BruceVC

Yes its a legitimate point you making. Its similar to the argument " we see so much crime from community x or y because of inequality\poverty " ( or something similar ) Its not convincing because the majority of people living in poverty don't commit crime But as far as these insurgencies are concerned there are 2 main groups involved. Separatists aren't considered radicalized, they just want their own region The AQ\ISIS linked groups are more radicalized and they only exist in certain African countries and there Islamic extremist ideology only resonates with some people The vast majority of people in these indigent regions dont join them but they suffer the worst consequence of there ideology and they largely Muslim themselves Whats also making recruitment much easier is the brutality and military response from the Juntas and Russians in trying to crush these insurrections. Not a surprise of course to see the Russians fight war like this This has been going on for years in these 3 countries https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crmx7x3yjyko "A shopkeeper has told the BBC how Russian mercenaries fighting jihadists in Mali carried out the cold-blooded murder of two men in front of him and then threatened to chop off his fingers and kill him too. This is one of several similar testimonies collected by the BBC showing the tactics used by the Russian fighters as they waged a brutal counter-insurgency operation against Islamist militants in the West African nation - methods widely condemned by human rights groups." https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/03/28/mali-army-wagner-group-atrocities-against-civilians "Nairobi) – Malian armed forces and Wagner Group foreign fighters have unlawfully killed and summarily executed several dozen civilians during counterinsurgency operations in Mali’s central and northern regions since December 2023, Human Rights Watch said today. Military drone strikes on a wedding celebration on February 16, 2024, and during a burial on February 17, 2024, killed at least 14 civilians, including 4 children."

They so far off from being able to implement something like UBI but that would make a huge positive difference if somehow they could

Absolutely, in these examples in these countries the insurgencies are sustained by several factors poverty in the regions failed government policies to address the reasons for poverty and indigence refusal of the Juntas to negotiate on any terms There is no military solution. But the problem with all the 3 Juntas is they will never accept compromise because took power with the message " only our type of leadership can defeat these groups, Democratic governments are too weak to do what must be done " Historically you can see success in subduing this type of insurgency through military success, look at Chechnya and ISIS in the ME But that still requires an economic model and offering people a better and stable future. This doesn't exist in Africa, that's why Al-Shabaab is still active in Somalia for 30 years All these Juntas and the Russians are doing is thinking brute force will win the day and achieve peace

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-insurgent-assault-forces-russian-withdrawal-in-northern-mali/ I have often mentioned how the military coups in countries like Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger have become abject failures because they have all failed to address the main reason for overthrowing Democratically elected governments These military generals all promised to end the insurgencies in their respective countries from Islamic extremist and separatist groups. What made it worse is French and UN forces left or were booted out and the Russians came in to fight the insurgents And since then its got progressively worse,much worse. The Russians have failed spectacularly to achieve any military success Latest example, a coordinated attack across the country and the capture of a major town "Hundreds of Russian troops have abandoned a key military base in Mali after insurgents launched an unprecedented wave of co-ordinated attacks across the country, killing the Defence Minister and capturing a northern town. Islamist radicals joined forces with northern separatists to orchestrate the biggest rebel offensive in the West African country in 14 years, with attacks on towns, cities, military bases, airports and homes of senior politicians. Defence Minister Sadio Camara, a close ally of Moscow, was among the dead. Videos from Mali showed his home reduced to rubble after it was targeted by a truck bomb on Saturday as the attacks began. His death was officially confirmed on Sunday night. Two senior army and intelligence commanders were also reported to be severely injured. The assault was a humiliating setback for Mali’s military junta and its Russian allies, which were unable to prevent an insurgent operation that ranged from northern towns to the centre of the country and even into the junta’s strongholds around the capital, Bamako."

This is long overdue. Germany should have a much stronger and resourced military This will boost overall EU military strength The days of the anxiety of " German NAZI want to take over the world, Germany CANNOT have a strong army" has been over for decades The EU greatest military threat is Russian warmongering and it needs to be able to counter this without the levels of dependance on the US

