Although its methodology is lacking (it's people that follow Cenk Ugyar of the Young Turks podcast), the tweet's accurate.
The tweet's also moot.
Both can have done damage to the world. Both can have done a lot of damage to the world.
Now, if Israel wants to follow Bibi into a war with Iran, so be it. That's not the United States' business, though. The United States has laws that are supposed to act as checks on president's unilaterally engaging in war. The United States also has laws that are supposed to act as checks against legislators from accepting gifts from foreign actors that might influence their opinions and actions on the world stage in ways that might not have anything to do with the country's interests.
Trump isn't sending his sons and his money to the Middle East to engage in a military actions on behalf of Bibi Netanyahu. He's sending other people's kids and wasting taxpayer money that could be spent domestically on healthcare, education, small business, etc.
The tweet doesn't address that at all.
Now, if you want to talk about Bibi and Trump going all over the world to fight injustice, then the tweet would be relevant. This situation isn't about this, though.
First, I would like to say I really appreciate your comments and way of thinking. I find it hard to reply and energy consuming to follow up on all comments here but you are very able in replying with thougtfull and illuminating ways. Not easy at all (I struggle really hard with it I learn).
With regards to your comment:
You correctly note the poll's methodology is flawed — 370K respondents who self-select into Cenk Uygur's audience are not a representative sample of global opinion. But that was my point. (the twit was viewed 3M times so it probably had 'expanded' it's audience.
The same logic applies here. Forum comments on this thread are also not a reliable methodology for grasping global reality. Both are self-selected, politically skewed, emotionally invested communities. One leans on a Twitter poll, the other leans on forum consensus — neither is a neutral baseline. It's just a different bubble.
As for Trump motives for war (economy wise) — if you'd read the opinion piece I posted here — which was quickly dismissed (not by you as far as I know) — you'd have a clearer picture of my view of why Trump's involvement is anything but charity for Netanyahu/Israel and more aligned with the interests of the American people (btw, he is already filthy rich, so other than being his regular narcissistic juvey - I do believe he acts on what he believes to be American interests) - Short recap of the article: Trump's interest in Iran is about control — specifically, breaking the Russia–China–Iran alliance that has been quietly eroding American economic dominance. The Strait of Hormuz alone carries 20% of the world's daily oil supply. Whoever controls that strait controls what China pays for energy, what Russia earns from selling it, and the leverage the entire Eastern axis holds. Iran was the keystone of that structure. Remove it, and China's cheap oil pipeline fractures, Russia loses one of its last reliable buyers, and American economic leverage is restored.
Venezuela, Greenland, and Iran aren't three separate stories — they're one move: systematically dismantling the economic infrastructure of the competing bloc. Trump isn't doing this for Bibi or Israel, He is not being dragged anywhere. He's doing it because energy routes are power.
If anything, Israel is the regional piece in a much larger American chess game — not the other way around IMHO.
www.themirror.com
