TO WAR OR NOT TO WAR
SHOULD TRUMP FOLLOW NETANYAHU DOWN THE FOREVER WAR RABBIT HOLE
The world is a stage, and right now, the Middle East is the drama queen stealing all the spotlight. As tensions between Israel and Iran escalate faster than your uncle’s political rants at Thanksgiving, the question looms: Should the United States step into this geopolitical soap opera and join Israel in a war against Iran? Let’s unpack this tangled mess with a touch of humor to keep things from getting too apocalyptic.
Act I: The Strategic Tango
First things first: America and Israel are like peanut butter and jelly—an iconic duo, albeit one that occasionally sticks to the roof of your mouth. The U.S. has long been Israel’s BFF, offering unwavering support, military aid, and the occasional awkward hug at the United Nations. So, when Israel starts throwing punches at Iran, Uncle Sam naturally feels compelled to ask, “Need me to hold your coat?”
But let’s not forget that Iran isn’t just some scrappy underdog. It’s a regional heavyweight with nuclear ambitions that make everyone nervous. Israel sees this as an existential threat, while the U.S. views it as a nuclear Pandora’s box that no one should open. Joining forces with Israel might seem like the ultimate buddy-cop move, but is it worth the risk of turning the Middle East into an even bigger dumpster fire?
Act II: The Cost of War—And We’re Not Just Talking Dollars
Wars aren’t cheap. They’re like weddings—everybody loves the idea until they see the bill. The U.S. has already spent trillions on conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and let’s just say the return on investment has been… underwhelming. Jumping into another war could drain resources faster than a teenager with their parents’ credit card.
And then there’s the human cost. A war with Iran wouldn’t be a quick in-and-out operation; it would be more like getting stuck in quicksand while juggling flaming swords. Iran has warned that U.S. involvement would lead to “all-out war,” and they’re not bluffing. With proxy groups like Hezbollah ready to cause chaos, this could spiral into a regional nightmare faster than you can say “quagmire.”
Act III: Diplomacy—The Less Explosive Option
Before we start dusting off our warplanes, let’s talk diplomacy. Remember the JCPOA (a.k.a. the Iran nuclear deal)? It was like a group project where everyone begrudgingly worked together to keep Iran’s nuclear ambitions in check. Sure, it wasn’t perfect—there were probably some passive-aggressive emails involved—but it was better than nothing.
Military action could blow up (pun intended) any chance of reviving diplomatic talks. And let’s face it: diplomacy might be boring, but it doesn’t come with civilian casualties or skyrocketing oil prices. Speaking of which, if you think gas prices are bad now, just wait until a war disrupts global oil supplies. You’ll be reminiscing about the “good old days” when $4 a gallon seemed outrageous.
Act IV: Public Opinion—The Court of Public (and Political) Approval
Here’s the thing about wars: They’re not very popular these days. After decades of military entanglements in the Middle East, Americans are understandably wary of getting involved in another conflict. Polls suggest that most people would rather see their tax dollars go toward things like healthcare, education, or literally anything other than another war.
Even within Washington, there’s no consensus. Some hawks argue that joining Israel would send a strong message to Iran (and by extension, the world), while doves caution against repeating past mistakes. And then there’s the MAGA crowd, torn between their “America First” isolationism and their unwavering support for Israel. It’s like watching someone argue with themselves in a mirror.
Act V: The Humanitarian Angle—War Is No Picnic
Let’s not forget the people caught in the middle of all this—civilians who would bear the brunt of any conflict. Military strikes might target nuclear facilities and military assets, but collateral damage is almost inevitable. Homes destroyed, lives uprooted, families torn apart—it’s a grim reality that no amount of witty commentary can sugarcoat.
If the U.S. decides to join Israel in a war against Iran, it must grapple with the ethical implications. Is it worth the humanitarian cost? Can we justify the loss of innocent lives for strategic gains? These are heavy questions that deserve more than just knee-jerk reactions.
Final Curtain Call: To War or Not to War?
