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

[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?

 

[Hobie]

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?

OK, if Trump sends in the Marines to take Kharg Island and oil hits astronomical heights, what do you think will happen. Need to think that through, not just worry about who reports what....

 

[atpollard]

Kharg Island is VERY important to Iran, but not THAT important to the World.

• Iran exports 3.3 million barrels of oil per day [4.5% of the world oil supply]
• Of those 3.3 million barrels, 90% or 3.0 million barrels flow through Kharg Island [4.05% of the world oil supply].
• China purchased 90% of Iran's oil exports [exactly the amount that flows through Kharg Island.]
• This is more of a supply chain adjustment for China than a crisis for the world [even IF "marines" land on Kharg Island ... which marines have no reason to do.]
• Saudi Arabia (7.3m bbls/day), Russia (4.7m bbls/day), USA (3.6m bbls/day), Canada (3.3m bbls/day), UAE (2.7m bbls/day) are all exporters with the capacity to take up the slack of the loss of Kharg Island (3m bbls/day) on world oil supply.
• It is the Economy of Iran that could not survive the loss of 90% of its export revenue.

 

[Josheb]

OK, if Trump sends in the Marines to take Kharg Island and oil hits astronomical heights, what do you think will happen.

I have absolutely no idea and I am definitely not retting over such an event.

Need to think that through, not just worry about who reports what....

That is incorrect. We speak as we think and what we think is influenced by the sources of information relevant to whatever it is we're talking about. The problem is that both "news" media and the government lie. Any and all discussion of any topic predicated on lies is likely to result in more falsehoods, not truth or fact. On top of that, despite my ordinarily being a skeptic and cynic, I do not fret, nor do I fear monger or speculate irrationally or recklessly.

The question asked in the op has been answered: Yes, Trump can handle an armed conflict with Iran.

Will he "handle" such an event? So far, it looks like he is "handling" armed conflict with Iran very well, but the op should define its terms, be specific as possible and refrain from euphemisms at least until the definitions of terms have been established. Win or lose, I doubt Mr. Trump will sustain a long-term armed conflict with Iran, but I doubted he'd start any armed conflict lasting as long as this one has existed. I think Trump will end armed hostilities when he wants. He'll find a way to frame the exit as a victory and walk away. Donald Trump is not a professional politician, but he is better at nearly everything than the professional. He's more decisive, more engaging, more resilient, better at rhetoric, better at managing the press, better at telling the truth, and better at lying. No one talks about that in the media, but that's what five years have demonstrably proved.

He is quite aggravating .

If you mean something other than "armed conflict" when using the phrase "Pandora's Box" then say so. Make sure everyone is discussing the exact same premise you are and do it so as to avoid the problems of ambiguity and false equivalences. No war is predictable and all wars produce multiple other problems, as well as unintended consequences. A subdued Iran will be no different. A more belligerent Iran will be more of the same (the last 45 years), not something different.

And, lastly, you might try answering your own question because, as the posts currently reflect, you're not participating in your own thread.



Yes, Trump can handle armed conflict with Iran.

 

[Josheb]

I have absolutely no idea and I am definitely not retting over such an event.

Oops! That's supposed to be "fretting," not "retting."

 

[Hobie]

Kharg Island is VERY important to Iran, but not THAT important to the World.

• Iran exports 3.3 million barrels of oil per day [4.5% of the world oil supply]
• Of those 3.3 million barrels, 90% or 3.0 million barrels flow through Kharg Island [4.05% of the world oil supply].
• China purchased 90% of Iran's oil exports [exactly the amount that flows through Kharg Island.]
• This is more of a supply chain adjustment for China than a crisis for the world [even IF "marines" land on Kharg Island ... which marines have no reason to do.]
• Saudi Arabia (7.3m bbls/day), Russia (4.7m bbls/day), USA (3.6m bbls/day), Canada (3.3m bbls/day), UAE (2.7m bbls/day) are all exporters with the capacity to take up the slack of the loss of Kharg Island (3m bbls/day) on world oil supply.
• It is the Economy of Iran that could not survive the loss of 90% of its export revenue.

