Israel's missile defense has been, frankly, miraculous. But to have the takeaway from that be that Iran is impotent is simply incorrect. The opening salvo of this war more than decimated Iran's capabilities, that means that before they were firing hundreds and hundreds of missiles, they had the capability to fire thousands and thousands.
Yes, Trump speaks like a moron. But Iran is an evil regime! It wants to destroy America and Israel, and has funded terrorist attacks that has killed thousands. We're winning this war! Why are so many in America and on the left blind to this? Is it just because Trump can't articulate the importance of fertiliser to a farmer?
You aren't even feeling the pain, those of us who need to run to shelters, who have had our lives disrupted, who have actual, concrete immediate and personal reasons to want this war to end, recognise the necessity. Seriously, look at the stance of Middle Eastern countries. The US has willing and eager allies in the region, because Iran, although it has turned out to be a paper tiger, has for years been seen as an actual tiger!
We’re winning the war on the battlefield but we’re losing strategically. We’re not further damaging their nuclear program. The regime has gone from bad to (probably) worse, and we may have inadvertently strengthened them. You’re right that the death toll in Israel is low because of Iron Dome, but that’s all part of the equation — that’s why I don’t consider the missile threat from Iran to be so severe to render a future attack impossible.
Jeff's right -- Iran still has its nuclear material; at worst a lot of it is buried under rubble. Iran has learned that it can close off 10-20% of the world's oil supply and there's close to nothing we can do about it without a land invasion. There still is no political opposition that can take over in the unlikely event that bombing will eliminate the IRGC.
Now the president is threatening war crimes that will make the current government of Iran even more popular than it was within Iran. And these crimes will make us more unpopular in the world, while provoking Iran to launch more missiles at our 'friends' in the middle east. Trump is pretty much out of options short of a limited ground invasion, and a ground invasion will put Americans in a very dangerous place where they can be attacked by Iranian missiles and drones launched from the unoccupied areas of Iran.
And Vietnam wasn't a media loss, it was a real loss. Remember, it started when we decided to help the French reoccupy Vietnam as their colony.
I disagree about the strategic loss. It's a media loss. It's like Vietnam without the American death toll. Obviously the best scenario is that there is regime change, but I don't see how there's any reasonable claim that the regime is stronger now. The Iranian abilities have been degraded, and their big strategic blow is to close the strait of Hormuz (which hurts them as much as everyone else).
It's basically getting into a fight with someone, and they hold a knife to their own throat to get you to back off.
There are reports that the current supreme leader of Iran is in a coma, I don't know if that's true, but it seems pretty damn clear he isn't in an effective leadership role. Iran is losing by any reasonable metric. If the same attacks were happening on the US, or in Israel, or in any western country there would be pleas of surrender. Iran is trying to dictate terms as if they're winning, and it's because they know that (for some reason I really don't get) western news sources are on their side.
But please, and I honestly ask this, what makes this a strategic win for Iran? What would make you think it would be better if the US and Israel swapped places with them (so we would be the ones strategically winning). It makes literally zero sense to me. I see the destruction they're causing, I see the destruction we're causing. Obviously we value life more, so if hurts us every loss of life, but even from a purely pragmatic standard, they've lost centuries of expertise (scientific, militarily, politically), they are in a weaker position relative to the world now then they were in in February. How are they winning?
"Maybe stronger" comes from two factors: 1) The rally-round-the-flag effect, the regime may successfully stand up to the Great and Little Satans, whereas their opposition gets tarred as US/Israeli stooges, and 2) They've identified the exact pressure points to hit in a conflict against the US. Their deterrence doesn't come from missiles and drones; it comes from their ability to close the Strait of Hormuz.
And I'm arguing that this is a strategic loss for the US because we've achieved minimal gains (downgrading of Iran's conventional forces) at substantial cost (many innocent deaths, a possibly-now-tougher-to-dislodge Iranian regime that has a blueprint for how to deter the US, a widened rift between the US and much of the world, especially Europe). Does that amount to a strategic win for Iran? I'm not sure that it has to, because our goals are different. Their primary goal is obviously survival, and we could argue about whether they're more entrenched or less entrenched (I'm arguing "more" but maybe I'm wrong), but the bottom line is that the regime has (so far) survived. Is that a "win" for them? I don't know, but either way it doesn't change the fact that the US is paying substantial costs for very little strategic benefit. And honestly I don't think the cost/benefit analysis is awesome for Israel, either (though a little more favorable because they're within missile range).
I very much value your insights. I don't always agree with your conclusions or assumptions, but I do think you make solid arguments. I also think you have a moral compass that's independent of your political "team". You're the Jon Stewart for those of us who lost faith in Jon Stewart!
I think the US is in a worse position as a consequence of this war, but Iran is in a much worse position. The other Gulf countries have now switched from a position of strategic ambiguity to clear opposition to Iran, and have every reason to build pipelines and other infrastructure so that Hormuz can't be used against them again. And the degree of damage to their military capabilities and prestige is massive.
Something I've been thinking about on the prestige side: it took Israel close to two years after October 7th to directly attack Iran, presumably out of fear for how massively damaging the response would be. At this point it's clear that Iran simply can't produce much damage. A similar attack in the future will likely be met with massive retaliation. Certainly an attack on Israel, but potentially also attacks through proxies on Arab states.
Abandon this idea somehow Iran is strengthened from all of this. Its ludicrious. They essentially have nothing to do any more but drill for oil and oppress and execute their own citizens. The only thing they can do now is hope to not be slaughtered in their hidey holes while waiting for politics in America to change. It makes everything else you say sound in error. The Mullahs continuing to hold on to power is because they have spent five decades degrading and repressing their own citizens so much, that in their gimp like and impotent state they still have more guns then the people on the street.
The whole thing to me underlines how important the second amendment actually is. The gangs of thugs firing into crowds of protestors would be cut to ribbons on any average Chicago city block, to say nothing of somewhere in Alabama where they take AR 15s seriously.
Not saying you're wrong, but the AR-15 brigade always seems like a wash to me in terms of defending liberty. Mostly because at least half of the characters stockpiling serious weapons would be ON the side of the oppressive government if/when it came to that. Second Amendment is important, but realistically the two most effective barriers to authoritarianism are a free press and privacy. And government and media has done everything in their power to undermine both of those bulwarks in recent history.
The problem I have with "we're winning this war" is I legitimately don't know what win condition anyone is talking about. How would you finish these two sentences: we'll know we've won this war when _____. On the other hand, the war should be considered a loss if it ends without us having achieved _____.
The amount of military force required to deny passage is miniscule in comparison to what is required to fight that. Consider, for example, the DC sniper attacks. Would you consider them to be a serious military threat? Yet they succeeded in shutting down a city.
I was trying to learn how Iran is able to keep the straight closed so effectively. It's apparently in part through the use of hundreds (thousands?) of small, inexpensive vessels — speed boats equipped with a mobile rocket launcher, basically. They are too small for our fighters and bombers to engage, too swift for Naval forces to fight effectively. They don't pack much punch, but they are threatening enough to keep captains piloting tankers from moving through. And when we blow one up, it's no big loss to them. Our cost ratio for deployment against these makeshift vessels is like 100:1 in their favor. Iran designed this fleet specifically to thwart our modern, high-cost Navy. Interesting stuff. One standout on our side has been old air tech in the form of helicopters and the famous Warthog, which is a slow-moving prop plane built around a massive auto-cannon. I know nobody asked for this, but I've been dying to tell someone what I read, haha.
