Per Bloomberg TV: Trump gambles new Iran strikes will save flailing MAGA agenda

[lostincalifornia]

The US-Israeli attack on Tehran on Saturday marks a turning point for President Donald Trump, who is wagering that a war - the kind of which he once vowed NOT TO START - will strengthen his second-term agenda.

In a break from his campaign promises to keep the US out of foreign wars, Trump decided to attack - despite what Arab mediators described as significcan progress in nuclear talks with Tehran, and in the face of polling showing MOST Americans oppos fresh military action.

It came less than two months after he order a high-states US military raid inside Venezuela, another signal that his second term has tilted toward muscular intervention abroad.

The Iran strikes are the biggest gamble yet for the US leader, whose approval ratings have plunged in recent weeks, with surveys showing Americans think he is concentrating too much on foreign policy and too litte on the economy.

[617Blue]

1. Not terrible reporting for a change.

[lostincalifornia]

4. When Bloomberg reports news, they report news, not editorializing as much of the MSM does.

[SamuelTheThird]

2. ' will strengthen his second-term agenda.'

How the fuck does that work?

[lostincalifornia]

9. That is trump's wager, or what he is gambling on. No one has any idea how this will turn out. Even assuming the

current Iranian regime is toppled, are there even plans on how they are going to fill that supposed void? I seriously doubt it, and if past performance is any indication of future events, that should be very concerning to everyone.

[not fooled]

24. "Well, his voters are idiots...

...so this might just work with them."

That might be how it helps with the maggots.

[Arthur_Frain]

28. Well, he gets to use that great slogan "Don't change horses in mid stream"

A great one to kick off that campaign for kingship, no?

[GoodRaisin]

39. More throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks.

[Lovie777]

3. Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..................

maybe not.

[zanana1]

8. I think his cult followers will praise him for this.

They are not known for their gentle souls.

[BannonsLiver]

18. Who cares.

They’ve been doing that for 11 years.

[highplainsdem]

5. Here's the link for that:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-28/trump-gambles-new-iran-strikes-will-save-flailing-maga-agenda

[spanone]

6. trmp gambles killing foreign people will save flailing maga agenda

[paleotn]

16. And getting our own people killed.

Last edited Sat Feb 28, 2026, 02:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Iran is no lightweight. And air strikes can only do so much to a nation its size. When that inevitably fails to produce the outcome Donnie and Nuttyyahoo want, will they escalate? We're not invading Iran. Geographically it's a hell of a tough nut to crack. That would require a Desert Storm level mobilization and a cross gulf invasion that would rival D-Day (Iraq wants no fucking part of this and neither does Turkey). That's crazy shit and ain't gonna happen.

But we may try to put boots on the ground at strategic points, hoping the Iranian people "rise up" and do the hard work for us. They won't. Some foreign power bombing the shit out of people tends to unite a populace, putting their prior differences aside. How many times have we seen that! And they'll start sending those "US boots on the ground" back to Dover AFB in coffins.

It's a fool's errand. The whole damn thing. And Trump and Nuttyyahoo are the greatest fools on the planet right now.

[BattleRow]

34. Weren't American soldiers referred to as suckers and losers??

[paleotn]

35. What Shitler thinks is irrelevant. Horrific but irrelevant.

What Americans think about dead US service personnel in a war most can't even understand is what matters in the real world.

[kurtyboy]

40. Iran has more than a quarter of our population

...spread across an area almost precisely matching Alaska's. And they have the strategic advantage of an entire population that will be unified in its ferocious resolve against Israel and the United States. We will not share such an advantage on this side of the conflict.

Best-case outcomes for the United States are horrific enough. Worst-case means the world burns.

[AZ8theist]

41. I guarantee you there are ALREADY "boots on the ground"

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. And Netanyahu hopes a "unite behind me" feeling will save him in this year's elections

The Israeli Supreme Court decided that it is in 2026; the next election was scheduled to be held no later than 27 October 2026.[2]

After the October 7 attacks and the ensuing Gaza war, some have called for the resignation of Netanyahu,[15][16] with polls suggesting that more than 75% of Israelis believe he should step down.[17][18] There have also been calls for a snap election once the war is over. Minister of Labor Yoav Ben-Tzur said that an election should occur within 90 days of the end of the war,[19] although he later walked those statements back.[20] Polling suggests that 64% of Israelis believe that an election should happen as soon as the war is over.[18] In late 2025, Netanyahu said he expected elections to happen at the end of 2026, i.e. on time.[21]

If the budget is not passed by the late March 2026 deadline, early elections will be called.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Israeli_legislative_election

[Johonny]

10. Because MAGA is pro globalism, right?

[SergeStorms]

32. MAGA.....

The world's ICE officers.

They're going to do for the world what ICE did for Minnesota.

[paleotn]

11. Hell of a gamble with the lives of US service personnel.

And Iran ain't no Venezuela. It isn't 2003 Iraq either. They can and will protect themselves conventionally and asymmetrically. Wars also have uncertain outcomes. That's why rational people don't get into them unless forced to do so.

[gab13by13]

12. I have another possibility,

this may have nothing to do with politics and polls, this may be a smoke screen from Bloomberg.

Zelenskyy told Krasnov that he canceled elections because of the war and Krasnov replied, "why can't I do that?"

This is just another evolution by Krasnov and his billionaire friends into a dictatorship, going to war without authorization was never mentioned by Bloomberg was it? I say we are close to the point where Krasnov doesn't need his base, close to where politics don't matter.

I don't click on right wing rags.

