Will Trump Nuke Iran to Bring a Quick End to the Stalemate?

I have my own hypothesis about why the idiot is clueless about the war on Iran: He is merely following the Zionists' directives. He himself doesn't want war, but he has been fooled and bamboozled by his Zionist handlers into waging war against Iran. The world has accepted a nuclear North Korea, a nuclear Pakistan, a nuclear India, and a nuclear Israel. What difference will it make if Iran becomes a nuclear country? The thing with nuclear weapons is that no one dares use them offensively; they serve as a defensive deterrent. Even if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, it will never use it unless it is willing to disappear from the surface of the globe.

Which brings me to the really scary scenario of the senile madman in the Whout House deciding - if Iran doesn't surrender (which I don't think it ever will, like the Vietcong back in the 1960s nd 1970s) - to nuke Iran in order to bring a quick end to the stalemate. Trump can cite Truman's 1945 calculation of the number of casualties (US and Japanese) that would succumb from a land invasion of Japan versus the number of casualties from dropping a nuclear bomb, and use it as an argument in favor of nuking Iran. Trump can also be assured that history will remember him more for dropping the first nuclear bomb since 1945 than for all his epic criminality and stupidity. Still, it's hard to foresee the consequences of nuking Iran.

Trump did not want war, but the Zionists gave him orders and he is reluctantly obeying them. He does want a quick end to the war, for fear of losing his Arab Gulf allies and losing the midterms next November. With his shallow cerebrum, he might think that a couple of nuclear bombs over Tehran might assuage his fears an secure him a paragraph in the history books. 
===========================================

The question isn’t whether Trump is clueless about the war in Iran, it’s why
Steve Benen
Thu, March 12, 2026


President Donald Trump speaks on stage on March 11, 2026, in Hebron, Kentucky. (Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

On Wednesday night, after headlining a campaign rally in Kentucky, Donald Trump spoke briefly to reporters at the White House, one of whom asked about developments in the Strait of Hormuz. The president responded, “The straits are in great shape.”

This was plainly absurd. Indeed, the crisis conditions in this relatively small waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, which includes shipping lanes that provide much of the world with oil and fertilizer, have generated deadly violence, disrupted oil supplies and wreaked havoc in global markets.

So why did Trump say things are “in great shape”? It’s certainly possible that he was just trying to deceive the public, as he has been known to do, but there’s another explanation that’s worth considering: What if the president has no idea what he’s talking about, and appears generally clueless about the war he started for reasons he hasn’t explained, because people around him are afraid to present him with facts? The New York Times had a report this week that included a memorable element:

Inside the administration, some officials are growing pessimistic about the lack of a clear strategy to finish the war. But they have been careful not to express that directly to the president, who has repeatedly declared that the military operation is a complete success.

To be sure, much of Trump’s incoherence is his own fault. On Wednesday, for example, he referred to the U.S. military offensive as a “war” and an “excursion.” Asked which of those labels was accurate, he replied, “Well, it’s both. It’s an excursion that will keep us out of a war. … For them, it’s a war. For us, it’s turned out to be easier than we thought.”

Got that? According to the Republican president, we’re currently in a war that will keep us out of a war, except for our enemy, for which it is an actual war. (This came just a couple of days after Trump offered a related assessment, in which he said the United States has already won the war, which we’ll win soon, which we haven’t won enough, which is both over and just getting started.)

The evidence that this guy is just in over his head is overwhelming.

But I’m also interested in the nonsensical claims that might also be attributed to the president being in an information bubble of the White House’s making. Trump insisted this week, for example, that the entirety of Iran’s political leadership has been completely eliminated. Reuters reported soon after that U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran’s leadership “is still largely intact and is not at risk of collapse any time soon.”

Did Trump just peddle made-up nonsense, was his team afraid to present him with inconvenient facts, or was it both?

Similarly, earlier this week, the president said several Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, have attacked Iran in recent days. That has not happened.

Was Trump, who has long struggled to tell the difference between reality and events he wishes were true, telling another tall tale, or did administration officials assure him that we have many allies that have joined the fight?

The most obvious explanation for Trump’s rampant falsehoods is that he’s the most prolific liar in modern American history, one who wants the public to believe his war/excursion is a great success. But as the crisis continues, it’ll be worth watching to see how many facts are kept from Trump by aides and officials who are afraid to tell their boss what he doesn’t want to hear.

The post The question isn’t whether Trump is clueless about the war in Iran, it’s why appeared first on MS NOW.

This article was originally published on ms.now