5 ms·

No Taco: This Is Complete US Strategic Failure

59 points by JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

willio58 7mo ago
I feel like getting obsessed about the strategic failure of this is missing the forest for the trees. Why did the U.S. assassinate the leader of a country across the planet in the first place? Because Benjamin Netanyahu wanted us to because he needs our help to create instability in the region so Israel can expand further. That and the billionaire military industrial complex players felt like they wanted some more money. Name it what it is. Immoral, racist, and a repetition of the same bullshit we’ve been doing in the Middle East for decades. Calling it a strategic failure gives it more value than it deserves.
- Closi 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - stein1946 7mo ago
    Are you going to offer a “multi sided, unbiased and fairly sophisticated” view yourself or? The view that trump went to Iran because “regime awful” does not seem to qualify
    - Closi 7mo ago
      I don't think I need to? I don't need to offer my own analysis to know that "Netanyahu asked trump to go to war because he wanted to create instability and that it was because of the the military industrial complex" is the sort of analysis you get if your research is 2 or 3 facebook posts.
  - deaux 7mo ago
    > or the longer term risk of the iranian nuclear programme. According to Netanyahu himself the state of the Iranian nuclear programme has been the same for 30 years: "they're right on the cusp of nuclear weapons". The logical conclusion is then that there is almost no risk, quite the opposite - there is stability. Note how completely different this is from e.g. NK. Despite being even much more closed off than Iran, the progression through the years was pretty accurate. Went from "they will want to get nukes" to "they've started working on nukes" to "they're close to nukes" to "they have nukes".
    - Closi 7mo ago
      I don't follow that conclusion - just because Israel has said there has been a risk for 30 years clearly doesn't mean that there isn't a real risk now.
- dangus 7mo ago
  More people need to read this NYT article. Not only is it astounding the detail and extent of these leaks from the situation room, but what you’re saying is even more true than you might realize. Netanyahu literally threw a presentation up on a conference call to to persuade Trump to do this for him. I’m having difficulty getting archive.is to work on my browser right now so here’s the plain link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-wa...
  - SyneRyder 7mo ago
    Full article appeared to be accessible to me with a free account, didn't need an NYT subscription to read. Worth the read, thanks for sharing. EDIT: Worked on my phone, but now on my desktop it's asking for a subscription again. Either way, thanks for the link.
- deaux 7mo ago
  > I feel like getting obsessed about the strategic failure of this is missing the forest for the trees. Absolutely, but unfortunately I believe you are too. Headlines on the Epstein files and social media mentions of them are almost certainly down 70%+ since the assault on Iran. It was a great success!
  - mindslight 7mo ago
    It's a shame too, because the two subjects appear eminently linked, and not just for the distraction effect. There's no real reason people can't be condemning this ill thought out war as being an outright result of the kompromat Mossad has on Trump.
- jfengel 7mo ago
  I don't doubt that Netanyahu is the reason, but I can't see how this helps Israel expand. He didn't need to attack Iran to get to Lebanon. True, Iran would have helped Hezbollah if it weren't kept busy, but he's not going to get his "buffer zone" anyway. It's just an opportunity to harass Lebanon. He certainly doesn't need to attack Iran to expand in the West Bank. He's building settlements as fast as he can. Attacking Iran punishes them for October 7th, and delays the next one of those. (Gaza is quiet for the moment, but nothing has actually changed.)
RickHull 7mo ago
TACO is misleading. TASAD: Trump Always Seeks A Deal.
- jdlshore 7mo ago
  He’s objectively terrible at making deals, though. He’s apparently incapable of win-win scenarios. His ego demands that he win while the other party loses, where “winning” is defined as “personally stroking his own ego” and “lining his pockets.” His only negotiation tactic is threats and bullying. Although, in this case, given recent news about prediction market plays, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the whole farce of a “ceasefire” was just prediction market manipulation. (Well, that and TACO Tuesday so Trump could get out of following through on his threat of genocide. One spot of sanity, if you can call it that, in a shit sandwich of the stupidest US foreign policy blunder since the war in Vietnam.)
  - defrost 7mo ago
    Some say the stupidest US foreign policy blunder ever, perhaps even the greatest in all history by any leader, dumber even than invading Russia in winter.
    - onlypassingthru 7mo ago
      The stupidest US foreign policy blunder... so far. Invading Cuba, invading Greenland and dropping out of NATO are all on deck, so let's not pick a winner just yet.
  - fifilura 7mo ago
    > apparently incapable of win-win scenarios And this is exactly the opposite of how trade works. Trade only happens if both parties have something to gain from it.
- lwansbrough 7mo ago
  TASTWDYCPI: Trump always seeks the worst deal you can possibly imagine
- 7mo ago
dangus 7mo ago
Iran is going to get so many of their demands met by the oil-addicted Western world. They might even get all sanctions removed. I’m not even sure Iran realized they had this much leverage before they were forced to use it.
- gus_massa 7mo ago
  Before, if they try then othercountries can threaten to kill their leader or something.
derelicta 7mo ago
Huge respect to the Islamic Republic (and its allies!) to have stood up against the Empire.

