As your scenarios make clear, it is perhaps one of the clearest examples of exquisite tactics completely misaligned to strategic outcomes. Even in the best scenario the Iranian political will to seek the bomb is strengthened.
Sure, a US bombing campaign might devastate the nuclear infrastructure, but it does nothing to dampen the strategic imperative of Iran to seek a nuclear weapon for its security. There's absolutely no thought about political objective or endgame here. What a fucking joke.
I see what you are getting at, though I think permanently destroying the will for a bomb is an unrealistic scenario. Its delaying it as long as possible--which is why regime change might be the key part of the best case scenario
But why, Steve, is it a strategic necessity for Iran to have the bomb? No one is or has threatened the regime since Saddam invaded in 1980, and (thanks to the “little Satan”) he didn’t have the bomb either. And remember, the ayatollahs vehemently deny they are pursuing nuclear weapons (yeah, I know). Which raises the slim possibility of a lasting deal: Iran truly does abandon its pursuit of the bomb; it is included in a regional civil nuclear power “club” (the UAE is already building 1-2 nukes with a Korean design and contractors without a peep from anyone); it abandons its crusade against Israel; it abandons its mischief in its surrounding states and its arming of proxies; sanctions are lifted; aid and encouragement re-engage Iran into the family of nations: truly, peace through prosperity…the regime claims The Win, and survives. Trump will get the Nobel Peace Prize (thereby lancing that boil in his mind about Obama) but first, he will have to put Bibi back in his kennel. Do I think he can do it? NO, because it would take extraordinary skill and temperament, and sustained attention by him and a top team, none of which he has.
You're leaving out the part where Israel ran an unprovoked attack on civilian sites in Iran. That's why it's a strategic necessity for Iran to have a nuclear deterrent.
There could be a deal if Netanyahu would stop his unprovoked attacks on EVERYONE, but he won't, or if Netanyahu is removed.
It is not a strategic necessity for anyone to have nuclear weapons. The more there are, and the more widespread their distribution the higher the risk of a nuclear war.
Anyone who believes that nuclear weapons can be used without disastrous consequences is either profoundly ignorant or stupid.
What worries me the most after reading Robert Kaplan’s article in TheAtlantic is that war time presidents traditionally wield, and misuse, enormous power. Not that trump needs more excuses and made up “emergencies “ to continue demolishing what’s left of constitutional democracy and rule of law, but it doesn’t take much imagination to predict what this regime will do with a terror attack on US soil.
We are there, but the capstone will be the iron fist response to the almost inevitable terror attack that will crush all dissent. I smell the reichstag burning
The Dems should introduce a bill titled PUT TRUMP ON MOUNT RUSHMORE!!! Praise Trump on many pages, create a commission to study the feasibility of adding him, and also insert some fine print providing plenty of aid to Ukraine.
Trump was already not doing anything for Ukraine (although diversion of anti-UAV weapons now has a solid explanation that has nothing to do with Ukraine - Iranian UAV strikes on US installations in the Middle East are now indeed quite possible). Unless there's indeed some quid pro quo, Putin would be well advised to be more careful now, especially with hitting civilian targets. Trump's not very happy that Putin won't let him boast of ending the war in Ukraine. Selling a lot of weapons to Ukraine would reduce trade deficits, increase manufacturing exports and create jobs for Trump voters. Parts of MAGA that may be unhappy about that are already unhappy about bombing Iran. So if Putin does not actually have complete control over Trump...
On what grounds do you assert that Trump has “disobeyed Putin's order”?
For Russia, it’s a matter of economic life or death that the world market price for oil must increase. That objective is achieved by an escalating US-Iran conflict impacting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
On Trump's birthday Putin called Trump and told him the war against Iran needed to end. Moreover, Trump said he agreed. Iran's is Putin's only remaining ally in the Middle East, as well as one of only suppliers of weapons. All that is surely worth more to him than a bit higher oil price.
I was surprised by Trump bombing these nuclear sites precisely because Putin and other Russian officials were against it. That and the “two week” stated deadline for a decision as Trump always says that and then does nothing, hoping people will forget about whatever plan he had in mind.
Nevertheless I suspect putin doesn’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. He prefers his allies to be dependent on him. I bet trump advised him about his decision and putin said ok, but you know my official response will be against it.