Very true.... but my gas prices just jumped by almost a dollar a gallon, so dont care if its just China getting it or the 'Economy of Iran', when I have a 25% hike......

 

[makesends]

Very true.... but my gas prices just jumped by almost a dollar a gallon, so dont care if its just China getting it or the 'Economy of Iran', when I have a 25% hike......

They use any excuse they can to jump prices. Have you no memory of the past?

 

[Hobie]

They use any excuse they can to jump prices. Have you no memory of the past?

Yes, but I've been away since January on mission trip, etc.. and it was $2.79 when I left and just went to top of the vehicles, its $3.99 a gallon. When the big one hit in '74, it went from 34 cents a gallon to 50 cents. I could fill up the Chevelle with a $10, no biggie.....

 

[atpollard]

My grandmother once educated me about the “good old days” by saying “I remember when bread cost a nickel … who had a nickel?” She taught me to fact check memories against real world metrics. So let’s look at gas prices:

Yes, but I've been away since January on mission trip, etc.. and it was $2.79 when I left and just went to top of the vehicles, its $3.99 a gallon. When the big one hit in '74, it went from 34 cents a gallon to 50 cents. I could fill up the Chevelle with a $10, no biggie.....

In 1974, working at McDonald, a person would have earned $1.60 per hour (2.7 cents per minute).
In 1974, your gas cost you 34 cents per gallon, so it took 12.6 minutes to pay for a gallon of gas.
In 1974, your gas went up to 50 cents per gallon, so it took 18.5 minutes to pay for a gallon of gas.

In 2026, working at McDonalds, a Florida minimum wage is $14 per hour (23.3 cents per minute).
Gas was $2.79 when you left, so it took 12.0 minutes to pay for a gallon of gas.
Gas is now $3.99, so it takes 17.1 minutes to pay for a gallon of gas.

So things are no worse (except for the buying power of $1) and 50 cents per gallon in 1974 is $4.31 in 2026 gas prices. [not counting the fact that my 1974 Olds Delta 88 Royale got 12 mpg and a 2026 Chevy Equinox gets 27 mpg.]

 

[Josheb]

Yes, but I've been away since January on mission trip, etc.. and it was $2.79 when I left and just went to top of the vehicles, its $3.99 a gallon. When the big one hit in '74, it went from 34 cents a gallon to 50 cents. I could fill up the Chevelle with a $10, no biggie.....

During the Obama administration the national average was this high and during the Biden administration the national average got as high as $5.02 per gallon. In California a gallon topped $7! I think that is the past to which @makesends is referring.

 

[makesends]

My grandmother once educated me about the “good old days” by saying “I remember when bread cost a nickel … who had a nickel?” She taught me to fact check memories against real world metrics. So let’s look at gas prices:



In 1974, working at McDonald, a person would have earned $1.60 per hour (2.7 cents per minute).
In 1974, your gas cost you 34 cents per gallon, so it took 12.6 minutes to pay for a gallon of gas.
In 1974, your gas went up to 50 cents per gallon, so it took 18.5 minutes to pay for a gallon of gas.

In 2026, working at McDonalds, a Florida minimum wage is $14 per hour (23.3 cents per minute).
Gas was $2.79 when you left, so it took 12.0 minutes to pay for a gallon of gas.
Gas is now $3.99, so it takes 17.1 minutes to pay for a gallon of gas.

So things are no worse (except for the buying power of $1) and 50 cents per gallon in 1974 is $4.31 in 2026 gas prices. [not counting the fact that my 1974 Olds Delta 88 Royale got 12 mpg and a 2026 Chevy Equinox gets 27 mpg.]

Add to that figuring, the tax rates, not only on income, but on value in general. In 74, I paid no tax. Not so in 2026. Ok, no, I don't (and didn't) work at McDonalds, but you get the point. Oh. In 1974 my Toyota Corolla got 36 mpg.

