AZ_HighCountry
INT'L MOD
- Thread starter
- #5,056
Brilliant. Love it.
US Perspective on the Iran - Israel / US War
- Thread starter AZ_HighCountry
- Start date
Watandar
Trusted Member
Trump , giving conflicting signals, caught between a rock and a hard place.
Watandar
Trusted Member
Poll : 60% of Americans say Iran war not worth the cost.
navigatorresearch.org
War with Iran Remains Unpopular at Home | Navigator Research
Polling report tracking Americans’ views on the war with Iran, diplomacy, and the impact on costs here at home
navigatorresearch.org
BigMela2onin
Registered Member
Poll : 60% of Americans say Iran war not worth the cost.
War with Iran Remains Unpopular at Home | Navigator Research
Polling report tracking Americans’ views on the war with Iran, diplomacy, and the impact on costs here at home
I was criticized for saying Americans don't oppose the war on any moral grounds and are just upset that prices have risen. Another way of reading this is that 40% of Americans think the costs have been worth it to blow up children and hospitals.
If anything they would be happy if Trump killed more Iranian civilians to try to get a better deal. There is no distinction between the US regime and 99% of US citizens.
KAL-EL
VIP Member
Well of course.. the majority of Americans want no part of this warPoll : 60% of Americans say Iran war not worth the cost.
War with Iran Remains Unpopular at Home | Navigator Research
Polling report tracking Americans’ views on the war with Iran, diplomacy, and the impact on costs here at home
Davey Crockett
Elite Member
Solomon2
Elite Member
Iran Failed Trump's Test
by Ahmed CharaiJuly 10, 2026 at 4:00 am
- Trump... gave the remnants of the regime a final chance: step back, accept restraint, and choose coexistence over confrontation. Iran failed that test.
- The regime did not moderate. It did not reassure its neighbors. It did not abandon its hostility toward Israel. It did not choose prosperity for the Iranian people. It returned to its usual methods: missiles, drones, threats, blackmail, and violence. Trump did not abandon diplomacy. Iran destroyed it.
- When Iran threatens Hormuz, it threatens Washington, Jerusalem, Manama, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait City, Riyadh, Doha, and Muscat. It also threatens Paris, Berlin, Rome, London, and every capital that depends on global commerce. Maritime security is a collective responsibility.
- The question of the Iranian regime itself is different. That has now become a matter of American national security.
- A dictatorial regime that publicly tolerates calls for the assassination of the president of the United States cannot be treated as just another difficult adversary. A red line has been crossed. No dictator, militia leader, or revolutionary movement should believe that threatening an American president and his family can be dismissed...
- The survival of this regime, in its current form, is incompatible with regional peace, nuclear restraint, freedom of navigation, Israel's security, Gulf stability, and American interests. A political transition in Iran is no longer a radical idea. It is the most reasonable strategic outcome.
- Trump gave Tehran a chance. Tehran failed. Now he must finish what he began.
- Every dictatorship is watching. If Iran can threaten an American president, attack American partners, endanger international trade, and survive with limited consequences, others will draw the wrong lesson.
- Every dictatorship is watching. If Iran can threaten an American president, attack American partners, endanger international trade, and survive with limited consequences, others will draw the wrong lesson
- He has already shown the courage to begin. Now he must show the resolve to finish.
President Donald Trump's intransigence on Iran should not be underestimated.
From the beginning, his approach followed a clear sequence: strike, weaken, test, and enforce. American power changed the balance of force. Diplomacy then tested whether what remained of the Iranian regime could recognize reality and choose restraint. Tehran answered with escalation. Enforcement became unavoidable.
Trump weakened Iran's military confidence and damaged key elements of its nuclear and strategic infrastructure. Then he gave the remnants of the regime a final chance: step back, accept restraint, and choose coexistence over confrontation. Iran failed that test.
The resumption of American strikes against Iranian military targets is not a contradiction of diplomacy. It is the consequence of diplomacy being betrayed.
