Not For Attribution

Those advocating for "finishing" strikes on Iran want to have it both ways, always. Here are some of the common contradictory positions on X: - We already won against Iran, they're desperate for a deal, but we need far more aggressive strikes against them now otherwise we will have lost - Trump was calling the shots, no undue influence from anyone else; but JD is responsible for any failures of the war, and only he should be blamed - Trump achieved stopping Iran from *ever* getting a nuclear weapon; if we don't keep fighting Iran until regime change happens, they'll rebuild and one day get a nuclear weapon - 'Nobody is saying ground troops' are needed in Iran; the only way to ensure Iran never gets a nuke is to overthrow the regime with some ground troops (ours, Kurdish, etc) - Iran was about to be a nuclear power threatening the west and any political price was worth paying to stop them; Iran caused no political price in the midterms, it was tariffs, saying otherwise is bad faith (or worse) - "we've been at war with Iran for almost 50 years"; Trump said the war is over last week, so it's over now because he says so --- There are many other positions like these, but arguing with cognitive dissonance is exhausting. The war clearly had a major political cost by spiking gas prices. It did not go as planned. And it's not over as long as the IRGC controls the country. There's a lot to argue about Iran, but some things aren't opinion, they're reality. And it still matters to get this right because the Iran problem is far from solved.