[War] Trump declares war on Iran for regime change

He can just send his wife.

 

You'll get Jared and his real estate buddy instead

 

He has 60 days before he's legally obligated to get authorization from Congress.

It'll either last 59 days, or it will go longer if he wants to go back to the Supreme Court.

 

How hasn't our resident IDIOT @El_Conquistador 's head exploded yet..

President Trump said he “might have forced” the attacks on Iran, and that it’s unclear who will take over. Oil and gas prices surged and stock markets fell after U.S. officials said strikes would intensify.

 

I encourage you to read all of T_J's posts between 2003-08 and see exactly how he thinks about Middle East regime change wars!

 

30 days..

 

I'd put solid money that the Supreme Court just strikes down the War Powers Act. And I think that is why they deliberately didn't do the war powers notification to Congress. He already violated the law by not notifying Congress and he will almost certainly not get authorization within 60 days.

And the only body with standing to sue over this is Congress (which they wont do until Democrats get control of one of the houses) so this won't even go to court and when it does, they'll just strike down the War Powers Act.

 

https://amgreatness.com/2026/03/03/trumps-way-of-war/

What, then, are Trump’s new ways of conducting war?

1. Geostrategy. Always behind these seemingly unconnected events—and other nonkinetic moves like warning Panama about Chinese intrusions—strategic concerns loom. The common denominator is usually isolating China from strategic spaces, allies, and oil—and Russia in a lesser sense.

Loud and terrorist, but ultimately impotent, proxies of strategic enemies—Cuba, Iran, Venezuela—are preferable targets. They are not just easily identified enemies given their past anti-American violence; they are also targeted because their demise offers a global display of the weakness of their distant patrons and underwriters.

2. Wars of Reckoning. Trump always frames his interventionism as reactive and long overdue. It is a sort of “reckoning war” for previously overlooked crimes that his predecessors had ignored but are often seared in the American mind. “Preemptive” or “preventative” wars, these strikes may be. But Trump himself avoids the baggage that those adjectives of aggression convey in the collective American memory.

3. War among Negotiations. Trump’s way of warmaking is usually an extension of ongoing negotiations (e.g., over Iran’s nuclear weapons or Maduro’s subsidies to terrorists and drug trafficking). So, during discussions, he offers various exit ramps to his adversaries and publicly laments the possibility of violence.

Meanwhile, American naval and expeditionary assets show up and amass to ramp up the pressure. Trump does not wait for negotiations to fail, but usually offers a deadline to his adversaries. And then he simply informs his advisors of the point at which the enemy has no intention of seeking a peaceful settlement. A strike follows.

4. The Culpable Apparat. Trump prefers top-down war. That is, he starts his attacks by targeting the enemy apparat, not its lesser henchman. The aim is both to disrupt its command and control and to separate an enemy leader from a population deemed not necessarily culpable.

His enemy counterparts—al-Baghdadi, Khamenei, Maduro, Soleimani, the Wagner Group—are widely regarded as odious, which strengthens his prophylactic or reactive action. For all the boilerplate, even Trump’s enemies do not gain empathy since their antiwar activism becomes inseparable from the de facto defense of a rogues’ gallery of deposed and hated killers and thugs.

5. No to Nation-Building. There is no nation-building. Trump sees the U.S. as responsible only for lighting the fuse of revolution, then giving the oppressed the chance of something better if they do not miss their chance at regime change and working with the Americans.

6. No Boots on the Ground. There are few ground troops involved—no chances for an Abu Ghraib misadventure, or humiliating skedaddles from Kabul, or maimed Americans from shaped-charge IEDs.

It is much harder for targets to kill Americans in the air and on the seas. And because there is zero investment in occupying a country and hands-on rebuilding of its institutions, casualties are kept to a minimum. Trump equates deploying a larger ground force in the Middle East with imbecility.

The weapons of choice of Middle East Islamists and terrorists—IEDs, sniper rifles, suicide vests, sudden rocket salvos—are far less effective, given America is fighting its sort of war with overwhelming firepower, technological advantage, and mobility in the air and on the oceans.

Trump prefers overkill to shock and awe, or using minimalist forces. Still, visuals are important. The point is not just to demolish the opposition but to do it with overwhelming redundancy as a global revelation of America’s assets, especially for viewing by the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans.

7. Exit Strategy? There is an exit strategy of sorts, partly rhetorical and partly real—but usually arbitrarily declared by Trump himself. He alone starts the shooting and stops it according to his own definition of when the war begins and ends. The enemy has a vote, of course, but Trump frames the conflict in ways that lessen his say.

Because a transactional rather than ideological Trump holds few grudges, he can announce after taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities in summer 2025 that he wishes to “Make Iran great again!”

