There is obviously a huge risk in sending an extra 40,000 machine-gun wielding troops into a country they don't understand to "clear" huge areas of insurgent fighters who look exactly like the civilian population, and establish "control" of places that have never been controlled by a central government at any point in their history.
To justify these risks, the proponents of the escalation need highly persuasive arguments to show how their strategy slashed other risks so dramatically that it outweighed these dangers. It's not inconceivable – but I found that in fact the case they give for escalating the war, or for continuing the occupation, is based on three premises that turn to Afghan dust on inspection.
Iran declares Strait of Hormuz “completely open” for the remainder of ceasefire: Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas...
Iran will shut the strait of Hormuz if the US blockade continues, Iran’s parliamentary speaker has...
US President Donald Trump said “things seem to be going very well with Iran” after receiving...
