Yeah I am definitely using reality in a reductionist way; to me the basis for reality is that everything has consequence as it interacts. Laws of energy, motion etc. Most of us have to deal with much more social consequences, which is your point if I understand correctly. It's bigger than that to me, Trump's whole 'reality' is an alien hellscape and I'm glad I'm not born into that world every moment I'm alive.
It's not so much social consequences as more permanent consequences. These a difference between the consequences of stacking logs and setting them on fire. If the former is a mistake, it's usually easy enough to stop and put them back. If the later is a mistake, well, the logs are gone and there is no undoing.
Something about how Trump inhabits the world has made nearly all his mistakes similar to the former where all that need be done is to stop and maybe put the logs back, even meant time when that should have been impossible. But, this time the logs are thoroughly burnt, there is no just stopping and putting things back. That's something he would never predict happening because he has lived his life in a consequence free bubble.
As for Trump's reality being an alien hellscape, that seems fair enough. Though, honestly, I'd argue that's less his reality and more one of his personality traits. Narcissism tends to leave one stuck in hell on earth.
Let’s put down a realistic timeline. We’re talking about transforming the region for the next century, and you’re declaring a strategic loss after less than three weeks during which the US has achieved every operational objective? Multiple news sources have already reported that preparations suggest this is likely to go on until September, which you don’t need to be a genius to see (as mentioned, a third carrier strike group is already on the way). And yes, this isn’t what Trump is saying… because, again, the average voter reads at a 6th grade level and barely makes it through a TikTok video. He’s speaking to the larger public, and you’re not the target audience.
The issue here has to do with the kind of intervention we are performing vs what's kind of intervention would be required to transform the region for the next century. Suffice it to say: bombs aren't fit for for that purpose, at most, they will create a new generation of Iranians that hate or stinking guts. Strategically, this is nothing but a downside.
Which means that, if we wanted to "transform the region for the next century", we would have to do something that looks more like what we did in Afghanistan or Iraq, boots on the ground, nation building, and all that crap. Which means that, if we went that way, this won't be over this year or even this decade. And even then, it would be likely that we lose the war, after all that was the eventual outcome in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
And then there is the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world's oil used to flow. Suffice it to say that, unless this is Trump's secret attempt to get everyone to build wind mills and such, this is really a complete strategic and tactical blunder.
So, the best case scenario looks like the prior status quo, assuming we could figure out some way to achieve that. Failing that, we are talking about a decades long war and occupation. Or maybe we quickly accept defeat and learn to deal with the strait of Hormuz being closed. None of these this look much like the kind of victory that solves any of our war objectives, presuming we have something so sensible as "war objectives", you know, because every time someone suggests one, Trump says "no that isn't why we did this". So, realistically, this is a war that we are going to lose.