 

[Hobie]

My grandmother once educated me about the “good old days” by saying “I remember when bread cost a nickel … who had a nickel?” She taught me to fact check memories against real world metrics. So let’s look at gas prices:



In 1974, working at McDonald, a person would have earned $1.60 per hour (2.7 cents per minute).
In 1974, your gas cost you 34 cents per gallon, so it took 12.6 minutes to pay for a gallon of gas.
In 1974, your gas went up to 50 cents per gallon, so it took 18.5 minutes to pay for a gallon of gas.

In 2026, working at McDonalds, a Florida minimum wage is $14 per hour (23.3 cents per minute).
Gas was $2.79 when you left, so it took 12.0 minutes to pay for a gallon of gas.
Gas is now $3.99, so it takes 17.1 minutes to pay for a gallon of gas.

So things are no worse (except for the buying power of $1) and 50 cents per gallon in 1974 is $4.31 in 2026 gas prices. [not counting the fact that my 1974 Olds Delta 88 Royale got 12 mpg and a 2026 Chevy Equinox gets 27 mpg.]

Very true, but I tend to get shocked by the amounts in the totals, not the inflation/wage adjusted numbers.

I still mourn the fact that I could have bought a 1970 Mustang Fastback for under $3000 instead of 1970 Chevelle Malibu and it would be worth ten fold that today if not more. Oh the regrets of our wasted youth...

 

[Hobie]

Add to that figuring, the tax rates, not only on income, but on value in general. In 74, I paid no tax. Not so in 2026. Ok, no, I don't (and didn't) work at McDonalds, but you get the point. Oh. In 1974 my Toyota Corolla got 36 mpg.

Yes, but would you look good driving with a few inches rattling between you and the asphalt and getting such high mpg, or in a smooth 77 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme w/350 my girlfriend would pick me up in...

 

[Hobie]

Well, back to the issue at hand, this 'Pandoras Box' of the war in Iran is getting worse every day...
"President Donald Trump has consistently asserted that the war with Iran is going well. But his decision to ask for help from allies and other countries to resolve the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz is the latest evidence that calls that into question.

In fact, Trump repeatedly said he didn’t need help from other countries — including very recently — and he’s spent years alienating allies.

But the US president began ramping up his calls for help on Sunday.

“It’d be nice to have other countries police it with us,” Trump said aboard Air Force One, noting much of the oil that China imports comes through the strait.

Trump also insisted that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should get involved.

“We’re always there for NATO. We’re helping them with Ukraine,” Trump said, adding: “Doesn’t affect us, but we’ve helped them. It’d be interesting to see what country wouldn’t help us with a very small endeavor, which is just keeping the strait open.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/16/politics/nato-trump-demands-help-strait-of-hormuz

 

[John Bauer]

Well, back to the issue at hand, this 'Pandoras Box' of the war in Iran is getting worse every day. President Donald Trump has consistently asserted that the war with Iran is going well. But his decision to ask for help from allies and other countries to resolve the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz is the latest evidence that calls that into question.

In fact, Trump repeatedly said he didn’t need help from other countries—including very recently—and he’s spent years alienating allies.

But the US president began ramping up his calls for help on Sunday.

“It’d be nice to have other countries police it with us,” Trump said aboard Air Force One, noting much of the oil that China imports comes through the strait.

Trump also insisted that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should get involved.

“We’re always there for NATO. We’re helping them with Ukraine,” Trump said, adding: “Doesn’t affect us, but we’ve helped them. It’d be interesting to see what country wouldn’t help us with a very small endeavor, which is just keeping the strait open.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/16/politics/nato-trump-demands-help-strait-of-hormuz

Your hypothesis: Trump is asking for help because the U.S. can’t handle the Pandora’s Box they opened with Iran.

Alternative hypothesis: Trump is asking for help not because the U.S. needs it but because the quid pro quo principle.

In other words, “We have spent decades defending NATO allies. It’s time they start contributing more, not just economically but kinetically.”