This is by far the biggest problem and irritation with the abuse of AI Someone, who is not even a citizen of a particular country, uses AI to create a " real person " who aligns with a set of particular ideological or political views and raises money from people who believe it People can laugh at MAGA\Conservatives being duped but many people would fall for this if this type of AI aligned with there views We already have people who peddle and post fake news on a daily basis as " real and credible " For example it would be so easy to create an anti-American, pro-Russia\Putin hot US women who just repeats well known anti-Western\US tropes and generalizations and I can guarantee you the majority of Vatniks would be clapping like seals and saying " wow, she is so clever and based " Of course they wont donate money to her because of the financial reality but they would still believe its true and support it. Confirmation bias should never be a prudent objective to focus on with AI when it comes to fund raising Its not funny to see AI being abused like this, its very worrying because it could happen to anyone if you not careful Here is the detailed story about " Emily Hart". I have posted the main part below https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/emily-hart-top-maga-influencer-turned-out-to-be-ai-was-created-by-indian-student-11391474 "A popular MAGA influencer, who built a strong following among conservative users in the US for posting pro-Trump content, has turned out to be an AI-generated persona. A 22-year-old man in India created the account to make money off unsuspecting men online, according to a report in WIRED. Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardising his medical career, used generative AI tools to design everything - from the woman's face and body to her captions. The influencer, widely known online as "Emily Hart", looked like a typical blonde woman who supported US President Donald Trump and often posted about Christianity. Sam, an aspiring orthopedic surgeon, showed Hart supporting the US, posing in bikinis, doing activities like ice fishing, drinking beer, and even handling guns. The fake profile claimed she was a nurse and looked like Hollywood actress Jennifer Lawrence"

Always very entertaining and funny even if selective You see they added some positive spin at the end with the Hungarian election which is significant because thats how Democracy works. Its a pity they didn't separate the difference between a Democratically elected " bad " leader like Trump or Netanyahu to Russia, Iran or China There is an obvious difference when citizens have no way to change leadership through voting. But its just a 3 minute video and they making a different point

The entire Yellowstone series is one of my favorite series of all times I watched 3 episodes of Marshalls and stopped, its not the same writers or creatives and its bland and boring But you must watch 1883 and 1923 if you haven't watched them. They prequels to Yellowstone and they excellent, on par with Yellowstone

I use AI chatbots for my studies and to confirm things I already more or less know but I have forgotten the specific details. And I use Copilot primarily So for example, what was the final score in the 1995 rugby world cup It tends to be mostly accurate But I dont use it for important things I know nothing about, I will use credible websites for that And I never use it for political, ideological or societal feedback. Thats when the understandable issues and bias with it become the most obvious

I assume we talking about the political pressure due to citizen anger and the right to protest and then how this impacts voting outcomes in elections Any autocracy like Iran doesn't have to worry about that so if the economy continues to collapse all the state has to do is survive. They can just kill or arrest any protesters to silence them and they dont have free and fair elections anyway Thats not the same pressure that exists on the state in any Democracy like the US So if the economy and factors like inflation get worse any US president cant just ignore this because of the daily pressure on them This is the main "advantage " any autocracy has. Unhappiness by citizens doesn't translate to anything like leadership change unless the citizens have the support and resources of a military force that can overthrow the state like in Syria. But in most dictatorships and autocracies that doesn't exist and the state is firmly in control of its security forces

1 more day until From s4 e1, I can't wait 🎉 Also the creator has announced there will only be one more season after 4 and then the series is over. 5 seasons is a good enough run. I would have preferred 7 seasons but it is what it is. At least we will get all the answers https://www.boredpanda.com/from-creator-explains-why-series-is-ending-as-season-4-release-date-nears/ "During an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, creator John Griffin explained the decision to conclude the series. He revealed the story was always intended to last five seasons. However, Griffin and the creative team briefly considered a sixth chapter, hoping the story would tell them when it was time to end. He said, “There was a fair amount of soul-searching. But we all came to the realization that if we made that sixth season, it would be for us, because it’s just too hard to say goodbye.”

Yes, its a waiting game of who can last longer Now the Straits are closed again because the US wouldn't life there blockade And that's expected because why would Iran lift there blockade if the US doesn't do the same? The Iranian blockade impacts global prices and inflation but it won't "crash "any economy The US blockade impacts the main economic lifeline for Iran, it has much more severe consequences But can Iran just wait longer and hope the political pressure on Trump because of high gas prices changes things? We will have to see

He cant help himself, his hubris and mercurial personality always has to come out and manifest itself in these types of cringe SM comments

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/what-is-strait-hormuz-why-is-it-so-important-oil-2026-04-17/ So Iran has changed course after 5 days of the US blockade and opened the Straits to commercial shipping " Iran's foreign minister said the Strait of Hormuz was open for all commercial vessels for the remainder of the U.S.-brokered 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah, prompting a sharp fall in the price of oil. A senior Iranian official said all vessels, except for naval ships, would be able to sail through the strait but their plans needed to be coordinated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and ships transiting would be restricted to lanes Iran deemed safe. " They are expecting the US to now end its blockade on Iranian ports This is both understandable and expected because Iran relies on 80% of its total revenue for oil and gas sales on its ships using the Straits. So the US blockage will literally bring the entire Iranian economy to its knees. I just didn't expect it to happen so soon. That's another sign how fragile the Iranian economy really is What is more interesting is analysts spent weeks discussing how the US could get Iran to reopen the Straits which has become its most successful and impactful strategy. Island invasions and "boots on the ground " were considered but no one thought of the obvious and easy approach. Just block the Straits, do what Iran is doing and block Iranian ships Like I mentioned in previous posts. Irans greatest weapon has also become its greatest weakness