Something that bothers me when talking about cost ratio with this strategy: one of the costs of this strategy is that we kill the people on the boats. Same with the missiles and drones: they shoot a 50,000 drone, we shoot it down with a 2 million dollar missile and then blow up the launcher with another 2 million dollar missile. We're down 4 million dollars and they're down 50,000 dollars plus a missile launching crew.
If you look just at the dollars, the strategy is brilliant, but the question is just how many crews there are who are willing to get themselves killed like this and are competent enough to operate the equipment.
That's a great point. I'm no expert, but I think Iran's armed forces number about half the active duty number of the US. Over 600k members if Google is accurate. That's a large pool of bodies, even if only a portion of them are navy. And I suspect one does not easily defect from Iranian armed services.
Regardless, dead husbands and sons are not a good PR strategy for any country, you are correct.
Maybe your worst take ever? Just two points I'll make:
1. Nobody thinks JCPOA was preventing Iran from getting nukes. Why did they need 60% HEU? Only one reason.
2. Their missiles and drones ARE a huge deterrent. Not just for their damage to Israel, but also everyone else in the Gulf including the major oil (and desalinization) infra they could destroy causing untold damage to US and the world. And yes, that deterrent was only getting stronger, and would be a card China could play in a future confrontation too.
There are lots of valid reasons to criticize this war, and even to doubt it, but one shouldn't ignore important facts and context to do so.
Youre right it was. On paper. Seems curious though that they needed to enrich it on their own at all (Would they not have been able to get power grade uranium from almost anywhere else, who decided the mullahs were that trust worthy), and that the moment the deal was abrogated they began enriching and seemed to go whiz bang fast. Almost like once they were able to stop hiding they got right back to it like they planned all along. Then there is the whole thought of why they were allowed to keep heavy water breeder reactors and enrichment centrifuges at all. Of course as well the Iranians were being dicks about inspections and the JCOPA didnt get an agreement to let American inspectors go anywhere at anytime, a major flaw.
Its because the JCOPA should have been a treaty. It suffered from the same flaw the Paris Accord did, which is that Lightbringer, the President With a Pen and a Phone, knew the Senate was never going to ratify either treaty. The decisions to make these handshake deals between the principals was doomed to fail the moment someone came into office in America who didn't like them. The JCOPA was a shitty frame work and was unconstitutional to boot. It committed successive administrations and congresses into binding agreements outside of the clearly spelled out process for signing just those things. The statement "The JCOPA was a rock solid agreement with no issues until Trump came along" requires me to believe in the trustworthy judgment and honorable assurances of Barak Obama, which to put it mildly is a poor foundation for a treaty that isnt a treaty and its long term chances. I would have blown up the JCOPA the moment I took my hand off of the bible for being sworn in. Trump at least took two years to make sure. Sanctions relief for the Iranians? No as well. And certainly not because President Obama wills it to be so.
I didnt vote for President Obama either time, and the thing I got out of the JCOPA was "shut up and trust us and do what we say even when you get a Republican elected".
The definition of deterrent: "a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something." You're a words guy. You know this.
The cost to stopping Iran from getting a nuke was already very high (look at what it has cost us and the President already), and was only going to get higher.
You don't have to pretend that there was no risk here today, and that the risk wasn't likely to grow over time. You can acknowledge that and still be against the war, and you can even be for military action to stop Iran while still being against how it's been handled and/or communicated.
You put your finger on it: I am for military action against Iran in some cases but I am against this particular military action because the cost/benefit ratio is bad. I supported the strike against Iran's nuclear program last year* because it was a major blow to Iran's nuclear program at quite-a-low cost.
* Of course I wished that the JCPOA had survived and rendered the strike unnecessary, but that ship has sailed.
That's a fine argument to make, but it's only a very strong argument if you minimize the risk and cost of inaction which is what I think you did with your essay.
Let's just be honest. We can still blame and hate Trump for ripping up the JCPOA and getting us here, and for how he's handling and communicating this war, but let's not pretend like Iran wasn't getting to a place where the cost to prevent them from getting a nuke wouldn't be exponentially higher (not to mention, again, how costly this theater would potentially be in parallel to an expected confrontation with China).
BTW, let me clarify the first thing I said. When I said your "worst take", what I actually meant was, "as far as I remember, your only really bad take". I'm a big fan. I criticize from a place of respect and admiration.
Jeff said it but I want to reiterate: JCPOA limited Iran to nuclear power grades: 3.67% enriched. Iran enriched uranium further once the US abandoned that framework because Trump hates Obama. And like most of Trump's attempt to show up Obama, Trump's plan sucked much harder.
Why did the JCOPA allow them to keep a single centrifuge at all. How about they can just buy their fuel rods from us at excellent prices? And what did they need breeder reactors for? Those are not nearly as good for power. The JCOPA was designed to be ignored.
I think it's unhelpful to think of this as some sort of spite war by Trump. It limits and biases one's thinking.
Trump has hated the Iranian regime for a very long time. I suspect he would've been against the JCPOA even if it wasn't Obama that signed it, like many others. Many smart and independent analysts didn't trust the JCPOA to actually stop Iran from getting a nuke, it just deferred what was almost certainly inevitable.
I do not believe Trump decided to tear up the JCPOA because of what smart, independant analysts said. In fact, I'd say *not* considering the possibility that he did it out of spite would be limiting one's thinking.
I find your faith quite remarkable, when the man openly said, to take one example, that he increased tariffs because he didn't like the way the "Prime Minister of Switzerland" talked to him.
There were valid criticism made against JCPOA, which I didn't like myself. But at some point, the derangement is refusing to consider that Trump doesn't think his ideas through, not when you point that out.
Even bad people who have lots of bad ideas can sometimes have good ideas or do things that are good (even if they're for both good and bad reasons). If you want to call that faith, go for it.
Also, frankly, Trump is losing this war, which is hardly a great strategic victory. The Iranians can keep the Straight of Hormuz closed with drones, and he's an existential threat to the IRGC, so they're not going to give up.
He can try to invade and hold the south shore of Iran, but our troops would be sitting ducks for drone and missile attacks from the unoccupied areas of Iran.
Maybe Israel will be good with the results of a damaged Iran closing the straights. They were happy to manage Gaza by just periodically bombing the place, and apparently they want the same thing for Iran (though it's 50X larger). But for the rest of the world, this war's been damaging, and if it keeps going, it'll be a disaster.
Please. Trump only cares about what enriches himself, and the only people Trump hates are those who get between him and a payday. I suspect he's fighting this war now because the Saudis dumped billions into his stablecoin venture and because Bibi sold him some fictional story about what a hero he'll be if he takes down Iran.
I bet you that if the Iranians had offered to buy him a jet, none of this would have happened. I suspect that even now they could buy him off.
