Having lived through the first Gulf War in the Gulf and back again here now, I think this might have been the right decision (although it will take years before we definitively know). Definitely echos of 1990s in feel.
I know the Administration is claiming the "2 weeks" was a bluff but I don't necessarily think it was a Trump planned thing. Rather the military planners hoped to use it, so someone was able to convince Trump to launch the strike when he hadn't planned to since it went against what Putin wanted. I'm curious as to how Putin lost this decision. It might be that without a constant Russian asset talking to Don, Putin's hold is weaker than expected.
The outrage in MAGA camp and low support based among US population on the polling probably won't make this a bounce decision for Trump. Nor has his televised address done much to justify the decision. It has only highlighted once again to the US public the No Kings message. Along with sidelining the DNI in the process, I think this will fracture the MAGA coalition even more.
It also speaks to how various factions in the Administration basically manipulate Trump into a decision they want and none of the MAGA factions won this round.
In terms of what is next for Iran, this might be one time that Israel has a day-after plan that isn't just continuing to bomb. The Crown Prince of Iran was in contact with Israel for the last year or two and has come out very vocally for the overthrow of the current regime BY the Iranian's themselves. The regime has basically cut internet because they are afraid of the Iranian people. If the IRGC and other security organs of the regime are weakened enough that will help the Iranian people.
Operative words: Israel did the heavy lifting, and Trump went in for the easy kill. The real issue is what comes next.
A great outcome only strengthens Trump and MAGA’s hand to continue to implement draconian policies here, as well as against our allies. Additionally, Trump will continue to consolidate power with impunity, and turn this nation into a corrupt kakistocracy in the mold of Hungary.
Bottom line: No matter how you slice it, America still loses! And as for Israel, it is only emboldening the messianic Jews who run the country, to continue its ethic cleaning in Gaza, and the West Bank.
God, I hope I am wrong, but what Trump did was illegal; he usurped Congress’s authority, and now we are normalizing Trump’s worst impulses, and giving MAGA more credibility and legitimacy when it comes to the Unitary Executive Theory, which Trump will use to quell dissent, and continue his rampage in blue states, and eventually the country. IMHO…:)
I agree with your points on the negative political consequences at this terrible moment. When we have autocrats leading the U.S. & Israel their are no satisfying possibilities.
I too agree with this essay chapter & verse, including the next step of keeping regime change on the down low.
I see a lot of critics of this action saying "what next!? There is no plan."
Well, the "what next?" question applies equally to the choice of NOT destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Uncertainty attaches to both paths. How are the alternative risks weighed? What are the prospects of Iran disarming through treaties?
Totally agree, especially with your remark "Well, the "what next?" question applies equally to the choice of NOT destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure. "
People don't seem to realize that doing nothing is very much doing something, and that something will deliver us in the worst possible place, with the highest likeliness not so much of WW3, but the annihilation of Isreal, and, in retaliation by Israel, Iran itself.
And anyone stating that Iran would never throw a nuke on Israel hasn't been paying attention. And even if they didn't, they'd facilitate Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas to do their bidding with impunity under threat of nuking Israel.
Also, Saudi Arabia would have to attain nukes asap too, so if Iran wouldn't nuke Israel, it most certainly would nuke its arch enemy Saudi Arabia before it had one, and to prevent it from having one...
Even if Iran had nuclear weapons would they attack Israel with them? They know the Israelis have nukes and would obliterate Iran. Even if Iran gets nuclear capability they won’t use them because just like the US/USSR standoff, nuclear war is unwinnable.
I'm sorry to say, but I'm not so sure. I consider communism and Islam both ideologies, but they are not the same in the sense that one of them is bound to lose sight of rationalism.
By your logic, Iran wouldn't have funded, armed and encouraged, say, Hamas. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to realize that Hamas would massacre more than a thousand Israelis first chance they got, that Israel would retaliate and go after Iran - after Iran itself, and its nuclear program.
Yet Iran funded Hamas anyway.
I think it's generally misunderstood by us rational Westerners how much the Mullahs hate, truly hate, like fundamentally, hate Israel. The Mullahs consider Israel an existential threat. They truly are waiting for the Mahdi, and if he doesn't come, they'll make him come by destroying Israel any which way they can.
By your logic, Hamas would never have butchered more than a thousand Israelis. They must have known that Israel would level Gaza in its entirety.
Yet they did it anyway.
And, like I said before, that's apart from the hate between the Sunnis (Saudi Arabia) and Shiites (Iran). They hate each other as much as the Catholics and the Protestants in Europe from the fifteen hundreds onwards.
My point is - when it comes to religion, all bets are off...
Iran never needed nuclear warheads. Iran has demonstrated that it can paste tiny Israel from end-to-end with highly enriched "dirty bombs" on hypersonic missiles, any day, with impunity. Israel would be rendered uninhabitable for centuries.
