Here's what will happen. Trump will stop the air assault and then declare that we've achieved all of our objectives including regime change. He'll repeat that so many times that MAGA will fully believe it.
There may even be a ceasefire agreement, but who exactly will he broker it with, and will they be in a position to follow through?
Hostilities will continue in the ME, and the Strait will continue to be a chokepoint.
Finally, Trump will continue to bitch and moan about our NATO allies remaining on the sidelines. He's oblivious. He can't understand, or refuses to understand, that your allies are not generally inclined to jump into a war that you start without their knowledge, input or consent.
Bush's Iraq war was based on a false premise, but at least he went to Congress and formed a coalition with dozens of countries before invading Iraq. This clown, on the other hand, continues to display his abject stupidity with respect to international matters. He should've stuck to his "America First" promise instead of ceding to Netanyahu.
@aloha-hoosier He's utterly full of shit about pretty much everything.
One of the most dishonest people in US political history. A turd that will never flush, and an embarrassment upon us all.
Dishonest, pathologically narcissistic, performative, shallow, impulsive and lacking in self-control. Those characteristics are wholly incompatible with great (or even average) leadership. We've seen that throughout history. Leaders like that may flourish for a time, but it all eventually comes crashing down.
You need to get off the internet and touch grass. Nothing is coming crashing down.
You need to get out of your MAGA bubble, where all is (bogusly) merry and bright. "The Golden Age." LMAO.
I'm being serious. If you truly believe the stuff you post, take a break from your newsfeed. It's not healthy.
Also, I don't think it's the golden age. Trump has been great on the border and the economy was good 2025. It's not looking as strong in 26 and a prolonged war with Iran isn't going to help the economy. I just don't think everything is crashing because it's not.
By the way I am not a fan of the Iran War either, but it's already started so I do hope we're successful. Instead of parsing bits of information daily they feed us and reacting, I just choose to let it play out for several months. I think we will all know in the fall or late summer if it was a success or not.
Except the S&P@aloha-hoosier He's utterly full of shit about pretty much everything.
One of the most dishonest people in US political history. A turd that will never flush, and an embarrassment upon us all.
Dishonest, pathologically narcissistic, performative, shallow, impulsive and lacking in self-control. Those characteristics are wholly incompatible with great (or even average) leadership. We've seen that throughout history. Leaders like that may flourish for a time, but it all eventually comes crashing down.
Nothing is coming crashing down.
Thanks for making my point. The S&P dropping less than 1% doesn't constitute crashing.
- Declines: The S&P 500 has dropped close to 9% from its highs, while the Nasdaq Nasdaq composite fell into correction territory.
- Worst Performance: Markets recorded their fifth consecutive losing week, marking the worst streak in nearly four years.
- Impact Factors: Rising oil prices and uncertainty regarding the duration of the conflict are driving investors away from riskier assets.
- Specific Drops: In late March, the S&P 500 experienced a single-day drop of 1.67% and another of 1.7%.
The New York Times +3
To be clear, when I talked about things "crashing down," I wasn't limiting it to the economy. The GOP is going to take a beating in November, which will be widely perceived as Trump's fault. The focus will then turn to 2028. Trump will be seen increasingly as a lame duck and, in light of what happens in Nov 2026, a liability. His influence will wane and there will be more and more Republicans, concerned with their own political survival, who distance themselves from him. Except for his hardcore MAGA support, it will be mostly "good-bye and good riddance."Except the S&P@aloha-hoosier He's utterly full of shit about pretty much everything.
One of the most dishonest people in US political history. A turd that will never flush, and an embarrassment upon us all.
Dishonest, pathologically narcissistic, performative, shallow, impulsive and lacking in self-control. Those characteristics are wholly incompatible with great (or even average) leadership. We've seen that throughout history. Leaders like that may flourish for a time, but it all eventually comes crashing down.
Nothing is coming crashing down.
Thanks for making my point. The S&P dropping less than 1% doesn't constitute crashing.
As of late March 2026, the S&P 500 has experienced significant volatility following the start of the conflict, with reports indicating it has fallen roughly 7% to over 8.7% from its peak in late January/early February. The index recently suffered its worst weekly performance in years, driven by fears of inflation and energy supply disruptions.
The New York Times +4Key market movements related to the 2026 Iran conflict:
- Declines: The S&P 500 has dropped close to 9% from its highs, while the Nasdaq Nasdaq composite fell into correction territory.
