The Optimist speaks, the Skeptic listens

What if we got everything Trump said we could have?

Apr 15, 2026

I normally play the skeptic. Like, Eric Swalwell as a sexual predator? No surprise. Any rising (male) politician in either party has a predilection toward getting something on the side. I don’t care if it’s a preacher, a sports star, or a diva lawyer like Swalwell, I am never really surprised when the truth of their abuse comes out. I am not surprised by people who have called out the Ice Queen Hillary Clinton for being, well, an Ice Queen, or Kamala Harris for being the name of a well-known Elton John song.

But today I want to change roles. I want to play the optimist. I know, it’s going to be saccharine, but really, there are some things worth considering, because though we know the people in charge of these levers of power are pulling them like a cocaine-addicted monkey in an unethical experiment, there is a chance things will work out.

Israel and Lebanon are in talks about how to disarm Hezbollah. They are hosted by Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Regent of Venezuela, the future Shah of Iran, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. The skeptic says Hezbollah controls the largest bloc in Lebanon’s parliament, and there’s no way the government can stand if the executive, who by their law as president is a Christian, makes some deal with Israel, the sworn enemy of Hezbollah, to disarm that group and remove it from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is more than just a military arm of the IRGC, it functions as the government in southern Lebanon, where the population is mostly Shiite Muslims, Palestinian refugees, and Syrian refugees from that nation’s long war.

The skeptic says there’s no way Lebanon or Israel could govern southern Lebanon. But what if the optimist got his way? What if the Lebanese army was able to cooperate with Israel and expel Hezbollah from southern Lebanon? Wow. Turkey and Syria would have no choice but to do business with the new reality in Beirut. Of course, the government in Beirut would fall, but what if Lebanese voters turned from Hezbollah? What if the religious extremism that plagued that nation and divided its population was rejected by the people, who are tired of being human shields?

For one thing, the half million or more Syrian refugees might be repatriated to Syria. For another thing, the Palestinians might end up with full citizenship in Lebanon, or given the option to live in Israel, and if they behaved, to become citizens there (it would not affect the political balance in a huge way, like Gaza or the West Bank would). What if Lebanon got its head on straight and signed an actual, real peace treaty with Israel to provide mutual security on Israel’s northern border?

It would be so transformative to the Levant that it is the best possible outcome. Israelis would be able to focus on rejecting their own religious extremists, and bring the terrible acts of violence by its own settlers under control. Israelis would be able to return to their homes in northern Israel, and Lebanese would be able to live in peace in southern Lebanon and Beirut. Hezbollah would be defanged and separated from the IRGC. Iran would be even more isolated.

If it could be pulled off, this would be even more transformative than the Israel-Egypt treaty under Jimmy Carter’s presidency. It would be way more transformative than the Abraham Accords, and would likely lead to quick normalized relations with Saudi Arabia. It might even spur Turkey’s people to dump their own religious extremist government, but that might be too optimistic. Turkey runs on corruption and thievery, so Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is unlikely to be dumped.

The Israel-Lebanon talks is one of the biggest opportunities for optimism. The skeptic says “no way,” but less probable things have happened in the Middle East.

Next, Iran. The skeptic says the only way the regime will be removed is by a massive amphibious operation followed by a march from Bandar Abbas to Tehran, about 1,200 kilometers, or 750 miles. This would take around a half million U.S. troops, and even with air superiority, it would be a difficult battle. It might take a whole month to get to Tehran and boot the current regime, which would then turn into an insurgency. We’d have to win the support of the Artesh, the Iranian army, to turn on the IRGC to root them out. If we could not do that, we’d “win” only to get bogged down in something worse than Iraq and ISIS. The skeptic says it’s the only way, but it’s not a good path.

The optimist says the naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz might be the right strategy. The Union Army won the Civil War by following the aged General Winfield Scott’s strategy: blockade the south, choke them off, split their forces along the Mississippi, then tighten the noose. General Ulysses Grant generally followed this, though with more fighting than choking. The optimist says that choking Iran, not allowing them to sell oil or anything to transit the Strait of Hormuz takes control of the strait out of their hands and puts it in American hands.