This is an interesting development but it doesn't address the main issue with AI generated content and how that undermines real human creativity and then the financial reparations Its "wrong " to use AI to create something like art that replaces humans, thats the real issue for me and your link mentions this "It definitely forecloses the most dystopian outcome of machines entirely replacing humans [in the world of art and entertainment]," says Stacey Dogan, a professor who studies intellectual property, competition and technology at the Boston University School of Law. Some predict a future where you just plop down in front of an AI system instead of watching the work of human beings. But without copyright protection for AI-generated work, the business case for building that world takes a major hit. For big entertainment companies like Disney, there's still a huge financial incentive to let humans run the creative process." This monkey photo is a real photo, it just wasnt taken by a human so this whole legal debate is really about copyrights and AI generated content And I dont want AI content to be allowed to get copyrights

This potential risk is having a direct impact to my family My stepmom was planning on flying to London and France next month because she has to manage repairs on property we own Now she is worried she wont be able to fly back if there is no fuel because the 6 weeks deadline is when she wants to return Its hard to believe the EU and UK wont make an alternative plan considering something as important as air-travel?

I am now about 110 hours into AC Valhalla and Im still having fun with the repeated activities and general side quests Im at the part where I have found Sigurd's arm and I now have about 7 regions who have pledged to me The game really does a good job at keeping me interested outside of the main quests. So for example I am now at power level 210 and I am actively hunting Order members, Ragnar's Drengrs and Legendary Animals because they provide an exciting combat challenge Then I have committed to completing some of the Hunting and Fish objectives because they provide Tungsten so I can upgrade my items to Mythical The economy is well balanced, you need to keep exploring to find loot if you want to buy resource upgrades Thats the best way to encourage and motivate exploration in any game , economic exigencies that create real rewards make exploration seem worthwhile and fun 👌

While Trumps offensive Jesus image is still remembered I had to post this

That Russian ship was allowed through the Cuban blockade, it didnt slip through That same argument could apply to Iran, " what if the US sends naval assets to protect their ships ". And yet the Iranians still blocked the Straits China gets 15% of its oil from Iran, it will end up buying oil from other markets and the oil price will increase. Its not going to go to war over this but Iran sells 80-90% of its oil to China so if you block Iran from shipping then you will devastate the Iranian economy because state revenue is anything from 60-70% reliant on oil and gas sales. Thats why the US is doing it because they believe this will force Iran to agree to terms But its not a good strategy because it will definitely increase the global oil price and we will all suffer because Trump failed to achieve his nebulous military objectives. The US should never have attacked Iran without clear and achievable objectives But its a very effective strategy if you want to hurt Iran, ironically the Straits which are Iran's strongest deterrent to war are also its greatest weakness Because now the US is doing what Iran is doing. Using the closure of the Straits to achieve its goals

@Gorth you will find this interesting, unprecedented numbers of people taking to the streets in Budapest to celebrate Magyars victory It was also a massive voter turnout, 80% and the youth vote made a huge difference I wonder if these crowds were bigger than when the USSR collapsed?

