From that article ...
... On February 11, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived at the White House with a clear objective: persuade US President Donald Trump that the time had come to strike Iran. Inside the Situation Room, in a tightly controlled and highly classified setting, Netanyahu delivered a detailed military and intelligence briefing.
Flanked virtually by Israel's top security officials, he laid out a compelling case for immediate action. Iran, he argued, was vulnerable. Its defenses could be dismantled, its leadership targeted, and its regime weakened to the point of collapse.
Trump's response was brief but decisive. "Sounds good to me." That moment set the United States on a path toward war.
Within hours, US intelligence agencies began evaluating the Israeli proposal. Their conclusions were sharply different.
American officials agreed that targeted military strikes could degrade Iran's capabilities. But the broader goal of regime change was dismissed as unrealistic.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe described that aspect of the plan as "farcical." Secretary of State Marco Rubio was even more direct: "In other words, it's --------."
Rubio clarified his position in strategic terms. Limited military objectives were achievable. Regime change was not. "If our goal is regime change or an uprising, we shouldn't do it. But if the goal is to destroy Iran's missile program, that's a goal we can achieve."
The debate within Trump's inner circle revealed deep divisions, not over whether Iran posed a threat, but over how far the United States should go.
Vice President JD Vance emerged as the most consistent voice of caution. He warned that a full-scale war could spiral unpredictably, destabilize the region, and strain American resources. "You know I think this is a bad idea, but if you want to do it, I'll support you."
Rubio, meanwhile, took a pragmatic middle ground, skeptical of diplomacy but cautious about escalation.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued the opposite. In his view, confrontation with Iran was inevitable. If conflict were coming, delaying it would only raise the cost.
Warnings from military and political advisers
Behind the scenes, concerns extended beyond strategy. White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles worried about the broader consequences, economic shocks, rising oil prices, and the risk of another prolonged conflict in the Middle East.
Military leaders raised operational concerns. A war with Iran could deplete US weapons stockpiles and expose vulnerabilities in global supply chains. Securing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil transit route, would be a major challenge. Yet these warnings were presented as risks, not red lines. No one directly moved to block the president's decision. ...
@#2 ... I wish New Yorkers and Californians would leave Wisconsinites [alone] ...
Wait, what?!?!
Are you accusing New York and California of interference in the Wisconsin election?
If so, what evidence does your current alias have to substantiate that significant assertion?
Yer up.