I would argue that trump did TACO, as be backed down from his campaign promise and from the urgings of his rabid pack of idiots and did the (hopefully) right thing.
No negociating, just send the bombers. Very non-MAGA...
Hey Claire - my (10 year old) daughter and I will be in Paris next month. Can we come and stay with you? Kidding - we have a hotel :) But if you want to meet for a coffee send me a message! I promise I am not weird. We're only in the city for one night and our main goal is to get to the Red Wheelbarrow bookshop :) Hope it cools down for you guys soon.
Just read your re-stack from John Oxley (I miss the Elephant Room). Thanks for reposting as I am finding it harder and harder to read good and accurate detailed coverage of Sudan. For the obvious reason John states - it's just not worth it :(
As for Sudan ... it speaks so poorly for the state of our information environment that it's damned near impossible to find reporting on this conflict. I bet a significant portion of the Anglophone world doesn't even realize there *is* a conflict.
It is mind-boggling that we stopped providing food aid there when it is so desperately needed. USAID's destruction will be recognized, in time, as one of the worst crimes in US history.
Barack Obama is having a really bad week. First his wife Michelle said on her podcast that she’s glad she never had a son because he would have been exactly like Barack. See,
Hope you and your friend can find a way not to roast to death, Claire. It's Paris, but it sounds awful. Anyway thank you for all that you write and repost. From my faraway place it still looks to me that regime change however risky, is the only way for there to be anything even remotely like stability in the region. Iran has been causing trouble for others while persecuting its own people for nearly 50 years. No one wants to shoulder the responsibility of helping to overthrowing the regime but the alternative is more of Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi and assorted terror outside Iran and more repression inside it. It's hard to know what will happen next.
I'm not sure where you are in your search for remote images, but Robert Young Pelton shared some interesting ones on Twitter, aka X. Here is the link:
Also, I was expecting Trump to do this sooner and later. I'm still reading/watching Bill O'Reilly particularly where it concerns Trump. He has stated that Trump believed that Iran was close to having the bomb. And what matters is not what intelligences thinks, but what Trump believes.
I'm so sorry, I didn't see this comment before the class! We use the same Zoom link every week. It's posted in the ME201 tab. I really wish I'd noticed this comment sooner--I apologize.
Returning to the millenia-old real world after a few decades of relative peace is a bit like feeling "back to work after holidays" weirdness. The bleating "give peace a chance" and "diplomacy not bombs" crowds refuse to acknowledge that vacations over and different concepts of "negotiation" and "compromise" sit the other side of the table.
"Heroic flexibility means artistic navigation to achieve the goal. This means that if you walk in the path of God, you must... use various methods in all forms and all possible ways to achieve the Islamic goal and ideals... Some have interpreted this [term] to mean compromising on the Islamic regime's ideals and goals... This is a mistake... There are goals"Khamenei, 2013
"We do not oppose correct and logical diplomatic moves... I have for years believed in what is called 'heroic flexibility.' Flexibility is highly essential in certain places; it is very good. There's nothing wrong with it, but this wrestler, who is fighting against his rival, and in certain places shows flexibility for technical reasons, must not forget who his enemy is and what he is doing. This is the main condition [for concessions]." Khamenei made these statements to IRGC commanders on September 17, 2019
Either fear of really seeing the opponent or fear of challenging their own beliefs, Thomas Sowell's "Peculiar Western aberration of believing that 'under the skin' other peoples all believe as we do" makes us merely tourists on holiday in Osama bin Laden's region where "People always follow the strong horse". Read the guidebooks first.
> is a bit like feeling "back to work after holidays"
Are you yourself an armchair warrior not immediately at risk of being blown up?
You shouldn't have contempt for people in the West who have the historical fortune of a peaceful existence, and don't want to lose it to wars of choice.
No, I don't have "contempt" only fear and alarm for all our safety. My wife was born in the UK as the Soviets began WW2 in concert with Hitler in their joint attacks of "choice" on Poland, living under rationing for the next 14 years. I was born at the end of that war, earliest memories of radio in 1950 being reports of how many planes had been shot down that day by the UN forces and North Korea's in their "war of choice". We are of course, still at war with North Korea, (paused, no treaty) but now with ICBMs and nukes, and a main supplier of arms and personnel to Putin's "war of choice" in Ukraine.
Those who do not realize their "historical fortune" was bought by immense sacrifice and suffering, caused by those of dark intent, will surely lose it all with eyes closed, rocking back and forth while sucking their thumbs.