Iran has had this capability for YEARS, and still chooses to act with restraint and lawfully in the face of every Zionist aggression, assasination, bombing, genocide and sabotage.
Whether this military incursion was successful depends on the definition. I always appreciate your analysis, and looked for your opinion because I respect it. We have been given such limited “facts;” written that way because I don’t trust either Netanyahu, Iran or the US to say the full truth. But bombing is an act of war, Congress did not approve it, domestic politics play a role, and fallout for Americans in the Middle East and abroad is coming. I am concerned what this means for our newly-authoritarian regime. Calling it a success distracts, making it harder to oppose this terrible budget bill front and center.
Trump will use the 1973 War Powers Resolution......which allows the President to:
-->Initiate military action without congressional approval, only in response to an imminent threat. (the last part anyone can write)
-->Notify Congress within 48 hours.
-->Limit military engagement to 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorizes further action.
So, unless he plans to stay in the war for a long time, he does not need congressional approval. He can hit and then notify the congress. So, it is wrong to say what he did was illegal. It can become illegal if he keeps going forever without approval.
I think it's a bad faith read of the situation on Friday to say there was imminent danger -- as post Vietnam Congress meant the words. But there a 0% chance of court or congessional action. Just another bad precedent set for aggrandized presidential autgority.
Thanks Shankar, now 2/3 of the people I trust on Ukraine have supported this view, I am relieved because it seems clear to me, but I am not an expert, you guys totally are. On this occasion, the orange one must be saluted and fingers crossed for the next few days. Brilliant article as always
I’m not “hating”. I’m expressing my opinion that Trump as a narcissistic psychopath has no idea what he’s doing. My husband is a Nam vet. Another war based on lies! Did you serve??
My thoroughly inexpert take is that any direct response by Iran against US forces will be restrained and measured as it was when Trump took out Soleimani. I further anticipate that Force Protection measures have already been ramped up substantially.
What concerns me more is what the asymmetrical response by Iran might be. Small water treatment plants in rural communities disabled or treatment protocols modified. Or perhaps they go after rural hospitals or banks. Perhaps disruptions to some segments of larger financial markets, maybe go after SWIFT.
Iran has a multitude of avenues by which they can spread chaos that don’t involve direct action against our troops.
Well these were not my thoughts at the outset. I am still worried that suing for peace when Iran is a wounded animal will not go anywhere. Perhaps there is more regional support and tacit EU support than I realized—that makes a big difference. But Iran’s leader is old, and now he is angry…
There is also some talk that if Frodo has not been decimated the Chinese might be able to assist Iran in finding it again? Would Iran have been able to move much of its materials beforehand? These things would make a difference. You have never steered me wrong before, so I listen and consider most attentively.
Terrorist is such an ugly thing, and it doesn’t require nukes.
Thanks AB appreciate it. Even a bad human can do the right thing, just as a good human can do a bad thing. If one wants to win, you need to first respect your enemies. If we allow hate to cloud our judgement, we will never win.
True. I don’t hate Iran. I am sorry the U.S. engaged in regime change initially that brought in the Shah. I obviously don’t care for the leadership, and will never approve of terrorism, but the country exists in a very difficult region.
My main fear with Trump is that his judgment is clouded by his fanboy attitude towards the very worst people. And I think Netanyahu does not operate from selfless motives. So there we are.But you are quite right—sometimes people surprise you and do the right thing whether from good motives or not. I will hope that Trump is getting info from some reliable sources—preferably not his Cabinet.
Agreed. My hope is that it’s all gone - without the possibility of rebuilding in the short term.
I didn’t exactly feel this way yesterday afternoon, because I was pretty convinced the US would bungle it. And it’s telling that Hegseth was shut out. He doesn’t have the credentials to run an operation like this, and who needs a Signal leak at Go Time? As for Gabbard, she has a different agenda
Iran rattled sabres when Soleimani was assassinated but did nothing else. May the same scenario play out this time.
Next seven days will be very vital. If US moves to defensive posture and not join isreal on forward movment, then the admin is on the right track. If they do the opposite, then we are in trouble. We need to wait.
I am worried that the US will do exactly that, and it has nothing to do with Trump. Unless US war/peace strategy has suddenly changed since last week, that is exactly what bothers me.
Battle damage assessment will take time. I cannot speculate on that. Need more evidence to come through. We have to wait on that one.
I just reviewed the sat images. It was a hit. Two different clusters.
Iran has been suffciently weakned already. They have the missiles, but they are struggling to get their launchers in place and they get knocked out on a regular basis. Hormuz strait is the only big play left in their bag. Expecting them to play it, unless middle eastern leaders step up and walk into the middle.
Need to check on the forex status of Iran. Thanks for the headsup. That will tell us If Iran will be able to push the buttons there. But looks like MBS has been ready to handle the fallout.
