CBS "Newz" (i.e. total bullshit) has an "expert" on to bleat that "Neither side controls the Strait of Hormuz

Imagine a kid who loves throwing rocks at cars passing under a bridge.  Does that kid "control the Interstate"?

According to the scum-sucking communist whores at CBS, he would.

In a minute you'll see the relevance. 

Trump understandably understands "negotiation" in the way he's familiar with: When one side is holding a losing hand, but sees an offer of a better result, they take the latter, eh?  But Trump has never studied war, and his advisors control the briefings he gets.  So when the doves and pro-muzz advisors urged him to stop beating the hell out of Iran's military forces and to negotiate, he understandably agreed--because in business, it's a totally normal, familiar thing.

Unfortunately in war (which, again, Trump has understandably never studied) against a totalitarian regime, an offer by the far stronger side to negotiate is ALWAYS seen as a sign of lack of resolve to win--i.e. as weakness.

If you don't believe that, go study war for a decade or so and get back to me.  It's an area you almost certainly know NOTHING about, and neither does CBS nor 95% of the morons in congress.  Seriously, other than historians, who bothers to study war, eh?

Rational leaders of a NON-totalitarian regime, seeing they're badly over-matched militarily, reason "Let's take whatever deal the other side is offering.  After all, look how well it worked out for Germany and Japan, eh?"  

By contrast, the rulers of a totalitarian regime have a far different calculus: They lose NOTHING by ordering their troops to keep fighting for as long as possible--because the leaders risk nothing by doing so.  By contrast (!), surrendering gets them killed by their own people, if not hanged by the victorious opponent.  (If you need examples try Mussolini, or the Ceausescus.) 

So if totalitarian rulers have NO motive to surrender, but every motive to order their people to fight til the end, there's only one solution: demand unconditional surrender, as we did with Nazi Germany and imperial Japan.  

But because Trump has (understandably) never studied war, AND because his closest  advisors seem to be similarly unaware, they thought the mullahs would eagerly jump on a U.S. offer of a "negotiated settlement."  Plus Trump's advisors stupidly believed offering a ceasefire while the settlement was negotiated would get Democrat leaders and the Dem-fellating Media to lighten up.

How well has that worked out for you dumb sons of bitches, eh? 

Here's what doesn't work: You DON'T tell the mullahs "If the IRGC attacks shipping, we'll bomb X," because whatever X is, it's not hitting the IRGC decision-maker, eh?  So you end up sending million-dollar "drone boats" (literally, that's the reported cost) to blow up a single $50,000 pier.  Stupid.

Instead you announce that unless they surrender unconditionally, their entire infrastructure will be destroyed--all the bridges, rail, powerplants.  Will this make things fairly miserable for the civilians who now support the regime--as it sure as hell did for citizens of Germany and Japan in WW2?  Of course--which is the whole point--because as long as the people of Iran support the regime's leaders, those leaders will order the nation to keep fighting, eh?

It was and is obvious to everyone who pays attention the Democrat partei hates Trump and will oppose everything he proposes or undertakes--including any effective action against the mullahs ruling Iran.  (As the joke goes, if Trump found the cure for cancer, the next day Democrats would be organizing protests to defend cancer and impeach Trump.)  So the mullahs knew (and know) that if they can manage to hold on thru the mid-term elections, if the Dems win control of congress they'll force Trump to surrender.

Imagine if in late 1944 one U.S. political party had announced to the world "We are totally against continuing this pointless, cruel, costly war against the innocent people of Germany and Japan, and if we win the election we promise to negotiate a settlement to end this awful war."

Do ya think that would encourage the rulers of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan to keep ordering their troops to fight on?

If you have to think about that, you're too damn stupid to breathe without help, and the perfect Democrat voter.

So now, because of his several prior offers to negotiate (likely pushed by advisors) Trump is now in a corner: Today is July 14th, and with the elections on Nov. 3, if the mullahs haven't surrendered by roughly October 1st it'll be too late--because voters have heard Trump say "We have a peace deal" too many times now, only to see the Iranians keep attacking ships, or demanding tolls or saying "But Iran controls the Strait, now and forever."  Any of that sound familiar?

So because they've succeeded in stringing Trump along for months, after 1 October or so, voters understandably won't believe any claims that "we've got a peace deal"

The "Iran conflict" offers many lessons.  Unfortunately the only one Democrats will. learn is to welcome the DSA into their "tent," confident that with the DSA's help the Dems will win in November and ever afterward.

When Democrats re-take the presidency and congress, if the mullahs sent an atomic bomb to New York harbor on a container-ship and detonated it, the Democrat prezzy would refuse to retaliate in ANY way--because "There's no way to know which container held the bomb, or who sent it."  If you doubt that, look at the thousands of leftist/pro-tranny commenters who claim there's no way to prove that Tyler Robinson assassinated Charlie Kirk because there is no video of him firing the fatal shot.  Yes, despite four confessions from TyTy, they're seriously claiming that.

They wouldn't retaliate even if the mullahs claimed they did send the bomb, because two or three cunning Dems would say "NOooo, dey iz jus' kiddin'!  Dey din' reeeally bomb New York, jus' like bin Laden didn't do 9/11!  (It wuz an inside job, y'know?)  Dey jus' sayin' they did it to make us react!  Yeh, dat's it!"  

And so it goes.  I think Trump's advisors will probably succeed in convincing him to take the inevitable next offer of "negotiation" from the lying mullahs, which will ensure a Dem win in November--which in turn tips over LOTS of other dominoes.  See, it's well known that weakness triggers war.  What's less widely known is that just the perception of weakness often does the same thing.

Can't wait to see what happens.