I assume you're American? Of all countries, America especially has the option of staying out of wars in the Old World. I know it's contrary to the direction that the country followed for the past 100 years, but it's always an option, because of American geography and national abundance.
Here in northwest Indiana, we're also having having a rather brutal heat wave. But one big reason why the Land of E Pluribus Unum is the greatest country on earth is that it's the homeland of air conditioning.
Obviously it's too soon to say (1) how successful the US strike on Iran was or (2) what's going to happen next. What interests me is the reaction to it here in America, on both the Right and the Left. Most of the Tucker Carlson-style isolationist natcons have their knickers in a twist, but some have fallen into line behind Trump, e.g. Charlie Kirk. But it's a different story on the Left. Here's one reaction that appeared on Substack Notes:
"I have never been so ashamed of my country as I am right now." There follows the usual litany of Resistance commentary about the evils of Führer Trump. Then comes this: "...the support of Israel inflicting genocide on Palestinians and now this unprovoked attack on Iran without congressional approval or any semblance of a plan is pure madness. We’ve propped up a weak man who knows no end to the whimsical destruction he’ll inflict on this world simply because he can."
Think about it: an "unprovoked attack" on Iran, "Israel inflicting genocide on Palestinians." And this screed is no outlier. How revealing that so many on the Resistance Left believe that it's fine if the Iranian ayatollahs come into possession of nuclear weapons and that Israel is committing genocide.
There has also been a chorus of condemnation of Trump's action from elected Democrats. Rather hilariously, one of their complaints is that Trump didn't ask permission of Congress before taking military action. Oh. Did Clinton over Kosovo? Did Obama over the assassination of Osama bin Laden? Why no! And I don't recall that Democrats went into a three-foot hover of rage over those military strikes.
All this is worth writing about, and here in my air-conditioned study, fortified by a tall galss of iced tea, I will do so.
Thomas, you are quite right to point out that there is regretful hand-wringing on both sides of the political divide, but wrong to make fun of it, imho. There are many sensible people seriously worried about heading onto the warpath in Iran, especially as we are led by this president and his Klutzy Klown Krewe, and I think that concern over how this adventure will end is neither risible or a trivial matter. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration can galvanize American public opinion in favor of yet another Middle East war.
We don't have much info as yet about why the president claimed the bombing was a total success, other than the fact that none of our aircraft came under enemy fire. Without first-hand inspections made at the sites, will we have any definitive proof that the damage caused was sufficient to completely stymie Iran's enrichment capabilities?
Israel is obviously carrying much of the load in reducing Iran's defensive capabilities by aerial bombardment, but I believe recent history shows that a state cannot be defeated (or even forced to accept a ceasefire) by bombs and missiles alone.
That fact, and the increasing discussion of the desirability of effecting regime change in Iran, with the aim of dealing with a more quiescent, less expansionist
So, will Israel be putting "boots on the ground", or will they leave that lovely little prospect to America?
They’re not sensible people if they think that the bloodthirsty Iranian regime should be permitted to come into possession of nuclear weapons. They’re fools and poltroons. President Trump tried diplomacy, and the ayatollahs gave him two middle fingers. That left him with a choice between doing nothing and taking action to keep nuclear weapons out of their hands. Only the United States possesses the military means to do that. He made the right call. Period.
That said, I think R. Hodson is right to say that however satisfying it is to excoriate the imbeciles who would prefer to see an Iranian Bomb than admit Israel has done the world a favor, it would be much more *useful* to write a patient, earnest article explaining in detail why it was imperative to do what we did, when we did it. Looking at the US media (social and mainstream), I don't know how an average person of average reading skills--one who pays only slight attention to the news from overseas--is supposed to make sense of these events. There is *so* much disinformation and nonsense on social media. The mainstream media is doing a terrible job of explaining this--even worse than it usually does in matters of foreign affairs. It's hard to blame people for being confused and resorting to simple partisan algorithms to decide how they feel about it.
Harrumph if you feel you must, but I suspect we have not finished the job of "not permitting" Iran to have nuclear weapons, which will be a lot more complicated than dropping a few bunker-buster bombs on the target.
We have fired our opening salvo, so to speak, but there will be a response.
I think an equally important goal, which may be attainable, is to weaken the Ayatollah's regime so much that they are toppled. You know as well as I do that the outcome of such affairs are unknowable at the outset.