US should have gamed out the closure of the Hormuz strait. It is the most predictable asymmetrical retaliation Iran could take. Putin would love that too. It will require a coordianted plan, one that has to bring the allies on board including Saudi Arabia. US will also be releasing its reserves.
Any attempt to shut down the Straits of Hormuz would be a clear message that Iran is not interested in finding an off-ramp, that the regime is suicidal. That would be very bad - terminally bad - for Ayatollah Khameini.
It's going to be a while before we see how much damage was done. I doubt everything was destroyed, but the pattern of bombs indicates that they were trying to collapse the facility. I'd be surprised if there was complete destruction. The bombs don't have to punch through the roof to destroy it.
There had been a lot of truck activity around Fordo in the weeks before the US attack. There's a good chance much of the uranium and equipment was moved. If they distribute the equipment and uranium into several small sites, it would be very hard to eliminate.
The high values stuff at Fordo wasn't uranium, it was thousands of expensive centrifuges. Those were not easily moved. And the only place they could possibly be moved to would have been deeper into the mountain. But the extreme pressures from the bombs would most likely destroy those as well.
Reading this, I wondered if I might be one of the few people that felt the way you do, Alexandra. Your words to Shankar saying that he has never steered you wrong before, and that you will be listening attentively is exactly how I feel, as well.
As Shankar said, the next seven days or so will tell us a lot.
So good to see there are others that feel the way we do and are not shouting approval or disapproval at the top of their lungs.
General "Razin' Caine" is the name you were looking for. He's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and apparently sane and competent despite the fact that Trump said he appointed him on the strength of that macho name alone. And certainly the massive strike and over the top ordnance was beyond impressive. However, there are too many unknowable unknowns to start celebrating now. I've read in a couple of places that Russia now houses at least a substantial portion of Iran's enriched uranium. I've also watched Trump (haven't you?) flail around on practically every topic under the sun, flopping this way and that, depending on which way the wind blows. Who the hell thinks they know what he'll get up to, no matter what 'clean break' he has a chance to enact now? The man is a walking, talking menace as far as I can see. Besides which, he did this unconstitutionally, giving congress the clear right to initiate Impeachment proceedings. What then? And just who is waiting in the wings in Iran to take over should regime change emerge as a secondary goal? It would take a mighty charismatic person to pull that nation together at a time like this. The last couple of times we tried regime change we failed badly, and the repercussions of those failures still resonate.
Friendly reminder that research and development of mRNA as a vaccine platform had been fully funded by NIH (et al) for at least a decade. No mRNA, no COVID vaccine. Thanks, Obama.
Ask yourself why MAGA propgandists and the far left both oppose this. There will be your answer. Trump could still go wrong in the next seven days, but that does not mean what he did in the last seven is wrong. It is not. Right sells hate. Wonder why the left has to do the same?
No matter how much anyone tries, I will not fall for hate.
Shankar, I agree with you in theory, but here is the issue as I see it. Trump just usurped Congress’s authority to attack Iran? So consider the precedent we just sent to Congress and the citizens of this nation.
Therefore, regardless of the outcome, we just handed Trump the one thing he covets most; complete control over all aspects of government.
Bottom line: We just legitimized the Unitary Executive Theory, and the consequences will be catastrophic. IMHO…:)
No sir. The President has enormous amount of power in the United States. They gave the president all that power and then introduced the checks and balances. Not the other way around.
On this particular attack that was executed yesterday this is how the admin will proceed now, they will cite the 1973 war powers resolution and notify the congress today or tomorrow.
What do you mean “they gave the president all that power and then introduced checks and balances?” Are you saying this from the perspective of the 1973 War Powers Act, or from your interpretation of the Constitution?
If it’s the Constitution, then I beg to differ. Article One of the Constitution is Congress, Article 2 is the Executive. And then there’s Article 3; The Judiciary. And all three are meant as checks and balances from its inception.
In fact, in the Articles of Confederation, the precursor to the constitution, didn’t even have an Executive; it was all about state rights because we fought a war against a mad kind and didn’t trust kings or dictators.
Furthermore, Our forefathers only considered adding a President so that the Executive could regulate interstate commerce, collect taxes, raise an army, and enforce the laws of the land. There was no Unitary Executive, and certainly no immunity.
As for the 1973 War Powers Act? I also beg to differ. The act didn’t give the president absolute authority to start wars, It actually aimed to limit the president's ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad without congressional authorization. And even if it was legal to invoke the War Powers Act, you still need a legitimate reason. And his justification of Iran being a few weeks away from a bomb is unfounded and doesn’t pass the smell test.
So I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say the Executive was granted total authority before any checks and balances were created. At least this is what I’ve been taught…:)
No that is not what I said. But it is something we can always talk in circles. I meant President was given enormous powers and then checks and balances were created to make sure that rogue one never gets out of hand.
The 1973 war powers act, as you said it will not allow any President to start wars. But hit and run? Any military engagement that can be run under that threshold. There is plenty that can be done under that limit.
