Lets, for a moment, presume Iran has Nuclear weapons - and uses them. Lets just remind that Israel is known to have at LEAST 90 nuclear warheads, and several of those missiles are likely prepped ready pointed at Iran.

To put it simply: That move DOES NOT end well. If anything, it ends strictly worse then simply accepting that Israel crippled Iran’s infrastructure. And any hope for normalization and opening trade up on the global market outside of China, Russia, and North Korea becomes basically zero until the regime is overthrown. Even worse - if Israel opts for nuclear strikes to follow up their conventional ones after being attacked with nuclear weapons,there is a good chance it’s not just several years of repair work, but decades of set back that could easily lead to mass scale discontentment and open revolt against the regime by several factions simultaneously.

The reality is: Israel is not a force capable of sustained occupation of an entity like Iran. But they are a force capable of a decapitating strike. And the entire reason is, Israel has VERY LIMITED force projection capabilities - and, because of a lack of land boarder with Iran, would need cooperation with other states that may not be thrilled with opening themselves up to direct conflict in the short to mid term. The only real reason Israel has room to do a strike is 1. It’s retaliatory, and 2. entities like Saudi Arabia are liable to be just fine with their regional rivals basically offing each other, as Saudi Arabia is in a MUCH better position to take advantage in the event of Iran’s regime collapsing.

Which brings us to: Just because you have nuclear weapons, does not mean you use them. The reality is, nuclear weapons are a weapon of last resort - unless you are France, and then it’s a nuclear warning shot… Because France is just different.

I don’t think you understand the capabilities difference - Israel has the nuclear option if they are threatened existentially. But lets take that off the table a moment.

Iran’s capabilities are their missiles, manufacturing capabilities. Their Refineries, and strategic energy reserves are in known locations and are the lynch pin of Iran’s economy. And finally, the Nuclear R&D facilities are in known places. All of those are the targets - and Israel absolutely has the capacity to take it out- just not the strong justification.

If Iran continues striking Israel, Israel is going to feel the pressure to decapitate Iran as a threat to them.

The fall out of this is more interesting:

1. China loses access to Iranian Oil for the short to mid term - it will take time to restore capabilities.

2. Russia loses access to Iranian missiles - without production capabilities, and depleted stocks, Iran will not be able to sell missiles to Russia let alone drones.

3. Iran’s economy will be in shambles - that could very well open the door to coup or revolt.

4. Iran would unload as many missiles as it possibly could - which could be devastating. But that would come down to just how many interceptor missiles Israel would have available, along with other air defence options.

If you want a “Why would trump support this” - there you have it. It reaffirms US obligation to support it’s allies, It puts economic pressure on china, and denies Russia access to weapons - which should help push them to the negotiating table.

In reality, I would more expect Iran to back off. Then again - With Israel obliterating Iran proxies, Iran may feel the pressure to complete a nuclear deterrent and Israel may end up wanting to decapitate Iran as a threat BEFORE they gain that capability… what a bloody mess.

What KIND of liberal? There are several “liberal” variants and the two main defined variants are:

• Classic Liberalism - functionally the idea’s of the french revolution.

• Modern Liberalism - tack social justice into the mix, requiring government intervention to enforce it.

reality is, since about 1965-1970 left wing parties have been defined by the social justice bent. They have more or less been governed by an idea that they alone have the moral authority to define correct from wrong, that it is they that must define what is right wing - and over the years, a tremendous number of things, have been defined as right wing; we have seen a shift from Representatives defining laws and regulations - to regulatory agencies having the power to define the details devolved to them. We have seen the growth and bloat of bureaucracy, funded through increased taxes -and inflationary spending practices.

So the reason “liberal” is defined differently - is functionally that the definition of “liberal” has been redefined. And this reuse of terms - well: That has a storied history in a particular soviet nation. Political correctness has a very soviet history to it.

If you want to debate, and discredit a candidate based on their political stance/views and policies - ok: Do so. But maybe stop trying to define it as “nazi” - the term is ever more losing it’s weight in discussions, and that fact makes it very difficult to legitimately call out problematic entities. Because lets be clear: Trump is NOT A National Socialist - and that is a defining feature of the Nazi party.