By the way, you get extra credit in the vocab department for grammatically correct use of "poltroons," though having doubts about the wisdom of a Middle East military venture should not be dismissed as foolishness, especially given our experiences in that region over the past 4 decades.
In principle I I agree that the best outcome would include the disappearance of the current Iranian regime. But I feel strongly opposed to making it a formal policy goal. If the regime does fall, it should be left to the Iranian people to decide what comes next. I’ve never been a fan of the Powell Doctrine: If you broke it, you bought it. The mission is to defang the regime. If along the way the regime should collapse, well and good. But that would impose no nation-building obligation on the US.
As for those opposed to Trump’s action, they’re not “doubters.” They’re either natcon isolationists who don’t like the American alliance with Israel or Resistance types who think that if Trump did it, then it must be wrong, and who also dislike the Israel connection. And they’re just rummaging around for reasons to do nothing. In that connection I would note that the truism, outcome are unknowable, falls into the category of an excuse for inaction. No one can predict the future. Every military operation amounts to a calculated risk. That’s why prior to D-Day, General Eisenhower prepared a statement to be released in case Operation Overlord failed.
The alternative to Trump’s action was to do nothing. All commentary on Trump’s decision must be evaluated in light of that inarguable reality.
"The mission is to defang the regime. If along the way the regime should collapse, well and good. But that would impose no nation-building obligation on the US."
I agree with your assessment. While I am led to believe that many Iranians would welcome an end to the Ayatollah's regime, there would be great resistance to a new regime imposed by outsiders, understandably.
Your heat misadventures are why I no longer visit my family in Kansas during the summer.
Currently, it's 18 degrees in Estonia, with the White Nights, and it's the St. John's holiday (Jaanipaev), which means that everyone has headed to the countryside. Tallinn is empty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaanip%C3%A4ev
Would love to take part in your video session today, but I'll be grilling fish. But it's been a great week. I hope this heralds a new era in the Middle East.
I read that a lot of Europeans are forgoing their annual pilgrimage to places like Italy, France, and Spain (though given the recent anti-tourist demonstrations there that could also be a factor?) in favor of the Nordic countries where the weather is a lot more palatable. Or at least more akin to the vacations remembered in their childhoods.
Never say that The Cosmopolitan Jingoist does not deliver!
(Forgive me, Claire, I tease.)
Champagne for Shay, real pain for Rahmat: sounds about right, I'm sorry to say. It's easy to play the game of human draughts from Washington. Or Arlington.
For the counterpoint, one could certainly do worse than Robert Kagan. Not one moronic obscenity in sight!
Yes, I read this. I don't know why he says, however, that Iran "poses no direct threat to the US." He's usually a careful thinker and not at all prone to saying things that are so off-the-wall. Of course an Iranian Bomb would be a direct threat to the United States. Why would anyone think otherwise? We are the Great Satan--our death has been essential to the regime's eschatology since the Revolution. It isn't a metaphor. They mean that. Also, as I've written many times, even if Iran never deliberately attacked us with a nuclear weapon, if it builds one or appears to be nearing it, the risk of massive nuclear proliferation, followed by an *accident* that triggers a global nuclear conflagration, is an all-too-plausible scenario.
I agree with him that this further endangers our institutions. (On the other hand, it's led to a profound MAGA rupture. This may prove significant, though it's hard to say.)
I'm certain Lapid would have done it. Netanyahu, from what I understand, was responding to what the military told him. The military said that if they didn't act now, it would soon be too late. I think every Israeli leader, hearing that, would have done what he did. I say this because the Israeli public is *completely* united about this, despite not having been united about anything in years. Every single Israeli (who could be elected) would have made the same decision. The part about which I have doubts, though, is this: Would Lapid have been able to persuade Trump of the urgency? That, I don't know. Bibi and Ron Darmer seem to have pulled off a diplomatic coup of the highest order. There's a lot we don't know about this yet, but from the reports that Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth have been iced out of national security meetings, it's clear that someone else has Trump's ear right now. But who? Rubio? Kurilla? Huckabee? Bibi and Darmer? Murdoch, via Fox? I have no idea.
Would Kamala Harris have done it? No idea. I could easily imagine it either way, and either way, it would have seemed foreordained. Israeli sources say Biden considered doing it during the lame-duck period before Trump's inauguration. ABC is reporting that the The US and Israel went as far as holding joint drills for it last year. But Harris and Biden aren't the same person. Has Kamala said anything about this recently?
