaign than Mr. Trump initially anticipated as the U.S. and Israel secure the area of the Strait and increase the target list to include more of Irans drone units and individual IRGC and basij units. It may also require taking control of Irans main oil export terminal at Kharg island. So far the allies have let Iran keep exporting oil from Kharg and through the Strait to give it an incentive to avoid mining the waterway. But that may have to change if Iran is mining anyway, as the British believe it is, and Irans oil sales to China continue to sustain the regime.
Mr. Trump has been careful not to rule out deploying special forces for discrete and vital missions, and perhaps he has had Kharg in mind. Sending in ground troops is always risky, and holding Kharg once taken would mean absorbing attacks. But it would also put more pressure on the regime.
More..
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-iran-war-oil-strait-of-hormuz-kharg-island-010bd23f?st=WJszgy&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
free
Skittles
(171,228 posts)what the WSJ would be saying about a DEMCRATIC prez starting this SHIT SHOW. especially a WOMAN / POC prez
madinmaryland
(65,718 posts)So no, I cannot imagine any Democratic president doing such a stupid fucking thing. Not even fetterman.
slightlv
(7,738 posts)that was my first thought, also, Skittles. Democrats wouldn't do this kind of "first strike" bombing. We have better understanding of and respect for International Law and the Rules of Engagement. If there was a democratic president who stepped outside of these, the press would be merciless... and so would we, his constituents. I'd expect Democratic voters would express their opinions loud, strong, and plentiful at election time.
I'm also reminded how women are "too emotional" to be president, or hold any high office. The men are sure making a mockery of that belief of theirs! Which is why they so desperately want to kick us off the voting rolls.
C_U_L8R
(49,301 posts)He may cut and run but he's gonna get rich doing it.