Gonna speculate further here, based on something I experienced in my own life:

Bombing Iran in a place that was evacuated was the easiest way to peace. You accede to the demands of the crazies in a nominal and inconsequential way, they let their guard down, then you do the opposite.

When I used to host a show on Sirius XM, we had a program director who was always pushing cringey, shitty ideas on us. I used to argue with him, fight him over it all the time while everyone else was willing to comply. He just got more resolute in enforcing his retarded edicts, starting watching everything we did like a hawk.

One day I realized that when you’re dealing with certain types of people, persusasion is not the way to go. Just yes them vaguely, give them the nominal version of what they want, then do your own thing.

From that piont forward, he and I got along great, and he basically left us alone.

The lesson I learned is that sometimes you can live up to your principles better by appearing to compromise than you can by standing on them and making noise.

At 30, I wouldn’t have seen this, but in my 40s, I was able to manage it and take control back of the show.

Obviously these situations are not the same, but I do think the sentiment is similar: “He bombed Iran when he promised to be the peace president!”

Yes, he bombed them nominally, but unless he’s putting boots on the ground or bombing *people*, I don’t see this as especially significant.

Might it lead to unforeseen consequences? Of course. Might I be wrong about his intentions? Of course. But sounds more like this is attack theater for a purpose other than war. That’s still my base case barring real escalation.