Looks to me like the Churchill FDR connection which understanding got Roosevelt agree to supplying Britain by unofficial means bypassing the US neutrality act + the 90% + opposition to any involvement during Britain's darkest hour, partly due to the influence of pro-German + Irish constituencies. The sequence where Churchill begs for release of the fighters during the battle of Britain + Roosevelt desperately suggests leaving them at the Canadian border to be dragged across by horses seemed like wildly creative fiction until looked it up and verified.
I’m very skeptical that Harris would have bombed Fordow. Far and away her most trusted foreign policy advisor was Phil Gordon. If you examine his history and his total buy-in to the Obama Middle East strategy it’s very hard to believe that Gordon would have encouraged a strike. Trump has the gumption to ignore his advisors (e.g. Gabbard) and even key elements of his political base and do what he wants. Could Harris have done the same? It’s very hard for me to believe that she would have.
Even on the off chance that Harris might have been willing to deploy bunker busters on Fordow, I think it’s certain that she would have attempted to extract an unrelated concession from Israel such as a settlement freeze or something similar.
An equally interesting question (hypothetical of course) is whether President Trump would have bombed the Fordow installation at the request of a Prime Minister Lapid or a Prime Minister Gantz. It strikes me as unlikely. The simpatico between Netanyahu and Trump probably greased the wheels of an American strike.
It also seems likely to me that the lawfare (whether legitimate or not) in the United States against Trump and in Israel against Netanyahu probably played a role. While Trump viewed Netanyahu as a kindred spirit before, given what he went through in the American courts must have increased Trump’s respect and admiration for Bibi because of what he is going through (still) in the Israeli courts. Was this decisive in Trump’s decision? It’s unlikely. Did it play a role in increasing Trump’s respect for Bibi? I bet it did.
Ah, you beat me to the question. See above. I think every Israeli leader would have received the same psychological profile of Trump from Mossad and would therefore have employed the same approach to influencing him. Whether Lapid or Gantz would have been capable of executing it as well as he did will forever be unknown.
The June 12 David Albright assessment of new intelligence that Iran was within a month of having "enough weapon grade uranium for 11 nuclear weapons", clearly not for a single "demonstration project" updating Tulsi Gabbard's earlier view, is more likely.
Trump was acting against his own ascribed interests with a divided Republican Party and handing "progressives" rocks to stone him with. Will AOC and Greta weep tears over the "brutally violated centrifuges of Fordow?" Coming to social media near you.
James -- Are you being sarcastic, or believe that Trump would relish the idea of inflicting mass casualties on Iranians? I am very critical of Trump, but I have not seen evidence of a genocidal motivation to his actions against Iran. (Granted, I have not been looking for one, but news coverage of Mr T is omnipresent and inescapable -- if he'd been trash-talking Iranians I am sure we'd all have heard about it).
I read your comment very carefully, and it seemed to me that you were making just such an inference. “I have not seen evidence of a genocidal motivation in his actions against Iran” clearly implying that you thought I did.
You mentioned that to "blow the hell out of a bunch of nasty muslims" might be a politician's way to improve his declining poll numbers.
I thought you might be making a sarcastic comment, but in case you were not, I was pointing out the apparent lack of evidence of any genocidal intent on Trump's part.
And, to paraphrase your earlier comment, blowing up three potential nuclear weapon sites is hardly "blowing the hell out of a bunch of nasty muslims."
It seems we were each talking past each other. Sorry I did not make myself clear earlier.
Let’s just say ‘a.bunch’ is a very fluid concept. At the same times, a malignant narcissist like Trump is very likely to put little value on lives other than his own. His pardon of the January 6th rioters being a case in point.
In any case, it seems we are debating apples when the issue is oranges.
I would argue that trump did TACO, as be backed down from his campaign promise and from the urgings of his rabid pack of idiots and did the (hopefully) right thing.
No negociating, just send the bombers. Very non-MAGA...
Hey Claire - my (10 year old) daughter and I will be in Paris next month. Can we come and stay with you? Kidding - we have a hotel :) But if you want to meet for a coffee send me a message! I promise I am not weird. We're only in the city for one night and our main goal is to get to the Red Wheelbarrow bookshop :) Hope it cools down for you guys soon.
Just read your re-stack from John Oxley (I miss the Elephant Room). Thanks for reposting as I am finding it harder and harder to read good and accurate detailed coverage of Sudan. For the obvious reason John states - it's just not worth it :(
Definitely! Drop me a note when you're here.
