Post #1697065

2026-03-13 02:58 UTC

@edgeworth I guess that's possible? What I really want to see is something that would align a large chunk of the trump administration with attacking Iran. People like Kushner and Miller are anti-Iran, so there's some momentum there. Take the Greenland thing. Trump can talk about that, but no-one inside the administration seems to really be pushing to actually do it. I feel like attacking Iran, which is possibly even stupider than invading Greenland, would need a bunch of the administration excited about it, for reasons I can't understand. Other than propping up Israel, what do they gain? Where is the corruption that is to be found when you follow the money?

Replies (2)

@hanshuebner@mastodon.social 2026-03-13 04:59

@tito_swineflu @edgeworth Leeja Miller has an explanation https://youtu.be/uOFNVjphnuw

Open ##1697066
@edgeworth@sfba.social 2026-03-14 15:07

@tito_swineflu I think of two aspects here: 1) There's rarely one reason why individuals in a large group agree to take a course of action. Everyone has their own specific agenda, and even individuals have a complex interaction of various motivations. 2) Even with all those intersecting motivations, there's still the over-arching element of "we need to do something that The People approve of." Greenland was a non-starter in that realm, but Iran has a bad-enough reputation, and Israel's targets like Gaza seem to get little international support, that attacking Iran ends up being the thing that earns the least disapproval. They're sinking in disapproval right now and they need a win. I'm not sure they understand how incapable they are of pulling a "win" out of the morass they've kicked off.

Open ##1697068