Yes, objectively Putin should not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. But he really, REALLY hates American world order. And nuclear Iran would be a huge blow to it.
It's all very well for the Americans to say they are not at war with Iran and they only intend to go after the nuclear program. But what matters is whether Iran sees itself as now at war with America and if so how Iran chooses to go about that.
It is very conceivable that Iran does think it's at war with the US but will first concentrate on regime survival before deciding how best to strike back. Presumably it will do so in an asymetrical way and will probably want to give priority to Israel.
All told we won't know if America has started a war for some time - my guess is a very long time. I would want many months to pass before deciding that Iran has decided not to strike back.
I’d expect Iran to have the capability to effectively close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers. That’d raise the world market prices for oil, causing price increases in the US that hurt Trump domestically.
What could the US do against that with limited costs and risks?
“It is very conceivable that Iran does think it's at war with the US but will first concentrate on regime survival before deciding how best to strike back. Presumably it will do so in an asymetrical way and will probably want to give priority to Israel. “
And the above has been true since 1979. So what has really changed because of the bombing, other than the apparent ruination of the nuclear sites?
The US waged war on Iran starting in 1953, and you should never forget it. Until the US admits that it started this by overthrowing the elected government of Iran, the US is the aggressor state.
Is it a war if not sanctioned by Congress or is it a criminal enterprise, worthy of impeachment ( not that this would be a runner in any real or practical sense, given what appears to an outsider as the abandonment of the rule of law)? There's so much of this crap now that its impossible to gauge the madness.
There's been plenty of precedent of bomb/missile strikes. Besides, after 9/11 the Congress authorized military force against anyone involved in terrorism against the US, and it's still in force. So there's at least non-frivolous legal argument.
I keep reminding my Dem friends about Obama’s bombing of Libya in 2011 without any sort of Congressional approval. There are other examples of presidential military action of course.
Indeed they will call for repeal of various statutes giving the president extraordinary powers so long as they are a minority, but once in power all that will be forgotten. No different from their counterparts.
Yes, it's bipartisan. It has already turned out that the Dems exaggerate the extent to which Trump did not tell them in advance. He actually told Schumer, and apparently they could not get hold of Jeffries.
The idea that it's unconstitutional does seem odd to me. And, of course, Congress does have ways of putting a stop to it, which it will not dream of using.
Iran and Russia have become allies in recent years.
Russian scientists were in Iran helping develop the nuclear program.
Iran was warned and had plenty of time to relocate assets.
I'm not buying any of the "official" statements coming from Trump.
Two things I am pretty sure of: Iran will use this attack to expedite arming themselves with nuclear weapons, in hopes of obtaining a defensive deterrent to attack, similar to North Korea.
Also, Trump will heighten terrorist threat levels domestically, so he can further eliminate individual rights and freedom, and move towards a state of emergency to enact martial law.
Interesting--my guess is that Putin is so focussed on Ukraine (it really is his be all and end all) that he will only help Iran in ways that will serve him there.
Putin will probably express verbal support and condemnation of US aggression. I doubt he has military resources to spare. So much of what’s going on feels like political theatre scripted by Trump, Putin and Netanyahu.
I'm still very pessimistic about the US position on Ukraine, Europe, NATO and Taiwan. But has there been any shift in who has the greatest influence on Trump? He did something that Tucker Carlson was very clearly strongly opposed to. I imagine that Vance was not enthused either (he did not look happy standing next to Trump during the TV address on Saturday night). Given how much Trump hates disloyalty, will Carlson ever have a lot of influence? Putin talked to Trump just a week before the strike and was unable to talk him out of it. Is there any chance Trump will be less deferential to him on other issues, especially given that Tucker has been Putin's biggest booster in Trump's orbit?
You actually see a very similar form of mental gymnastics happen in the cryptocurrency sphere - a lot of the very rich people getting involved in crypto aren't doing it to get back at the VCs and Wall Street (or solve the issues of 'global banking'), it's so THEY can be the VCs and the alternative to Wall Street that get to call the shots.
As to the war itself, there are two things that worry me:
1) Trump has basically committed an illegal act by ignoring the Constitution (again), which isn't good for the short or long-term health of American politics or for what I will generously call 'the international rule of law' since a lot of staes will see Trump committing an act of war without Congress approving it and think 'well, if the Yanks can get away with it...'
