Senator Chris Murphy says he has been briefed on the US's plan to restart the war on Iran, calling it "insane" and saying it would lead to a "devastating escalation".

"You've heard a preview that it would be a short-duration plan. I'll just say this: their plan is insane," Murphy said, speaking at an event organised by the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC, on Wednesday.

"It will lead to devastating escalation and the likely destruction of our commitment to the rule of law."

...

"There's been open reporting as to what we may be planning and the civilian infrastructure we may be targeting," Murphy said.

"They've been asked by the president to develop a plan - whether they believe it will work or not, I do not know. But the plan that they have developed will lead, in my view, to a prolongment and an escalation of this war that will be devastating for our security interests.

"We are seeing the president ready another devastating military campaign after the election, just as illegal as the first iteration was at the time, where Americans are fed up with this war."

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20261030120117/https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-senator-briefed-trump-plan-restart-war-iran-says-proposal-insane

all 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 103 points 1 week ago (1 child)

Lol. Like anyone still believes they are operating within the rule of law.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 49 points 1 week ago (15 children)

    So I assume this either means they're planning a boots on the ground campaign in Iran or using nukes.

    I also assume the reason they fired the planning guy from Pentagon a few days ago is because he wouldn't plan this for them?

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    We don't have the resources for a ground invasion. And nukes are extremely unlikely.

    What is more likely, and what the senator appears to be referring to, is bombing campaign aimed at destroying the vital civilian infrastructure of the country. Think power plants, bridges, ports, water treatment facilities, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    They were already targeting those...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Oh god. Iran has some of the oldest heritage sites in the world. Early Zarathustrian fire temples and stuff like that.

    I know modern infrastructure is important too; bridges, hospitals, universities, bazaars, etc., not to mention the human lives themselves. But when something is thousands of years old it's worth preserving in its own right. It's always a shame when monuments are destroyed.

    Hopefully someone manages to stop this "insane plan" before it causes more destruction...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    From what they've talked about before and from what this article says, they're talking about bombing civilian infrastructure like bridges, power generation. One assumes not hospitals, but if a couple slip in there, I'm sure it'll be "accidental".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I used to think we were above such things. And I think that generally speaking we did try, although not very hard. Civilian casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan, for example. I'm pretty sure we generally didn't go out doing much of that on purpose, although I know we sure didn't try hard to avoid it.

    Russia is a step beyond, for now, as they actively target civilians. Whereas, for example, I think the school bombing we did was stupidity/ineptitude.

    And even now, I don't think we're going to target civilian housing or hospitals or schools purposefully, but we're getting a step close if we do target civilian infrastructure.

    But when you get down to this level of detail in the "not as bad as" discussion...... it's getting pretty bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Russia is a step beyond, for now, as they actively target civilians. Whereas, for example, I think the school bombing we did was stupidity/ineptitude.

    Targeting civilian infrastructure is targeting civilians. Bridges have people crossing them, power plants have civilian workers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Does anyone remember what the goal of this war was even supposed to be? Like what were they trying to accomplish in the first place? What is this planned escalation supposed to accomplish that the first one didn't?

    I know the real answer. Bibi said to, epstein honeypot, distraction from the files, hegseth needed to feel tough, etc...

    I mean what are they pretending the reason for this war is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 1 week ago (10 children)

    If only there was a body of people with the power to stop the madman.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    If only approximately half of that body didn't support this fascist bullshit, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    If you include non-voters, it's really only a third of the country that supports it. And if you include ineligible voters, it's closer to a fifth.

    Fascism isn't popular. Don't give them power by repeating their lies that it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    If you include non-voters it's more than a third of the country supporting it. If you don't vote against it you are giving it tacit support.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    That's true in the aspect of those non-voters can't deny their culpability in what they refused to vote against.

    However it does not hold so far as to assert that this administration has their assent. Two-thirds support would literally be a mandate from the people; don't let them believe their delusion that they have one.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Fascism doesn't have to be popular. All they need is a plurality of Americans to be so obsessed with the job, the commute, TV, and their social media rating, they just don't care.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    Is plurality not the same as popularity? Or are you saying people don't like fascism per se, it's just that they're burnt out and distracted and fed up with the status quo and recognize the need for change, if not what needs to change or in what way, so they buy into the narrative that the fascists push to their content mills, because they don't know any better and are unable to see through the lies?

    In either case, my previous argument still applies. Approximately 30% of eligible voters, 20% of the total population. It's not popular. The only way they win is if enough people don't care enough to get out the vote to resist it.