As for Sudan ... it speaks so poorly for the state of our information environment that it's damned near impossible to find reporting on this conflict. I bet a significant portion of the Anglophone world doesn't even realize there *is* a conflict.
It is mind-boggling that we stopped providing food aid there when it is so desperately needed. USAID's destruction will be recognized, in time, as one of the worst crimes in US history.
Barack Obama is having a really bad week. First his wife Michelle said on her podcast that she’s glad she never had a son because he would have been exactly like Barack. See,
https://nypost.com/2025/06/19/us-news/michelle-obama-so-glad-she-didnt-have-a-son-would-have-been-a-barack-obama/
Then Donald Trump eviscerated Obama’s foreign policy legacy as severely as he eviscerated Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Hope you and your friend can find a way not to roast to death, Claire. It's Paris, but it sounds awful. Anyway thank you for all that you write and repost. From my faraway place it still looks to me that regime change however risky, is the only way for there to be anything even remotely like stability in the region. Iran has been causing trouble for others while persecuting its own people for nearly 50 years. No one wants to shoulder the responsibility of helping to overthrowing the regime but the alternative is more of Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi and assorted terror outside Iran and more repression inside it. It's hard to know what will happen next.
Agree.
I'm not sure where you are in your search for remote images, but Robert Young Pelton shared some interesting ones on Twitter, aka X. Here is the link:
Also, I was expecting Trump to do this sooner and later. I'm still reading/watching Bill O'Reilly particularly where it concerns Trump. He has stated that Trump believed that Iran was close to having the bomb. And what matters is not what intelligences thinks, but what Trump believes.
https://x.com/RYP__/status/1936834087697993891
How may Middle East 201 be accessed today?
I'm so sorry, I didn't see this comment before the class! We use the same Zoom link every week. It's posted in the ME201 tab. I really wish I'd noticed this comment sooner--I apologize.
Returning to the millenia-old real world after a few decades of relative peace is a bit like feeling "back to work after holidays" weirdness. The bleating "give peace a chance" and "diplomacy not bombs" crowds refuse to acknowledge that vacations over and different concepts of "negotiation" and "compromise" sit the other side of the table.
"Heroic flexibility means artistic navigation to achieve the goal. This means that if you walk in the path of God, you must... use various methods in all forms and all possible ways to achieve the Islamic goal and ideals... Some have interpreted this [term] to mean compromising on the Islamic regime's ideals and goals... This is a mistake... There are goals"Khamenei, 2013
"We do not oppose correct and logical diplomatic moves... I have for years believed in what is called 'heroic flexibility.' Flexibility is highly essential in certain places; it is very good. There's nothing wrong with it, but this wrestler, who is fighting against his rival, and in certain places shows flexibility for technical reasons, must not forget who his enemy is and what he is doing. This is the main condition [for concessions]." Khamenei made these statements to IRGC commanders on September 17, 2019
https://www.memri.org/reports/iranian-shiite-regimes-built-religious-mechanisms-dealing-grave-military-threats-tactical#_edn4
Either fear of really seeing the opponent or fear of challenging their own beliefs, Thomas Sowell's "Peculiar Western aberration of believing that 'under the skin' other peoples all believe as we do" makes us merely tourists on holiday in Osama bin Laden's region where "People always follow the strong horse". Read the guidebooks first.
> is a bit like feeling "back to work after holidays"
Are you yourself an armchair warrior not immediately at risk of being blown up?
You shouldn't have contempt for people in the West who have the historical fortune of a peaceful existence, and don't want to lose it to wars of choice.
No, I don't have "contempt" only fear and alarm for all our safety. My wife was born in the UK as the Soviets began WW2 in concert with Hitler in their joint attacks of "choice" on Poland, living under rationing for the next 14 years. I was born at the end of that war, earliest memories of radio in 1950 being reports of how many planes had been shot down that day by the UN forces and North Korea's in their "war of choice". We are of course, still at war with North Korea, (paused, no treaty) but now with ICBMs and nukes, and a main supplier of arms and personnel to Putin's "war of choice" in Ukraine.
Those who do not realize their "historical fortune" was bought by immense sacrifice and suffering, caused by those of dark intent, will surely lose it all with eyes closed, rocking back and forth while sucking their thumbs.
