6 ms·

Feb 25: >White House officials believe ‘the politics are a lot better’ if Israel strikes Iran first >As the administration mulls military action in Iran, offi

• gpt5 8mo ago
  Looks like the rumor was incorrect. Both jointly attacked (NYtimes - https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/02/28/world/iran-strikes-trump https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/02/28/world/iran-strikes-t...)
  • vintermann 8mo ago
    But Israel announced it first, which they maybe hoped would amount to the same thing PR wise.
    • gpt5 8mo ago
      The rumor above specifically talks about letting Iran retaliate against Israel which would then lead US to attack. I'm not sure what's the logic behind that PR-wise, but regardless, it didn't happen.
      • vintermann 8mo ago
        As I recall Iran said quite openly, in response to the US troop buildup, that they would see an attack by Israel as an attack by the US, suggesting that they could target e.g. carriers instead of Israel if Israel attacked them.
      • SlinkyOnStairs 8mo ago
        > I'm not sure what's the logic behind that PR-wise Part of it is the stated idea that Israel still has public support. That such an exchange, even if Israel launches the first strike, would get more support. This is probably misjudging the actual public support for Israel, which is much lower amongst the general public than amongst (esp. Republican) political circles. The other part of it is that Trump has surrounded himself with card-carrying nazis, who have not at all been subtle about their desires to harm jews. > but regardless, it didn't happen. That Israel didn't launch the first strike and instead insisting on a joint strike (despite otherwise being constantly warmongering), suggests to me that it's the latter 'part' of the reason that had a lot of weight here.
        • deleted 8mo ago
          [deleted]
  • deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
• sekai 8mo ago
  Just now: Trump: "The lives of American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties - that often happens in war." Another republican president starting a war in the middle east, once again sacrificing American lives.
  • lonelyasacloud 8mo ago
    > Trump: "The lives of American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties - that often happens in war." Coming from President Bone Spurs ...
  • giggert 8mo ago
    [flagged]
  • ambentzen 8mo ago
    "Some of you are going to die, but that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make"
  • alex_young 8mo ago
    A war? Of course not. It’s a major combat operation. Only congress can declare wars. We haven’t had any in decades. They should call it the Dept. of Major Combat Operations.
    • zabzonk 8mo ago
      The USA never even declared the Vietnam "conflict" as a war, or Korea, come to that, though that did at least have the backing of the UN.
      • consp 8mo ago
        As soon a country agrees to enter a conflict on a side, which the original axes declare to be a war, it's at war. You can tell the media whatever you want of course.
        • 8mo ago
• shusaku 8mo ago
  I’m honestly perplexed. I had anticipated a scenario like “the US feared Iran was unstable and attacked to protect nuclear material”. It seems this would give them reasonable cover. I don’t see how Israel going along helps
  • catlikesshrimp 8mo ago
    Bibi needs Israel to keep fabricating wars. He will go to trial for previous charges if Israel runs out of wars.
    • kakacik 8mo ago
      How can you attack israeli pm on US site? This is not what we paid/threatened/extorted/killed for!
  • replooda 8mo ago
    > Israel going along Honinbo-sensei, you seem to have failed to recognize puppy-go for what it is and also to identify the player.
• chrisjj 8mo ago
  s/politics/optics/