    That's why I push so hard against the narrative that they already have it in the bag; they don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago*

    The other half didn’t convict the pedophile rapist when they had the chance as well..

    The government is completely morally bankrupt except for some senators, but even their actions seem performative.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 1 week ago

    So much winning...... 🫠

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 week ago

    "our commitment to the rule of law"

    Mr. Senator, please provide evidence for that statement. You can do it from the East Wing and bring the Epstein Files with you while you do it.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    US head of military planning was fired this week for no reason.

    destruction of our commitment to the rule of law

    Means mass civilian/infrastructure casualties. Beyond evil, the insanity accusation is Iran's strong retaliation capability which can delay "normal energy supplies" for another 2+ years.

    There is still a likelihood that it is a ploy to extract more benefits from "GCC allies" for Trump+cronies to avoid their devastation. This has lasted 6 months though.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    They could also do it to lock-in superprofits for Big Oil so losing the midterms can't reverse that. Bonus - Democrat-controlled senate and house would appear even more incapable of doing anything, even if progressives hold the balance of power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    Trump has boasted twice in campaign appearances recently, as he did at start of war: America (big oil) is getting rich off of global energy destruction. Screw all y'all.

    I still lean towards it all being a bluff that just has US leave region, and get some extortion from allies before doing so. Couldn't do it before mid terms, or at least Israel elections, because of embarrassment of defeat. I lean towards this just because "insane" negative consequences to world. But, sure, maybe $200+ oil is a "good thing" in his mind, and the stupid during campaigning is to avoid promising a smooth end of the war.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    LOL. "Commitment to the rule of law". I think that was ended a while back.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    What's the over/under that said plans include nukes

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 1 week ago
    [–] 14 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    They will say it’s insane. And bad. And worrying. But they won’t do a thing about it.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    This is a pretty good guess. Trump seems to really want to use nukes, just in general. I'm not sure he even cares why.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

    Controlled opposition. Not all of them, but enough, particularly at the national level. The 2021-2023 majority wasn't enough. The 2009-2011 super majority somehow wasn't enough. Establishment-aligned candidates run on milquetoast platforms addressing only a handful of token issues, and often just to roll policy back to much how it was prior to Republican lawmaking. Not the real, sweeping change clearly needed - because that would harm the financial interests of their primary donors.

    FWIW, I'm not an American. This is just what I saw whilst living there and what we see in the news. Constantly.

    Since criticizing the wrong team is often met with the bizarre assumption one is a Russian troll encouraging Americans not to vote: go vote for the best candidate, but remember that political engagement shouldn't begin and end at the ballot box. The US needs far more than whinging online.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Obama enjoyed a majority for about 6 months until jim crow 2.0 electorate maps Gerry rigged far right types into office. I don't know what majority you are talking about during 2021-2023. Yeah we have corporate democrats but we also have very clear opposition on the left. Controlled opposition is defeatist conspiracy theory half baked in truths. We can do better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Controlled opposition is defeatist conspiracy theory half baked in truths.

    Next time you're wondering why Dems aren't doing more about some problem, I want you to remember what they did to Bernie Sanders and how they react to people like Mamdani. Dems are somehow fucking worthless in the face of fascism, but if a progressive starts winning votes, suddenly, they know how fight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    people not voting because they didn't get their candidate is what hurt more than how corporate dems pushed him to the side. Its the same for what happened to Harris who was corporate , Hilary was corporate just not crazy corrupt and backed by the heritage society and tech bros.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    people not voting because they didn't get their candidate is what hurt more than how corporate dems pushed him to the side.

    Sure, but I'm talking about the politicians, as that's what the controlled opposition theory is about. Democrat voters may want progressive policies, but Democrat politicians find ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory when they "push" for those things time and time again. The politician's goal is allegedly not to represent the left, but to spoil their efforts and prevent us as a country being dragged to the left. Hillary and Kamala were both pushed into the lead with no regard for the will of the voters, albeit through different means in each case, and they both help shut out more progressive wings of the party so they couldn't get genuine power.

    because they didn't get their candidate

    On the one hand, you're not exactly wrong. We got fucking Trump out of that, and it's still haunting us a decade later. On the other hand, I don't think it's entirely fair to treat them like petulant children for being upset when the democratic process is so flagrantly manipulated in front of their face to rob them of their democratic power, just because the means used to do so were technically legal. I still think Bernie would have won the primary if the DNC hadn't sabotaged him, and just fucking imagine the world we'd be living in if we got just 4 years of Bernie instead of god damned Trump. That was the will of the voters. And the DNC stole that from us to shove a corporate Democrat down our throats, enabling Trump's rise.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago

    "Whatever - I'm going to do it anyway."