It's impossible to argue with somebody who is so certain of another person's intent even when there are other valid explanations for their behavior. Literally the definition of TDS.
I'm just looking at Trump's behavior towards Russia and North Korea. And the fact that his cabinet is the biggest bunch of incompetent clowns I've seen in my life. These are not actions of someone who cares about reducing the risk of war - Russia by itself is the greatest thread to peace in Europe in the last 35 years (or 80 if you count the CCCP).
Iran also used the funding secured by the JCPOA to sponsor its terrorist proxies throughout the middle east. Not sure how we were supposed to be fine with that.
I remember back in the early 00s I had a conversation with a Young Republican in which he emphatically insisted that the US actually won the Vietnam War. We didn't lose any major battles, and the other side took more casualties than we did, so how can you say we lost?
I thought it was just a random kooky encounter, but apparently that line of thinking is more prevalent than I thought.
"Rubio has also kvetched (if that’s something a Cuban guy can do) about Iran building missiles that could threaten Europe — if true, then why is Europe so chill about that threat?"
Because they're complacent dolts?
This is not to detract from the primary thesis about Rubio's rationale for the war, but Europe's strategic track record in my lifetime is not one demonstrating any foresight whatsoever towards even near-term threats.
Sure, now that USA slowly backing away from the conflict has put some fear into them. But it took them so long to even get off the Russian oil teat... and they actually still aren't entirely.
Also not true. This is another one of Trump‘s little fantasies. The European Union has been contributing to the Ukrainian defense from the very beginning,, and the total amount spent by the European Union is slightly higher than that spent by the US. Paul Krugman wrote a whole article on this with all the statistics in it.
All of the negative responses to Jeff presuppose the mistaken belief that somebody must be winning this war. The fact that Iran is now much worse off does not mean that the United States is better off.
The sensible thing to do would have been to provide arms to the Iranian resistance movements, who then would have overthrown this government, which was so unpopular it was on the verge of toppling. Now thousands of those resistance fighters have had their homes destroyed and their relatives killed, so they will naturally rally around the government they were about to overthrow. That is a huge loss for the United States. Arguably a defeat for Iran to endure so much destruction, but a huge win for the people who are currently running Iran, and we're about to be overthrown.
Thank you, yes, this is so important. War is very often, maybe usually, negative-sum. There's no ref that will eventually declare that we've won and we get to reap the benefits of that. We can blow up as much stuff in Iran as we like without it being a "win," if we aren't better off than we would have been otherwise.
Why is it natural that they will rally around the government? Iranian resistance were supportive of this war, and provided tons of intel on the ground. To assume that thousands of protestors will suddenly change sides and support the (even more extreme military) government because of the war is insane.
Do you have anything to support your theory that people who were protesting against the regime will switch to supporting it, other than your theory of mind?
Others have covered objections I would have made, so I'll just say I don't think peace was ever in the cards. The reason Israel and USA aren't both radioactive ruins right now is that Iran didn't have the power to make that happen. But the will was always there. These are the "our official slogan is Death To America The Great Satan and go on camera saying we wake up thinking of how to destroy Israel" guys. In the abstract, a war with Iran was always a good idea that needed to happen at some point - ideally causing regime change, otherwise just mowing the lawn until it has to be done again.
Geopolitics watchers get too used to thinking about what the rational course of action is and forget what it means to deal with someone who is a true fanatic and not merely prone to temporary foolishness.
My main objection to the war is that Iran was not literally weeks away from a Bomb. USA could have waited about 3 months and then we'd be well out of planting season for staple crops, instead of screwing with the fertilizer supplies worldwide.
It's unclear why Israel insisted on this timing. Netanyahu has attempted to blame Mossad but one doesn't generally think of those guys as incompetent.
I disagree that we weren't deterred. It was a massive factor on the "don't do it" side of the calculation. It just wasn't sufficient (particularly after it was shown that they weren't as capable of fending off air attacks as we previously thought they were, see my "paper tiger" comment above).
You can even kind of start to see Venezuela as a test run. They had the same sort of Chinese and Russian derived military equipment and once the Maduro raid proved it was junk, the planning for Iran probably kicked into high gear (that is close to when the carrier groups started to deploy).
Venezuela keeps being brought up, including by the administration, as an example of a great success. I think it illustrates the limits of declaring a winner in war.
Yes, Trump got exactly what he wanted, but neither the people of the US nor the people of Venezuela have received any benefit from the Maduro kidnapping.
Right out of the gate, Operation Super Awesome had a higher civilian death count for the target country. That cost has only grown over time and been added to US military casualties. And unlike in Venezuela where the cost- benefit to the US home front is basically a wash, everything got - as it was always going to with this action - more expensive.
Venezuela gave Trump what he wanted and benefited no one else. If Trump had gotten exactly what he wanted in Iran, no one else would've continued to get no benefit. And that best-case scenario has long passed.
I am still amazed we have people who thing the JCOPA was working. They repeatedly thwarted inspectors and enriched the uranium for higher grade than was necessary. That was before we left the agreement. Please tell me if that is not true, it is an honest question. I don't know the right answer, but I think we would have come to this at some point with or without the agreement.
In addition, they had plenty of uranium for power, but had no plans or beginning of construction for nuclear power plants. They were just busy enriching uranium beyond what was needed for an 'extra powerful' nuclear plant, I guess.
Honest question: When would be the time to bomb their nuclear facilities again?
Jeff, you're forgetting that America's military strategy since Iraq has been "Unlimited air strikes, but never never ever ever any 'boots on the ground.'" You have to keep that in mind to really understand the context of what Marco is saying when he says Iran's missiles and drones would be impenetrable in the near future. A Middle Eastern ground invasion by the US is supposedly so politically unpalatable to American citizens, that the current airstrikes-only campaign is really just kicking Iran's nuclear program down the road so that again in a few years, Iran will be only 2 weeks away from having a nuke.
There is another motivation for Iran wanting to have a nuclear bomb which no one in the west ever seems to consider Yes, the fanatics currently running the country probably want to bring down the apocalypse on the infidels. But after this last American barrage, most Iranians of all stripes are probably thinking "if we had a nuclear bomb, the US would never dare do this to us". After all, that's the only reason they haven't attacked North Korea." So thanks to Trump, we have eliminated the possible future in which Iran realizes the sensible thing to do would be to give up nuclear ambitions. That future was the most likely aftermath of the popular support that was rebelling against Iranian fundamentalism.
It’s one thing to know, intellectually, that if you don’t have a nuclear bomb, the United States can destroy your country anytime they want to. It’s another thing to actually have it happened to you.
unfortunately, thanks to Trump, even if we got a new progressive regime that overthrew the fundamentalists, that regime would still have good reason to think they would be safer if they had a nuclear bomb.
Jeff, gotta agree with Erez and Shaun. You are terrific, but this piece is not good because your conclusions are drawn on assertions that lack context.
Of course this is an incompetent and untrustworthy administration. But stuff still happens in the world between Jan 2025 and Jan 2029. The Iranian regime slaughtered tens of thousands of protesters in January. They have single-handedly been destabilizing the Middle East for decades.