I assume you're American? Of all countries, America especially has the option of staying out of wars in the Old World. I know it's contrary to the direction that the country followed for the past 100 years, but it's always an option, because of American geography and national abundance.
American geography offers far less protection now than it did before. The feeling that it does is an illusion.
Here in northwest Indiana, we're also having having a rather brutal heat wave. But one big reason why the Land of E Pluribus Unum is the greatest country on earth is that it's the homeland of air conditioning.
Obviously it's too soon to say (1) how successful the US strike on Iran was or (2) what's going to happen next. What interests me is the reaction to it here in America, on both the Right and the Left. Most of the Tucker Carlson-style isolationist natcons have their knickers in a twist, but some have fallen into line behind Trump, e.g. Charlie Kirk. But it's a different story on the Left. Here's one reaction that appeared on Substack Notes:
"I have never been so ashamed of my country as I am right now." There follows the usual litany of Resistance commentary about the evils of Führer Trump. Then comes this: "...the support of Israel inflicting genocide on Palestinians and now this unprovoked attack on Iran without congressional approval or any semblance of a plan is pure madness. We’ve propped up a weak man who knows no end to the whimsical destruction he’ll inflict on this world simply because he can."
Think about it: an "unprovoked attack" on Iran, "Israel inflicting genocide on Palestinians." And this screed is no outlier. How revealing that so many on the Resistance Left believe that it's fine if the Iranian ayatollahs come into possession of nuclear weapons and that Israel is committing genocide.
There has also been a chorus of condemnation of Trump's action from elected Democrats. Rather hilariously, one of their complaints is that Trump didn't ask permission of Congress before taking military action. Oh. Did Clinton over Kosovo? Did Obama over the assassination of Osama bin Laden? Why no! And I don't recall that Democrats went into a three-foot hover of rage over those military strikes.
All this is worth writing about, and here in my air-conditioned study, fortified by a tall galss of iced tea, I will do so.
Thomas, you are quite right to point out that there is regretful hand-wringing on both sides of the political divide, but wrong to make fun of it, imho. There are many sensible people seriously worried about heading onto the warpath in Iran, especially as we are led by this president and his Klutzy Klown Krewe, and I think that concern over how this adventure will end is neither risible or a trivial matter. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration can galvanize American public opinion in favor of yet another Middle East war.
We don't have much info as yet about why the president claimed the bombing was a total success, other than the fact that none of our aircraft came under enemy fire. Without first-hand inspections made at the sites, will we have any definitive proof that the damage caused was sufficient to completely stymie Iran's enrichment capabilities?
Israel is obviously carrying much of the load in reducing Iran's defensive capabilities by aerial bombardment, but I believe recent history shows that a state cannot be defeated (or even forced to accept a ceasefire) by bombs and missiles alone.
That fact, and the increasing discussion of the desirability of effecting regime change in Iran, with the aim of dealing with a more quiescent, less expansionist
So, will Israel be putting "boots on the ground", or will they leave that lovely little prospect to America?
They’re not sensible people if they think that the bloodthirsty Iranian regime should be permitted to come into possession of nuclear weapons. They’re fools and poltroons. President Trump tried diplomacy, and the ayatollahs gave him two middle fingers. That left him with a choice between doing nothing and taking action to keep nuclear weapons out of their hands. Only the United States possesses the military means to do that. He made the right call. Period.
That said, I think R. Hodson is right to say that however satisfying it is to excoriate the imbeciles who would prefer to see an Iranian Bomb than admit Israel has done the world a favor, it would be much more *useful* to write a patient, earnest article explaining in detail why it was imperative to do what we did, when we did it. Looking at the US media (social and mainstream), I don't know how an average person of average reading skills--one who pays only slight attention to the news from overseas--is supposed to make sense of these events. There is *so* much disinformation and nonsense on social media. The mainstream media is doing a terrible job of explaining this--even worse than it usually does in matters of foreign affairs. It's hard to blame people for being confused and resorting to simple partisan algorithms to decide how they feel about it.
Harrumph if you feel you must, but I suspect we have not finished the job of "not permitting" Iran to have nuclear weapons, which will be a lot more complicated than dropping a few bunker-buster bombs on the target.
We have fired our opening salvo, so to speak, but there will be a response.
I think an equally important goal, which may be attainable, is to weaken the Ayatollah's regime so much that they are toppled. You know as well as I do that the outcome of such affairs are unknowable at the outset.
