I never said I supported Trump tearing up the JCPOA. I did not.
That said, once he withdrew from the deal, attempting to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities became a different question. I don’t believe the world needs more nuclear-armed states, especially ones governed by hardline religious leadership. Preventing nuclear proliferation is a legitimate strategic objective.
Trump claimed he successfully crippled Iran’s nuclear capacity and pushed back aggressively against reporters who questioned that claim. So the real issue is: did the strikes or policies actually achieve that objective, or didn’t they? That’s a factual question, not a partisan one.
The larger concern is process and alliances. If he had pursued a coordinated strategy through Congress and worked closely with traditional allies rather than relying almost exclusively on Israel, that would have strengthened the legitimacy and durability of the action. Acting without broader allied backing increases political and strategic risk. If events spiral out of control, accountability will ultimately fall on him.
That being said, in purely military terms, I do believe Israel and the U.S. military possess overwhelming conventional superiority over Iran. I believe they will dismantle much of Iran’s conventional military infrastructure in a short period of time, potentially within a couple of weeks. The harder question isn’t whether they could win the opening phase, but what comes after: regional escalation, asymmetric retaliation, proxy conflicts, cyber operations, global economic fallout, higher prices?? YAY, I can't wait for the midterms!!!!
.
