I don't necessarily subscribe to this theory, but jumping straight to calling him a lunatic seems excessive. Can we not advance various possibilities with one another and debate their merits without going nuclear on one another, so to speak?

April 06, 2026 - 04:51 UTC

3
0
8
Calling a guy a "lunatic" is in no way "going nuclear". And this idea is based on the fantasy that Iran's response to further attacks on its civilian infrastructure will be terrorism in the US. Iran has demonstrated that attacks on it are replied with attacks on Gulf states/Israeli infrastructure.
0
0
8
Yeah. I don't think Trump is masterminding some kind of 4D chess move, but I do think he would exploit a terrorist attack on US soil. Nothing is off the table and I don't see the point of dismissing Snyder's concern
0
0
2