nortex97 said:
No worries, I've just read a lot of comments on this thread this am (after frankly not reading it much the past few weeks) with the renewed strikes from IDF and seen such sentiment from a bunch of posters I respect, probably should have made that clear.
I also again agree Trump's rhetoric is really not helpful, and is at a minimum imprecise/vague/inartful 90 percent of the time when publicly discussing the outcome/next steps/'deal' here. Frankly, public statements as to the tactical/strategic situation and negotiations would be better handled by the Pentagon and negotiators themselves (or Vance/Rubio), vs '47 but we all know staying quiet on a topic isn't Trump's MO.
I am in this same boat. While I would rather see some definitive action, I can see the strategic value of a drawn-out siege. I know Trump is Trump and is driven to constantly comment on things, but he's becoming Baghdad Bob with his hands up saying peace deal is close, everyone wants a ceasefire, while the bombs and missiles are flying in the background.
In the end, the IRGC are going to have to get crushed militarily I believe. No amount of pressure seems will work on these barbarians. They will steal resources from their own people and let them starve before giving up. The sooner we come to terms with that, the sooner we can end this. Islamists are a scourge on the world and the entire globe is hoping we finish the job even if they won't say so in public.