James Red Pills America Official

War with Iran was the correct move. I don’t want to waste time on the Matt Walsh’s and Tucker Carlsons of the world. But it needs to be said that the GOP would have had a much better chance in the midterms if people like Walsh had used their platforms to defend Trump’s Iran policy instead of spending months undermining it. The Iran operation is unpopular in the polls. Influencers with enough reach could have made it a little less unpopular and made a real impact in the midterms, but they chose to frame it as a betrayal of America First policy rather than the opposite. No one likes higher gas prices. Everything has a cost. The question is whether the cost was worth it. Trump didn’t abandon America First. A segment of conservative media did. Everyone is treating Trump’s decisive strikes and the stranglehold he’s put on Iran as a war that isn’t in America’s best interest. Going to war with Iran was the right play. And Trump did it at the right time. I’ll outline the logical argument for the war and the timing to show why. If you’re wondering why I never wrote about this before the midterms—I did. A few times actually. And it did gain traction, but not enough and not in time. Iran and the Three Variable Problem Iran had the time, the intention, and the resources to build a nuclear weapon and the means to launch it. This is The Three Variable Problem. Those three things together (time, intent, and capability) produce a nuclear Iran 100% of the time. And a nuclear Iran, left unchecked, becomes a large global problem. WWIII is the logical endpoint with these conditions. Most people accept this basic reality. The disagreement is over what to do about it. Critics keep returning to Trump’s campaign line about “no new wars” and treat any action against Iran as a betrayal of that promise. “I voted for no new wars. Trump said no new wars. He lied to me.” I don’t want new wars either. I also don’t want a nuclear-armed Iran. I want what’s best for America. Trump’s Options Now that everyone understands the Three Variable Problem we can look at all of Trump’s options. You have to remember that Trump has more information on Iran than anyone else on the planet. Maybe even more information than Khamenei had (seriously). Whatever he knew was serious enough that he was willing to risk the midterms and his legacy to stop it. Keep that in your head. The strikes already attacked one of the three variables: time. Iran’s timeline was reset. Months (or years) of progress with its nuclear program was destroyed. At that point the immediate crisis could have been declared over. However, Iran still has the intention and still has the resources, which is why Trump is still doing work in the Strait of Hormuz. The easy thing to do would be to leave Iran to rebuild its nuclear program, but then the United States would have to bomb Iran every few years (or months). Trump is now trying to strip away the resources so the problem does not reappear again on a new timeline. Iran’s intentions may never fully disappear, but resources can be taken away. This is the difference between a temporary timeline reset and a durable solution. Those are the conditions. Now let’s look at the available paths. Option 1: Intervene Before the Midterms This is the option Trump chose. The idea behind this is that he could neutralize Iran and hopefully strike a deal to strip them of their resources before the midterms. Then he’d have a huge Iran win under his belt and have a better chance at keeping control of Congress for the next two years. Huge. This option, however, does come with risk. If Trump neutralized Iran for the time being, which he did, but couldn’t strike a deal to strip Iran of their resources, he basically forfeits the midterms. That’s what happened. The plus side to this option is that Trump now has a lot of time to strike a deal with Iran or take control of their resources altogether before 2028. He needs to make sure the former or latter happens before election season in 2028 or the GOP will lose the presidency and both chambers. He’s got the time to make this happen. There’s a built-in buffer. *If you’re new here, you’re probably wondering if I’m being serious about Trump literally taking control of Iran’s resources. I am 100% serious. Trump has been priming the public for something big like this for months. Read more about that here. Option 2: Intervene after the Midterms This one is risky. This path would’ve given Trump a better chance of winning the midterms, but that’s still no guarantee. Recent midterm cycles show it wouldn’t be a lock: 🔵 2006 (Bush): Democrats flipped both chambers. 🔴 2010 (Obama): Republicans took the House in a large wave. 🔴 2014 (Obama): Republicans took the Senate and expanded their House majority. 🔵 2018 (Trump): Democrats took the House. 🔴 2022 (Biden): Republicans took the House (though Democrats held the Senate). The risk here is that if Trump can’t make a deal with Iran, he risks the war creeping into the 2028 election. That leaves the GOP candidate with, for all intents and purposes, a 0% chance of winning the election. The logic here is that he does his best to secure one or both chambers in the midterms before launching the attack, but then risks the 2028 election. I think most Conservatives would rather win 2028 election than the 2026 midterms. Option 3: Strike the Facilities and Keep it Pushin’ This option essentially restarts the clock in Iran’s nuclear program. You won’t have to worry about Iran building a nuke in the next few years, but they would still have the intentions and resources to do so. They basically pick back up where they started and work on developing a nuke. We are then dealing with the same problem at some point in the near future. And remember, Trump had the best idea of when that would be. Without taking control of Iran’s resources to build a nuke, this basically kicks the can down the road a few years. What will it look like in a few years? Well, you might have an AOC, Kamala, or Newsom as your president. That is a much less competent commander in chief than Trump. This option gives Trump a better chance at the midterms, but risks letting an AOC-like figure inheriting the problem. Not a soul on earth wants that. Holy hell. Option 4: Kick the Can Down the Road This is what the Matt Walsh’s of the world wanted. Trump said “no new wars,” so they want Trump to let Iran build a nuke. What a joke. Whatever information Trump had led him away from this option. This option is appealing to many because there is no new military action, no short-term political blowback, and a better shot at the midterms because it keeps the spotlight on domestic issues. In theory, it avoids handing Democrats ammo for another forever war narrative and keeps the GOP better positioned to hold or limit losses in Congress in 2026. As I mentioned earlier, midterm history shows the president’s party usually loses ground anyway, so avoiding the Iran conflict could have improved those odds relative to what actually happened. The downside in this option is that it does nothing to change the underlying problem. Iran keeps its nuclear program (intentions to launch a nuke), its resources, and its timeline. The nuclear threat doesn’t go away—it just gets deferred to the next president. If that person is someone less willing or less capable to confront the problem, the problem becomes harder to solve and more is at stake. Trump’s choice indicates he judged that risk higher than the political cost of acting before the midterms. Option 5: Maximum Pressure Without War I suppose Trump could have used sanctions or cyber attacks and/or Israeli/proxy actions to slow the nuclear program without a formal military campaign. This would have minimized domestic political blowback and improved midterm odds relative to an open war, while still attacking the “resources” and “time” variables. The downside is that it is slower and is much easier for Iran to adapt to. It also leaves the program intact enough that the problem doesn’t go away. Rather, it leaves a significant chance for a less capable commander in chief to inherit the problem in a few years. Trump’s decision to go with Option 1 suggests he judged this option insufficient and the risk of an incompetent commander in chief too high. In Summary In the end, I didn’t vote for Trump to manage the status quo. I voted for him to be a consequential president. I voted for Trump as someone willing to accept short-term cost if it produced a better long-term outcome for the country. We need our presidents to stop taking the easy way out and kicking the can down the road. And the influencer class needs to support this. Last thing. Some will read this and argue that Trump should have stayed away from the Iran problem and left it to Israel and the rest of the region. That argument runs into what I call the CEO problem. There are certain risks so large, and with such high downside, that the person at the top cannot simply delegate them. A nuclear-armed Iran is one of those problems. When the potential cost is that high, the president has to own the decision. That is what Trump did. America is the CEO of the world. These problems are our problem.