By the way, you get extra credit in the vocab department for grammatically correct use of "poltroons," though having doubts about the wisdom of a Middle East military venture should not be dismissed as foolishness, especially given our experiences in that region over the past 4 decades.
In principle I I agree that the best outcome would include the disappearance of the current Iranian regime. But I feel strongly opposed to making it a formal policy goal. If the regime does fall, it should be left to the Iranian people to decide what comes next. I’ve never been a fan of the Powell Doctrine: If you broke it, you bought it. The mission is to defang the regime. If along the way the regime should collapse, well and good. But that would impose no nation-building obligation on the US.
As for those opposed to Trump’s action, they’re not “doubters.” They’re either natcon isolationists who don’t like the American alliance with Israel or Resistance types who think that if Trump did it, then it must be wrong, and who also dislike the Israel connection. And they’re just rummaging around for reasons to do nothing. In that connection I would note that the truism, outcome are unknowable, falls into the category of an excuse for inaction. No one can predict the future. Every military operation amounts to a calculated risk. That’s why prior to D-Day, General Eisenhower prepared a statement to be released in case Operation Overlord failed.
The alternative to Trump’s action was to do nothing. All commentary on Trump’s decision must be evaluated in light of that inarguable reality.
"The mission is to defang the regime. If along the way the regime should collapse, well and good. But that would impose no nation-building obligation on the US."
I agree with your assessment. While I am led to believe that many Iranians would welcome an end to the Ayatollah's regime, there would be great resistance to a new regime imposed by outsiders, understandably.
I hope you will leave the used cat litter in the basement, and climb back up without it.
Your heat misadventures are why I no longer visit my family in Kansas during the summer.
Currently, it's 18 degrees in Estonia, with the White Nights, and it's the St. John's holiday (Jaanipaev), which means that everyone has headed to the countryside. Tallinn is empty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaanip%C3%A4ev
Would love to take part in your video session today, but I'll be grilling fish. But it's been a great week. I hope this heralds a new era in the Middle East.
I read that a lot of Europeans are forgoing their annual pilgrimage to places like Italy, France, and Spain (though given the recent anti-tourist demonstrations there that could also be a factor?) in favor of the Nordic countries where the weather is a lot more palatable. Or at least more akin to the vacations remembered in their childhoods.
Never say that The Cosmopolitan Jingoist does not deliver!
(Forgive me, Claire, I tease.)
Champagne for Shay, real pain for Rahmat: sounds about right, I'm sorry to say. It's easy to play the game of human draughts from Washington. Or Arlington.
For the counterpoint, one could certainly do worse than Robert Kagan. Not one moronic obscenity in sight!
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2025/06/democracy-iran-israel-war-trump/683269/
Yes, I read this. I don't know why he says, however, that Iran "poses no direct threat to the US." He's usually a careful thinker and not at all prone to saying things that are so off-the-wall. Of course an Iranian Bomb would be a direct threat to the United States. Why would anyone think otherwise? We are the Great Satan--our death has been essential to the regime's eschatology since the Revolution. It isn't a metaphor. They mean that. Also, as I've written many times, even if Iran never deliberately attacked us with a nuclear weapon, if it builds one or appears to be nearing it, the risk of massive nuclear proliferation, followed by an *accident* that triggers a global nuclear conflagration, is an all-too-plausible scenario.
I agree with him that this further endangers our institutions. (On the other hand, it's led to a profound MAGA rupture. This may prove significant, though it's hard to say.)
Do you and Judith think a Prime Minister Yair Lapid would have attacked Iran? Would a President Kamala Harris have dropped bunker busters on Fordow?
Of course, we will never know. Thank goodness.
I'm certain Lapid would have done it. Netanyahu, from what I understand, was responding to what the military told him. The military said that if they didn't act now, it would soon be too late. I think every Israeli leader, hearing that, would have done what he did. I say this because the Israeli public is *completely* united about this, despite not having been united about anything in years. Every single Israeli (who could be elected) would have made the same decision. The part about which I have doubts, though, is this: Would Lapid have been able to persuade Trump of the urgency? That, I don't know. Bibi and Ron Darmer seem to have pulled off a diplomatic coup of the highest order. There's a lot we don't know about this yet, but from the reports that Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth have been iced out of national security meetings, it's clear that someone else has Trump's ear right now. But who? Rubio? Kurilla? Huckabee? Bibi and Darmer? Murdoch, via Fox? I have no idea.