I don’t know how this will turn out, but neither do you. Way too early to draw conclusions that the regime is going to be stronger and worse. No evidence for your claims. All speculation by experts biased against any military intervention, any unilateral US application of force, and basically anything the Dump Administration does.
Can I pose you the same question I posed Shaun above? What would you consider a win in this war? What goal are we fighting towards? From your mention of the slaughtered protesters, I am guessing that anything short of regime change would be a failure—but am I wrong about that?
Yes regime change is all I want. But it may not happen as quickly as I would hope we all would like. If the active War ends and then a year later the regime falls I would think the war was a success? Yeah, unless the historians can prove that it would have happened anyway in about the same time frame.
I won’t call it a failure if it ends without regime change until enough time has passed and we see evidence that the effort made things worse: A stronger more fanatical regime with continuation of their proxy wars and return of their ballistic missile and nuclear programs.
Not 100% sure that each is abolute, so no. Regime change MIGHT occur without US ground troops, but easier to see with ground troops. And there is overwhelming political pressure not to send troops. But Trump is certainly not predictable. I’m no military expert, but the regime change requires Revolution on the part of the local population. Intelligence will play a huge role. Helping an opposition with arms and air support might be enough. Would he ever send troops in? One thing he ought not due is rule it out publicly. The threat should be there. Would Israel send in troops? I wouldn’t rule that out.
We'll see what happens. However, if I were someone who hoped Trump would go all-in for regime change, I would be concerned about how a) he's stopped suggesting that anything like that is a war goal, b) he's repeatedly said that the regime has already been changed.
That is using analogues. Not direct evidence. Just because our intervention in Iraq did not go well, does not automatically mean this won’t. Iran was a big force behind the insurgency in Iraq. They’ve been behind Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. Toppling this regime could have tremendous benefits for many people living in failed states throughout the region.
I think an argument of "the best case for war with Iran is that it's a bad idea" is saying that war with Iran must necessarily be off the table.
So many things suck about this war. Bush presented his case to Congress, to the UN, to the American people, Congress authorized it, and there was even an intervening election to give the people a chance to say "no way José." Trump thought he would get another decapitation strike and then everything would work out, and it didn't, and now we're close to an extended boots-on-the-ground scenario.
So, this whole thing is dumb. But war with Iran is an idea well within the Overton window.
That combined with Trump trying to extricate himself. I’m not saying anything’s resolved, but “we’re winning” is clearly premature—there’s no sign we’re ever going to have a Vicksburg moment.
The smart money is to look at Ukraine and see how war is evolving into stalemate on the ground, and that it illustrates how modern weapons platforms-a fancy term for ships and aircraft-are now quite vulnerable to drone strikes. This is important as we are not able to replace them quickly and efficiently. The war in Iran is an attempt, by the administration (think warfighters) to disprove this, only to reinforce (and that includes our military) the belief that technology is, once again, rapidly changing the face of war.
Rubio always has Mr. House face from Fallout: New Vegas. It works for House because he's a genius and also basically a cyborg. Rubio looks better when he's in May The Earth Swallow Me Whole mode like during the Zelenskyy meeting.
Douthat had one of those DC Iran Policy Think Tank Hawk's on his show basically spinning this same story. It's a really old tail that has always had pull in DC, not something Trump made up.
The problem is it's stupid. Like who cares. I don't care if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. Pakistan and NK have nuclear weapons. They haven't used them. I'm not going to war over this.
The key phrase of my first paragraph is “the day you have the means to destroy them”. Once they have the nuclear weapon , they have the means. You now how small Israel is, right? One nuclear missile would wipe it into oblivion. They would use it. It’s not about deterrence. Mutually assured destruction does not apply. They chant death to Israel. They have a clock in public square in Tehran counting down to the 2040 annihiliation of Israel.
You should be able to understand that Israel does not feel comfortable with this regime continuing on the path to a nuclear weapon. That they will continue to use military means to stop it.
Hmm. Pakistan has them to maintain deterrence with India. I don’t think Israel, Europe and the US worry that much about Pakistani aggression and nuttiness. It’s a less than ideal democracy, but a democracy nonetheless. Worth being concerned.
North Korea on the other hand should worry you. But their military posture has always been about self preservation. Not ideology.
Iran is different. They are organized around a crazy we can’t lose ideology if Muqawana. You should worry very much about them with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.
This is the most obviously wrong take of them all. The Iranian regime is all about survive-at-all-costs. If they want to be martyred, why didn't they actually try to kill Americans when we took out Soleimani, to take just one example?
There is a difference between being martyred and Muqawama. Muqawama is resistance. Survival to fight the next day is victory. No peace. No deterrence. No living with the other side. Just live to be there the day you have the means to destroy them.
If they had nuclear weapons with their ballistic missile capabilities they will use them in a first strike against Israel.
No, they won’t. And your first paragraph says why. If they dropped a nuke on Israel, they would be obliterated and would have failed to destroy Israel. So if they have a nuke they’ll use it to help them stay alive and in power. Maybe they’ll tell themselves that they’re waiting until they can finally, really, truly destroy Israel. But they like being in power like every dictatorship does, so they’ll keep putting off the millennial moment.
You know how chemical weapons are considered off-limits because they're simply too cruel, even in war? Let's go ahead and put any references to Trump's scrotum in that category, could we?
Israel's missile defense has been, frankly, miraculous. But to have the takeaway from that be that Iran is impotent is simply incorrect. The opening salvo of this war more than decimated Iran's capabilities, that means that before they were firing hundreds and hundreds of missiles, they had the capability to fire thousands and thousands.
Yes, Trump speaks like a moron. But Iran is an evil regime! It wants to destroy America and Israel, and has funded terrorist attacks that has killed thousands. We're winning this war! Why are so many in America and on the left blind to this? Is it just because Trump can't articulate the importance of fertiliser to a farmer?
You aren't even feeling the pain, those of us who need to run to shelters, who have had our lives disrupted, who have actual, concrete immediate and personal reasons to want this war to end, recognise the necessity. Seriously, look at the stance of Middle Eastern countries. The US has willing and eager allies in the region, because Iran, although it has turned out to be a paper tiger, has for years been seen as an actual tiger!
We’re winning the war on the battlefield but we’re losing strategically. We’re not further damaging their nuclear program. The regime has gone from bad to (probably) worse, and we may have inadvertently strengthened them. You’re right that the death toll in Israel is low because of Iron Dome, but that’s all part of the equation — that’s why I don’t consider the missile threat from Iran to be so severe to render a future attack impossible.
Jeff's right -- Iran still has its nuclear material; at worst a lot of it is buried under rubble. Iran has learned that it can close off 10-20% of the world's oil supply and there's close to nothing we can do about it without a land invasion. There still is no political opposition that can take over in the unlikely event that bombing will eliminate the IRGC.
Now the president is threatening war crimes that will make the current government of Iran even more popular than it was within Iran. And these crimes will make us more unpopular in the world, while provoking Iran to launch more missiles at our 'friends' in the middle east. Trump is pretty much out of options short of a limited ground invasion, and a ground invasion will put Americans in a very dangerous place where they can be attacked by Iranian missiles and drones launched from the unoccupied areas of Iran.