I agree, both candidates are still Conservative and that wont change There are several Hungarians on Codex and most of them voted for Magyar because of the established corruption and inefficiency you often find with a leader in power for too long Having better ties with the EU matters and not being in the Russian sphere of influence is relevant but not as much as the domestic issues but I do think better alignment within the EU is inextricably connected to better governance Magyar is more favourable to Ukraine, I believe he will hold a referendum about Ukraine joining the EU to get a sense of what Hungarians really think and I doubt he will block the €90 billion EU aid like Orban did Whats interesting is during the election Orban tried loads of fake news around Ukraine and Magyars views, for example he said Magyar would implement conscription and send 90k Hungarian soldiers to fight in the war Here is a link about this and its nothing unusual for how Russian propaganda and interference in EU elections works How Russia spread disinformation on the eve of Hungarian...Traces of Moscow’s influence were visible across Hungarian social media.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/13/hungary-election-results-eu-europe-leaders-react-peter-magyar-viktor-orban An incredible victory for Magyar, he didnt just win the Hungarian election. He annihilated Orban with a 2/3 win in parliament This was first and foremost a win for the people of Hungary because its an example of how Democracy allows leadership change through the ballot box. As I have mentioned many times we often take this for granted because we assume our elections will be free and fair and we tend to complain about the policy outcomes and decisions We sometimes forget that there are countries where elections are pre-determined and voting has no influence on leadership change. This Hungarian election is a reminder of how citizen participation and activism can and does lead to new leadership But the link I attached summarizes other points of the significance of this Hungarian election "EU leaders heaped praise on Péter Magyar after his decisive election victory in Hungary against the long-serving prime minister Viktor Orbán, who many saw as a direct threat to Europe’s peace and prosperity. The outpouring reflected a deep frustration with Orbán across the EU’s 27 member states and its institutions. “Today Europe wins and European values win,” said the Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, in a post on X on Sunday night. The Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, wrote on social media: “Hungary Poland Europe Back together! Glorious victory, dear friends! Ruszkik haza!”. Ruszkik haza translates into English as “Russians, go home”. Orbán’s 16-year grip on power has tested the EU system of governance meant to ensure peace through economic and political integration after the devastation of the first and second world wars. Claiming he sought to advance the national interests of Hungarians over strategy forged in Brussels, Orbán time and again vetoed collective action such as support for Ukraine after Russia’s all-out invasion. Recently, the far-right leader’s government outraged EU leaders and officials when it admitted to providing a backchannel to Russia during summits. In a recent interview, Magyar told the Associated Press that if elected, he would repair Hungary’s relationship with the EU. However, he has carefully avoided taking firm positions on a number of divisive issues during the election campaign – including Orbán’s anti-LGBTQ+ policies and whether Hungary should extend more support to Ukraine.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/12/world/live-news/iran-us-war-talks-trump?post-id=cmnva53pj00043b6roxlb2gq7 Yes, Iran refusing to abandon its nuclear program and reponing the straits seems to be the sticking points No agreement: US Vice President JD Vance says no agreement was reached with Iran after marathon talks in Pakistan. Iran would not commit to forgoing a nuclear weapon, Vance said. Iran’s foreign ministry told state media that disagreement over “two, or three” key issues prevented a deal. Both of these are understandable demands but the latter has now become Iran's main strategy and this wouldn't have been an issue if the US and Israel hadn't attacked Iran. And Iran knows this is putting political pressure on Trump Trumps now in an invidious position, he started this and now he has to ensure the Straits are open

My take on this article is slightly different Israel presented there initial objectives but the US had its own analysis and decision making And you can see how several US advisors rejected parts of the Israeli analysis as farcical and Trump was presented with this information But he decided to focus on 2 points as primary objectives which were killing the Supreme Leader and degrading Irans ability to attack Israel and the broader region And he ignored the risk around the Straits being closed and Iran's ability to create economic chaos, so both him and Israel underestimated this risk But end of the day I would say Trump wanted a " win " and the glory of being able to say " Im the first US president who achieved regime change in Iran" He made the final decision to attack Iran despite several of his advisors expressing the real concerns of the problems that the US experienced around winning the war because Trumps presidency is not about his advisors seriously disagreeing with him They end up supporting him even if they disagree with his decisions. Thats how you keep your job in Trumps cabinet