Several weeks ago, I argued that Trump's opening to Tehran should be understood neither as naïveté nor as surrender. It was a test. It was designed to determine whether a weakened regime still had enough strategic sense to stop before destroying itself.
The answer is now clear.
The regime did not moderate. It did not reassure its neighbors. It did not abandon its hostility toward Israel. It did not choose prosperity for the Iranian people. It returned to its usual methods: missiles, drones, threats, blackmail, and violence. Trump did not abandon diplomacy. Iran destroyed it.
Iran's renewed aggression in the Gulf is part of the same strategic pattern: pressure the Gulf, threaten Israel, intimidate international trade, and test American resolve. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait have faced direct attacks, but the entire Gulf remains under Iranian threat.
In such moments, leadership matters. Some leaders have responded with clarity, courage, and dignity. The United Arab Emirates has shown that firmness and composure can go together. Others continue to rely on ambiguity, hoping that caution will protect them from a regime that respects only strength. That illusion has failed many times before.
The regime was offered a way out. It chose escalation.
The Strait of Hormuz now makes this a matter far beyond the Gulf. Protecting Gulf states, freedom of navigation, and international trade cannot be left to the United States alone. These are European interests. They are NATO interests. They are the interests of every economy that depends on the movement of energy, goods, and commerce through one of the world's most important waterways.
Europe and NATO must maintain a serious military presence alongside the United States to secure the Gulf and protect maritime trade. When Iran threatens Hormuz, it threatens Washington, Jerusalem, Manama, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait City, Riyadh, Doha, and Muscat. It also threatens Paris, Berlin, Rome, London, and every capital that depends on global commerce. Maritime security is a collective responsibility.
The question of the Iranian regime itself is different. That has now become a matter of American national security.
A dictatorial regime that publicly tolerates calls for the assassination of the president of the United States cannot be treated as just another difficult adversary. A red line has been crossed. No dictator, militia leader, or revolutionary movement should believe that threatening an American president and his family can be dismissed as propaganda or answered with another warning. This is deterrence.
The United States must send a clear message to every dictatorship watching: America may negotiate. America may show restraint. America may offer a path away from confrontation. But if a regime mistakes restraint for weakness, attacks American allies, threatens global trade, and incites violence against the president of the United States, it will face consequences beyond temporary strikes.
That is why the objective cannot be another pause before the next crisis. It cannot be another memorandum, another negotiation, or another diplomatic photo that allows Tehran to regroup. The objective must be to ensure that this regime can no longer threaten Israel, the Gulf, Europe, or the United States with impunity.
Trump understood this. He used force. He opened a diplomatic door. He waited to see whether Iran's remaining leadership had the judgment to step back. They did not.
The survival of this regime, in its current form, is incompatible with regional peace, nuclear restraint, freedom of navigation, Israel's security, Gulf stability, and American interests. A political transition in Iran is no longer a radical idea. It is the most reasonable strategic outcome.
This does not require occupation. It does not require nation-building. It does not require repeating past mistakes. It requires pressure, clarity, and political will.
The United States has options. It can continue to degrade the regime's military capabilities. It can isolate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It can intensify pressure on the financial networks that sustain repression and proxy warfare. It can support the Iranian people's access to information. It can work with allies to protect Gulf states from missile and drone attacks. And it can make clear that threats against American leaders and their families will be treated as acts of strategic hostility, not slogans.
Trump gave Tehran a chance. Tehran failed. Now he must finish what he began.
Trump broke that psychological barrier. He proved that American power can be used directly against the regime's military machine when American interests and allies are threatened.
That achievement should not be wasted.
This is now about the security of the United States, the safety of its allies, the protection of global trade, and the credibility of American deterrence. Every dictatorship is watching. If Iran can threaten an American president, attack American partners, endanger international trade, and survive with limited consequences, others will draw the wrong lesson.
Trump has reached a defining moment. He can be remembered as the leader who temporarily contained Iran, or as the president who broke the regime's ability to threaten the region and America itself.