And Vietnam wasn't a media loss, it was a real loss. Remember, it started when we decided to help the French reoccupy Vietnam as their colony.
I disagree about the strategic loss. It's a media loss. It's like Vietnam without the American death toll. Obviously the best scenario is that there is regime change, but I don't see how there's any reasonable claim that the regime is stronger now. The Iranian abilities have been degraded, and their big strategic blow is to close the strait of Hormuz (which hurts them as much as everyone else).
It's basically getting into a fight with someone, and they hold a knife to their own throat to get you to back off.
There are reports that the current supreme leader of Iran is in a coma, I don't know if that's true, but it seems pretty damn clear he isn't in an effective leadership role. Iran is losing by any reasonable metric. If the same attacks were happening on the US, or in Israel, or in any western country there would be pleas of surrender. Iran is trying to dictate terms as if they're winning, and it's because they know that (for some reason I really don't get) western news sources are on their side.
But please, and I honestly ask this, what makes this a strategic win for Iran? What would make you think it would be better if the US and Israel swapped places with them (so we would be the ones strategically winning). It makes literally zero sense to me. I see the destruction they're causing, I see the destruction we're causing. Obviously we value life more, so if hurts us every loss of life, but even from a purely pragmatic standard, they've lost centuries of expertise (scientific, militarily, politically), they are in a weaker position relative to the world now then they were in in February. How are they winning?
My claim is that the regime is probably worse and maybe stronger, so let me defend that.
"Probably worse" comes from reports that Khamenei Jr. is more of a hard-liner than his dad. And also from reports that there was virtually no chance he would have been elevated to Ayatollah if not for the way that his 86 year-old father died (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/17/podcasts/the-daily/irans-new-supreme-leader-mojtaba-khamenei.html).
"Maybe stronger" comes from two factors: 1) The rally-round-the-flag effect, the regime may successfully stand up to the Great and Little Satans, whereas their opposition gets tarred as US/Israeli stooges, and 2) They've identified the exact pressure points to hit in a conflict against the US. Their deterrence doesn't come from missiles and drones; it comes from their ability to close the Strait of Hormuz.
And I'm arguing that this is a strategic loss for the US because we've achieved minimal gains (downgrading of Iran's conventional forces) at substantial cost (many innocent deaths, a possibly-now-tougher-to-dislodge Iranian regime that has a blueprint for how to deter the US, a widened rift between the US and much of the world, especially Europe). Does that amount to a strategic win for Iran? I'm not sure that it has to, because our goals are different. Their primary goal is obviously survival, and we could argue about whether they're more entrenched or less entrenched (I'm arguing "more" but maybe I'm wrong), but the bottom line is that the regime has (so far) survived. Is that a "win" for them? I don't know, but either way it doesn't change the fact that the US is paying substantial costs for very little strategic benefit. And honestly I don't think the cost/benefit analysis is awesome for Israel, either (though a little more favorable because they're within missile range).
Let me add one more thing: You're a valued reader, Shaun, and have been for a long time, and I'm happy to have these discussions.
I very much value your insights. I don't always agree with your conclusions or assumptions, but I do think you make solid arguments. I also think you have a moral compass that's independent of your political "team". You're the Jon Stewart for those of us who lost faith in Jon Stewart!
I think the US is in a worse position as a consequence of this war, but Iran is in a much worse position. The other Gulf countries have now switched from a position of strategic ambiguity to clear opposition to Iran, and have every reason to build pipelines and other infrastructure so that Hormuz can't be used against them again. And the degree of damage to their military capabilities and prestige is massive.
Something I've been thinking about on the prestige side: it took Israel close to two years after October 7th to directly attack Iran, presumably out of fear for how massively damaging the response would be. At this point it's clear that Iran simply can't produce much damage. A similar attack in the future will likely be met with massive retaliation. Certainly an attack on Israel, but potentially also attacks through proxies on Arab states.
it is a strategic win bc they can hold those straits hostage
Abandon this idea somehow Iran is strengthened from all of this. Its ludicrious. They essentially have nothing to do any more but drill for oil and oppress and execute their own citizens. The only thing they can do now is hope to not be slaughtered in their hidey holes while waiting for politics in America to change. It makes everything else you say sound in error. The Mullahs continuing to hold on to power is because they have spent five decades degrading and repressing their own citizens so much, that in their gimp like and impotent state they still have more guns then the people on the street.
The whole thing to me underlines how important the second amendment actually is. The gangs of thugs firing into crowds of protestors would be cut to ribbons on any average Chicago city block, to say nothing of somewhere in Alabama where they take AR 15s seriously.
Not saying you're wrong, but the AR-15 brigade always seems like a wash to me in terms of defending liberty. Mostly because at least half of the characters stockpiling serious weapons would be ON the side of the oppressive government if/when it came to that. Second Amendment is important, but realistically the two most effective barriers to authoritarianism are a free press and privacy. And government and media has done everything in their power to undermine both of those bulwarks in recent history.
The problem I have with "we're winning this war" is I legitimately don't know what win condition anyone is talking about. How would you finish these two sentences: we'll know we've won this war when _____. On the other hand, the war should be considered a loss if it ends without us having achieved _____.
A paper tiger is keeping the Strait closed?
Yes.
The amount of military force required to deny passage is miniscule in comparison to what is required to fight that. Consider, for example, the DC sniper attacks. Would you consider them to be a serious military threat? Yet they succeeded in shutting down a city.
I also wouldn't call the DC sniper a paper tiger.
I was trying to learn how Iran is able to keep the straight closed so effectively. It's apparently in part through the use of hundreds (thousands?) of small, inexpensive vessels — speed boats equipped with a mobile rocket launcher, basically. They are too small for our fighters and bombers to engage, too swift for Naval forces to fight effectively. They don't pack much punch, but they are threatening enough to keep captains piloting tankers from moving through. And when we blow one up, it's no big loss to them. Our cost ratio for deployment against these makeshift vessels is like 100:1 in their favor. Iran designed this fleet specifically to thwart our modern, high-cost Navy. Interesting stuff. One standout on our side has been old air tech in the form of helicopters and the famous Warthog, which is a slow-moving prop plane built around a massive auto-cannon. I know nobody asked for this, but I've been dying to tell someone what I read, haha.
Something that bothers me when talking about cost ratio with this strategy: one of the costs of this strategy is that we kill the people on the boats. Same with the missiles and drones: they shoot a 50,000 drone, we shoot it down with a 2 million dollar missile and then blow up the launcher with another 2 million dollar missile. We're down 4 million dollars and they're down 50,000 dollars plus a missile launching crew.
If you look just at the dollars, the strategy is brilliant, but the question is just how many crews there are who are willing to get themselves killed like this and are competent enough to operate the equipment.
That's a great point. I'm no expert, but I think Iran's armed forces number about half the active duty number of the US. Over 600k members if Google is accurate. That's a large pool of bodies, even if only a portion of them are navy. And I suspect one does not easily defect from Iranian armed services.