2) How will NATO and Europe respond to the prospect of a new intervention in the Middle East? As you have rightly pointed out, a lot of European thinking is rooted in trying to appease the unappeasable, either doing what Trump wants or just hoping that he'll see reason. Getting involved in another war is just as unpopular in Europe as in the US itself, but if war breaks out, what will Europe and NATO do?
Is Europe supine as they are intent on mollifying Trump or because they agree with his military actions against these nuclear sites in Iran? I would think European powers would be happy to see Iran’s nuclear program decimated also. Aren’t these military actions in Europe’s interest also? “Silence equals consent?”
Yes, remember that Chancellor Merz thanked the Israelis (before the US bombing) for “doing the dirty work for us “. Since the US bombing, it is worthy of note that European leaders have called for “restraint” and “returning to the negotiating table” but have stopped short of condemning the US action.
My thoughts as well. Several Israeli bloggers have called out that hypocrisy, condemning Israel but privately thanking them for doing the dirty work for the west.
It certainly is that. If you dig into some of the rhetoric of crypto, you'll find a lot of people hoping to get super rich and stick it to the VCs and the super-rich (who are already rigging the system in their favour)
It certainly seems like it, but I'm curious if you think they'll follow Trump into war and how much assistance they might offer, especially if Scenarios 2 or 3 become the direction the war takes.
For what it’s worth, I’m reading that many political VC’s embrace the ideology of global “spheres of influence” or “power states”, and support Russia’s devouring of Ukraine, Eastern Europe and eventually all of Europe. The US would be entitled to North America (Canada, Greenland and more), and China gets Southeast Asia. All ruled by a so-called Network state (as opposed to Nation state) autocrats. A crypto/AI utopia. Costly wars would be eliminated by virtue of the ruler’s ability to crush dissent.
I think it's vanishingly unlikely that UK (which is where I am from) will get involved unless it were directly attacked. The current Labour government got a lot of electoral blowback for being insufficiently critical of Israel's actions in Gaza. They will see joining these attacks as absolute electoral suicide. I think France will also be very reluctant.
Between the blowback over Israel's action in Gaza and the ever-present memory of the last Labour government leading the public into an unpopular war for flimsy reasons at best and outright lies at worst, following Trump into a war with Iran would probably kill Starmer's government quicker than any disagreement over welfare cuts or immigration.
I remember thinking before February 2022 that it would be very out of character for Putin to launch a full scale invasion of anywhere. It seemed like the main argument against it happening (though I still thought it would). And... how things happened...
I think that Trump was probably misinformed by advisors who miscalculated, overestimating their own ability to predict what would happen and to ensure that the US has a clean off-ramp from the hostilities, so that the US would be dropping some bombs and landing a propaganda coup, making Trump look strong and allowing him to get back to the work of implementing fascist authoritarianism in the US, while much public attention is directed elsewhere.
I noticed that he has hailed the attack on Fordow as a bullseye etc and I wonder if, in the event it is assessed as not 100% successful, he will refuse to admit it and won't allow a follow-up attack and just keep saying "Fordow is gone."
None of this would happen if Trump were president! Oh, wait.
He may have just bailed out his bestie Putin. We'll have to see how Iran responds, and how oil markets react. But if we see USD 100/barrel oil this summer it will be Christmas in Moscow.
Phillips, what do you see as the implications for the international system?
Do you think the UN as we know is moribund, given its "global protector" now no longer even thinks it needs the veneer of a UN resolution to interevene?
Putting aside Israel, US strikes on Iran seem to be strikes me as either a crime of aggression at worst or a complete rejection of the prohibition on the use of force in the UN Charter at best
So, the League of Nations, founded in hope after WW1, failed to stop WW2 and was disbanded. The UN, founded in 1945 has, as you say, now become irrelevant. Notwithstanding the terrible thought that we might be on the verge of WW3, will there ever again be a forum where all countries can talk, however futile it might be? Or will we go back to the 'balance of power' scenario arising out of the Congress of Vienna?
Well, the League of Nations was never as universal as the UN: the US never joined and the protagonists of WW2, Germany, Italy, Japan and Spain all left in the 1930s. It was Roosevelt who persuaded Stalin to go along with his idea of the UN at the end of WW2, no country has left and many have joined.