Here we differ...not on the result but on the action itself. Putting the need to deny Iran a nuclear weapon aside..I agree that is necessary. However, Trump's attack was done without Congressional approval. He had no authority to do this. It's an impeachable offense. Without push back from a supine Congress Trump has cemented his hold on a dictatorship. So, while the US might have achieved success on the battlefield another nail in a democratic government has been driven in...perhaps the last one. In my view, it was not worth the cost.
Second, the force positioning in the middle east, and the fact that Iran's ability to launch its missiles has been severly compromised.. this makes it very difficult for Iran to increase the cost.
Isreal must continue the strikes and keep taking out the launchers, because I dont think they will have as many interceptors as Iran's missiles. But they have done a lot of damage to launch infrastructure already.
We are going to see whose interpretation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution will stand up as I hope this goes to the Supreme Court. The Act: "In a joint resolution enacted in 1973 known as the War Powers Resolution, Congress stated that the Constitution permits the President to introduce troops into hostilities (or situations where hostilities are imminent) only after Congress has declared war, specifically authorized the President to use force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its territories."
The argument over who has the final authority follows here:
I completely understand. I'm just explaining what they're likely to do. Personally, I’d rather have a president who brings both parties to the table, lays out a clear plan, and then makes it happen. We haven’t had that kind of leadership in a long time. Maybe someday. I truly hope that day comes for the United States.
Until then, let’s keep pushing — we might just get there. After Putin's war machine dies. When that dies, the right will lose its fire.
This I agree: The initial exit plan may have been clean. War never is clean. We will know very soon, what they do. It wont take very long to map their response. It will happen within the next 100 hours.
Mr. Narayan, thank you. As to Merz, I have generally approved of his handling of Ukraine. Same for Europe. This decision to bomb Iran is a mistake.
US handed Putin a potent weapon. US unilaterally and preemptively attacked Iran.
Russia unilaterally and preemptively attacked Ukraine.
I’m not giving Iran any ideas how they might respond. I expect an asymmetric response over the coming weeks and months. Qatar will be badly impacted by closing the Gulf. China buys Iranian oil.
Edit: Excellent European summary by Hans. Don’t believe the coprorate warmongering press, America.
I will answer this next saturday. If US steps away from the field and holds active defense, then no, US is not dancing to Nets music. If not, then yes. I can't answer this with what they they did yesterday. It won't be fair. But from here, I absolutely can.
Hell no. The United States has told every country in the world how important is it to get the nukes. They have been sending that message since 2014. Keep watching Poland, they are going to reach for it, and then the pandoras box is going to open.
Not yet. The damage has been extensive, that is known. We need to wait for open source reports to confirm this. But I think the fact that US stopped with 12 drops must mean they did hit. They had piled up so much resources, so there was no reason to stop if it did not reach the final floor. I am only talking logic here. Evidence yet to arrive. It will, very soon.
According to We O'Donnell, the entire stockpile of bunker busters equalled around 14. I don't know his source, but find him every bit as reliable as you, Dylan, and Chris.
It is fairly possible. And shows absolutely how stupid the US NSA team has been. Production capacity is closer to 80 units annual, but can you believe I just saw reports that said the orders were never placed for a very long time.
Having lived through the first Gulf War in the Gulf and back again here now, I think this might have been the right decision (although it will take years before we definitively know). Definitely echos of 1990s in feel.
I know the Administration is claiming the "2 weeks" was a bluff but I don't necessarily think it was a Trump planned thing. Rather the military planners hoped to use it, so someone was able to convince Trump to launch the strike when he hadn't planned to since it went against what Putin wanted. I'm curious as to how Putin lost this decision. It might be that without a constant Russian asset talking to Don, Putin's hold is weaker than expected.
The outrage in MAGA camp and low support based among US population on the polling probably won't make this a bounce decision for Trump. Nor has his televised address done much to justify the decision. It has only highlighted once again to the US public the No Kings message. Along with sidelining the DNI in the process, I think this will fracture the MAGA coalition even more.
It also speaks to how various factions in the Administration basically manipulate Trump into a decision they want and none of the MAGA factions won this round.
In terms of what is next for Iran, this might be one time that Israel has a day-after plan that isn't just continuing to bomb. The Crown Prince of Iran was in contact with Israel for the last year or two and has come out very vocally for the overthrow of the current regime BY the Iranian's themselves. The regime has basically cut internet because they are afraid of the Iranian people. If the IRGC and other security organs of the regime are weakened enough that will help the Iranian people.
Operative words: Israel did the heavy lifting, and Trump went in for the easy kill. The real issue is what comes next.
A great outcome only strengthens Trump and MAGA’s hand to continue to implement draconian policies here, as well as against our allies. Additionally, Trump will continue to consolidate power with impunity, and turn this nation into a corrupt kakistocracy in the mold of Hungary.