He has already shown the courage to begin. Now he must show the resolve to finish.
Solomon2
Elite Member
Opinion
Marc A. Thiessen
July 9, 2026 at 7:00 a.m. EDT Yesterday at 7:00 a.m. EDT
Regular readers know that I have been debunking the myth of MAGA isolationism for a while, citing a series of polls from the Ronald Reagan Institute and others that have consistently shown MAGA Republicans are more hawkish and less isolationist than any other segment of the American electorate.
The isolationist right has dismissed those results as “Zombie Reaganism” — a dying “baby boomer supernova” driven by older Republicans with gauzy memories of a bygone era of 1980s GOP world leadership. Younger MAGA voters are far less supportive of bold U.S. leadership on the global stage, critics insist, and the future of MAGA is isolationist.
To see if that’s correct, the Reagan Institute decided to drill down on the foreign policy views of MAGA voters under 30. Well, the results are in — and the news is not good for the isolationist right. Young MAGA voters don’t want America to pull back from the world; they want to lead it.
A 72 percent supermajority of young MAGA voters believe the United States should be “more engaged and take the lead” on foreign policy, while just 19 percent say it should be “less engaged and react to events” — a 53-point spread in favor of U.S. global leadership. The institute surveyed more than 1,500 respondents nationwide in late May and early June, including a statistically significant sample of MAGA Republicans under 30.
Young MAGA voters not only want the U.S. to lead, they want that leadership to be driven by American values: 74 percent agree that “the U.S. has a moral obligation to stand up for human rights and democracy whenever possible in international affairs.” Almost 80 percent agree that “promoting freedom and democracy in authoritarian countries” should be a focus of U.S. foreign policy and that “defending people facing religious persecution in other countries” should be a U.S. priority. And 64 percent said they support “funding programs and organizations designed to advance freedom and democracy abroad,” while just 31 percent said the programs were “not worth the expense.”
This commitment to America’s moral mission in the world is evident in their views on Iran: 59 percent of Gen Z MAGA voters say “supporting the Iranian people in their efforts to secure freedom and democracy” is important (as did 67 percent of MAGA voters over 30), while just 13 percent say it’s not. Asked if they approve or disapprove of the military actions President Donald Trump has taken against Iran this year, 73 percent of MAGA voters under 30 approve, as did 89 percent of older ones.
Perhaps most important, 61 percent of under-30 MAGA voters want to see the Iranian regime either removed or weakened, while just 35 percent say they prefer a “negotiated settlement” in which “Iran’s current government remains in exchange for verifiable limits on its nuclear and missile programs.”
Young MAGA voters support the “Donroe Doctrine” in the Western Hemisphere: 64 percent agree with Trump’s decision to remove Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela, and 60 percent would support using military force to remove the current Cuban government from power.
Many polls have shown that support for Israel has collapsed among Gen Z Democrats. Though younger MAGA voters are less supportive than older ones, solid majorities still back the Jewish state: 60 percent of MAGA voters under 30 approve of sending U.S. weapons to Israel, compared with 72 percent of older MAGA voters — far above the paltry 37 percent of Democrats who do. And 63 percent say that the security of Israel “matters to U.S. security and prosperity.” While young MAGA voters are not immune to the decline in support for Israel, they are among the least affected by this trend.
Younger MAGA voters overwhelmingly believe in peace through strength: An 85 percent supermajority agree that “a strong U.S. military is essential to maintaining peace and prosperity, both at home and abroad,” compared with 93 percent of older MAGA Republicans. And they are significantly more supportive of the NATO alliance than older MAGA voters are: 62 percent of MAGA voters under 30 have a favorable view of NATO, compared with just 47 percent of those over 30. And 65 percent of both older and younger MAGA voters said they would be more likely to support continued U.S. participation in NATO after learning that “NATO members have recently increased their own defense spending in response to U.S. insistence.”