Or he praises the Venezuelan people and professes to restore their oil industry to its proper profitability and transparency—even as he storms their presidential palace. If the enemy refuses to give up, Trump assumes it eventually will. He has endless patience, both to pound it by air and sea and then, at any moment, praise the defeated and declare the hostilities over. Critics counter that without regime change—that so often requires ground troops—rotating the faces of the current Venezuelan or Iranian government will not result in a radical change in the targeted nation’s behavior.

8. No to Internationalism. Trump cares nothing for the UN’s condemnations, given its own moral bankruptcy and lack of credibility. For action outside Europe, he does not really consult NATO and much less the European Union. He assumes all three will follow a predictable script: initially critical, then tentative as the tide of battle turns, and finally either praising Trump’s success or eager to get in on itself.

Nor does he worry much about veiled threats from Russia or China. He is careful to consult a key few in Congress, but cares even less that the American Left opposes anything he does. Or rather, he expects their Pavlovian resistance and considers their shrill outbursts and street theater public relations as pluses and the stuff of future campaign ads.

9. Deterrent Displays. Trump uses his strikes as global reminders of American prowess. He showcases the USS Gerald R. Ford mammoth carrier, the largest warship in the history of conflict.

Media maps of American naval assets cover four disparate seas surrounding the Iranian theater—the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean—and derive from Pentagon press releases.

New weaponry is showcased—whether it’s a mystery sonic boom weapon at Maduro’s presidential palace, a new fleet of kamikaze drones in flight to Iran, or a monstrous new carrier.

10. American Self-Interest. Trump will not act unless the public can be apprised of American self-interest, and, in a cost-benefit calculation, there is a good chance of success. He has no interest in liberating and rebooting another Iraq and Afghanistan, since their oppressed populations may hate the infidel Americans as much as they do their own oppressors.

Trump saw Bagram Air Base as fortifiable, strategically located, and defensible, and thus in the U.S. interest, but certainly not so the graveyard of empires or the gender studies program at the university in Kabul. It is no accident that both the targets, Venezuela and Iran, have oil, offering the wherewithal for the liberated without the U.S. having to fund their own restoration. Flipping petro-dictatorships that were proxies under the aegis of China and Russia weakened both.

What Trump says and does are sometimes divergent. Funding Ukraine weakens Russia, which is in the U.S. interest, so Trump finds ways to keep the arms coming mostly without commentary. Letting Israel take care of business and jumping into the war to humiliate Iran last summer unleashed forces that destroyed the Assad regime in Syria—and finally got Russia out of the Middle East.
The present conflict over Iran is the greatest challenge that Trump has faced in either of his two terms. But given his past record, there is a good chance that he will eventually rid Iran of its theocracy—the fleeting hope of the past eight presidents.

For five decades, the Iranian street and its unhinged theocracy scared silly the Middle East with its “Death to America” chants, its promise to destroy the Zionist entity, its brag of going nuclear, and its often overt warnings to rip apart the Sunni-dominated Gulf.

But Trump, with help from Israel, finally revealed the theocracy to be a Keystone Kop kleptocracy. The mullahs screamed “Death to America!” but it was Trump’s America that finally brought death to them.

 

Related
@Salvy
@CrixusTheUndefeatedGaul
@Os Trigonum
@K9Texan
@raining threes
@RB713

 

Iran definitely was going to attack first. They would have attacked even earlier , but they kindly waited for us to get our carrier strike groups in position so that it was more fair .

My prediction, the name Donald /Donny will go like Adolf .

Rubio had some coke yesterday, he was very fired up during his briefing .

In his eyes this is his audition tape for 2028 .

 

Reminds me more of an apocalyptic version of the War of the Roses or Game of Thrones which was inspired by the War of Roses.


GRRM was really inspired by the great Robert Frost anti-war poem Fire and Ice though which I think is really relevant now:

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

.......

For those of you who are new to this poem, it is Frost really speaking about how lust for power and greed is the most destructive force in the world. I think Ice is meant to sort of speak to anti-intellectualism or ignorance being the other destructive force.

I know that Hitler has his special place in history in terms of being a destructive force in this world, but what makes Trump different isn't that he's worse than Hitler, it's that Trump is at the same point in his lifespan, is at the top of his power like they are, and has the same messianic disposition that MULTIPLE world leaders have right now AT THE SAME TIME.

Hitler was a destructive force on his own, but he didn't have as many equally as dangerous world figures in power at the same time at the end of their lifespans as Trump does now with Bibi, Putin, Xi, and the recently deceased Ayatollah. Yes Hitler had Stalin, and Hirohito. But the world also had FDR, and Churchill.... something we do not have right now with any real power to fight against what I believe is pure evil in these 4 figureheads with the 3 left still alive.

We are in some dark times folks. I don't think the world will end in a nuclear apocalypse or anything but I do think that in a number of years we'll certainly look back at this era as one that defines much of what the world will be after picking up the pieces of whatever humanity we have left after these monsters leave the earth.

 

Any fool that believes this can eat used toilet tissue.