I've been reading Krugman since 2005. Of all the reviews I've read about Trump's speech last night, my opinion is that Krugman's take is the most accurate:
"It turns out that the speech was sort of an anticlimax, although not in a good way. Many people expected Trump to pull the mother of all TACOs, to declare victory and surrender. He did not do that. He declared victory, of course, but he did not actually announce an end to hostilities. On the contrary, he said we’re going to bomb Iran into the Stone Age.
So add massive war crimes to your schedule. There is clearly no strategy here. There’s no endgame. There’s nothing. It’s hard to tell, as always, whether Trump is delusional or just completely unable to admit something that he actually knows.
One of the moments that really struck me in the speech was him declaring that the whole world was extremely impressed by what happened. He said, the whole world is watching and they can’t believe the power, strength and brilliance. They just can’t believe what they’re seeing. The world can’t believe what it’s seeing.
What it’s seeing is that the world’s greatest military power took on a fourth-rate power. Again, as I said the other day, Iran’s military budget is a rounding error in our military budget. And we lost. For all practical purposes, we’ve left ourselves in a much weaker position and Iran in a stronger position than it was before."
This is how the world sees Trump:
Simply put, it was more Judaeo-Christian bulls**t designed to placate the desires if the Zionist lobby in Washington and the butchering Zionist government in Israel.
ReplyDeleteDave Miller's comment was posted below before today's post, so I brought it here:
ReplyDeleteDave Miller
Well... the speech? Trump was Trump. He was wrong on somethings, he lied about somethings, and he was right about somethings.
Here's what I thought got right...
The US should have dealt with the leadership of Iran years ago. If we believed in the non proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially in the hands of crazy, unstable terrorist supporting governments, we need to back that up. With both diplomacy and force.
Trump stated that past presidents, at this point, back to Reagan, could have chosen to deal with Iran and they refused. That also is correct.
Yes, I know we have a terrible record in the Middle East. Yes, I know we overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran to install the Shah. I know, I know, I know.
Like the world, what we now have in Iran is not perfect. But we might be better off now than we were a month ago.
The problem is we've got a big ego guy who cannot face hard truth and who lies repeatedly.
Even when something good happens, at the end of the day, the POTUS is the same guy. And that doesn't give me much confidence.
April 2, 2026 at 9:54 AM
Do you think we're safer now, we meaning the U.S., than we were before Trump attacked Iran?
Delete"Based on the UN Charter, the US largely lacks recognized legal authority in international law to attack Iran, as experts largely view such actions as acts of aggression.
The UN Charter restricts military force to authorized Security Council actions or self-defense against an armed attack. Strikes against Iran have been deemed illegal as they violate Iran's sovereignty, lack UN approval, and do not constitute authorized self-defense."
Do we just say the hell with international law if we perceive a country to be a menace to us and pre-emptively bomb it and its civilian targets?
There are other unstable countries that have nuclear weapons -- North Korea for one example -- should we pre-emptively bomb them?
I don't know what the long-term consequences of what Trump and Netanyahu did will be. But I personally don't feel safer, because I know that Iran can and most probably will retaliate against the U.S. somehow, somewhere for our pre-emptive attack.
Safer now? I think this IS a case of two things being right at the same time. If a government is horrible to their people, but keep it within their own borders, that's an internal problem we leave alone, as it relates to military action.
DeleteIf a government is fomenting terrorism around the globe, and specifically against the US and her allies, then we might have a reason to go in and remove that threat.
Iran has been a thorn in the world's side for decades.
So, are we safer now? In the short run, I don't think so. In the long run, if we get a better government there, that won't continue their efforts to export terrorism?
Maybe.
But North Korea is a good avatar here. The are not a huge sponsor of terrorism outside of their borders, as Iran has been.
If it was a sane admin, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because the president would have lined his or her ducks up in a row, would not be a serial liar no country could trust, would be seen as an honest broker in diplomacy.
But none of that is true with Trump.
So... maybe I feel safer because hopefully Iran has been chastened. But I don't feel safer because the Keystone Cops Admin did it and they're incompetent.
Do you think we're safer now....
ReplyDeleteNope. The exact opposite.
Just a couple weeks back, Joe Kent resigned as top counter intel chief, stating Iran was not a threat to the US. We know who the threat to the US is, right?
ReplyDeleteEmbrace Multi-Polar Realism, America. You're not the global hegemon anymore.
ReplyDeleteCorrection Joe... We're not the global hegemon anymore.
DeleteNow answer the question... Are we safer now after Trump's invasion into Iran?
By our own actions we are now a declining Empire. A nation is a tailspin to rival and overtake ALL former tailspins. Perhaps even the Roman Empire
ReplyDeleteInteresting foreign policy- bomb them back to the stone age -God knows his own. Oh yeah, that came from the appropriately named Dark Ages.
ReplyDelete