Iran-Israel War | US reactions to military strike: Much approval, many concerns

In a four-minute speech from the White House on Saturday evening, President Donald Trump promised the Iranians "peace or tragedy." He thanked the US generals for the air strikes against Iran's nuclear program . Trump declared his sincere love for his fellow Americans and God: "God, we love you." Behind Trump's head hovered three other heads, none of which belonged to a general, but all to Republican politicians and the MAGA movement - Make America Great Again. That the top brass of the Air Force and Army are carrying out Trump's orders is beyond doubt. Whether Trump's original supporters from the MAGA movement will retain their allegiance in the future is considerably less certain.

The vast majority of Americans think ahead; speculation is foreign to few. This was the case after September 11, and after the declaration of the second Iraq War under the neoconservative administration of George W. Bush. But in recent days, many Americans have expressed reservations about any kind of "happy talk" or gullible optimism when it comes to the Middle East . Too often, lightning-fast military plans have turned into protracted wars. The Washington Post reported that in the days before the military strikes against Iran, 45 percent of Americans were against such an attack and only 25 percent were in favor. Thirty percent were undecided.

Middle East experts view the attacks with great skepticism. Ryan Crocker of the Rand Foundation, a former career diplomat and ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait, and Lebanon, expressed grave concerns to the website Politico before the attacks. No attacks, neither by Israel nor by the US, could completely eliminate the Iranians' plan to build a nuclear bomb. Dennis Ross, former special envoy for the Middle East under President Barack Obama, said that while there are bombs that can be used against bunkers, there's nothing that can be used against an entire mountain. Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations is certain that the Iranian leadership will return to the tactics of asymmetric warfare as soon as possible, with similar success as in the past.

The bottom line is that Iran can be weakened, but not tamed without diplomacy. It is noted that Iran is twice the size of Texas and twice the size of Afghanistan. The majority of the US public and experts understand very well that a military opponent can be weakened, but not forced to rethink its position and undergo regime change. The references to Iran's physical size are inevitably a warning from experts against any idea of ​​occupation. But others are more reassuring: Journalist Arash Azizi, author of "What Iranians Want: Women, Life, Freedom," claims that Iran will definitely negotiate more vigorously after the attacks to save the regime itself.

The political elite in all camps are already voicing concerns. Democrats, such as Senator Mike Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Congressional Intelligence Committee, are criticizing Trump for acting "without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without a consensus with his own intelligence chiefs that Iran has indeed come this close to having a bomb." The reaction of MAGA leader Steve Bannon is very important for the White House: Before the military strikes, the former banker and podcaster Bannon had unusually good opportunities to speak with Trump. Last Thursday, he had lunch with Trump and was widely credited with Trump's announcement that he would take two weeks to think things over. But as the attacks over the weekend showed, Trump's cooling-off period did not last long. Since then, Bannon has been constantly investigating how MAGA supporters will react: Before the attacks, he had something dramatic to announce to MAGA supporters on Saturday evening in his podcast "War Room": "I'm just reporting what I hear from pretty good sources: The party is on. Another big weekend in the unfolding of World War III, and no, no one who tells you World War III isn't here understands anything about the development of kinetic energy." Bannon's cryptic statements do not bode well for the near future.