It may appear at a low ebb at the moment and irrelevant to the current global situation, especially as two major powers in the SC have openly flouted international law, but the SG’s statement about the US bombing was widely reported (in the European press at least) and one is reminded of Winston Churchill’s famous quip “Jaw jaw is better than war war”. One shouldn’t rush to judge this and other international organisations simply because Trump can’t abide them.
The UN has to kick out the "permanent members of the Security Council" in order to become functional and relevant again. This will probably happen. Ukraine has already presented the legal argument that the USSR seat is vacant and Russia should not legally have it. If the US collapses, the same argument can be used for the US.
I'm no war scholar so this comment is more question than reply. Is there a school of thought which sees the US/Western Powers wars in the ME in the same frame as, say, the Crusades?
In that frame, the destruction (implosion) of the Ottoman Empire was the first step of a process which is ongoing today.
As an American my frame by education in such matters is very short term. Persians, no doubt, view things differently.
I am no expert either, but maybe it's better to see Iran as Central Asian, like Afghanistan (much of which speaks Persian). The Mongol hordes loom much larger in their history than the Crusades. Iran never became a western colony, but has suffered repeated humiliations at the hands of Russia, Britain, the USA and now Israel. These are national, not only religious, humiliations, though no doubt Shia Islam enhances the sense that the world is morally upside down, the good man was killed, the evil triumphed. For the revolutionaries in '79, the USA was the Great Satan, Britain the Little Satan - that was the thanks they got for imposing 'regime change' and the hated Shah in 1953!
Yes, Persia has a long history of anti Western resistance and in some cases dominance. Alexander conquered them. Rome on occasion had control but on other occasions were soundly defeated. Emperor Valerian comes to mind.
A few corrections if I may.
The majority of Persians speak Farsi. Afghans speak Pashto and Dari and many other languages.
More recently, when Iran nationalized the Anglo Persian Oil Co. the CIA overthrew the gov’t of Mosaddegh and installed the Shah.
Indeed, the humiliations never amounted to full colonisation. My Farsi/Persian teacher in the UK, who is Iranian (I didn't get that far with the language) used both terms interchangeably, though she called the class 'Persian'. I believe Dari is the Afghan form of the language, though I'm open to correction.
As with "special forces", I don't see how "small numbers of ground forces" can work, even with air supremacy. No matter how many fighters you have in the sky, ground forces have to be delivered by helicopters (or similar), which can be destroyed by one guy with an RPG launcher.
As your scenarios make clear, it is perhaps one of the clearest examples of exquisite tactics completely misaligned to strategic outcomes. Even in the best scenario the Iranian political will to seek the bomb is strengthened.
Sure, a US bombing campaign might devastate the nuclear infrastructure, but it does nothing to dampen the strategic imperative of Iran to seek a nuclear weapon for its security. There's absolutely no thought about political objective or endgame here. What a fucking joke.
I see what you are getting at, though I think permanently destroying the will for a bomb is an unrealistic scenario. Its delaying it as long as possible--which is why regime change might be the key part of the best case scenario
But why, Steve, is it a strategic necessity for Iran to have the bomb? No one is or has threatened the regime since Saddam invaded in 1980, and (thanks to the “little Satan”) he didn’t have the bomb either. And remember, the ayatollahs vehemently deny they are pursuing nuclear weapons (yeah, I know). Which raises the slim possibility of a lasting deal: Iran truly does abandon its pursuit of the bomb; it is included in a regional civil nuclear power “club” (the UAE is already building 1-2 nukes with a Korean design and contractors without a peep from anyone); it abandons its crusade against Israel; it abandons its mischief in its surrounding states and its arming of proxies; sanctions are lifted; aid and encouragement re-engage Iran into the family of nations: truly, peace through prosperity…the regime claims The Win, and survives. Trump will get the Nobel Peace Prize (thereby lancing that boil in his mind about Obama) but first, he will have to put Bibi back in his kennel. Do I think he can do it? NO, because it would take extraordinary skill and temperament, and sustained attention by him and a top team, none of which he has.
Source for the UAE assertion? Inquiring minds would like to know.
It’s called the Barakah plant, 5600MW total, two of which 1400MW each are already operating. Try Google, it’s not that hard.