Regardless, dead husbands and sons are not a good PR strategy for any country, you are correct.
Maybe your worst take ever? Just two points I'll make:
1. Nobody thinks JCPOA was preventing Iran from getting nukes. Why did they need 60% HEU? Only one reason.
2. Their missiles and drones ARE a huge deterrent. Not just for their damage to Israel, but also everyone else in the Gulf including the major oil (and desalinization) infra they could destroy causing untold damage to US and the world. And yes, that deterrent was only getting stronger, and would be a card China could play in a future confrontation too.
There are lots of valid reasons to criticize this war, and even to doubt it, but one shouldn't ignore important facts and context to do so.
1. Enrichment under the JCPOA was limited to 3.67%;
2. Their missiles and drones were obviously not a deterrent because we were not deterred.
Youre right it was. On paper. Seems curious though that they needed to enrich it on their own at all (Would they not have been able to get power grade uranium from almost anywhere else, who decided the mullahs were that trust worthy), and that the moment the deal was abrogated they began enriching and seemed to go whiz bang fast. Almost like once they were able to stop hiding they got right back to it like they planned all along. Then there is the whole thought of why they were allowed to keep heavy water breeder reactors and enrichment centrifuges at all. Of course as well the Iranians were being dicks about inspections and the JCOPA didnt get an agreement to let American inspectors go anywhere at anytime, a major flaw.
Its because the JCOPA should have been a treaty. It suffered from the same flaw the Paris Accord did, which is that Lightbringer, the President With a Pen and a Phone, knew the Senate was never going to ratify either treaty. The decisions to make these handshake deals between the principals was doomed to fail the moment someone came into office in America who didn't like them. The JCOPA was a shitty frame work and was unconstitutional to boot. It committed successive administrations and congresses into binding agreements outside of the clearly spelled out process for signing just those things. The statement "The JCOPA was a rock solid agreement with no issues until Trump came along" requires me to believe in the trustworthy judgment and honorable assurances of Barak Obama, which to put it mildly is a poor foundation for a treaty that isnt a treaty and its long term chances. I would have blown up the JCOPA the moment I took my hand off of the bible for being sworn in. Trump at least took two years to make sure. Sanctions relief for the Iranians? No as well. And certainly not because President Obama wills it to be so.
I didnt vote for President Obama either time, and the thing I got out of the JCOPA was "shut up and trust us and do what we say even when you get a Republican elected".
Haha.
The definition of deterrent: "a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something." You're a words guy. You know this.
The cost to stopping Iran from getting a nuke was already very high (look at what it has cost us and the President already), and was only going to get higher.
You don't have to pretend that there was no risk here today, and that the risk wasn't likely to grow over time. You can acknowledge that and still be against the war, and you can even be for military action to stop Iran while still being against how it's been handled and/or communicated.
You put your finger on it: I am for military action against Iran in some cases but I am against this particular military action because the cost/benefit ratio is bad. I supported the strike against Iran's nuclear program last year* because it was a major blow to Iran's nuclear program at quite-a-low cost.
* Of course I wished that the JCPOA had survived and rendered the strike unnecessary, but that ship has sailed.
That's a fine argument to make, but it's only a very strong argument if you minimize the risk and cost of inaction which is what I think you did with your essay.
Let's just be honest. We can still blame and hate Trump for ripping up the JCPOA and getting us here, and for how he's handling and communicating this war, but let's not pretend like Iran wasn't getting to a place where the cost to prevent them from getting a nuke wouldn't be exponentially higher (not to mention, again, how costly this theater would potentially be in parallel to an expected confrontation with China).
BTW, let me clarify the first thing I said. When I said your "worst take", what I actually meant was, "as far as I remember, your only really bad take". I'm a big fan. I criticize from a place of respect and admiration.
Jeff said it but I want to reiterate: JCPOA limited Iran to nuclear power grades: 3.67% enriched. Iran enriched uranium further once the US abandoned that framework because Trump hates Obama. And like most of Trump's attempt to show up Obama, Trump's plan sucked much harder.
Why did the JCOPA allow them to keep a single centrifuge at all. How about they can just buy their fuel rods from us at excellent prices? And what did they need breeder reactors for? Those are not nearly as good for power. The JCOPA was designed to be ignored.
I think it's unhelpful to think of this as some sort of spite war by Trump. It limits and biases one's thinking.
Trump has hated the Iranian regime for a very long time. I suspect he would've been against the JCPOA even if it wasn't Obama that signed it, like many others. Many smart and independent analysts didn't trust the JCPOA to actually stop Iran from getting a nuke, it just deferred what was almost certainly inevitable.
I do not believe Trump decided to tear up the JCPOA because of what smart, independant analysts said. In fact, I'd say *not* considering the possibility that he did it out of spite would be limiting one's thinking.
If you can only explain something with "because Trump is bad" when there are other valid explanations, that's a sign of TDS.
I don't dismiss Trump doing things because of his personality defects, but I don't attribute everything he does to them.
I find your faith quite remarkable, when the man openly said, to take one example, that he increased tariffs because he didn't like the way the "Prime Minister of Switzerland" talked to him.
There were valid criticism made against JCPOA, which I didn't like myself. But at some point, the derangement is refusing to consider that Trump doesn't think his ideas through, not when you point that out.
Even bad people who have lots of bad ideas can sometimes have good ideas or do things that are good (even if they're for both good and bad reasons). If you want to call that faith, go for it.
Also, frankly, Trump is losing this war, which is hardly a great strategic victory. The Iranians can keep the Straight of Hormuz closed with drones, and he's an existential threat to the IRGC, so they're not going to give up.
He can try to invade and hold the south shore of Iran, but our troops would be sitting ducks for drone and missile attacks from the unoccupied areas of Iran.
Maybe Israel will be good with the results of a damaged Iran closing the straights. They were happy to manage Gaza by just periodically bombing the place, and apparently they want the same thing for Iran (though it's 50X larger). But for the rest of the world, this war's been damaging, and if it keeps going, it'll be a disaster.
Please. Trump only cares about what enriches himself, and the only people Trump hates are those who get between him and a payday. I suspect he's fighting this war now because the Saudis dumped billions into his stablecoin venture and because Bibi sold him some fictional story about what a hero he'll be if he takes down Iran.
I bet you that if the Iranians had offered to buy him a jet, none of this would have happened. I suspect that even now they could buy him off.
It's impossible to argue with somebody who is so certain of another person's intent even when there are other valid explanations for their behavior. Literally the definition of TDS.
I'm just looking at Trump's behavior towards Russia and North Korea. And the fact that his cabinet is the biggest bunch of incompetent clowns I've seen in my life. These are not actions of someone who cares about reducing the risk of war - Russia by itself is the greatest thread to peace in Europe in the last 35 years (or 80 if you count the CCCP).
Iran also used the funding secured by the JCPOA to sponsor its terrorist proxies throughout the middle east. Not sure how we were supposed to be fine with that.
I remember back in the early 00s I had a conversation with a Young Republican in which he emphatically insisted that the US actually won the Vietnam War. We didn't lose any major battles, and the other side took more casualties than we did, so how can you say we lost?
