Trump supporters who backed his promise to avoid new Middle East wars worry Iran’s attacks on shipping are pushing the U.S. toward escalation — and maybe even boots on the ground.
When the U.S. started firing Tomahawk missiles at Iran late last month, many of Donald Trump’s allies hoped it would be a quick, surgical operation, similar to last year’s strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities or the ouster of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro in January.
Though uneasy, they were reassured by the belief that Trump’s open-ended objectives gave him the flexibility to declare victory whenever he saw fit.
Now, more than two weeks into the campaign, some of those allies believe the president no longer controls how, or when, the war ends. They fear Iran’s attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, which have rattled global crude markets and threaten broader economic distress, are boxing Trump into a situation where escalating the conflict — potentially even putting American boots on the ground — becomes the only way to credibly claim victory.
I’ve become more critical of the way I’m reading headlines lately and this one stuck out to me. The implication is that a sitting leader of one sovereign nation should have control of another sovereign nation or that the latter nation should be “subservient” to them. It’s really interesting how the build the intended power dynamic with that one sentence.
Definitely nothing to do with the editorial bias of Politico’s owners…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE#Criticism
I read it differently. That sentence makes it sound like the “President” is actually a competent leader whose plans are falling apart, rather than the dangerously stupid puppet that he is. All media outlets keep sane-washing him like he has plans to begin with, is capable of strategic thought, and is somehow actually trying to do any kind of good for anyone but himself and his handlers.
America is rat-fucked until the people can establish at least one media outlet that isn’t indifferent to all the evil being perpetrated against them.
If anyone in any responsible position, listened to that 45 minute CNN interview where he repeatedly contradicted himself would give him some Seroquel and send Grandpa back to the Rainbow room for his evening mush.
I read it as control of the situation, particularly his self perceived control of the war. Weird for a headline to play to that. Your critique is valid, the headline is poorly written.
Yeah, pretty sure it’s meant to mean [The war in] Iran…
I particularly liked the underlying assumption throughout the article that Trump absolutely has to have Iran capitulate and therefore the only thing they can do is to continue to escalate. That “declare victory and leave” isn’t something they’ve even considered.
The problem with the ‘declare victory and leave’ is that the enemy gets a vote. Even if shitler pulled forces back, Iran ain’t got no reason to stop shooting tankers now.
Also… Do we just have two carrier groups trapped in the Gulf now? Guess our navy is just gonna have to ‘man up’ like he told the tankers to? That could get real spicy REAL quick.
Serving on the USS Ford has to be like being in prison.
I don’t believe they’re actually in the Gulf, for that exact reason.
Also, fun fact! We decommissioned our minesweeper fleet in the Gulf, the last of them were shipped out from Bahrain in January. You know, just weeks before we started a damn naval war. All we got now is some equipment bolted onto repurposed LCS…
6 months before that Patel and Hegseth fied a ton of Mideast counterterroism experts.
This is normal US media implication since 1940s. Supreme right. The control reference in article seems to be that there may have been some minor miscalculations about whether “allies” would be made to die to impose US authority on Iran, and to obtain certain glory, we’ll just start a mandatory draft, and shoot any protestors. It’s the only way, and we are not allowed any other ideas.