aimlessly trying to bomb iran into submission is not a reprise of dubya's 00s iraq policy, it's a reprise of the clinton-gore iraq strategy during the 90s. trump is constantly clinton redux. he is aggressively avoiding regime change, when it would be the better strategy in iran (and was the worse strategy in iraq). he's tryng to force an oil for food type program but the iranians won't accept it.

i don't support this policy. it's not going to make the region safer. it's not going to have a pragmatic outcome. the americans will fail to force iran into submission, and somebody else will step in and push through regime change in the end. it's putting off the inevitable at a great waste of time and money. the result will be the same. and the process of regime change in iran is necessary and the outcome will be justice for the people of iran. this is a fascist regime that poses a threat to global stability, regional order and global peace and an ideology that needs to be eradicated. aimlessly attempting to bomb them into submission and failing will cost more money and kill more people than is necessary to get the job done. it's the most inefficient, ineffective approach to the same ultimately necessary solution of regime change in the end, because trump fears the  outcome of an iranian socialist movement on the ground and won't sign off on it.

but, despite realizing that this won't help much, that doesn't mean i have much sympathy for iran right now. they need to get their shit in order and take this decision away from people in washington. this is their future. this is their state to burn down. the decision should be theirs, but they need to make it.

as an openly identifying socialist, my politics are far closer to john fetterman's than they are to aoc's or mamdani's, who both strike me as well to the right of centre. this free groceries for rich kids scheme is about the most bourgeois thing i've ever heard. i would reject it as stupid because i'm a socialist. there's nothing socialist about it at all, it's just a handout for rich kids, and it would get paid for by a hike in union dues. it's a redistribution of wealth from middle age working class union members to upper middle class children of corporate executives. that's not socialism. that's the literal opposite of socialism.

the problem is that, in the united states, all politics is just code for race politics. nothing else matters. you can't be brown and conservative at the same time in the united states, despite the actual reality that the overwhelming majority of brown people are in fact extremely conservative. so everything else has to align around the delusions of archaic race politics that have little to no relevance a quarter of the way into the 21st century.

fetterman's a liberal, which is placing him in conflict with the shift to the far right that is taking place in the democratic party, as it tries to abandon any remnant of it's historical white voting base and fully embrace a religious and brown voting coalition. the new democrats are going to be extremely religious and extremely conservative (and extremely brown), but they're going to call themselves left-wing anyways, and i'm going to be diametrically deadset against them. so, he's being called a conservative, because the country doesn't know how to use language to describe what's happening. but the truth is the opposite.

the democrats have actually historically been the country's conservative party. the republicans have historically been the country's liberal party. the language in the media is orwellian, but the alliances are actually correcting themselves.

i think that john fetterman is actually to the left of his party and that the democrats are in the process of shifting to the extreme right, which is something he is resisting. if i were fetterman, i would probably feel more comfortable sitting as an independent and calling myself a liberal, and making an attempt to explain how liberals are discernibly to the left of progressives, who are really conservatives in disguise. as an adamant openly socialist leftist, i consider these progressives to be a bigger problem than republicans are, as the progressives are actual conservatives, and the republicans generally aren't really conservatives at all. it's the self-styled progressives that want to radically turn the clocks back to the 60s. republicans are broadly status quo. that makes the progressives dramatically worse. we're in the era of orwell, where everything is upside down and backwards, and everything means the opposite of what it claims to mean.