Bottom line: No matter how you slice it, America still loses! And as for Israel, it is only emboldening the messianic Jews who run the country, to continue its ethic cleaning in Gaza, and the West Bank.
God, I hope I am wrong, but what Trump did was illegal; he usurped Congress’s authority, and now we are normalizing Trump’s worst impulses, and giving MAGA more credibility and legitimacy when it comes to the Unitary Executive Theory, which Trump will use to quell dissent, and continue his rampage in blue states, and eventually the country. IMHO…:)
Agree the next seven days are more important than the last seven. I am hoping that the US will move to defense. Lets see.
I agree with your points on the negative political consequences at this terrible moment. When we have autocrats leading the U.S. & Israel their are no satisfying possibilities.
Totally agree. But for as far as Caving Don is concerned - even a broken clock is right twice a day...
Yep--
I too agree with this essay chapter & verse, including the next step of keeping regime change on the down low.
I see a lot of critics of this action saying "what next!? There is no plan."
Well, the "what next?" question applies equally to the choice of NOT destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Uncertainty attaches to both paths. How are the alternative risks weighed? What are the prospects of Iran disarming through treaties?
Totally agree, especially with your remark "Well, the "what next?" question applies equally to the choice of NOT destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure. "
People don't seem to realize that doing nothing is very much doing something, and that something will deliver us in the worst possible place, with the highest likeliness not so much of WW3, but the annihilation of Isreal, and, in retaliation by Israel, Iran itself.
And anyone stating that Iran would never throw a nuke on Israel hasn't been paying attention. And even if they didn't, they'd facilitate Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas to do their bidding with impunity under threat of nuking Israel.
Also, Saudi Arabia would have to attain nukes asap too, so if Iran wouldn't nuke Israel, it most certainly would nuke its arch enemy Saudi Arabia before it had one, and to prevent it from having one...
Even if Iran had nuclear weapons would they attack Israel with them? They know the Israelis have nukes and would obliterate Iran. Even if Iran gets nuclear capability they won’t use them because just like the US/USSR standoff, nuclear war is unwinnable.
I'm sorry to say, but I'm not so sure. I consider communism and Islam both ideologies, but they are not the same in the sense that one of them is bound to lose sight of rationalism.
By your logic, Iran wouldn't have funded, armed and encouraged, say, Hamas. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to realize that Hamas would massacre more than a thousand Israelis first chance they got, that Israel would retaliate and go after Iran - after Iran itself, and its nuclear program.
Yet Iran funded Hamas anyway.
I think it's generally misunderstood by us rational Westerners how much the Mullahs hate, truly hate, like fundamentally, hate Israel. The Mullahs consider Israel an existential threat. They truly are waiting for the Mahdi, and if he doesn't come, they'll make him come by destroying Israel any which way they can.
By your logic, Hamas would never have butchered more than a thousand Israelis. They must have known that Israel would level Gaza in its entirety.
Yet they did it anyway.
And, like I said before, that's apart from the hate between the Sunnis (Saudi Arabia) and Shiites (Iran). They hate each other as much as the Catholics and the Protestants in Europe from the fifteen hundreds onwards.
My point is - when it comes to religion, all bets are off...
Iran never needed nuclear warheads. Iran has demonstrated that it can paste tiny Israel from end-to-end with highly enriched "dirty bombs" on hypersonic missiles, any day, with impunity. Israel would be rendered uninhabitable for centuries.
Iran has had this capability for YEARS, and still chooses to act with restraint and lawfully in the face of every Zionist aggression, assasination, bombing, genocide and sabotage.
Israel is the feral dog to be muzzled, not Iran.
Whether this military incursion was successful depends on the definition. I always appreciate your analysis, and looked for your opinion because I respect it. We have been given such limited “facts;” written that way because I don’t trust either Netanyahu, Iran or the US to say the full truth. But bombing is an act of war, Congress did not approve it, domestic politics play a role, and fallout for Americans in the Middle East and abroad is coming. I am concerned what this means for our newly-authoritarian regime. Calling it a success distracts, making it harder to oppose this terrible budget bill front and center.
Trump will use the 1973 War Powers Resolution......which allows the President to:
-->Initiate military action without congressional approval, only in response to an imminent threat. (the last part anyone can write)
-->Notify Congress within 48 hours.
-->Limit military engagement to 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorizes further action.
So, unless he plans to stay in the war for a long time, he does not need congressional approval. He can hit and then notify the congress. So, it is wrong to say what he did was illegal. It can become illegal if he keeps going forever without approval.
I think it's a bad faith read of the situation on Friday to say there was imminent danger -- as post Vietnam Congress meant the words. But there a 0% chance of court or congessional action. Just another bad precedent set for aggrandized presidential autgority.
💯💯💯💯💯💯
Thanks Shankar, now 2/3 of the people I trust on Ukraine have supported this view, I am relieved because it seems clear to me, but I am not an expert, you guys totally are. On this occasion, the orange one must be saluted and fingers crossed for the next few days. Brilliant article as always
Thanks Helen.