- Worst Performance: Markets recorded their fifth consecutive losing week, marking the worst streak in nearly four years.
- Impact Factors: Rising oil prices and uncertainty regarding the duration of the conflict are driving investors away from riskier assets.
- Specific Drops: In late March, the S&P 500 experienced a single-day drop of 1.67% and another of 1.7%.
The New York Times +3The market has been heavily impacted by the uncertainty, with analysts warning of potential further volatility depending on the escalation or resolution of the war.
CNN +2
I think there are a lot of correct answers to your question. Rubio is prepared on the topic he is talking about whereas Trump says whatever pops into his mind. Combine that with too many birthdays and presto…the difference is readily available for all to see
Or we did not have a good reason and Rubio is just better at ad libbing.
The reasons have been discussed repeatedly, you just choose willfull ignorance…
Marv, are you saying the U.S. didn't have a "good reason" to go to war with Iran? That seems weird. Having a "good reason" doesn't justify doing it or how it was done, but to say there isn't "a good reason" just ignores reality, even if there are lots of good reasons why we shouldn't.I think there are a lot of correct answers to your question. Rubio is prepared on the topic he is talking about whereas Trump says whatever pops into his mind. Combine that with too many birthdays and presto…the difference is readily available for all to see
Or we did not have a good reason and Rubio is just better at ad libbing.
Also, you know better than most, that justifications for wars change all the time. Always have. It could be that we entered this war for the wrong reasons in the particular mind of Trump, but there end up being plenty of right reasons to do it. Or the other way around. We could go in for the right reasons, but afterwards, figure out it wasn't worth it. Or vice versa.
All of these possibilities, by the way, are why I think we should have a national conversation around the entry into war before we do it. Wars need to be legitimized in all types of societies--even Putin argues legitimacy, as would Kim Jung Un if he had to--but more so in a democracy, where a potentially fickle, emotional, and non-rational public can switch out leaders in a few years.
Marv, are you saying the U.S. didn't have a "good reason" to go to war with Iran? That seems weird. Having a "good reason" doesn't justify doing it or how it was done, but to say there isn't "a good reason" just ignores reality, even if there are lots of good reasons why we shouldn't.I think there are a lot of correct answers to your question. Rubio is prepared on the topic he is talking about whereas Trump says whatever pops into his mind. Combine that with too many birthdays and presto…the difference is readily available for all to see
Or we did not have a good reason and Rubio is just better at ad libbing.
Also, you know better than most, that justifications for wars change all the time. Always have. It could be that we entered this war for the wrong reasons in the particular mind of Trump, but there end up being plenty of right reasons to do it. Or the other way around. We could go in for the right reasons, but afterwards, figure out it wasn't worth it. Or vice versa.
All of these possibilities, by the way, are why I think we should have a national conversation around the entry into war before we do it. Wars need to be legitimized in all types of societies--even Putin argues legitimacy, as would Kim Jung Un if he had to--but more so in a democracy, where a potentially fickle, emotional, and non-rational public can switch out leaders in a few years.
"National conversation?" Um, no. But congressional authorization and a multi-national coalition are always a plus.
Congress debating the issue, discussing it on the floor, holding a vote, etc. necessarily entails a national conversation.Marv, are you saying the U.S. didn't have a "good reason" to go to war with Iran? That seems weird. Having a "good reason" doesn't justify doing it or how it was done, but to say there isn't "a good reason" just ignores reality, even if there are lots of good reasons why we shouldn't.I think there are a lot of correct answers to your question. Rubio is prepared on the topic he is talking about whereas Trump says whatever pops into his mind. Combine that with too many birthdays and presto…the difference is readily available for all to see
Or we did not have a good reason and Rubio is just better at ad libbing.
Also, you know better than most, that justifications for wars change all the time. Always have. It could be that we entered this war for the wrong reasons in the particular mind of Trump, but there end up being plenty of right reasons to do it. Or the other way around. We could go in for the right reasons, but afterwards, figure out it wasn't worth it. Or vice versa.
All of these possibilities, by the way, are why I think we should have a national conversation around the entry into war before we do it. Wars need to be legitimized in all types of societies--even Putin argues legitimacy, as would Kim Jung Un if he had to--but more so in a democracy, where a potentially fickle, emotional, and non-rational public can switch out leaders in a few years.
"National conversation?" Um, no. But congressional authorization and a multi-national coalition are always a plus.
Latest Post: Iran War Has Started Our newest member: Steven Ross Recent Posts Unread Posts