When you wrote "nukes" I interpreted it as a reference to weapons, not power plants. An occupational hazard I suppose. Sorry to have offended.
Incidentally the reactors of which you write are ill-adapted to bomb material production. Were they FBRs it would be entirely different.
You're leaving out the part where Israel ran an unprovoked attack on civilian sites in Iran. That's why it's a strategic necessity for Iran to have a nuclear deterrent.
There could be a deal if Netanyahu would stop his unprovoked attacks on EVERYONE, but he won't, or if Netanyahu is removed.
It is not a strategic necessity for anyone to have nuclear weapons. The more there are, and the more widespread their distribution the higher the risk of a nuclear war.
Anyone who believes that nuclear weapons can be used without disastrous consequences is either profoundly ignorant or stupid.
What worries me the most after reading Robert Kaplan’s article in TheAtlantic is that war time presidents traditionally wield, and misuse, enormous power. Not that trump needs more excuses and made up “emergencies “ to continue demolishing what’s left of constitutional democracy and rule of law, but it doesn’t take much imagination to predict what this regime will do with a terror attack on US soil.
Good point--though Trump is already taking onto himself the powers of a wartime president--so we might already be there
We are there, but the capstone will be the iron fist response to the almost inevitable terror attack that will crush all dissent. I smell the reichstag burning
Or in the alternative we have already seen this movie before with Bibi.
I guess the short war fallacy is so common, because no one would aim to start an long war
Its amazing how often leaders get that wrong though!
Groups who will start a long war intentionally:
- people defending their homes
- people defending their culture
- people defending their religion
- people trying to convert other people to their religion
- people trying to steal land
Oh, but the first few are defenders against aggressors. Those religious zealots and land grabbers do not care the costs because they do not pay them.
1914 anybody?
The Dems should introduce a bill titled PUT TRUMP ON MOUNT RUSHMORE!!! Praise Trump on many pages, create a commission to study the feasibility of adding him, and also insert some fine print providing plenty of aid to Ukraine.
;)
those mountains already have an orange-ish hue at dusk and dawn. This is meant to be.
I like the way you think ;)
Now that Trump has disobeyed Putin's order, will Putin make any adjustments to his Ukraine strategy?
Maybe there is a quid pro quo--Trump does a quick bombing of Iran, and Putin gets Trump to screw Ukraine even more (which seems to be happening)
Trump was already not doing anything for Ukraine (although diversion of anti-UAV weapons now has a solid explanation that has nothing to do with Ukraine - Iranian UAV strikes on US installations in the Middle East are now indeed quite possible). Unless there's indeed some quid pro quo, Putin would be well advised to be more careful now, especially with hitting civilian targets. Trump's not very happy that Putin won't let him boast of ending the war in Ukraine. Selling a lot of weapons to Ukraine would reduce trade deficits, increase manufacturing exports and create jobs for Trump voters. Parts of MAGA that may be unhappy about that are already unhappy about bombing Iran. So if Putin does not actually have complete control over Trump...
All good points, but trump doesn’t seem capable of any longterm calculus for the country’s well-being. Only his own fortune.
Remember that Putin is not at War with Ukraine, but with Ukraine's existence program.
Indeed he is
On what grounds do you assert that Trump has “disobeyed Putin's order”?
For Russia, it’s a matter of economic life or death that the world market price for oil must increase. That objective is achieved by an escalating US-Iran conflict impacting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
On Trump's birthday Putin called Trump and told him the war against Iran needed to end. Moreover, Trump said he agreed. Iran's is Putin's only remaining ally in the Middle East, as well as one of only suppliers of weapons. All that is surely worth more to him than a bit higher oil price.
I was surprised by Trump bombing these nuclear sites precisely because Putin and other Russian officials were against it. That and the “two week” stated deadline for a decision as Trump always says that and then does nothing, hoping people will forget about whatever plan he had in mind.
Me too.
It's reported that Trump was unhappy that Netanyahu looked macho on Fox News and Trump wanted to look macho too.
This is the level of thinking we're dealing with on the US side. Oy.
Nevertheless I suspect putin doesn’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. He prefers his allies to be dependent on him. I bet trump advised him about his decision and putin said ok, but you know my official response will be against it.
Yes, objectively Putin should not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. But he really, REALLY hates American world order. And nuclear Iran would be a huge blow to it.