Young MAGA voters also stand with the people of Ukraine: 64 percent say the outcome of the war between Russia and Ukraine matters to U.S. security and prosperity — almost indistinguishable from the 69 percent of older MAGA voters who hold this view. Only 35 percent support “conceding territory to Russia” as part of a peace deal, while 57 percent say the U.S. should either support Ukraine “until all Russian-occupied territory is liberated” or a “ceasefire along current front lines” is reached “without formally recognizing Russian control of annexed territories.”
On China, they are less hawkish than older MAGA voters: 65 percent say that the security of Taiwan matters to U.S. security and prosperity, compared with 78 percent of older MAGA voters, and 79 percent say that countering Chinese military power should be a focus of U.S. foreign policy (90 percent of older MAGA feel this way). But they also want U.S. policy toward China to be driven by principle: 53 percent say that “publicly pressuring China to release political prisoners, even if it increases tensions with China” should be a higher priority for the U.S. than “avoiding public criticism of China in order to preserve cooperation on other issues.” The gap between older and younger MAGA voters on China is concerning, but solid majorities still want to take a hard line with Beijing.
Finally, when asked whether America remains the “shining city upon a hill because its freedom, prosperity, and democratic ideals serve as an example to the world,” 76 percent of under-30 MAGA believe it does. Somewhere up there, those results brought a smile to the Gipper’s face.
Bottom line: The isolationists are out of step with Trump and the “America First” movement writ large — and there is no help on the way from the Gen Z right.
By Marc A. Thiessen
Marc Thiessen writes a column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush.follow on X@marcthiessen
Marc A. Thiessen
How young MAGA voters view America’s role in the world
From Ukraine to Iran to Taiwan, Trump supporters under 30 favor engagement over isolation.July 9, 2026 at 7:00 a.m. EDT Yesterday at 7:00 a.m. EDT
Regular readers know that I have been debunking the myth of MAGA isolationism for a while, citing a series of polls from the Ronald Reagan Institute and others that have consistently shown MAGA Republicans are more hawkish and less isolationist than any other segment of the American electorate.
The isolationist right has dismissed those results as “Zombie Reaganism” — a dying “baby boomer supernova” driven by older Republicans with gauzy memories of a bygone era of 1980s GOP world leadership. Younger MAGA voters are far less supportive of bold U.S. leadership on the global stage, critics insist, and the future of MAGA is isolationist.
To see if that’s correct, the Reagan Institute decided to drill down on the foreign policy views of MAGA voters under 30. Well, the results are in — and the news is not good for the isolationist right. Young MAGA voters don’t want America to pull back from the world; they want to lead it.
A 72 percent supermajority of young MAGA voters believe the United States should be “more engaged and take the lead” on foreign policy, while just 19 percent say it should be “less engaged and react to events” — a 53-point spread in favor of U.S. global leadership. The institute surveyed more than 1,500 respondents nationwide in late May and early June, including a statistically significant sample of MAGA Republicans under 30.
Young MAGA voters not only want the U.S. to lead, they want that leadership to be driven by American values: 74 percent agree that “the U.S. has a moral obligation to stand up for human rights and democracy whenever possible in international affairs.” Almost 80 percent agree that “promoting freedom and democracy in authoritarian countries” should be a focus of U.S. foreign policy and that “defending people facing religious persecution in other countries” should be a U.S. priority. And 64 percent said they support “funding programs and organizations designed to advance freedom and democracy abroad,” while just 31 percent said the programs were “not worth the expense.”
This commitment to America’s moral mission in the world is evident in their views on Iran: 59 percent of Gen Z MAGA voters say “supporting the Iranian people in their efforts to secure freedom and democracy” is important (as did 67 percent of MAGA voters over 30), while just 13 percent say it’s not. Asked if they approve or disapprove of the military actions President Donald Trump has taken against Iran this year, 73 percent of MAGA voters under 30 approve, as did 89 percent of older ones.
