Originally Posted by Merequetengue

Ukraine isn't the main topic here, but since you brought up spending, it's worth noting the irony: the resources being poured into the current conflict with Iran could have been far better invested in supporting Ukraine against Russia. That would have actually served clear U.S. strategic interests, weakening the one rival that competed with the U.S. for global supremacy for 50 years, generating real soft power in Eastern Europe, and accelerating the degradation of Russian military and economic capacity... which, by the way, is already happening after their "3-day special military operation" stretched into years. And let's not forget, Russia and Iran aren't separate problems. They are allied, sharing intelligence and military technology. Weakening one weakens the other. Instead, this approach left both standing while opening a new front against an adversary that the administration's own intelligence assessments did not consider an imminent threat. Russia, on the other hand, is not a potential threat. It is actively invading a European country right now.

But here's the paradox: the argument seems to be that this sky-is-falling mentality, the idea that an imminent Iranian attack was so inevitable and catastrophic that it justified anything, excuses everything. Save it from what, exactly? The U.S. entered this era as the undisputed superpower, largest economy, strongest military, unmatched global influence, allies who showed up unconditionally. The only legitimate concern on the table was the national debt, which, by the way, is another broken promise, partly thanks to the very war being celebrated here. There was no burning house to rescue. The paradox is that the very decline being used to justify these decisions... is being caused by these decisions. And it gets worse: this wasn't even a genuine sky-is-falling moment. The administration's own assessments said Iran was not an imminent threat. So the house wasn't burning. They knew it wasn't burning. And they lit it anyway.

And even on its own terms the argument fails. If the threat was so existential that it justified all of this, where's the result? Iran's nuclear program wasn't obliterated. The threat remains. So you paid the full price in treasure, alliances and credibility, and the problem is still there.

And here's what makes it even more contradictory: acting recklessly without measuring consequences is what you'd expect from an actor with nothing to lose. The U.S. is the opposite, precisely because of everything it has built, it has more to lose than anyone. That's not a reason for timidity, but it is absolutely a reason for strategic thinking over impulsive action.

As you said yourself, anyone with a modicum of common sense can see it. "No more wars" was the pitch. The result so far has been a new war, trade wars, diplomatic chaos, weakened alliances, a brain drain accelerated by an open war against academic institutions and research centers, and zero clear strategic wins anyone has been able to articulate here. I'll leave the floor open, if there are concrete positive outcomes from this approach, I'd genuinely like to hear them laid out.

Maybe governing the most powerful country in history requires a bit more brain than balls.