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html This is a MUST read link, I will post the entire article for those that cant access NYT. Its long but worth the read Its the most revealing and illuminating read I have come across about the meetings and reasoning that went into the US decision to attack Iran. It discusses the Israeli objectives and where they were different to the US objectives and most importantly you can see what Trumps inner circle thought about the war and how they finally advised him You can also see where the US got it right and wrong. And finally its fascinating at the end where you can see the opinions of Trumps war cabinet advisors In summary, Israel had some influence around the objectives but end of the day it was a US decision as expected based on Trumps own analysis on how the war would unfold @rjshae answers some real questions we have been discussing around the calculus " The black S.U.V. carrying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived at the White House just before 11 a.m. on Feb. 11. The Israeli leader, who had been pressing for months for the United States to agree to a major assault on Iran, was whisked inside with little ceremony, out of view of reporters, primed for one of the most high-stakes moments in his long career. U.S. and Israeli officials gathered first in the Cabinet Room, adjacent to the Oval Office. Then Mr. Netanyahu headed downstairs for the main event: a highly classified presentation on Iran for President Trump and his team in the White House Situation Room, which was rarely used for in-person meetings with foreign leaders. Mr. Trump sat down, but not in his usual position at the head of the room’s mahogany conference table. Instead, the president took a seat on one side, facing the large screens mounted along the wall. Mr. Netanyahu sat on the other side, directly opposite the president. Appearing on the screen behind the prime minister was David Barnea, the director of Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, as well as Israeli military officials. Arrayed visually behind Mr. Netanyahu, they created the image of a wartime leader surrounded by his team. Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, sat at the far end of the table. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who doubled as the national security adviser, had taken his regular seat. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who generally sat together in such settings, were on one side; joining them was John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director. Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, and Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s special envoy, who had been negotiating with the Iranians, rounded out the main group. The gathering had been kept deliberately small to guard against leaks. Other top cabinet secretaries had no idea it was happening. Also absent was the vice president. JD Vance was in Azerbaijan, and the meeting had been scheduled on such short notice that he was unable to make it back in time. The presentation that Mr. Netanyahu would make over the next hour would be pivotal in setting the United States and Israel on the path toward a major armed conflict in the middle of one of the world’s most volatile regions. And it would lead to a series of discussions inside the White House over the following days and weeks, the details of which have not been previously reported, in which Mr. Trump weighed his options and the risks before giving the go-ahead to join Israel in attacking Iran. This account of how Mr. Trump took the United States into war is drawn from reporting for a forthcoming book, “Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump.” It reveals how the deliberations inside the administration highlighted the president’s instincts, his inner circle’s fractures and the way he runs the White House. It draws on extensive interviews conducted on the condition of anonymity to recount internal discussions and sensitive issues. The reporting underscores how closely Mr. Trump’s hawkish thinking aligned with Mr. Netanyahu’s over many months, more so than even some of the president’s key advisers recognized. Their close association has been an enduring feature across two administrations, and that dynamic — however fraught at times — has fueled intense criticism and suspicion on both the left and the right of American politics. And it shows how, in the end, even the more skeptical members of Mr. Trump’s war cabinet — with the stark exception of Mr. Vance, the figure inside the White House most opposed to a full-scale war — deferred to the president’s instincts, including his abundant confidence that the war would be quick and decisive. The White House declined to comment. In the Situation Room on Feb. 11, Mr. Netanyahu made a hard sell, suggesting that Iran was ripe for regime change and expressing the belief that a joint U.S.-Israeli mission could finally bring an end to the Islamic Republic. At one point, the Israelis played for Mr. Trump a brief video that included a montage of potential new leaders who could take over the country if the hard-line government fell. Among those featured was Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last shah, now a Washington-based dissident who had tried to position himself as a secular leader who could shepherd Iran toward a post-theocratic government. Mr. Netanyahu and his team outlined conditions they portrayed as pointing to near-certain victory: Iran’s ballistic missile program could be destroyed in a few weeks. The regime would be so weakened that it could not choke off the Strait of Hormuz, and the likelihood that Iran would land blows against U.S. interests in neighboring countries was assessed as minimal. Besides, Mossad’s intelligence indicated that street protests inside Iran would begin again and — with the impetus of the Israeli spy agency helping to foment riots and rebellion — an intense bombing campaign could foster the conditions for the Iranian opposition to overthrow the regime. The Israelis also raised the prospect of Iranian Kurdish fighters crossing the border from Iraq to open a ground front in the northwest, further stretching the regime’s forces and accelerating its collapse. Mr. Netanyahu delivered his presentation in a confident monotone. It seemed to land well with the most important person in the room, the American president. Sounds good to me, Mr. Trump told the prime minister. To Mr. Netanyahu, this signaled a likely green light for a joint U.S.