Perhaps most important, 61 percent of under-30 MAGA voters want to see the Iranian regime either removed or weakened, while just 35 percent say they prefer a “negotiated settlement” in which “Iran’s current government remains in exchange for verifiable limits on its nuclear and missile programs.”
Young MAGA voters support the “Donroe Doctrine” in the Western Hemisphere: 64 percent agree with Trump’s decision to remove Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela, and 60 percent would support using military force to remove the current Cuban government from power.
Many polls have shown that support for Israel has collapsed among Gen Z Democrats. Though younger MAGA voters are less supportive than older ones, solid majorities still back the Jewish state: 60 percent of MAGA voters under 30 approve of sending U.S. weapons to Israel, compared with 72 percent of older MAGA voters — far above the paltry 37 percent of Democrats who do. And 63 percent say that the security of Israel “matters to U.S. security and prosperity.” While young MAGA voters are not immune to the decline in support for Israel, they are among the least affected by this trend.
Younger MAGA voters overwhelmingly believe in peace through strength: An 85 percent supermajority agree that “a strong U.S. military is essential to maintaining peace and prosperity, both at home and abroad,” compared with 93 percent of older MAGA Republicans. And they are significantly more supportive of the NATO alliance than older MAGA voters are: 62 percent of MAGA voters under 30 have a favorable view of NATO, compared with just 47 percent of those over 30. And 65 percent of both older and younger MAGA voters said they would be more likely to support continued U.S. participation in NATO after learning that “NATO members have recently increased their own defense spending in response to U.S. insistence.”
Young MAGA voters also stand with the people of Ukraine: 64 percent say the outcome of the war between Russia and Ukraine matters to U.S. security and prosperity — almost indistinguishable from the 69 percent of older MAGA voters who hold this view. Only 35 percent support “conceding territory to Russia” as part of a peace deal, while 57 percent say the U.S. should either support Ukraine “until all Russian-occupied territory is liberated” or a “ceasefire along current front lines” is reached “without formally recognizing Russian control of annexed territories.”
On China, they are less hawkish than older MAGA voters: 65 percent say that the security of Taiwan matters to U.S. security and prosperity, compared with 78 percent of older MAGA voters, and 79 percent say that countering Chinese military power should be a focus of U.S. foreign policy (90 percent of older MAGA feel this way). But they also want U.S. policy toward China to be driven by principle: 53 percent say that “publicly pressuring China to release political prisoners, even if it increases tensions with China” should be a higher priority for the U.S. than “avoiding public criticism of China in order to preserve cooperation on other issues.” The gap between older and younger MAGA voters on China is concerning, but solid majorities still want to take a hard line with Beijing.
Finally, when asked whether America remains the “shining city upon a hill because its freedom, prosperity, and democratic ideals serve as an example to the world,” 76 percent of under-30 MAGA believe it does. Somewhere up there, those results brought a smile to the Gipper’s face.
Bottom line: The isolationists are out of step with Trump and the “America First” movement writ large — and there is no help on the way from the Gen Z right.
By Marc A. Thiessen
Marc Thiessen writes a column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush.follow on X@marcthiessen
SolarWarden
Trusted Member
Well..... at least we're talking?
AZ_HighCountry
INT'L MOD
- Thread starter
- #5,066
mythbuster
Trusted Member
What's so surprising ? Don't you remember Hillary Clintons famous ! Talk talk fight fight ?
AZ_HighCountry
INT'L MOD
- Thread starter
- #5,068
Yes, I do.
VCheng
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
AZ_HighCountry
INT'L MOD
- Thread starter
- #5,070
"It is good to talk", as the old advert tag line went.
Users who are viewing this thread
Pakistan Defence Latest
Country Watch Latest
-
TF-X / KAAN / Hürjet Turkish Fighter & Trainer Aircrafts News & Discussions (9 Viewers)
- Latest: Pokemonte13
-
-
-
Latest Posts
-
-
-
TF-X / KAAN / Hürjet Turkish Fighter & Trainer Aircrafts News & Discussions (9 Viewers)
- Latest: Pokemonte13
-