So, should the U.S. join Israel in a war on Iran? The answer isn’t black and white—it’s more like fifty shades of geopolitical gray. On one hand, there’s the argument for standing by an ally and curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. On the other hand, there are massive risks: regional escalation, economic fallout, and a potential quagmire that makes past conflicts look like warm-up acts.
Ultimately, this decision requires careful consideration, not just of strategic interests but also of long-term consequences. War should always be a last resort—not Plan A, B, or even C. After all, as history has shown us time and time again, it’s much easier to start a war than to end one.
In conclusion: Let’s hope cooler heads prevail because nobody wants to see World War III trending on Twitter—or worse, X.
TRUMP CONFUSED: MAGA WARHAWKS VULTURES VS MAGA TURKEY VULTURES https://open.substack.com/pub/ru4people/p/trump-confused?r=kja7f&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
MAGA vs. Likud: A Tale of Two Right-Wing Giants
When it comes to political movements with a flair for nationalism, a knack for controversy, and leaders who dominate headlines like they’re auditioning for reality TV, the U.S.’s MAGA movement and Israel’s Likud Party are two peas in a very loud, very opinionated pod. Sure, they hail from different corners of the globe and operate in wildly different contexts, but let’s dive into what makes these two political powerhouses tick—and where their similarities (and differences) shine brighter than a MAGA hat at a Trump rally.
Ideology: Nationalism, But Make It Local. Let’s start with the obvious: both MAGA (Make America Great Again) and Likud are unapologetically nationalist. MAGA, the brainchild of Donald Trump, is all about “America First”—a slogan that screams closed borders, economic protectionism, and a yearning for an America that may or may not have ever existed outside of Norman Rockwell paintings. It’s nationalism with a side of populism, served piping hot with a dollop of disdain for globalism.
Meanwhile, Likud’s nationalism is steeped in Zionism, emphasizing the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. For Likud, “security” is less about building walls to keep people out (though they’re not opposed to that either) and more about ensuring Israel’s survival in a very complicated neighborhood. While MAGA dreams of reviving Rust Belt factories, Likud dreams of expanding settlements in the West Bank.
The key difference? MAGA’s nationalism is broad and secular (though it flirts heavily with Christian evangelicals), while Likud’s is laser-focused on Jewish identity and territorial claims. MAGA wants to protect “traditional American values,” but Likud is literally trying to protect Israel’s borders—and its very existence.
Leadership: The Donald and The Bibi. —a match made in political heaven if heaven had a VIP section for polarizing leaders with a penchant for drama. Both men are larger-than-life figures who dominate their respective movements with the subtlety of a bull in a china shop.
Trump is MAGA. Without him, it’s just a red hat and some questionable tweets. His charisma (or chaos, depending on your perspective) turned MAGA from a campaign slogan into a full-blown movement that reshaped American conservatism. It’s less about ideology and more about loyalty to Trump himself.
Netanyahu, on the other hand, is the seasoned politician who’s been at the helm of Likud for decades. While Trump operates like an improvisational stand-up comedian who just discovered politics, Netanyahu is the chess master—calculating, strategic, and always five moves ahead. Unlike MAGA, which is essentially Trump’s personal fan club, Likud is an actual political party with structure, history, and factions that occasionally challenge Bibi’s dominance (though not for long).
The verdict? Trump is the chaotic showman; Netanyahu is the Machiavellian tactician. Both know how to command attention, but only one has actually been impeached—twice.
Policies: Build That Wall vs. Expand That Settlement. When it comes to policies, MAGA and Likud share some common ground but diverge in ways that reflect their unique realities.
MAGA’s greatest hits include stricter immigration controls (hello, border wall), protectionist trade policies (tariffs galore), and an “America First” foreign policy that often feels like it was written on the back of a napkin during lunch at Mar-a-Lago. It’s all about keeping jobs in America and keeping everyone else out.
Likud, by contrast, is laser-focused on security. Think military strength, counter-terrorism measures, and a steadfast refusal to budge on issues like Palestinian statehood or settlement expansion in disputed territories. While MAGA obsesses over China and Mexico, Likud’s bogeymen are Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.