I’m not “hating”. I’m expressing my opinion that Trump as a narcissistic psychopath has no idea what he’s doing. My husband is a Nam vet. Another war based on lies! Did you serve??
The United States never learned the lessons of Dien Bien Phu and we followed the French right down the rabbit hole.
Dismissing an opponent who wore ‘cotton pajamas and flip-flops’ led to our ignominious exit on March 29, 1973.
I retain grave reservations about the consequences of this foray into Iran.
I keep remembering the military maxim that no plan survives contact with the enemy. The fog of war is real.
Timothy Snyder:
“Many things reported with confidence in the first hours and days will turn out not to be true.”
My first concern is the safety of our troops in the middle east which is never mentioned here
My thoroughly inexpert take is that any direct response by Iran against US forces will be restrained and measured as it was when Trump took out Soleimani. I further anticipate that Force Protection measures have already been ramped up substantially.
What concerns me more is what the asymmetrical response by Iran might be. Small water treatment plants in rural communities disabled or treatment protocols modified. Or perhaps they go after rural hospitals or banks. Perhaps disruptions to some segments of larger financial markets, maybe go after SWIFT.
Iran has a multitude of avenues by which they can spread chaos that don’t involve direct action against our troops.
Seems pretty accurate for an inexpert take. What concerns you more is now concerning me
Well these were not my thoughts at the outset. I am still worried that suing for peace when Iran is a wounded animal will not go anywhere. Perhaps there is more regional support and tacit EU support than I realized—that makes a big difference. But Iran’s leader is old, and now he is angry…
There is also some talk that if Frodo has not been decimated the Chinese might be able to assist Iran in finding it again? Would Iran have been able to move much of its materials beforehand? These things would make a difference. You have never steered me wrong before, so I listen and consider most attentively.
Terrorist is such an ugly thing, and it doesn’t require nukes.
Thanks AB appreciate it. Even a bad human can do the right thing, just as a good human can do a bad thing. If one wants to win, you need to first respect your enemies. If we allow hate to cloud our judgement, we will never win.
True. I don’t hate Iran. I am sorry the U.S. engaged in regime change initially that brought in the Shah. I obviously don’t care for the leadership, and will never approve of terrorism, but the country exists in a very difficult region.
My main fear with Trump is that his judgment is clouded by his fanboy attitude towards the very worst people. And I think Netanyahu does not operate from selfless motives. So there we are.But you are quite right—sometimes people surprise you and do the right thing whether from good motives or not. I will hope that Trump is getting info from some reliable sources—preferably not his Cabinet.
Thanks again for the great work.
Agreed. My hope is that it’s all gone - without the possibility of rebuilding in the short term.
I didn’t exactly feel this way yesterday afternoon, because I was pretty convinced the US would bungle it. And it’s telling that Hegseth was shut out. He doesn’t have the credentials to run an operation like this, and who needs a Signal leak at Go Time? As for Gabbard, she has a different agenda
Iran rattled sabres when Soleimani was assassinated but did nothing else. May the same scenario play out this time.
Next seven days will be very vital. If US moves to defensive posture and not join isreal on forward movment, then the admin is on the right track. If they do the opposite, then we are in trouble. We need to wait.
I am worried that the US will do exactly that, and it has nothing to do with Trump. Unless US war/peace strategy has suddenly changed since last week, that is exactly what bothers me.
I fervently want to be wrong.
There is history there. The last seven days was a pattern break.
As we often say in the military,
hurry up and wait
The problem for me is that Trump lies about everything so what evidence do we have that this was really successful?
Battle damage assessment will take time. I cannot speculate on that. Need more evidence to come through. We have to wait on that one.
I just reviewed the sat images. It was a hit. Two different clusters.
Iran has been suffciently weakned already. They have the missiles, but they are struggling to get their launchers in place and they get knocked out on a regular basis. Hormuz strait is the only big play left in their bag. Expecting them to play it, unless middle eastern leaders step up and walk into the middle.
As I mentioned maybe we’ll never know. The Iranians aren’t the biggest truth tellers either.
That thing was deep underground and underneath a mountain to boot. But they did job quite a few busters at it.
There's independent corroboration in the international and military press.
Yup he was old angry and about to have nukes before, I know which I prefer
What does Putin do in the face of all this? Oil prices would go up if Iran mined the Straits of Hormuz…
Need to check on the forex status of Iran. Thanks for the headsup. That will tell us If Iran will be able to push the buttons there. But looks like MBS has been ready to handle the fallout.
US should have gamed out the closure of the Hormuz strait. It is the most predictable asymmetrical retaliation Iran could take. Putin would love that too. It will require a coordianted plan, one that has to bring the allies on board including Saudi Arabia. US will also be releasing its reserves.
The US’ immediate reaction has been “military intervention” if I’m not mistaken.