Would Kamala Harris have done it? No idea. I could easily imagine it either way, and either way, it would have seemed foreordained. Israeli sources say Biden considered doing it during the lame-duck period before Trump's inauguration. ABC is reporting that the The US and Israel went as far as holding joint drills for it last year. But Harris and Biden aren't the same person. Has Kamala said anything about this recently?
Looks to me like the Churchill FDR connection which understanding got Roosevelt agree to supplying Britain by unofficial means bypassing the US neutrality act + the 90% + opposition to any involvement during Britain's darkest hour, partly due to the influence of pro-German + Irish constituencies. The sequence where Churchill begs for release of the fighters during the battle of Britain + Roosevelt desperately suggests leaving them at the Canadian border to be dragged across by horses seemed like wildly creative fiction until looked it up and verified.
I’m very skeptical that Harris would have bombed Fordow. Far and away her most trusted foreign policy advisor was Phil Gordon. If you examine his history and his total buy-in to the Obama Middle East strategy it’s very hard to believe that Gordon would have encouraged a strike. Trump has the gumption to ignore his advisors (e.g. Gabbard) and even key elements of his political base and do what he wants. Could Harris have done the same? It’s very hard for me to believe that she would have.
Even on the off chance that Harris might have been willing to deploy bunker busters on Fordow, I think it’s certain that she would have attempted to extract an unrelated concession from Israel such as a settlement freeze or something similar.
Re. your last conjecture, that's possible.
An equally interesting question (hypothetical of course) is whether President Trump would have bombed the Fordow installation at the request of a Prime Minister Lapid or a Prime Minister Gantz. It strikes me as unlikely. The simpatico between Netanyahu and Trump probably greased the wheels of an American strike.
It also seems likely to me that the lawfare (whether legitimate or not) in the United States against Trump and in Israel against Netanyahu probably played a role. While Trump viewed Netanyahu as a kindred spirit before, given what he went through in the American courts must have increased Trump’s respect and admiration for Bibi because of what he is going through (still) in the Israeli courts. Was this decisive in Trump’s decision? It’s unlikely. Did it play a role in increasing Trump’s respect for Bibi? I bet it did.
Ah, you beat me to the question. See above. I think every Israeli leader would have received the same psychological profile of Trump from Mossad and would therefore have employed the same approach to influencing him. Whether Lapid or Gantz would have been capable of executing it as well as he did will forever be unknown.
The June 12 David Albright assessment of new intelligence that Iran was within a month of having "enough weapon grade uranium for 11 nuclear weapons", clearly not for a single "demonstration project" updating Tulsi Gabbard's earlier view, is more likely.
https://tomfaranda.typepad.com/folly/2025/06/wsj-published-before-the-us-strike-iran-is-down-but-not-yet-out.html
Trump was acting against his own ascribed interests with a divided Republican Party and handing "progressives" rocks to stone him with. Will AOC and Greta weep tears over the "brutally violated centrifuges of Fordow?" Coming to social media near you.
When one’s poll numbers are tanking in every area blow the hell out of a bunch of nasty Muslims.
James -- Are you being sarcastic, or believe that Trump would relish the idea of inflicting mass casualties on Iranians? I am very critical of Trump, but I have not seen evidence of a genocidal motivation to his actions against Iran. (Granted, I have not been looking for one, but news coverage of Mr T is omnipresent and inescapable -- if he'd been trash-talking Iranians I am sure we'd all have heard about it).
Blowing up three potential nuclear weapon sites is hardly ‘genocide’.
Did you actually read my comment? I made no such inference.
I read your comment very carefully, and it seemed to me that you were making just such an inference. “I have not seen evidence of a genocidal motivation in his actions against Iran” clearly implying that you thought I did.
You mentioned that to "blow the hell out of a bunch of nasty muslims" might be a politician's way to improve his declining poll numbers.
I thought you might be making a sarcastic comment, but in case you were not, I was pointing out the apparent lack of evidence of any genocidal intent on Trump's part.
And, to paraphrase your earlier comment, blowing up three potential nuclear weapon sites is hardly "blowing the hell out of a bunch of nasty muslims."
It seems we were each talking past each other. Sorry I did not make myself clear earlier.
Let’s just say ‘a.bunch’ is a very fluid concept. At the same times, a malignant narcissist like Trump is very likely to put little value on lives other than his own. His pardon of the January 6th rioters being a case in point.
In any case, it seems we are debating apples when the issue is oranges.