Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Aylene Wright's avatar

Hi John. So my admittedly uninformed take on Iran, is that I would love for the mullah / IRGC regime to fall, but I don't exactly trust Trump and his merry band to actually see that through, and really am not sure the whole thing will be worth it, if that doesn't happen.

But my question is, have you also noticed that for most pundits, their degree of support or lack thereof for the war, seems to be based solely on their level of support or lack thereof, for Trump?

Of course we have the MAGA cultists supporting whatever Trump does, even if he contradicts himself within the hour. Nothing new there.

But we also have most Bulwarkers, not only opposing the war, but proclaiming that Iran is actually winning, and at times even appear to be gleeful about it, just because it makes Trump look bad. I honestly find that attitude quite gross.

I have appreciated the more nuanced coverage by NR and TD, but even there, NRs "cautiously optimistic" and TDs "cautiously pessimistic" takes are essentially simpatico with their overall editorial approaches to Trump.

Do you think this war is for most political pundits, little more than just another referendum on the Orange Man? I don't think it's all of them, certainly. I appreciated your recent podcast interviews with Nelson and Coté because they do NOT give me that impression. Also, if you can give me names of other analysts I can trust to actually try to analyze the war itself, I would appreciate it.

Fair Dinkum Mate's avatar

The US blew up a girls school where ~160 people died and they blew up the biggest bridge where more civilians died. Does that count as a war crime?

https://share.google/aimode/QPduR46OeMKVGWVgQ

and

https://share.google/aimode/gcmWPcq8Ykkry6qEn

10 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?