If we choke off Iran, eventually they will feel the pain, as their banking system collapses, and they are unable to buy what they need to operate the country. With a water shortage, and basic needs not met, the people, 50 percent of whom hate the regime, will rise up again, and this time, the Artesh might defect to our side, with the right motivation. Remember, Israel’s Mossad is still very robust and operational in Iran. We don’t know the unpulled levers they’ve got in their arsenal. Things could swing very quickly if the right levers are pulled.

We don’t know everything that U.S. intelligence and analysts are telling President Trump and his cabinet. While Trump is out there playing the jerk imbecile, more competent people might be executing the strategy they recommended to him and he approved. The blockade is a much safer path than invasion. The optimist says it could lead to the internal overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Or, if not that, a deal that would place the Strait of Hormuz into international hands, for freedom of navigation. That would yield major fruit, as 50 percent of the world’s economic needs, like petroleum for plastics and fertilizers, pass through that strait.

International, or U.S.-led control of the Strait of Hormuz would lead to lower oil prices, lower prices on gasoline, and basically every consumer and industrial good. It could give the Trump administration room to reduce tariffs and instead charge a small security tax for shipping traffic through the strait. That is way more efficient than the byzantine tariff system which has been struck down by the Supreme Court. And it would be legal.

The optimist says that the Strait of Hormuz will be in U.S. control or international control before the November elections. The optimist says that the religious extremists running Iran will either be deposed or defanged by that date, and it may lead to a new day for Iran, where the world can do business with them. The optimist says the people of Iran might take control of their country and ban the IRGC; the skeptic says there is no way for that to happen. The optimist says we don’t know what might be happening out of our knowledge or sight.

Iran still has plenty of missiles, it’s the launchers that are their problem. They’ve been getting targeting and intelligence data from Russia, and supplies from China. During the cease-fire, they’ve likely rearmed and moved assets around to better attack us and our allies. But the U.S. has also rearmed and reloaded our ships and aircraft to suppress and destroy Iran’s ability to attack. The skeptic says it will be a long and difficult battle. The optimist says we haven’t yet deployed some of our most advanced weapons; we haven’t executed the Venezuela option. We haven’t deployed the “discombobulator”.

The skeptic bases his opinions on what is already known or reported. The optimist bases his hope on what isn’t known, and what hasn’t been done. The fact that Israel and Lebanon are talking is amazing; the fact that the Strait of Hormuz is blockaded, along with all Iranian ports, is encouraging. The fact that China and Russia are taking our action seriously means it is having an effect. The fact that Pakistan is playing peace-maker with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, promoting “regional peace and security” as one of Iran’s neighbors. The optimist says international cooperation and agreement is important, but the European powers whose noses have been in the Middle East for centuries don’t need to be the drivers here.

The optimist says a new era of U.S.-led cooperation and coalitions based on Asian and Middle East power, versus European and NATO power, would be a stronger foundation to deal with the current threat of an axis between China, Russia, and North Korea. Iran is key to that coalition. Iran could swing either way; right now, it’s swinging toward the China-Russia axis, but U.S.-led pressure could flip it. We know that the Iranian people would rather be free than under the boot of their theocratic despots.

The skeptic says this is all fantasy, living in Donald Trump’s deranged brain. The optimist says there’s reason for hope, and there’s more than enough evidence to believe in the gateway to a golden era, where Europe deals with Ukraine (which could become a military powerhouse, by the way, because war tends to do that to a country) and Russia, and the U.S. deals with Asia, China, and the western hemisphere.

If we believe the optimist, we might get everything we dreamed of: cheap gas, lots of money to pay our debts and national obligations, a screaming hot economy, and freedom for hundreds of millions of people around the world, to rise up out of totalitarianism and poverty into a new golden age. Of course, there’s a middle ground where we win some, and we lose some.

The real answer lies somewhere between the skeptic and the optimist. Since I tend to be the skeptic, sometimes it’s good to consider the other view. Things are not necessarily as bad as we think. Then again, Eric Swalwell, a whole bunch of fallen preachers, and every other politician who is featherbedding (the Trump family leading the pack) makes the skeptic a lot more believable. If our leaders put their own pecuniary interests ahead of the nation, we know where that leads. Maybe we can focus on our own leadership problems, and then heal the world. But as Mick Jagger sang, you can’t always get what you want. (Says the skeptic.) But if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need. (Replies the optimist.)

That might just be the best answer we have. Pray for the best and prepare for the worst. The outcome is likely somewhere in the middle.

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?