[lostincalifornia]

13. Bloomberg news is not a rightwing rag. You do not know what you are talking about.

https://adfontesmedia.com/bloomberg-news-bias-and-reliability/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bloomberg/

[paleotn]

17. Bloomberg?

And Donnie can't cancel US elections. He may want to, sure, but that ain't happening. Period. Full stop. Air strikes can only go on for so long with limited results anyway, and will be over loooong before the Nov. elections. And no, we're not invading Iran. That would take weeks to months of planning and the largest mobilization of US forces since Desert Storm. Perhaps even larger. That ain't happening.

In my mind, this is Donnie flailing around, doing stupid, cowboy shit in an effort to escape Epstein, a flagging economy, and poll numbers not seen since Tricky Dick took his last ride on Marine One.

[returnee]

21. He can't legally cancel elections...

…but he can disrupt sufficiently to create chaos, calling results into question. He may think he can illegally grab more “emergency” powers. We would unwise in the extreme to put anything past him. Democrats need to oppose everything he does 24/7, loudly and clearly, no pussy-footing. They should be calling RIGHT FUCKING NOW for mass demonstrations. They need to press for impeachment NOW.

[BannonsLiver]

20. And I have yet ANOTHER possibility!

Pete Hegseth has been abducted by aliens and is now living on the planet Vulcan with one of the Kardashians. Like and subscribe for more details.

[badgolfer]

14. War & Upcoming Election

Starting this protracted war will also give Trump cause to suspend the November Elections!!

[bigtree]

15. most of maga is against this

...prominent ones included.

[lostincalifornia]

25. but will they show their displeasure in midterms? While I wouldn't expect them to vote Democratic, you would think they

would at least not vote for any republican that is supporting this.

[bigtree]

26. it will be a cumulative thing, I'd think

...against overwhelming Dem enthusiasm to vote.

[lostincalifornia]

27. good analysis

[karynnj]

19. Total misreading of recent history

GWB's approval soared after WE were attached and people rallied around the only President we have. His numbers sank, but not enough when he attacked Iraq. In his second term it was the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Katrina that allowed not just an Obama landslide, but led eventually to 60 Democratic Senators.

Other than Trump and Netanyahu few wanted a war with Iran. The idea that Iranians will welcome the attack by 2 countries long demonized by Iran and decide that son of a Shah deposed nearly 50 years ago seems very unlikely.

The lessons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Vietnam will likely hold here. You need to go back to the end of WWII for examples of countries that ended up with better governments after losing a war.

It is chilling when you think Iran is bigger, more homogeneous than Afghanistan or Iraq with a historical culture they are rightfully proud of.

This attack maybe because two narcissistic leaders want to change how their legacy is seen. Netanyahu has called for attacking Iran for decades. It was easy to see why Obama didn't confide in him that he approved negotiating with Iran.

[Scalded Nun]

22. That treasonous motherfucker will see the world burn to the ground

to both keep Epstein out of the news and to stay in power.

[mwb970]

23. And you thought his TARIFFS were unpopular.

Wait till we see polling on Iran. Bring on Harry Enten!

[City Lights]

29. He's wrong. Again. nt

[lostincalifornia]

30. I think the biggest flaw if he succeeds in toppling the current Iranian regime will be the void left afterward.

[City Lights]

33. Agree. nt

[C_U_L8R]

31. Zuckerberg told him to move fast and break things.

Apparently.

[Figarosmom]

36. Strengthen it with whom?

MAGA was big on no more wars. And they will ask how it that America first?

[Gum Logger]

37. It was always predestination to be a flailing MAGAt agenda

[kimbutgar]

38. Those maggots that still support him need to enlist asap to fight in the war for their magaloon leader!

[mdbl]

42. Yes, because nothing lowers prices like a good war, right Mr. Dump?

How asinine.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

43. MaddowBlog-Why public skepticism of the offensive in Iran was inevitable -- and entirely Trump's fault

The president didn’t make the case for war. The resulting polling data was inevitable.

*Of course* the initial round of polling shows weak public support for the offensive in Iran:

The public didn’t want another war, and Trump never even tried to make the case. The results were inevitable. www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-03-02T13:04:01.354Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/why-public-skepticism-of-the-offensive-in-iran-was-inevitable-and-entirely-trumps-fault

As Donald Trump moved the nation closer to a military conflict with Iran, there was some quantifiable evidence that suggested the American mainstream was not prepared for war. A University of Maryland poll released two weeks ago, for example, found that only about 1 in 5 Americans (21%) expressed support for the United States initiating an attack on Iran.....

Those national surveys, however, were conducted before the U.S. military offensive began. Would public attitudes change after the bombs started falling? Evidently not. Reuters reported on its first poll, conducted with Ipsos, on the crisis.

Only one in four Americans approves of the U.S. strikes that killed Iran’s leader, while about half — including one in four Republicans — believe President Donald Trump is too willing to use military force, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that concluded on Sunday.

Some 27% of respondents said they approved of the strikes, while 43% disapproved and 29% were not sure.

The same data found that a 56% majority of Americans think Trump is too willing to use military force to advance U.S. interests, which seems reasonable given the number of countries he’s attacked over the last year.....

For the White House, the survey data has to be discouraging, but if the president wants to know why exactly the American mainstream is not on board with the operation, he has no one to blame but himself.

Ahead of the U.S. offensive in Iraq in 2003, George W. Bush at least made the effort to prepare the nation for war. The president’s policy proved disastrous, but before launching the offensive he told the public what he was doing, why he was doing it, why he saw the mission as necessary and what he hoped to accomplish. While the failed policy ultimately proved wildly unpopular, when “shock and awe” got underway in Baghdad, polls showed strong public support.

Trump didn’t bother with any comparable efforts. Indeed, the Republican incumbent apparently didn’t see the point in informing the public about, or even trying to convince it of, the merits of his policy — to the extent that he has a policy beyond “drop bombs and hope it all works out.”

The president, in other words, didn’t make the case for war. The resulting polling data was inevitable.