I thought it was just a random kooky encounter, but apparently that line of thinking is more prevalent than I thought.
"Rubio has also kvetched (if that’s something a Cuban guy can do) about Iran building missiles that could threaten Europe — if true, then why is Europe so chill about that threat?"
Because they're complacent dolts?
This is not to detract from the primary thesis about Rubio's rationale for the war, but Europe's strategic track record in my lifetime is not one demonstrating any foresight whatsoever towards even near-term threats.
Look at Russia and Ukraine. Europe's stance has basically been "America, why aren't you fixing this".
That's just not true. The European union has contributed more money to the Ukrainian war effort than the United States has.
Sure, now that USA slowly backing away from the conflict has put some fear into them. But it took them so long to even get off the Russian oil teat... and they actually still aren't entirely.
Also not true. This is another one of Trump‘s little fantasies. The European Union has been contributing to the Ukrainian defense from the very beginning,, and the total amount spent by the European Union is slightly higher than that spent by the US. Paul Krugman wrote a whole article on this with all the statistics in it.
As well they should, seeing as a hostile and expanded Russia is considerably more of a threat to, say, Germany, than it is to the United States.
As well, they should, and they are.
All of the negative responses to Jeff presuppose the mistaken belief that somebody must be winning this war. The fact that Iran is now much worse off does not mean that the United States is better off.
The sensible thing to do would have been to provide arms to the Iranian resistance movements, who then would have overthrown this government, which was so unpopular it was on the verge of toppling. Now thousands of those resistance fighters have had their homes destroyed and their relatives killed, so they will naturally rally around the government they were about to overthrow. That is a huge loss for the United States. Arguably a defeat for Iran to endure so much destruction, but a huge win for the people who are currently running Iran, and we're about to be overthrown.
Thank you, yes, this is so important. War is very often, maybe usually, negative-sum. There's no ref that will eventually declare that we've won and we get to reap the benefits of that. We can blow up as much stuff in Iran as we like without it being a "win," if we aren't better off than we would have been otherwise.
It’s almost like there was no net good outcome.
And no real plan.
And no real reason to do this for the last 30 years.
There is a reason they fired all of their top Iranian advisors.
Why is it natural that they will rally around the government? Iranian resistance were supportive of this war, and provided tons of intel on the ground. To assume that thousands of protestors will suddenly change sides and support the (even more extreme military) government because of the war is insane.
“Iranian resistance were supportive of this war, and provided tons of intel on the ground.” do you have some links to back that up?
Do you have anything to support your theory that people who were protesting against the regime will switch to supporting it, other than your theory of mind?
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603128475
https://youtube.com/shorts/WeA-icoPa4U?si=NhnaqGAQ1TxcK1ta
Others have covered objections I would have made, so I'll just say I don't think peace was ever in the cards. The reason Israel and USA aren't both radioactive ruins right now is that Iran didn't have the power to make that happen. But the will was always there. These are the "our official slogan is Death To America The Great Satan and go on camera saying we wake up thinking of how to destroy Israel" guys. In the abstract, a war with Iran was always a good idea that needed to happen at some point - ideally causing regime change, otherwise just mowing the lawn until it has to be done again.
Geopolitics watchers get too used to thinking about what the rational course of action is and forget what it means to deal with someone who is a true fanatic and not merely prone to temporary foolishness.
My main objection to the war is that Iran was not literally weeks away from a Bomb. USA could have waited about 3 months and then we'd be well out of planting season for staple crops, instead of screwing with the fertilizer supplies worldwide.
It's unclear why Israel insisted on this timing. Netanyahu has attempted to blame Mossad but one doesn't generally think of those guys as incompetent.
I disagree that we weren't deterred. It was a massive factor on the "don't do it" side of the calculation. It just wasn't sufficient (particularly after it was shown that they weren't as capable of fending off air attacks as we previously thought they were, see my "paper tiger" comment above).
You can even kind of start to see Venezuela as a test run. They had the same sort of Chinese and Russian derived military equipment and once the Maduro raid proved it was junk, the planning for Iran probably kicked into high gear (that is close to when the carrier groups started to deploy).
Venezuela keeps being brought up, including by the administration, as an example of a great success. I think it illustrates the limits of declaring a winner in war.
Yes, Trump got exactly what he wanted, but neither the people of the US nor the people of Venezuela have received any benefit from the Maduro kidnapping.
Right out of the gate, Operation Super Awesome had a higher civilian death count for the target country. That cost has only grown over time and been added to US military casualties. And unlike in Venezuela where the cost- benefit to the US home front is basically a wash, everything got - as it was always going to with this action - more expensive.
Venezuela gave Trump what he wanted and benefited no one else. If Trump had gotten exactly what he wanted in Iran, no one else would've continued to get no benefit. And that best-case scenario has long passed.
I am still amazed we have people who thing the JCOPA was working. They repeatedly thwarted inspectors and enriched the uranium for higher grade than was necessary. That was before we left the agreement. Please tell me if that is not true, it is an honest question. I don't know the right answer, but I think we would have come to this at some point with or without the agreement.
In addition, they had plenty of uranium for power, but had no plans or beginning of construction for nuclear power plants. They were just busy enriching uranium beyond what was needed for an 'extra powerful' nuclear plant, I guess.
Honest question: When would be the time to bomb their nuclear facilities again?
Jeff, you're forgetting that America's military strategy since Iraq has been "Unlimited air strikes, but never never ever ever any 'boots on the ground.'" You have to keep that in mind to really understand the context of what Marco is saying when he says Iran's missiles and drones would be impenetrable in the near future. A Middle Eastern ground invasion by the US is supposedly so politically unpalatable to American citizens, that the current airstrikes-only campaign is really just kicking Iran's nuclear program down the road so that again in a few years, Iran will be only 2 weeks away from having a nuke.
There is another motivation for Iran wanting to have a nuclear bomb which no one in the west ever seems to consider Yes, the fanatics currently running the country probably want to bring down the apocalypse on the infidels. But after this last American barrage, most Iranians of all stripes are probably thinking "if we had a nuclear bomb, the US would never dare do this to us". After all, that's the only reason they haven't attacked North Korea." So thanks to Trump, we have eliminated the possible future in which Iran realizes the sensible thing to do would be to give up nuclear ambitions. That future was the most likely aftermath of the popular support that was rebelling against Iranian fundamentalism.
They were already thinking this, though? North Korea exists.
Yes but Trump has produced compelling evidence that this is true--evidence that literally gets the Iranians where they live.
What evidence? Actually, what are you even talking about right now?
It’s one thing to know, intellectually, that if you don’t have a nuclear bomb, the United States can destroy your country anytime they want to. It’s another thing to actually have it happened to you.
I don’t think you can speak for Iranians of all stripes. Plenty of evidence that the majority of Iranians despise the regime.
unfortunately, thanks to Trump, even if we got a new progressive regime that overthrew the fundamentalists, that regime would still have good reason to think they would be safer if they had a nuclear bomb.
Jeff, gotta agree with Erez and Shaun. You are terrific, but this piece is not good because your conclusions are drawn on assertions that lack context.