 

[atpollard]

Those that GET OIL from the Straight of Hormuz, should help protect the Straight of Hormuz from a Terrorist Nation attacking THEIR oil supply ... what a concept!

[I suppose the US could just send them a BILL for the cost of the US Navy protecting their oil supply for them.]

 

[Hobie]

Your hypothesis: Trump is asking for help because the U.S. can’t handle the Pandora’s Box they opened with Iran.

Alternative hypothesis: Trump is asking for help not because the U.S. needs it but because the quid pro quo principle.

In other words, “We have spent decades defending NATO allies. It’s time they start contributing more, not just economically but kinetically.”

Well, it is a Pandora's Box by all definitions..
Definition

Pan·dora's box
[panˌdɔːrəz ˈbɒks]
noun
Pandora's box (noun)
Pandora's boxes (plural noun)

1. a process that once begun generates many complicated problems:
   "these policies might open a Pandora's box of inflationary wage claims"
   
   

Pandora's box
noun [ S ]

uk

/pænˌdɔː.rəz ˈbɒks/ us

/pænˌdɔːr.əz ˈbɑːks/

Add to word list
something that creates a lot of new problems that you did not expect:

Or in the meaning given to the mythical story...
"A "Pandora's box" is a metaphor in our modern languages, and the proverbial phrase refers to a source of endless complications or trouble arising from a single, simple miscalculation. "
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-was-pandoras-box-118577


if it has to be literally in the news post then we can go with this one.....

"'Pandora's box of chaos': Few easy ways out for Trump as war with Iran drags on
Two weeks into the war, Iran holds many cards as it chokes the world's oil supply and strikes US allies in the Gulf, who had for years staked their reputations on political and economic stability.

'Pandora's box of chaos': Few easy ways out for Trump as war with Iran drags on

I didnt know the meaning was to be such a source of confusion, as I 'assumed' everyone was clear on it. Thats what I get for assuming....

 

[John Bauer]

I am fairly confident that most of the members here are familiar with the term “Pandora’s Box”—which is precisely why the objections are being raised: This is not that box.

The first definition you provided is inadequate, for things as mundane as getting married would be a Pandora’s Box, because it is “a process that once begun generates many complicated problems.”

The second definition doesn’t fit the situation in Iran, for the problems created by attacking Iran were expected.

The third definition also doesn’t fit, because the complications are not endless and there is no evidence it was a miscalculation.

And your premise that Iran is choking “the world's oil supply” is false. Iran’s oil export market is overwhelmingly Asian. That is not the world.

This is why people are taking issue with your characterization of the conflict.

 

[Hobie]

I am fairly confident that most of the members here are familiar with the term “Pandora’s Box”—which is precisely why the objections are being raised: This is not that box.

The first definition you provided is inadequate, for things as mundane as getting married would be a Pandora’s Box, because it is “a process that once begun generates many complicated problems.”

The second definition doesn’t fit the situation in Iran, for the problems created by attacking Iran were expected.

The third definition also doesn’t fit, because the complications are not endless and there is no evidence it was a miscalculation.

And your premise that Iran is choking “the world's oil supply” is false. Iran’s oil export market is overwhelmingly Asian. That is not the world.

This is why people are taking issue with your characterization of the conflict.

Then I must have misunderstood what Pandora's Box means, but there seems to be many others coming to the same conclusion.....

MSN

https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/trump-iran-strategy-pandoras-box-west-asia-13987090.html

The U.S. Military Kicked Open the Iran 'Pandora's Box'. Now We Find Out What Lurks Inside

Trump’s Iran Gamble

Has the killing of Ali Khamenei opened a Pandora’s box? - TRT World - TRT World

This one seems to be a neutral source...
10 key questions Congress must ask about the Iran war

 

[QVQ]

This one seems to be a neutral source...
10 key questions Congress must ask about the Iran war

"The war that started one week ago"
To my own recollection it started on November 4, 1979