Yeah, that could work there, but then again, when talking to someone like that, you are preaching to the choir already anyway, so it hardly matters what exact terms you use. They will very likely agree with you that Trump is an asshat without principles or understanding of anything but how to manufacture rage.

Okay, here's my long and rambling reply that to be honest probably isn't that worth reading, but...

I think that any argument like this has to be personalized to the individual. So I can't really give an outline, I guess. But I wrote all this crap up, so I'll post it anyways.

So any time that I want to change someones mind but still not rely on sophistry, I think of it like, I am giving them directions to the "land of truth" on a map. My directions have to start from where they are, not where I am, or else my directions will be legitimately wrong and useless for them. But everyone, even the MAGAs, are all in a slightly different location from one another. Hence this approach usually needs to be individualized and I am reticent to give a super specific argument here. It really depends on the segment of the demographic you're talking to.

Most often, your interlocutor holds at least some AXIOMS that are different from yours, and this can be a real problem. Changing someone's axioms is hard, because the whole idea of an axiom is that it's something they take to be obviously and undeniably true. So ideally I would find a path from where they are, in "Wrongland" to where I am, Truth Land", that tramples over as few of their axioms as possible. The more dearly held their belief, the more I want to avoid it. It's not that "walk through your field of tulips to get to Truth Land" is necessarily a false direction, but they won't want to follow me on that path. On the other hand, a sophistic argument like this meme makes, while they might be willing to follow it, won't truly lead them to Truth Land, only to somewhere seemingly nearby. So the challenge is to find a CORRECT path that they're willing to follow. I can't stress enough that just because I'm looking for a path that they're willing to follow doesn't automatically mean I have to conduct sophistry. Anyways...

Ideally I can make an argument that won't rely on changing any of their axioms, but rather just on correcting a flawed step in reasoning between their other beliefs which are merely derived incorrectly from the axioms.

Also, I legitimately think that there is no hypocrisy about the U.S being upset about Hormuz closure while also pursuing the Cuba cutoffs. It's a stupid and bad strategy but it's not hypocritical. Because it's not hypocritical, in my opinion, the two topics shouldn't even be addressed in the same breath, because then it seems like I'm trying to equate them when they really don't deserve to be equated. I think most right-wingers are proud to say something like "It's fine when I do X but not fine when you do X, because I'm good so I deserve it, and you're bad so you don't deserve it". And to be honest, I actually really like this mentality and I think the left could use more if it. We get glimmers of this great mentality when we say things like "It's okay for me to kill a Nazi but it's not okay for Nazis to kill me, because Nazis are evil and I am not". So let's just own up to this - really, EVERYONE is looking out for themselves, and even when we cooperate with people, it's either because we truly just love them and want what's best for them, or it's because we expect it to be mutually beneficial. I would start by paying homage to this, to establish with them that I share an axiom of theirs: "WE should do what's best for US". But this is purely rhetorical and not strictly logically necessary. But it's not logically flawed either which is what I really care about preserving.

So now that I've established that "The Hormuz Closure" and "The Cuba Cutoffs" are separate issues only superficially related, I need to decide....what EXACTLY is it that I actually want them to change their minds on? I can only argue for what I think is really true, so now I need to articulate my view on it (whew, lots of prelude here).

To me, regarding Iran vs the U.S. Iran's closure of Hormuz is reasonable, it's in their best interest. It is also truly in the U.S's best interest for the strait not to be closed. This really just goes to show how stupid it was to antagonize Iran. But that doesn't change the fact that the U.S really would benefit if the strait was opened, and Iran really benefits from keeping it closed. So this situation is a sort of "noble clashing of swords", it's like, one knight says "I want to build my house on this hill" and another knight says "But I want to build my house on this hill", and then they both say "Well, all morality aside, and it's really nothing personal, but if you won't budge, then my only choice is to kill you. It's not that I'm necessarily 'right' or you're 'wrong'. We just want mutually exclusive things and refuse to compromise, so it must come to violence." Yes, in a broader sense, the conflict could have been avoided if only the U.S hadn't been so stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that it is reasonable for the U.S to want the strait open. In the interest of making a sound argument that relies on as few axiom changes as possible, I don't think it's hard to see how even if I assume Trump is benevolent and has the interests of the people at heart, and even if Iran is malicious and must be stopped, we can see that they simply held too many cards in this situation, and so antagonizing them was not the right choice.