Of course this is an incompetent and untrustworthy administration. But stuff still happens in the world between Jan 2025 and Jan 2029. The Iranian regime slaughtered tens of thousands of protesters in January. They have single-handedly been destabilizing the Middle East for decades.
I don’t know how this will turn out, but neither do you. Way too early to draw conclusions that the regime is going to be stronger and worse. No evidence for your claims. All speculation by experts biased against any military intervention, any unilateral US application of force, and basically anything the Dump Administration does.
Can I pose you the same question I posed Shaun above? What would you consider a win in this war? What goal are we fighting towards? From your mention of the slaughtered protesters, I am guessing that anything short of regime change would be a failure—but am I wrong about that?
Yes regime change is all I want. But it may not happen as quickly as I would hope we all would like. If the active War ends and then a year later the regime falls I would think the war was a success? Yeah, unless the historians can prove that it would have happened anyway in about the same time frame.
I won’t call it a failure if it ends without regime change until enough time has passed and we see evidence that the effort made things worse: A stronger more fanatical regime with continuation of their proxy wars and return of their ballistic missile and nuclear programs.
Here are two things I believe:
1) regime change is not going to happen unless we commit ground troops.
2) Trump is not going to commit ground troops.
Do you disagree with either of these?
Not 100% sure that each is abolute, so no. Regime change MIGHT occur without US ground troops, but easier to see with ground troops. And there is overwhelming political pressure not to send troops. But Trump is certainly not predictable. I’m no military expert, but the regime change requires Revolution on the part of the local population. Intelligence will play a huge role. Helping an opposition with arms and air support might be enough. Would he ever send troops in? One thing he ought not due is rule it out publicly. The threat should be there. Would Israel send in troops? I wouldn’t rule that out.
Well, I agree that when it comes to whether the Iranian people might engage in revolution, intelligence will play a huge role. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/22/us/politics/iran-israel-trump-netanyahu-mossad.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ZFA.CYOR.Po-T34-2KVGB&smid=url-share
We'll see what happens. However, if I were someone who hoped Trump would go all-in for regime change, I would be concerned about how a) he's stopped suggesting that anything like that is a war goal, b) he's repeatedly said that the regime has already been changed.
Just want to point out the Administration seems to be floating the trial balloon that they’ve now won the war and can stop: https://x.com/KellieMeyerNews/status/2041665182498263537#m
Obviously we don’t know if that’s what will happen, but it seems worth noting.
"No evidence for your claims."
I mean, there's a lot of evidence in the form of all other Middle East interventions.
That is using analogues. Not direct evidence. Just because our intervention in Iraq did not go well, does not automatically mean this won’t. Iran was a big force behind the insurgency in Iraq. They’ve been behind Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. Toppling this regime could have tremendous benefits for many people living in failed states throughout the region.
It would! We don't appear to be any closer to toppling this regime, though.
What would being closer look like on April 7? I guess I’m saying how do you know we aren’t closer?
I think an argument of "the best case for war with Iran is that it's a bad idea" is saying that war with Iran must necessarily be off the table.
So many things suck about this war. Bush presented his case to Congress, to the UN, to the American people, Congress authorized it, and there was even an intervening election to give the people a chance to say "no way José." Trump thought he would get another decapitation strike and then everything would work out, and it didn't, and now we're close to an extended boots-on-the-ground scenario.
So, this whole thing is dumb. But war with Iran is an idea well within the Overton window.
When you say 'we' are winning the war, who are you speaking about? I'm quite sure it is NOT the people of the US.
We means the US and Israel. But I also generally broaden it to include western civilisations fight against Islamic terrorism.
Isn't terrorism keeping the strait closed right now? So if we're winning against terrorism, why is the strait closed?
You, in May 1863--"If we're winning against the Confederacy, why is the Mississippi River still closed?"
Don't get me wrong, there's still plenty of opportunity for things to go pear-shaped, but calm down a little.
Seen today's newspaper?
Which item, Iran breaking the cease-fire and closing the strait again?
That combined with Trump trying to extricate himself. I’m not saying anything’s resolved, but “we’re winning” is clearly premature—there’s no sign we’re ever going to have a Vicksburg moment.
The smart money is to look at Ukraine and see how war is evolving into stalemate on the ground, and that it illustrates how modern weapons platforms-a fancy term for ships and aircraft-are now quite vulnerable to drone strikes. This is important as we are not able to replace them quickly and efficiently. The war in Iran is an attempt, by the administration (think warfighters) to disprove this, only to reinforce (and that includes our military) the belief that technology is, once again, rapidly changing the face of war.
Rubio always has Mr. House face from Fallout: New Vegas. It works for House because he's a genius and also basically a cyborg. Rubio looks better when he's in May The Earth Swallow Me Whole mode like during the Zelenskyy meeting.
Douthat had one of those DC Iran Policy Think Tank Hawk's on his show basically spinning this same story. It's a really old tail that has always had pull in DC, not something Trump made up.
The problem is it's stupid. Like who cares. I don't care if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. Pakistan and NK have nuclear weapons. They haven't used them. I'm not going to war over this.
The key phrase of my first paragraph is “the day you have the means to destroy them”. Once they have the nuclear weapon , they have the means. You now how small Israel is, right? One nuclear missile would wipe it into oblivion. They would use it. It’s not about deterrence. Mutually assured destruction does not apply. They chant death to Israel. They have a clock in public square in Tehran counting down to the 2040 annihiliation of Israel.
You should be able to understand that Israel does not feel comfortable with this regime continuing on the path to a nuclear weapon. That they will continue to use military means to stop it.
America isn’t Israel.
Do me a favor and write down on a piece of paper:
—how many square miles you think Israel is
—what you think the radius of destruction of a nuclear bomb is
And then look it up, and tell me what you find.
Hmm. Pakistan has them to maintain deterrence with India. I don’t think Israel, Europe and the US worry that much about Pakistani aggression and nuttiness. It’s a less than ideal democracy, but a democracy nonetheless. Worth being concerned.
North Korea on the other hand should worry you. But their military posture has always been about self preservation. Not ideology.
Iran is different. They are organized around a crazy we can’t lose ideology if Muqawana. You should worry very much about them with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.
This is the most obviously wrong take of them all. The Iranian regime is all about survive-at-all-costs. If they want to be martyred, why didn't they actually try to kill Americans when we took out Soleimani, to take just one example?
There is a difference between being martyred and Muqawama. Muqawama is resistance. Survival to fight the next day is victory. No peace. No deterrence. No living with the other side. Just live to be there the day you have the means to destroy them.
If they had nuclear weapons with their ballistic missile capabilities they will use them in a first strike against Israel.
No, they won’t. And your first paragraph says why. If they dropped a nuke on Israel, they would be obliterated and would have failed to destroy Israel. So if they have a nuke they’ll use it to help them stay alive and in power. Maybe they’ll tell themselves that they’re waiting until they can finally, really, truly destroy Israel. But they like being in power like every dictatorship does, so they’ll keep putting off the millennial moment.
You know how chemical weapons are considered off-limits because they're simply too cruel, even in war? Let's go ahead and put any references to Trump's scrotum in that category, could we?