Any attempt to shut down the Straits of Hormuz would be a clear message that Iran is not interested in finding an off-ramp, that the regime is suicidal. That would be very bad - terminally bad - for Ayatollah Khameini.
Difficult one. I think they will reach for it. Lets see.
It's going to be a while before we see how much damage was done. I doubt everything was destroyed, but the pattern of bombs indicates that they were trying to collapse the facility. I'd be surprised if there was complete destruction. The bombs don't have to punch through the roof to destroy it.
There had been a lot of truck activity around Fordo in the weeks before the US attack. There's a good chance much of the uranium and equipment was moved. If they distribute the equipment and uranium into several small sites, it would be very hard to eliminate.
Thank you for that response. I have to think with Putin’s interest in this that movement of materials happened.
The high values stuff at Fordo wasn't uranium, it was thousands of expensive centrifuges. Those were not easily moved. And the only place they could possibly be moved to would have been deeper into the mountain. But the extreme pressures from the bombs would most likely destroy those as well.
Reading this, I wondered if I might be one of the few people that felt the way you do, Alexandra. Your words to Shankar saying that he has never steered you wrong before, and that you will be listening attentively is exactly how I feel, as well.
As Shankar said, the next seven days or so will tell us a lot.
So good to see there are others that feel the way we do and are not shouting approval or disapproval at the top of their lungs.
We wait.
General "Razin' Caine" is the name you were looking for. He's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and apparently sane and competent despite the fact that Trump said he appointed him on the strength of that macho name alone. And certainly the massive strike and over the top ordnance was beyond impressive. However, there are too many unknowable unknowns to start celebrating now. I've read in a couple of places that Russia now houses at least a substantial portion of Iran's enriched uranium. I've also watched Trump (haven't you?) flail around on practically every topic under the sun, flopping this way and that, depending on which way the wind blows. Who the hell thinks they know what he'll get up to, no matter what 'clean break' he has a chance to enact now? The man is a walking, talking menace as far as I can see. Besides which, he did this unconstitutionally, giving congress the clear right to initiate Impeachment proceedings. What then? And just who is waiting in the wings in Iran to take over should regime change emerge as a secondary goal? It would take a mighty charismatic person to pull that nation together at a time like this. The last couple of times we tried regime change we failed badly, and the repercussions of those failures still resonate.
Possible. Let the dust settle. I am very curious to find out how this came about.
Hope you do, and if you do, you'll share it with us!
"The first was Operation Warp Speed."
Friendly reminder that research and development of mRNA as a vaccine platform had been fully funded by NIH (et al) for at least a decade. No mRNA, no COVID vaccine. Thanks, Obama.
Endless wars again with our tax dollars. Have to stop reading your garbage! Goodbye
Ask yourself why MAGA propgandists and the far left both oppose this. There will be your answer. Trump could still go wrong in the next seven days, but that does not mean what he did in the last seven is wrong. It is not. Right sells hate. Wonder why the left has to do the same?
No matter how much anyone tries, I will not fall for hate.
Shankar, I agree with you in theory, but here is the issue as I see it. Trump just usurped Congress’s authority to attack Iran? So consider the precedent we just sent to Congress and the citizens of this nation.
Therefore, regardless of the outcome, we just handed Trump the one thing he covets most; complete control over all aspects of government.
Bottom line: We just legitimized the Unitary Executive Theory, and the consequences will be catastrophic. IMHO…:)
No sir. The President has enormous amount of power in the United States. They gave the president all that power and then introduced the checks and balances. Not the other way around.
On this particular attack that was executed yesterday this is how the admin will proceed now, they will cite the 1973 war powers resolution and notify the congress today or tomorrow.
What do you mean “they gave the president all that power and then introduced checks and balances?” Are you saying this from the perspective of the 1973 War Powers Act, or from your interpretation of the Constitution?
If it’s the Constitution, then I beg to differ. Article One of the Constitution is Congress, Article 2 is the Executive. And then there’s Article 3; The Judiciary. And all three are meant as checks and balances from its inception.
In fact, in the Articles of Confederation, the precursor to the constitution, didn’t even have an Executive; it was all about state rights because we fought a war against a mad kind and didn’t trust kings or dictators.
Furthermore, Our forefathers only considered adding a President so that the Executive could regulate interstate commerce, collect taxes, raise an army, and enforce the laws of the land. There was no Unitary Executive, and certainly no immunity.
As for the 1973 War Powers Act? I also beg to differ. The act didn’t give the president absolute authority to start wars, It actually aimed to limit the president's ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad without congressional authorization. And even if it was legal to invoke the War Powers Act, you still need a legitimate reason. And his justification of Iran being a few weeks away from a bomb is unfounded and doesn’t pass the smell test.
So I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say the Executive was granted total authority before any checks and balances were created. At least this is what I’ve been taught…:)
No that is not what I said. But it is something we can always talk in circles. I meant President was given enormous powers and then checks and balances were created to make sure that rogue one never gets out of hand.