I feel like getting obsessed about the strategic failure of this is missing the forest for the trees. Why did the U.S. assassinate the leader of a country across the planet in the first place? Because Benjamin Netanyahu wanted us to because he needs our help to create instability in the region so Israel can expand further. That and the billionaire military industrial complex players felt like they wanted some more money. Name it what it is. Immoral, racist, and a repetition of the same bullshit we’ve been doing in the Middle East for decades. Calling it a strategic failure gives it more value than it deserves.

Closi 7mo ago
[flagged]
- stein1946 7mo ago
  Are you going to offer a “multi sided, unbiased and fairly sophisticated” view yourself or? The view that trump went to Iran because “regime awful” does not seem to qualify
  - Closi 7mo ago
    I don't think I need to? I don't need to offer my own analysis to know that "Netanyahu asked trump to go to war because he wanted to create instability and that it was because of the the military industrial complex" is the sort of analysis you get if your research is 2 or 3 facebook posts.
- deaux 7mo ago
  > or the longer term risk of the iranian nuclear programme. According to Netanyahu himself the state of the Iranian nuclear programme has been the same for 30 years: "they're right on the cusp of nuclear weapons". The logical conclusion is then that there is almost no risk, quite the opposite - there is stability. Note how completely different this is from e.g. NK. Despite being even much more closed off than Iran, the progression through the years was pretty accurate. Went from "they will want to get nukes" to "they've started working on nukes" to "they're close to nukes" to "they have nukes".
  - Closi 7mo ago
    I don't follow that conclusion - just because Israel has said there has been a risk for 30 years clearly doesn't mean that there isn't a real risk now.
dangus 7mo ago
More people need to read this NYT article. Not only is it astounding the detail and extent of these leaks from the situation room, but what you’re saying is even more true than you might realize. Netanyahu literally threw a presentation up on a conference call to to persuade Trump to do this for him. I’m having difficulty getting archive.is to work on my browser right now so here’s the plain link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-wa...
- SyneRyder 7mo ago
  Full article appeared to be accessible to me with a free account, didn't need an NYT subscription to read. Worth the read, thanks for sharing. EDIT: Worked on my phone, but now on my desktop it's asking for a subscription again. Either way, thanks for the link.
deaux 7mo ago
> I feel like getting obsessed about the strategic failure of this is missing the forest for the trees. Absolutely, but unfortunately I believe you are too. Headlines on the Epstein files and social media mentions of them are almost certainly down 70%+ since the assault on Iran. It was a great success!
- mindslight 7mo ago
  It's a shame too, because the two subjects appear eminently linked, and not just for the distraction effect. There's no real reason people can't be condemning this ill thought out war as being an outright result of the kompromat Mossad has on Trump.
jfengel 7mo ago
I don't doubt that Netanyahu is the reason, but I can't see how this helps Israel expand. He didn't need to attack Iran to get to Lebanon. True, Iran would have helped Hezbollah if it weren't kept busy, but he's not going to get his "buffer zone" anyway. It's just an opportunity to harass Lebanon. He certainly doesn't need to attack Iran to expand in the West Bank. He's building settlements as fast as he can. Attacking Iran punishes them for October 7th, and delays the next one of those. (Gaza is quiet for the moment, but nothing has actually changed.)

RickHull 7mo ago

TACO is misleading. TASAD: Trump Always Seeks A Deal.

jdlshore 7mo ago
He’s objectively terrible at making deals, though. He’s apparently incapable of win-win scenarios. His ego demands that he win while the other party loses, where “winning” is defined as “personally stroking his own ego” and “lining his pockets.” His only negotiation tactic is threats and bullying. Although, in this case, given recent news about prediction market plays, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the whole farce of a “ceasefire” was just prediction market manipulation. (Well, that and TACO Tuesday so Trump could get out of following through on his threat of genocide. One spot of sanity, if you can call it that, in a shit sandwich of the stupidest US foreign policy blunder since the war in Vietnam.)
- defrost 7mo ago
  Some say the stupidest US foreign policy blunder ever, perhaps even the greatest in all history by any leader, dumber even than invading Russia in winter.
  - onlypassingthru 7mo ago
    The stupidest US foreign policy blunder... so far. Invading Cuba, invading Greenland and dropping out of NATO are all on deck, so let's not pick a winner just yet.
- fifilura 7mo ago
  > apparently incapable of win-win scenarios And this is exactly the opposite of how trade works. Trade only happens if both parties have something to gain from it.
lwansbrough 7mo ago
TASTWDYCPI: Trump always seeks the worst deal you can possibly imagine
7mo ago

dangus 7mo ago

Iran is going to get so many of their demands met by the oil-addicted Western world. They might even get all sanctions removed. I’m not even sure Iran realized they had this much leverage before they were forced to use it.

gus_massa 7mo ago
Before, if they try then othercountries can threaten to kill their leader or something.

derelicta 7mo ago

Huge respect to the Islamic Republic (and its allies!) to have stood up against the Empire.