It's all very well for the Americans to say they are not at war with Iran and they only intend to go after the nuclear program. But what matters is whether Iran sees itself as now at war with America and if so how Iran chooses to go about that.
It is very conceivable that Iran does think it's at war with the US but will first concentrate on regime survival before deciding how best to strike back. Presumably it will do so in an asymetrical way and will probably want to give priority to Israel.
All told we won't know if America has started a war for some time - my guess is a very long time. I would want many months to pass before deciding that Iran has decided not to strike back.
The impact of all this on the Iranian people is so important--and I certainly do not feel expert enough to make any predictions
I’d expect Iran to have the capability to effectively close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers. That’d raise the world market prices for oil, causing price increases in the US that hurt Trump domestically.
What could the US do against that with limited costs and risks?
Will protect against the virulent Iranian Theocracy regardless. Time has marched forward.
“It is very conceivable that Iran does think it's at war with the US but will first concentrate on regime survival before deciding how best to strike back. Presumably it will do so in an asymetrical way and will probably want to give priority to Israel. “
And the above has been true since 1979. So what has really changed because of the bombing, other than the apparent ruination of the nuclear sites?
The US waged war on Iran starting in 1953, and you should never forget it. Until the US admits that it started this by overthrowing the elected government of Iran, the US is the aggressor state.
Is it a war if not sanctioned by Congress or is it a criminal enterprise, worthy of impeachment ( not that this would be a runner in any real or practical sense, given what appears to an outsider as the abandonment of the rule of law)? There's so much of this crap now that its impossible to gauge the madness.
Interesting point--how the War Powers Act works into this
There's been plenty of precedent of bomb/missile strikes. Besides, after 9/11 the Congress authorized military force against anyone involved in terrorism against the US, and it's still in force. So there's at least non-frivolous legal argument.
I keep reminding my Dem friends about Obama’s bombing of Libya in 2011 without any sort of Congressional approval. There are other examples of presidential military action of course.
Indeed they will call for repeal of various statutes giving the president extraordinary powers so long as they are a minority, but once in power all that will be forgotten. No different from their counterparts.
Yup. That is exactly my point.
Yes, it's bipartisan. It has already turned out that the Dems exaggerate the extent to which Trump did not tell them in advance. He actually told Schumer, and apparently they could not get hold of Jeffries.
Schumer and Jeffries were glaringly silent the week before the strikes also. “Silence equals consent?”
Maybe.
The idea that it's unconstitutional does seem odd to me. And, of course, Congress does have ways of putting a stop to it, which it will not dream of using.
Trump is in bed with Putin. Period.
Iran and Russia have become allies in recent years.
Russian scientists were in Iran helping develop the nuclear program.
Iran was warned and had plenty of time to relocate assets.
I'm not buying any of the "official" statements coming from Trump.
Two things I am pretty sure of: Iran will use this attack to expedite arming themselves with nuclear weapons, in hopes of obtaining a defensive deterrent to attack, similar to North Korea.
Also, Trump will heighten terrorist threat levels domestically, so he can further eliminate individual rights and freedom, and move towards a state of emergency to enact martial law.
Interesting--my guess is that Putin is so focussed on Ukraine (it really is his be all and end all) that he will only help Iran in ways that will serve him there.
Putin will probably express verbal support and condemnation of US aggression. I doubt he has military resources to spare. So much of what’s going on feels like political theatre scripted by Trump, Putin and Netanyahu.
In that context:
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-iran-2672418689/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLGkbxleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFWOExqMjJIODFoRWpWbU55AR6p1Y_fQN3HnIRP6zZ-TNhyIBFwhQ10EWg5SrSMXN9MEdN0b4TlYXuBt5k1vA_aem_AXKLi_7o0ElgeDUnmZP0dw
The attacks on Qatar appear to have been literally scripted.
I'm still very pessimistic about the US position on Ukraine, Europe, NATO and Taiwan. But has there been any shift in who has the greatest influence on Trump? He did something that Tucker Carlson was very clearly strongly opposed to. I imagine that Vance was not enthused either (he did not look happy standing next to Trump during the TV address on Saturday night). Given how much Trump hates disloyalty, will Carlson ever have a lot of influence? Putin talked to Trump just a week before the strike and was unable to talk him out of it. Is there any chance Trump will be less deferential to him on other issues, especially given that Tucker has been Putin's biggest booster in Trump's orbit?
