@SunshineGirl Possibly. But if the context is a war to preserve the existence of an ally and to destroy a regime which seeks to destroy that ally, and all members of a particular race, one might hope that principle would take precedence over seeking electoral advantage.
@MartinII No it isn't. This war has nothing to do with regime change, Israel's "safety" and least of all about Iranian freedom. But why, after claiming that the war was "very complete, pretty much" and that he didn't need any country to muscle in on their victory, is Trump now desperately begging NATO for help?
@MartinII NATO has everything to do with it. If Trump believes the USA has been attacked he now needs to invoke Article 5 (as his predecessor did in 2003). Strangely enough, after the s**tshow of the past year, he has practically no natural allies or informal goodwill left. International law is all that remains.
@NortiusMaximus You display your bias in your comments. I have no idea whether the war with, not on, Iran is "illegal", but I know that it is morally and strategically justified, which is all that matters. Some allies, especially the UK, have in my view been lily-livered in failing to say whether they support the US and Israel, and if not why not.
@MartinII How is it justified to just attack a country that is just minding it's own business? Trump has already threatened to invade Greenland (or is it Iceland) and Canada. In case you're unaware, King Charles III is Head of State of Canada as well as the UK. Why should the UK support a country that is threatening one of our very close allies?
