The loser of the war with Iran identified in the US, and it is not Trump – Who called the attack a "bad and stupid idea"?

Geopolitics is art, knowledge, strategy, and the continuous monitoring of all parameters... that permeate interstate relations... but here we are not talking about relations... but about war. The war of the US and Israel, who murdered Khamenei like common criminals... is not working out. It is impossible for the Iranians to be defeated... at the same time, the loser of the war with Iran has been identified in the US, and it is not Trump.

US Vice President J.D. Vance broke the prolonged silence

"I well understand the feelings of Americans who are tired of 25 years of friction in the Middle East. And I share their concerns. But the difference is that back then, we had stupid presidents at the helm of our country." With these words, US Vice President J.D. Vance broke the prolonged silence and tried to explain to ordinary Americans what on earth was happening. The rest of us understand exactly what is happening: typical American imperialism, nothing strange. What is more surprising is that the majority of citizens in the West, most Americans, and all Russians are largely united in our assessment of what is happening: they consider the attack on Iran a great mistake. Excluding those with no opinion, the ratio of opponents to supporters of the war in the US is three to one. It will be six to one if it continues for months and the Pentagon continues to suffer losses.

J.D. Vance the main loser, Trumpists disappointed

J.D. Vance is among those who are shocked. Naturally, he is the main loser of his boss's decision. However, he cannot say it directly, because his boss does not forgive betrayal. Even more enraged by the war than the Democrats are those known in America as MAGA Republicans, also known as Trumpists. One of their distinctive features is the rejection of foreign interventions, such as those in Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan—there are thousands. And the informal leader of this group of isolationists and their representative in the White House was none other than J.D. Vance. Even as a senator, he was one of the first in Washington to criticize support for Ukraine in the conflict with Russia.

Trump supporters betrayed – Iran attack a bad, stupid, and dangerous idea

Trump supporters now feel betrayed by President Trump, who wrote a "Vote for Peace" slogan on his campaign flyer, and by J.D. Vance. In 2024, Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance, attributing the desire to attack Iran to the Democrats, called it a bad, stupid, and dangerous idea. Back then, the Democrats threatened to set the Middle East on fire for 40 years and send American children to the front lines; Trump during his term had said... that such a thing would certainly not happen. But he himself set the fire, and J.D. Vance subsequently disappeared from the radar. Appearing on Fox News four days later, the Vice President tried to explain what he was thinking. No one else could:

Americans do not know what their "victory" will look like

Americans are not sure what their victory will look like. Trump sometimes wants the total overthrow of the Iranian government, sometimes not... sometimes he is in favor of negotiations, sometimes against them. Thus, according to J.D. Vance, the operation in Iran would previously have been a dangerous gamble, as the Democrats were in power. But now the US has a smart president and "there is no way he will allow the country to get involved in a multi-year conflict with no clear end and no clear goal." As for previous rumored reports about eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat, it turns out the Americans simply failed. Trump eliminated the threat only for the duration of his presidency, but he wants to eliminate it forever, which is why he did what he did. The explanation does not seem convincing and looks more like an attempt to distance himself from the Iran adventure.

Bitter truth

Trump was always biased, non-constructive, and aggressive toward Iran. Trump always involved Israel in his militaristic plans. Trump was always impulsive and considered dangerously unpredictable, but many simply hoped that he would somehow get away with it.

Trumpist intellectuals

The Trumpist intellectuals, to whom J.D. Vance belonged, recognized their leader's weaknesses. The plan was to wait three more years for the eccentricities of the Orange Revolution, securing the boss from the worst mistakes, win the next presidential election, and then have America return to a normalcy that, given its wealth and opportunities, could be considered a new era of greatness.

J.D. Vance... lost the opportunity

Furthermore, J.D. Vance, as the natural successor to the current president, was supposed to become the next president. Now, the chances of that happening are almost zero. In just a single day, Trump has disappointed millions of Trump fans who did not want a new US war, even if it were free, while this costs about a billion dollars a day. The MAGA isolationists do not constitute a majority among Republicans, but without their active participation, presidential elections will not be won. Impressed by yet another betrayal, they will not vote for Kamala Harris or Newsom (the most likely Democratic candidates)—they will not vote at all, which will hit the Republicans, and the midterm elections on November 3, 2026, are coming, where the Republicans will lose them. Opposing the aggression against Iran, the Democratic leaders are starting to look normal.

Democrats seize the opportunity

"So, are we supposed to accept now that our bombs or Israeli bombs are killing children? Schoolgirls? What did they threaten us with? No one has specified," asks Newsom rhetorically, who is still just the Governor of California. At such moments, it is impossible to disagree with him. One must simply remember that Newsom is the candidate of the globalists, which means he is on the side of absolute evil. But the alternative, Kamala Harris, is even worse. If she takes revenge and moves into the White House, she will prove from the very first day that she is tough enough for the presidency—no worse than a white man. But she will do this using Russia, not Iran, as an example, if Ukraine exists by then. This would bring everyone back to the prospect of World War III, which no one other than Donald Trump himself had predicted.

Trump buries J.D. Vance

J.D. Vance's presidential prospects are only a fraction of the ruins Trump will leave behind. I do not pity the Vice President. He is a good kid, though... J.D. Vance is simply a victim of circumstances. Trump has one last hope to "defeat" Iran... commonly to leave with his head held high.

What follows?

