Can President Trump handle the 'Pandora's Box' of Iran War?

[Hobie]

It seemed to be a easy operation much like the one to get Venezuela's strongman, Maduro and take him down and bring him to justice. But right away there was a hint of the complexity of the strikes against Iran as the reasoning was that we had to strike because another country was about to attack, seems like circular reasoning. Then it was because they were days or weeks from enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon, then it grew to defending the neighboring countries from the military strikes from Iran. Now its metamorphizing into a worldwide stranglehold on the oil that the world uses for its energy needs, what is next as this 'Pandora's Box' lets loose its unpredictable results...

 

[Josheb]

Can President Trump handle the Pandora's Box of Iran War?

Sure. The better question is "Will he....?" and "How?"

Or better yet: Why is any trust or confidence placed in what CNN broadcasts?

 

[atpollard]

So the argument is “if the US attacks Terrorists (and virtually every nation acknowledges that Iran is the driving force behind Muslim Terrorist Groups in the Middle East and their activities around the globe) then the Terrorists will respond with acts of terrorism.”

“However, if the US does NOT attack Iranian Terrorists, then the Terrorists will” … [wait a minute, didn’t October 7 reveal that no matter what anyone does, to paraphrase Taylor Swift: ‘Terrorists gonna terror, terror, terror’.]

So what EXACTLY is the alternative? Let Iran kill civilians and ferment Jihad with impunity?

@Hobie [Besides, according to Iranian news, they have completely destroyed major cities in Israel and are winning this war … so why should anyone worry. Iran should completely destroy all the infidels and Russia should occupy all of Ukraine in a few days … then the world can return to a complete state of peace. ]

 

[atpollard]

 

[John Bauer]

Wow, this guy gets a lot of stuff wrong. Yikes.

For example: "All oil goes through [the Strait of Hormuz]. No oil goes anywhere else." Um, no. Around 20% of global traded oil (in normal times) passes through there.

American ships do pass through the strait—but mostly naval vessels. The U.S. Navy regularly transits the strait because the U.S. Fifth Fleet operates in the Persian Gulf. Good luck stopping them.

 

[Hobie]

Sure. The better question is "Will he....?" and "How?"

Or better yet: Why is any trust or confidence placed in what CNN broadcasts?

Well lets go with Radio Free Europe if thats more to your liking....
Trump Says US Blasts Kharg Island, Vows Navy Escorts 'Will Happen Soon' In Strait

 

[atpollard]

For example: "All oil goes through [the Strait of Hormuz]. No oil goes anywhere else." Um, no. Around 20% of global traded oil (in normal times) passes through there.

I don’t know exactly where you quoted that from, but you need to follow closely because he is reading comments from various different people (like Donald Trump or the Iraq Foreign Minister) and commenting on THEIR statements. Around minute 5:00 he deals in detail with EXACTLY which countries receive oil through that straight and makes the observation that Iran announcing that EVERYONE except the US and Israel can ship through the Straight is a de-facto end to the blockade since the U.S. and Israel do not transport our oil through the Straight of Hormuz.

 

[Josheb]

Well lets go with Radio Free Europe if thats more to your liking....
Trump Says US Blasts Kharg Island, Vows Navy Escorts 'Will Happen Soon' In Strait

It's not (because what it reports in that article comes from other "news" outlets) but it looks like Trump is "handling" the "pandora's box" well.


Clarify something for me @Hobie. Why was the idiom of "Pandora's Box" used? It doesn't appear in the CNN video. Do you recognize the biases inherent in the language of "handle" and "Pandora's Box"? Is the op fear mongering intentionally or unwittingly? What if Iran isn't a Pandora's Box? If Iran is not a Pandora's Box, then why should anyone be concerned over whether or not it's "handled"?

Also, do you understand the problem inherent when reports report on reports and the reports that are being report are entirely speculative? Re-watch that video and listen for the speculation being reported. The video starts with a rhetorical question that is never actually succinctly answered: "Is [??????] not prepared?"

• it can be very dangerous...
• perhaps....
• maybe...
• how could that [the maybe they just reported] be?
• I believe...
• potentially....
• some.... may be...

ALL of that language is the language of speculation, not fact. The unstated fact is they do not have any facts to report in those areas of speculation, but they'll willingly report the speculation in a specific direction.

The report NONE of these ships have been going through contradicts the report 20% of the ships are getting through. Self-contradictory reporting is not fact, and it is not news. The facts are about five ships per day are proceeding through the strait, that is much, much less than the average 135+ ships that normally go through the strait on any given day, and not a single ship has been sunk. Many have been damaged, but none sunk.

Why are the facts not being reported?

The RFE/RL article is only marginally better. It cites Fars, Axios, and Reuters as its sources. It states it is not able to verify anything Fars reported . Fars is a propaganda agency of the Iranian government and, while better than most, Axios and Reuters lean left. Why did RFE/RL feel the need to include reporting on the plane crash and US mourning? That is not directly related to the bombing of Kharg Island.




Why does the op frame the discussion as Pandora's Box? Do you believe initiating military aggression against Iran is an unwise decision that generates a myriad of complicated problems, a source of endless complications or trouble arising from a single, simple miscalculation?