Both movements are big on national security and skeptical of international institutions (the UN must feel so unloved). But while MAGA’s policies often feel like they’re aimed at winning the next news cycle, Likud’s are rooted in existential concerns—because when you’re surrounded by hostile neighbors, you don’t have time for Twitter wars.
Supporters: Who’s Wearing the Hats? MAGA rallies are a sea of red hats and patriotic fervor, drawing support from rural Americans, working-class voters, and evangelical Christians who see Trump as their unlikely champion. It’s a coalition united by frustration with globalization, cultural shifts, and the political elite—basically anyone who uses “latte” as a verb.
Likud’s base is just as passionate but far more diverse in its motivations. Religious Zionists love its commitment to Jewish identity; settlers back its support for expanding into the West Bank; and Mizrahi Jews (Jews of Middle Eastern descent) appreciate its focus on security and skepticism of peace negotiations. Unlike MAGA’s coalition, which is largely white and Christian, Likud’s supporters are united by Jewish identity but divided along religious and cultural lines.
The common thread? Both movements tap into a sense of grievance—whether it’s MAGA voters feeling left behind by globalization or Likud voters feeling threatened by territorial concessions.
Rhetoric: Us vs. Them. If there’s one thing MAGA and Likud excel at, it’s rhetoric. Both movements thrive on an “us vs. them” narrative that paints their supporters as under siege by elites, outsiders, or liberal media bogeymen.
Trump’s favorite hits include “Fake News,” “Drain the Swamp,” and “Build the Wall”—short, punchy slogans that fit perfectly on a bumper sticker or a tweet (back when he still had Twitter). His language is confrontational, populist, and designed to rile up his base while driving his opponents into fits of rage.
Netanyahu’s rhetoric is less bombastic but no less effective. He frames Israel as perpetually under threat—from Iran’s nuclear ambitions to international critics who dare question settlement policies. Where Trump thrives on chaos, Netanyahu thrives on fear—specifically the fear that without him at the helm, Israel would crumble.
Both leaders know how to rally their base with messaging that simplifies complex issues into black-and-white terms. Subtlety? Never heard of her.
Controversies: Scandals Galore. No comparison would be complete without addressing the elephant (or Likudnik) in the room: scandals. Both MAGA and Likud have enough controversies to fill an entire season of *House of Cards*.
For MAGA, it’s everything from the January 6 Capitol riot to Trump’s impeachment(s) to his endless legal battles over classified documents and election interference. It’s a soap opera that never ends—and his supporters love him for it.
Likud has its own share of drama, mostly revolving around Netanyahu. Bibi has faced corruption charges ranging from bribery to fraud—though he insists it’s all a witch hunt (sound familiar?). Add in his controversial judicial reforms that sparked mass protests in Israel, and you’ve got enough material for a Netflix docuseries.
The difference? MAGA scandals often revolve around Trump himself; Likud controversies are more about policy decisions that divide Israeli society.
Global Impact: Friends in Low Places. Both MAGA and Likud have reshaped their countries’ politics while cozying up to like-minded leaders abroad. Trump’s MAGA aligned with populist movements like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro—because nothing says “global nationalism” like forming an international club of nationalists.
Likud has its own alliances, particularly with India’s BJP under Narendra Modi and Republicans in the U.S.—especially during Trump’s presidency when U.S.-Israel relations reached new heights (moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem was basically Netanyahu’s dream come true).
While MAGA focuses on withdrawing from global entanglements (except when it benefits America), Likud operates in a world where international alliances are essential for survival.
Conclusion: Two Movements Divided by Context. At their core, MAGA and Likud are both right-wing powerhouses driven by nationalism, populism, and charismatic leaders who thrive on controversy. But their differences are just as striking as their similarities. MAGA is all about domestic grievances—immigration, trade, cultural shifts—while Likud is focused on existential threats tied to Israel's unique geopolitical situation.
In short? MAGA wants to make America great *again*. Likud wants to make sure Israel survives *forever*. And both will do so with a flair for drama that keeps us all watching—whether we like it or not.