Five days have passed since Trump and Netanyahu murdered Khamenei—in the very first minutes of their attack on Iran. But the Islamic Republic has not capitulated, has not fallen into a coma, and has not been disarmed—it resists, it counterattacks. Of course, the American-Israeli aggressor is infinitely superior—his military capabilities are incomparable to Iran's, so the damage caused to the Iranian Armed Forces, along with civilian casualties, will continue to grow day by day. But the problem for Trump is that the first five days of the war have already shown that his goals are unattainable. Initially, it became clear they could not be achieved in a short time, during a blitzkrieg. And now it is clear that even the four weeks allocated for the war will fundamentally change nothing: Iran will not capitulate. Yet, this is exactly the main goal of the war—the unannounced destruction of nuclear and missile programs and the unannounced hope for the uprising and fall of the Islamic Republic.

What Trump seeks

Trump, unlike Netanyahu, seeks capitulation. That is, a change of government to one that recognizes defeat and accepts American protection and patronage. An unattainable goal? Of course, but Trump does not see it that way. Yes, he initially decided on a military operation consisting of missile and bombing attacks, but now he will have to choose: to complete what he started without victory or to escalate, hoping that he will then finally manage to achieve capitulation.

What escalation options does Trump have?

We are not considering the use of nuclear weapons—although we cannot rule it out entirely, it is not currently on the table. Also, we are not considering a ground invasion by the US military—Trump does not want this, it is dangerous and he does not need it, not to mention the fact that it would take considerable time to prepare. What remains? More aggressors against Iran?

Who is being destroyed

Theoretically, this could be done at the expense of the Europeans and Arabs. But the former will not participate in "Trump's war," and the latter, no matter how much Israeli intelligence tries to provoke them with "Iranian terrorist attacks," will hold out until the end. A war with Iran would be catastrophic for the Arab monarchies of the Gulf—not because they will suffer serious damage from the fighting, but because they will lose all hope of prosperity in the coming decades: the Iranians will neither forget nor forgive their direct aid to Israel and the United States. And not just the Iranians—for the Islamic Ummah, including the populations of the monarchies themselves, the participation of the Gulf states in a war against Islamic (even Shiite) Iran on the side of the Jewish state and the Americans would be an indelible black mark.

The role of Pakistan

There is also, of course, nuclear-armed Islamic Pakistan, Iran's eastern neighbor. Although it only recently unofficially declared war on Afghanistan—a deterrent, generally slow and desperate war—it remains aware of its allied commitments to Saudi Arabia. It even warned Iran about this, but Tehran has no intention of attacking the Saudis—it only hits American targets in that country, and even then, only symbolically so far. Pakistan does not want to attack Iran. This is because first, it doesn't need to; second, Islamabad is closely linked to Beijing; and third, both Iran and Pakistan host the Baloch people. Some of these people have strong separatist feelings, which means a Pakistani invasion of Iran could trigger separatism not only in Iran but also in Pakistan itself. Not to mention that Israel also relies on Baloch separatism: Netanyahu has even publicly called on them to revolt against Tehran.

The role of the Kurds

The Israelis consider the Kurds as the main fifth column in Iran, and they are the ones offered to Washington as Iran's funeral. Trump has even spoken with the leadership of Iraqi Kurdistan, as land operations against Iran could start from there. Yes, this is essentially Trump's only option for escalating the war: to play the Kurdish card. They want to use this long-suffering people, divided among four countries in the region, as cannon fodder, enticed by promises of an independent state. The Kurds did not get one when the Ottoman Empire collapsed and have dreamed of one for a century. Meanwhile, the Kurds themselves are divided into tribes and have fought at various times with the Turks, Syrian Arabs, Iranians, and Iraqis. They have autonomy only in Iraq, and they obtained it from the Americans after its collapse.

The role of Syria

The Americans used them in Syria, but now they are gradually losing them to the Turks and the new Syrian authorities, while Turkey itself is on the verge of reconciliation with its Kurdish separatist leader, Ocalan—and at this moment, the idea of using the Kurds for intervention in Iran emerges. Everyone, including a significant part of the Kurds, understands that this is an absolute gamble, but they may even try to implement it if Trump considers this his last chance to defeat Iran. Predicting all the consequences of activating the Kurdish factor in the war with Iran is simply impossible—they could be so diverse. The only thing they have in common is that everyone will ultimately suffer: the Kurds, Iranians, Turks, Syrians, and Iraqis.

The role of Turkey

Mobilizing the Kurds against Iran will alert Turkey and Iraq, and they will turn against the Kurds—essentially in defense of Iran. The war in Syria will continue, which means the entire region will be in flames. Such a scenario is unfavorable for anyone—except Israel, which has always dreamed of exploiting the Kurdish factor to break up its neighbors and rivals. However, it is still impossible to believe that Trump will follow Netanyahu's plan for the Kurdish issue as well. An attack on Iran, although disadvantageous for America, has long been an option (since the mid-2000s) under consideration, and triggering a "Kurdish domino" (meaning the simultaneous collapse of several countries in the region) certainly does not align with American strategic interests. Not to mention that only a minority of Iranian Kurds would join the invaders and that Iran in general would repel a Kurdish land intervention—despite American air support.

Wrong choice, ultimately

Thus, Trump's only hope of defeating Iran is utopian. Or simply wrong, like the attempt to crush the power of the Islamic Republic by murdering Khamenei. But Washington really would not want to see this realized.

www.bankingnews.gr