Carlson certainly revealed the limits of his power. It might be that Trump is now feeling his oats and will listen to no one....
Now that’s a truly frightening prospect.
Not necessarily, considering who he's been listening to until now.
We can only hope…
You actually see a very similar form of mental gymnastics happen in the cryptocurrency sphere - a lot of the very rich people getting involved in crypto aren't doing it to get back at the VCs and Wall Street (or solve the issues of 'global banking'), it's so THEY can be the VCs and the alternative to Wall Street that get to call the shots.
As to the war itself, there are two things that worry me:
1) Trump has basically committed an illegal act by ignoring the Constitution (again), which isn't good for the short or long-term health of American politics or for what I will generously call 'the international rule of law' since a lot of staes will see Trump committing an act of war without Congress approving it and think 'well, if the Yanks can get away with it...'
2) How will NATO and Europe respond to the prospect of a new intervention in the Middle East? As you have rightly pointed out, a lot of European thinking is rooted in trying to appease the unappeasable, either doing what Trump wants or just hoping that he'll see reason. Getting involved in another war is just as unpopular in Europe as in the US itself, but if war breaks out, what will Europe and NATO do?
Interesting analogy--my general view is crypto is a pyramid scheme, so works well for Trump.
So far Europe seems pretty supine on this.
Is Europe supine as they are intent on mollifying Trump or because they agree with his military actions against these nuclear sites in Iran? I would think European powers would be happy to see Iran’s nuclear program decimated also. Aren’t these military actions in Europe’s interest also? “Silence equals consent?”
Yes, remember that Chancellor Merz thanked the Israelis (before the US bombing) for “doing the dirty work for us “. Since the US bombing, it is worthy of note that European leaders have called for “restraint” and “returning to the negotiating table” but have stopped short of condemning the US action.
Yes! Thanks for reminding me of Merz’s comments that Israel was doing the “dirty work “ for them. Exactly.
My thoughts as well. Several Israeli bloggers have called out that hypocrisy, condemning Israel but privately thanking them for doing the dirty work for the west.
It certainly is that. If you dig into some of the rhetoric of crypto, you'll find a lot of people hoping to get super rich and stick it to the VCs and the super-rich (who are already rigging the system in their favour)
It certainly seems like it, but I'm curious if you think they'll follow Trump into war and how much assistance they might offer, especially if Scenarios 2 or 3 become the direction the war takes.
For what it’s worth, I’m reading that many political VC’s embrace the ideology of global “spheres of influence” or “power states”, and support Russia’s devouring of Ukraine, Eastern Europe and eventually all of Europe. The US would be entitled to North America (Canada, Greenland and more), and China gets Southeast Asia. All ruled by a so-called Network state (as opposed to Nation state) autocrats. A crypto/AI utopia. Costly wars would be eliminated by virtue of the ruler’s ability to crush dissent.
I think it's vanishingly unlikely that UK (which is where I am from) will get involved unless it were directly attacked. The current Labour government got a lot of electoral blowback for being insufficiently critical of Israel's actions in Gaza. They will see joining these attacks as absolute electoral suicide. I think France will also be very reluctant.
Between the blowback over Israel's action in Gaza and the ever-present memory of the last Labour government leading the public into an unpopular war for flimsy reasons at best and outright lies at worst, following Trump into a war with Iran would probably kill Starmer's government quicker than any disagreement over welfare cuts or immigration.
So he'll back it then?
I remember thinking before February 2022 that it would be very out of character for Putin to launch a full scale invasion of anywhere. It seemed like the main argument against it happening (though I still thought it would). And... how things happened...
Policy makers are often irrational--its why thinking all states have the same interests is nuts
I think that Trump was probably misinformed by advisors who miscalculated, overestimating their own ability to predict what would happen and to ensure that the US has a clean off-ramp from the hostilities, so that the US would be dropping some bombs and landing a propaganda coup, making Trump look strong and allowing him to get back to the work of implementing fascist authoritarianism in the US, while much public attention is directed elsewhere.