-Israeli operation. Mr. Netanyahu was not the only one who came away from the meeting with the impression that Mr. Trump had all but made up his mind. The president’s advisers could see that he had been deeply impressed by the promise of what Mr. Netanyahu’s military and intelligence services could do, just as he had been when the two men spoke before the 12-day war with Iran in June. Earlier in his White House visit on Feb. 11, Mr. Netanyahu had tried to focus the minds of the Americans assembled in the Cabinet Room on the existential threat posed by Iran’s 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. When others in the room asked the prime minister about possible risks in the operation, Mr. Netanyahu acknowledged these but made one central point: In his view, the risks of inaction were greater than the risks of action. He argued that the price of action would only grow if they delayed striking and allowed Iran more time to accelerate its missile production and create a shield of immunity around its nuclear program. Everyone in the room understood that Iran had the capacity to build up its missile and drone stockpiles at a far lower cost and much more quickly than the United States could build and supply the much more expensive interceptors to protect American interests and allies in the region. Mr. Netanyahu’s presentations — and Mr. Trump’s positive response to them — created an urgent task for the U.S. intelligence community. Overnight, analysts worked to assess the viability of what the Israeli team had told the president. The results of the U.S. intelligence analysis were shared the following day, Feb. 12, in another meeting for only American officials in the Situation Room. Before Mr. Trump arrived, two senior intelligence officials briefed the president’s inner circle. The intelligence officials had deep expertise in U.S. military capabilities, and they knew the Iranian system and its players inside out. They had broken down Mr. Netanyahu’s presentation into four parts. First was decapitation — killing the ayatollah. Second was crippling Iran’s capacity to project power and threaten its neighbors. Third was a popular uprising inside Iran. And fourth was regime change, with a secular leader installed to govern the country. The U.S. officials assessed that the first two objectives were achievable with American intelligence and military power. They assessed that the third and fourth parts of Mr. Netanyahu’s pitch, which included the possibility of the Kurds mounting a ground invasion of Iran, were detached from reality. When Mr. Trump joined the meeting, Mr. Ratcliffe briefed him on the assessment. The C.I.A. director used one word to describe the Israeli prime minister’s regime change scenarios: “farcical.” At that point, Mr. Rubio cut in. “In other words, it’s bull****,” he said. Mr. Ratcliffe added that given the unpredictability of events in any conflict, regime change could happen, but it should not be considered an achievable objective. Several others jumped in, including Mr. Vance, just back from Azerbaijan, who also expressed strong skepticism about the prospect of regime change. The president then turned to General Caine. “General, what do you think?” General Caine replied: “Sir, this is, in my experience, standard operating procedure for the Israelis. They oversell, and their plans are not always well-developed. They know they need us, and that’s why they’re hard-selling.” Mr. Trump quickly weighed the assessment. Regime change, he said, would be “their problem.” It was unclear whether he was referring to the Israelis or the Iranian people. But the bottom line was that his decision on whether to go to war against Iran would not hinge on whether Parts 3 and 4 of Mr. Netanyahu’s presentation were achievable. Mr. Trump appeared to remain very interested in accomplishing Parts 1 and 2: killing the ayatollah and Iran’s top leaders and dismantling the Iranian military. General Caine — the man Mr. Trump liked to refer to as “Razin’ Caine” — had impressed the president years earlier by telling him the Islamic State could be defeated far more quickly than others had projected. Mr. Trump rewarded that confidence by elevating the general, who had been an Air Force fighter pilot, to be his top military adviser. General Caine was not a political loyalist, and he had serious concerns about a war with Iran. But he was very cautious in the way he presented his views to the president. As the small team of advisers who were looped into the plans deliberated over the following days, General Caine shared with Mr. Trump and others the alarming military assessment that a major campaign against Iran would drastically deplete stockpiles of American weaponry, including missile interceptors, whose supply had been strained after years of support for Ukraine and Israel. General Caine saw no clear path to quickly replenishing these stockpiles. He also flagged the enormous difficulty of securing the Strait of Hormuz and the risks of Iran blocking it. Mr. Trump had dismissed that possibility on the assumption that the regime would capitulate before it came to that. The president appeared to think it would be a very quick war — an impression that had been reinforced by the tepid response to the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities in June. General Caine’s role in the lead-up to the war captured a classic tension between military counsel and presidential decision-making. So persistent was the chairman in not taking a stand — repeating that it was not his role to tell the president what to do, but rather to present options along with potential risks and possible second- and third-order consequences — that he could appear to some of those listening to be arguing all sides of an issue simultaneously. He would constantly ask, “And then what?” But Mr. Trump would often seem to hear only what he wanted to hear. General Caine differed in almost every way from a prior chairman, Gen. Mark A. Milley, who had argued vociferously with Mr. Trump during his first administration and who saw his role as stopping the president from taking dangerous or reckless actions. One person familiar with their interactions noted that Mr. Trump had a habit of confusing tactical advice from General Caine with strategic counsel. In practice, that meant the general might warn in one breath about the difficulties of