The 1973 war powers act, as you said it will not allow any President to start wars. But hit and run? Any military engagement that can be run under that threshold. There is plenty that can be done under that limit.
Fair enough…:). I was just confused by what you meant…:)
Shankar explained that the War Powers Act of 1973 allows the action.
I'm with you. The simplistic justification is too much. We'll see what is said when Iran sends missiles to American bases.
Here we differ...not on the result but on the action itself. Putting the need to deny Iran a nuclear weapon aside..I agree that is necessary. However, Trump's attack was done without Congressional approval. He had no authority to do this. It's an impeachable offense. Without push back from a supine Congress Trump has cemented his hold on a dictatorship. So, while the US might have achieved success on the battlefield another nail in a democratic government has been driven in...perhaps the last one. In my view, it was not worth the cost.
No Stephen.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution can be used here.
Second, the force positioning in the middle east, and the fact that Iran's ability to launch its missiles has been severly compromised.. this makes it very difficult for Iran to increase the cost.
Isreal must continue the strikes and keep taking out the launchers, because I dont think they will have as many interceptors as Iran's missiles. But they have done a lot of damage to launch infrastructure already.
Shankar,
We are going to see whose interpretation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution will stand up as I hope this goes to the Supreme Court. The Act: "In a joint resolution enacted in 1973 known as the War Powers Resolution, Congress stated that the Constitution permits the President to introduce troops into hostilities (or situations where hostilities are imminent) only after Congress has declared war, specifically authorized the President to use force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its territories."
The argument over who has the final authority follows here:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C11-2-4/ALDE_00013915/['war']
I completely understand. I'm just explaining what they're likely to do. Personally, I’d rather have a president who brings both parties to the table, lays out a clear plan, and then makes it happen. We haven’t had that kind of leadership in a long time. Maybe someday. I truly hope that day comes for the United States.
Until then, let’s keep pushing — we might just get there. After Putin's war machine dies. When that dies, the right will lose its fire.
Mr. Narayan, we’ll have to disagree.
- Iran’s parliament voting to close Strait of Hormuz
- Yemeni government voting to attack US vessels
- Russia benefiting from higher oil prices
- Deep recession of the global economy
- An illegal war overthrowing Congress
- We’ll have to see how much of Iran’s nuclear structure was moved away before the strikes
- Emptying our stock of limited bunker busters
- Unleashing a regional war, because why would Iran accept suing for peace?
- Splitting maga (which I am fine with)
- Republicans were told. Dems were not. Republicans own all the results, good and bad that happens.
The initial exit plan may have been clean. War never is clean.
This I agree: The initial exit plan may have been clean. War never is clean. We will know very soon, what they do. It wont take very long to map their response. It will happen within the next 100 hours.
Mr. Narayan, thank you. As to Merz, I have generally approved of his handling of Ukraine. Same for Europe. This decision to bomb Iran is a mistake.
US handed Putin a potent weapon. US unilaterally and preemptively attacked Iran.
Russia unilaterally and preemptively attacked Ukraine.
I’m not giving Iran any ideas how they might respond. I expect an asymmetric response over the coming weeks and months. Qatar will be badly impacted by closing the Gulf. China buys Iranian oil.
Edit: Excellent European summary by Hans. Don’t believe the coprorate warmongering press, America.
https://open.substack.com/pub/hanschristensen/p/foreign-reactions-to-trumps-attack
Was not discussed in a bipartisan way , so there are still grave problems with what’s occurred… and we’re still dancing to Netanyahu’s music, correct?
I will answer this next saturday. If US steps away from the field and holds active defense, then no, US is not dancing to Nets music. If not, then yes. I can't answer this with what they they did yesterday. It won't be fair. But from here, I absolutely can.
You really believe the message Iranians (and other mid powers) will take from this is that they *don't* need a bomb?
Hell no. The United States has told every country in the world how important is it to get the nukes. They have been sending that message since 2014. Keep watching Poland, they are going to reach for it, and then the pandoras box is going to open.
How do you know these facilities are truly neutralized? And where is the enriched uranium? We still need to secure that, don’t we?
Not yet. The damage has been extensive, that is known. We need to wait for open source reports to confirm this. But I think the fact that US stopped with 12 drops must mean they did hit. They had piled up so much resources, so there was no reason to stop if it did not reach the final floor. I am only talking logic here. Evidence yet to arrive. It will, very soon.
According to We O'Donnell, the entire stockpile of bunker busters equalled around 14. I don't know his source, but find him every bit as reliable as you, Dylan, and Chris.
It is fairly possible. And shows absolutely how stupid the US NSA team has been. Production capacity is closer to 80 units annual, but can you believe I just saw reports that said the orders were never placed for a very long time.
God if I can only interview that Jake Sullivan.
May be not, I think I will lose it.