Though knowing Trump, he might wash his hands of the whole mess and try to end it even without achieving success--declare victory and go home
I noticed that he has hailed the attack on Fordow as a bullseye etc and I wonder if, in the event it is assessed as not 100% successful, he will refuse to admit it and won't allow a follow-up attack and just keep saying "Fordow is gone."
Then the focus onto Mers, Macron, Stairmer….becomes even more important.
None of this would happen if Trump were president! Oh, wait.
He may have just bailed out his bestie Putin. We'll have to see how Iran responds, and how oil markets react. But if we see USD 100/barrel oil this summer it will be Christmas in Moscow.
Phillips, what do you see as the implications for the international system?
Do you think the UN as we know is moribund, given its "global protector" now no longer even thinks it needs the veneer of a UN resolution to interevene?
Putting aside Israel, US strikes on Iran seem to be strikes me as either a crime of aggression at worst or a complete rejection of the prohibition on the use of force in the UN Charter at best
I think the UN is pretty much irrelevant these days
So, the League of Nations, founded in hope after WW1, failed to stop WW2 and was disbanded. The UN, founded in 1945 has, as you say, now become irrelevant. Notwithstanding the terrible thought that we might be on the verge of WW3, will there ever again be a forum where all countries can talk, however futile it might be? Or will we go back to the 'balance of power' scenario arising out of the Congress of Vienna?
Well, the League of Nations was never as universal as the UN: the US never joined and the protagonists of WW2, Germany, Italy, Japan and Spain all left in the 1930s. It was Roosevelt who persuaded Stalin to go along with his idea of the UN at the end of WW2, no country has left and many have joined.
It may appear at a low ebb at the moment and irrelevant to the current global situation, especially as two major powers in the SC have openly flouted international law, but the SG’s statement about the US bombing was widely reported (in the European press at least) and one is reminded of Winston Churchill’s famous quip “Jaw jaw is better than war war”. One shouldn’t rush to judge this and other international organisations simply because Trump can’t abide them.
The UN has to kick out the "permanent members of the Security Council" in order to become functional and relevant again. This will probably happen. Ukraine has already presented the legal argument that the USSR seat is vacant and Russia should not legally have it. If the US collapses, the same argument can be used for the US.
Alas, like the moribund League of Nations in the 1930s.....still full of hopes and dreams.
Yup.
I'm no war scholar so this comment is more question than reply. Is there a school of thought which sees the US/Western Powers wars in the ME in the same frame as, say, the Crusades?
In that frame, the destruction (implosion) of the Ottoman Empire was the first step of a process which is ongoing today.
As an American my frame by education in such matters is very short term. Persians, no doubt, view things differently.
Im sure there is that school of thought somehwere--it was very controversial in the War on Terror
Operation Endless Crusade
I am no expert either, but maybe it's better to see Iran as Central Asian, like Afghanistan (much of which speaks Persian). The Mongol hordes loom much larger in their history than the Crusades. Iran never became a western colony, but has suffered repeated humiliations at the hands of Russia, Britain, the USA and now Israel. These are national, not only religious, humiliations, though no doubt Shia Islam enhances the sense that the world is morally upside down, the good man was killed, the evil triumphed. For the revolutionaries in '79, the USA was the Great Satan, Britain the Little Satan - that was the thanks they got for imposing 'regime change' and the hated Shah in 1953!
Yes, Persia has a long history of anti Western resistance and in some cases dominance. Alexander conquered them. Rome on occasion had control but on other occasions were soundly defeated. Emperor Valerian comes to mind.
A few corrections if I may.
The majority of Persians speak Farsi. Afghans speak Pashto and Dari and many other languages.
More recently, when Iran nationalized the Anglo Persian Oil Co. the CIA overthrew the gov’t of Mosaddegh and installed the Shah.
Let’s call that a satrapy, not a colony.
Indeed, the humiliations never amounted to full colonisation. My Farsi/Persian teacher in the UK, who is Iranian (I didn't get that far with the language) used both terms interchangeably, though she called the class 'Persian'. I believe Dari is the Afghan form of the language, though I'm open to correction.
As with "special forces", I don't see how "small numbers of ground forces" can work, even with air supremacy. No matter how many fighters you have in the sky, ground forces have to be delivered by helicopters (or similar), which can be destroyed by one guy with an RPG launcher.
Not saying it will work--just trying to outline realistic policy scenarios. It could go belly up