one aspect of the operation, then in the next note that the United States had an essentially unlimited supply of cheap, precision-guided bombs and could strike Iran for weeks once it achieved air superiority. To the chairman, these were separate observations. But Mr. Trump appeared to think that the second most likely canceled out the first. At no point during the deliberations did the chairman directly tell the president that war with Iran was a terrible idea — though some of General Caine’s colleagues believed that was exactly what he thought. Distrusted as Mr. Netanyahu was by many of the president’s advisers, the prime minister’s view of the situation was far closer to Mr. Trump’s opinion than the anti-interventionists on the Trump team or in the broader “America First” movement liked to admit. This had been true for many years. Of all the foreign policy challenges Mr. Trump had confronted across two presidencies, Iran stood apart. He regarded it as a uniquely dangerous adversary and was willing to take great risks to hinder the regime’s ability to wage war or to acquire a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, Mr. Netanyahu’s pitch had dovetailed with Mr. Trump’s desire to dismantle the Iranian theocracy, which had seized power in 1979, when Mr. Trump was 32. It had been a thorn in the side of the United States ever since. Now, he could become the first president since the clerical leadership took over 47 years ago to pull off regime change in Iran. Usually unmentioned but always in the background was the added motivation that Iran had plotted to kill Mr. Trump as revenge over the assassination in January 2020 of Gen. Qassim Suleimani, who was seen in the United States as a driving force behind an Iranian campaign of international terrorism. Back in office for a second term, Mr. Trump’s confidence in the U.S. military’s abilities had only grown. He was especially emboldened by the spectacular commando raid to capture the Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro from his compound on Jan. 3. No American lives were lost in the operation, yet more evidence to the president of the unmatched prowess of U.S. forces. Within the cabinet, Mr. Hegseth was the biggest proponent of a military campaign against Iran. Mr. Rubio indicated to colleagues that he was much more ambivalent. He did not believe the Iranians would agree to a negotiated deal, but his preference was to continue a campaign of maximum pressure rather than start a full-scale war. Mr. Rubio, however, did not try to talk Mr. Trump out of the operation, and after the war began he delivered the administration’s justification with full conviction. Ms. Wiles had concerns about what a new conflict overseas could entail, but she did not tend to weigh in hard on military matters in larger meetings; rather, she encouraged advisers to share their views and concerns with the president in those settings. Ms. Wiles would exert influence on many other issues, but in the room with Mr. Trump and the generals, she sat back. Those close to her said she did not view it as her role to share her concerns with the president on a military decision in front of others. And she believed that the expertise of advisers like General Caine, Mr. Ratcliffe and Mr. Rubio was more significant for the president to hear. Still, Ms. Wiles had told colleagues that she worried about the United States being dragged into another war in the Middle East. An attack on Iran carried with it the potential to set off soaring gas prices months before midterm elections that could help decide whether the final two years of Mr. Trump’s second term would be years of accomplishment or subpoenas from House Democrats. But in the end, Ms. Wiles was on board with the operation. Nobody in Mr. Trump’s inner circle was more worried about the prospect of war with Iran, or did more to try to stop it, than the vice president. Mr. Vance had built his political career opposing precisely the kind of military adventurism that was now under serious consideration. He had described a war with Iran as “a huge distraction of resources” and “massively expensive.” He was not, however, a dove across the board. In January, when Mr. Trump publicly warned Iran to stop killing protesters and promised that help was on its way, Mr. Vance had privately encouraged the president to enforce his red line. But what the vice president pushed for was a limited, punitive strike, something closer to the model of Mr. Trump’s missile attack against Syria in 2017 over the use of chemical weapons against civilians. The vice president thought a regime-change war with Iran would be a disaster. His preference was for no strikes at all. But knowing that Mr. Trump was likely to intervene in some fashion, he tried to steer toward more limited action. Later, when it seemed certain that the president was set on a large-scale campaign, Mr. Vance argued that he should do so with overwhelming force, in the hope of achieving his objectives quickly. In front of his colleagues, Mr. Vance warned Mr. Trump that a war against Iran could cause regional chaos and untold numbers of casualties. It could also break apart Mr. Trump’s political coalition and would be seen as a betrayal by many voters who had bought into the promise of no new wars. Mr. Vance raised other concerns, too. As vice president, he was aware of the scope of America’s munitions problem. A war against a regime with enormous will for survival could leave the United States in a far worse position to fight conflicts for some years. The vice president told associates that no amount of military insight could truly gauge what Iran would do in retaliation when survival of the regime was at stake. A war could easily go in unpredictable directions. Moreover, he thought there seemed to be little chance of building a peaceful Iran in the aftermath. Beyond all of this was perhaps the biggest risk of all: Iran held the advantage when it came to the Strait of Hormuz. If this narrow waterway carrying vast quantities of oil and natural gas was choked off, the domestic consequences in the United States would be severe, starting with higher gasoline prices. Tucker Carlson, the commentator who had emerged as another prominent skeptic of intervention on the right, had come to the Oval Office several times over the previous year to warn Mr. Trump that a war with Iran would destroy his presidency. A couple weeks before the war began, Mr. Trump, who had known