    - Donald Jeffreyepsteinsbestcustomer Trump, probably

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Well, of course the plan is insane. It's Trumps' plan, afterall.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    He wants to restart a war this close to the final day of midterms?

    Shart of the Steal.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago

    The only way this war can even end is when the US side of who is handling the war is just dead and replaced. Israel too.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Insane? So you're saying it's approved and ready to go?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Anything to distract from more Epstein Files… nothing is beyond him

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Eh yo, who monitoring the Pentagon Pizza atm?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 9 points 1 week ago (1 child)
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

    I'll disagree with other folks here and say I don't think it's nukes. The one thing Trump seems to have digested from growing up in Cold War America is that "Nuclear War is bad." It's been how he overcame his own cognitive dissonance about being dragged into Netanyahu's War in the first place, and I think it's part, though by no means all, of why he kisses Putin's and Kim's asses so repeatedly.

    It's literally the last thread that seems to tether him to a human version of foreign policy. Of course, he's done huge damage in the world that has made nuclear proliferation more likely, particularly among rich nations who avoided making them on the theory that the US had them covered, but I don't think he wants to be the one to use nuclear weapons.

    He is also, however, stupid and cruel, so I think what he has in mind is more of what he was always blustering about before TACO'ing. Massive conventional campaign, but now including civilian infrastructure with a huge tolerance for direct collateral damage and knock-on human suffering. I could even see targeting cultural heritage, because he's that big a bastard and boor and he's talked about wiping the civilization off the map (admittedly this is also why I can't fault someone if they take him at his word and assume nukes). If there's a nuclear element, it might involve leaving the power plant in Bushehr on their targets list. Fallout is not a mushroom cloud.

    There's also apparently a Marine Expeditionary force involved, which on the one hand is partly just a smaller aircraft carrier for more bombs, but may could also mean enough troops to storm some of the Islands in the Strait itself or even Kharg. You know Hegseth is desperate to get boots on the ground somewhere so it isn't all the "pussies" in Naval Aviation and the Chair Force who get tot have all the "fun."

    In short, think Dresden or Tokyo, not Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

    Yay.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago

    They're talking about thr MOAB, they dropped one during his first term and all the chuds spent a week memeing and gushing over it, so they want to try that again to improve their moral

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    They already bombed a school and don't care about human suffering. They are sick and all the supporters chose this suffering for other humans. Waves of one ocean, and they destroy parts of self, truly insane.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    But they're making so much money.

    Who are we to deny the hustlers their grift?

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    It's 100% nukes. We have a stockpile of like what? 500 of them? Just collecting dust. Haven't dropped one of those bad boys in over 50 years. The nuke is the biggest and most manliest bomb, and it's how we won WW2. (This is their thought process)

    This fits their M.O. extremely well. They'll think it will "win this war once and for all" but everything they do has horrible unintended consequences and I expect this will be no different.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    another distraction just for the midterms and epstein files.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    It's not like one needs to know the details to reach that conclusion.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    The irony of his statements about the destruction of the rule of law while referring to an illegal war that Congress, for which he is a member of, never approved.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    Fucking crazy how many people don't understand what commitment is...

    You don't need to be committed to a constant, commitment comes when constant effort is required. The commitment is putting the effort in, no matter what, especially when more needs to be done.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Nihilist death cults gonna nihilist death cult.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    not insane for gas and oil profits, $130B and counting.

    Peace is bad for business.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    If the insanity includes a boots on the ground invasion, every single MAGA fucknut should be told they will "be protecting the 2nd Amendment from the evil Iranians" and volunteer for 11B. That alone should motivate the idiots. However, I highly doubt it, because the US military does not indicate massive troop and equipment movements with positions along the Iranian border.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    Is he trying to get another Fifa Peace Prize?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (4 children)

    Is Sen. Murphy actually stupid or is he knowingly doing a good cop/bad cop routine with Trump?

    Trump: I'll destroy Iranian civilization.

    Iran: We've called this bluff every week for 9 months now.

    Murphy: No guys it's different this time I saw the plans!

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago* (3 children)

    It's not like the US hasn't already done devastating attacks, why do you think this is a bluff?

    • Killed their leader during negotiations
    • Killed hundreds of Iranian schoolgirls
    • Struck oil depots in Tehran raining toxic chemicals onto their major population center
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

    That's specifically why I think it's a bluff. It's not an escalation if you're already doing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 1 comment in c/altmedia@altmedia.house view that post
    [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    What kinda insane ? Nuke insane? Clown Posse insane? In the membrane ? People need to know.

  • source