Mr. Carlson for years, tried to reassure him over the phone. “I know you’re worried about it, but it’s going to be OK,” the president said. Mr. Carlson asked how he knew. “Because it always is,” Mr. Trump replied. In the final days of February, the Americans and the Israelis discussed a piece of new intelligence that would significantly accelerate their timeline. The ayatollah would be meeting above ground with other top officials of the regime, in broad daylight and wide open for an air attack. It was a fleeting chance to strike at the heart of Iran’s leadership, the kind of target that might not present itself again. Mr. Trump gave Iran another chance to come to a deal that would block its path to nuclear weapons. The diplomacy also gave the United States extra time to move military assets to the Middle The president had effectively made up his mind weeks earlier, several of his advisers said. But he had not yet decided exactly when. Now, Mr. Netanyahu urged him to move fast. That same week, Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witkoff called from Geneva after the latest talks with Iranian officials. Over three rounds of negotiations in Oman and Switzerland, the two had tested Iran’s willingness to make a deal. At one point, they offered the Iranians free nuclear fuel for the life of their program — a test of whether Tehran’s insistence on enrichment was truly about civilian energy or about preserving the ability to build a bomb. The Iranians rejected the offer, calling it an assault on their dignity. Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witkoff laid out the picture for the president. They could probably negotiate something, but it would take months, they said. If Mr. Trump was asking whether they could look him in the eye and tell him they could solve the problem, it was going to take a lot to get there, Mr. Kushner told him, because the Iranians were playing games. On Thursday, Feb. 26, around 5 p.m., a final Situation Room meeting got underway. By now, the positions of everyone in the room were clear. Everything had been discussed in previous meetings; everyone knew everyone else’s stance. The discussion would last about an hour and a half. Mr. Trump was in his usual place at the head of the table. To his right sat the vice president; next to Mr. Vance was Ms. Wiles, then Mr. Ratcliffe, then the White House counsel, David Warrington, then Steven Cheung, the White House communications director. Across from Mr. Cheung was Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary; to her right was General Caine, then Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Rubio. The war-planning group had been kept so tight that the two key officials who would need to manage the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, were excluded, as was Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. The president opened the meeting, asking, OK, what have we got? Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Caine ran through the sequencing of the attacks. Then Mr. Trump said he wanted to go around the table and hear everyone’s views. Mr. Vance, whose disagreement with the whole premise was well established, addressed the president: You know I think this is a bad idea, but if you want to do it, I’ll support you. Ms. Wiles told Mr. Trump that if he felt he needed to proceed for America’s national security, then he should go ahead. Mr. Ratcliffe offered no opinion on whether to proceed, but he discussed the stunning new intelligence that the Iranian leadership was about to gather in the ayatollah’s compound in Tehran. The C.I.A. director told the president that regime change was possible depending on how the term was defined. “If we just mean killing the supreme leader, we can probably do that,” he said. When called on, Mr. Warrington, the White House counsel, said it was a legally permissible option in terms of how the plan had been conceived by U.S. officials and presented to the president. He did not offer a personal opinion, but when pressed by the president to provide one, he said that as a Marine veteran he had known an American service member killed by Iran years earlier. This issue remained deeply personal. He told the president that if Israel intended to proceed regardless, the United States should do so as well. Mr. Cheung laid out the likely public relations fallout: Mr. Trump had run for office opposed to further wars. People had not voted for conflict overseas. The plans ran contrary, too, to everything the administration had said after the bombing campaign against Iran in June. How would they explain away eight months of insisting that Iranian nuclear facilities had been totally obliterated? Mr. Cheung gave neither a yes nor a no, but he said that whatever decision Mr. Trump made would be the right one. Ms. Leavitt told the president that this was his decision and that the press team would manage it as best they could. Mr. Hegseth adopted a narrow position: They would have to take care of the Iranians eventually, so they might as well do it now. He offered technical assessments: They could run the campaign in a certain amount of time with a given level of forces. General Caine was sober, laying out the risks and what the campaign would mean for munitions depletion. He offered no opinion; his position was that if Mr. Trump ordered the operation, the military would execute. Both of the president’s top military leaders previewed how the campaign would unfold and the U.S. capacity to degrade Iran’s military capabilities. When it was his turn to speak, Mr. Rubio offered more clarity, telling the president: If our goal is regime change or an uprising, we shouldn’t do it. But if the goal is to destroy Iran’s missile program, that’s a goal we can achieve. Everyone deferred to the president’s instincts. They had seen him make bold decisions, take on unfathomable risks and somehow come out on top. No one would impede him now. “I think we need to do it,” the president told the room. He said they had to make sure Iran could not have a nuclear weapon, and they had to ensure that Iran could not just shoot missiles at Israel or throughout the region. General Caine told Mr. Trump that he had some time; he did not need to give the go-ahead until 4 p.m. the following day. Aboard Air Force One the next afternoon, 22 minutes before General Caine’s deadline, Mr. Trump sent the following order: “Operation Epic Fury is approved. No aborts. Good luck."