This is not a war about “victory”; it is a slow, grinding competition in which the prize is to lose the most. A reckless White House and a very large, not‑very‑important Iran have managed to trap...
This is an admirable summary of the state of play.
I would only add that the JCPoA, flawed as it was, should have been regarded as the confidence-building foundation for future agreements between longstanding adversaries. No one should have expected the military orchestras to rummage through their briefcases for the score to “Kumbaya”, yet that was the standard Netanyahu insisted upon.
The JCPoA controversy was live during the run-up to the Illinois Democratic congressional primary in which the former representative was competing with a local mayor in my district. Both Jews, one in favor of JCPoA, the other against it. I was reporting on the race for a national Jewish weekly, The Forward, and the former representative, who opposed the deal, told me he
Re: looking for an avenue to de‑escalate and slink home
Post the attack on the Beirut Marine Barracks, Ronnie slunk home to Grenada. Is there a small island where tDrumpf can slink home to??? It sure as hell not Kharg Island.
The use of an atomic weapon doesn't seem like slinking away.
A high level group of congress critters needs to have a conversation in the oval office.
Re: Odious
Iran considers regimes in Israel and the US odious.
"they have empowered exactly the Iranian hardliners who argued that the U.S. would never keep its word—and were proven correct"
I am not confident that this was inadvertent. It is normal for fanatical extremists to target the other side's moderates. Because the last thing you want is for their moderates to sit down with your moderates and come to a peaceful agreement. And in both America and Israel, it is the fanatical extremists who are in charge.
What I recall reading many times over the last fifty years is that the purpose of carrier groups was to “project power.” It seems, however, that they have only been good for projecting power against states that could not fight back, at least in the sense of threatening the carriers. Thinking even farther back, the Navy in WWII was always uncomfortable with bringing the carriers close to shore, unless land-based air had already been thoroughly suppressed. They didn’t close up to the Japanese coast to stay until the war was nearly over, with the Doolittle raid (1942) as a hit-and-run exception.
The Prince Sultan Air Force Base attack a few days ago reminds me of MacArthur leaving the B-17s parked wing-tip to wing-tip at Clark Field in the Philippines notwithstanding the Pearl Harbor attack the day before.
And what about the grand sweep here? The USA blew up what there was of international diplomacy when it thumbed its nose at UN 1441. The NPT coulda been a contender. But see now how deeply buried it has become. Obama's Iran deal was always a way of avoiding the NPT, which obviously could and should and indeed must apply to Israel. It also remains a treaty that technically (and Constitutionally) applies to us.
The "flawed" nuclear deal netted Iran $150 billion in exchange for a promise to give up development of nuclear weapons. (The exact amount varies based on sources and points of view.) Iran also agreed to inspections, but later made some military locations off limits for "security" reasons.
The real problem with the nuclear deal was that it was no different than paying protection money to some mafia kingpin. Another problem is that it allowed Iran to shift money from the nuclear program to providing more funding for terrorist proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis . This is why Israel was opposed to the deal.
So now we're stuck in a war. The probability of regime change was never better than 10%-25%. (Although Israeli intelligence still seems to think the Iranian regime will fall within the next six months.) And we're not really stuck. We can credibly declare victory any time we want.
But we declared victory in the first Gulf War too. And we later got stuck enforcing two "no fly" zones in Iraq. So after we "win" this war, there is a high probability that the U.S will have to enforce a "no missile" and "no drone" zone in order to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
Iran has complete control of both the persian gulf and the red sea and that control cannot be dislodged (the Houthis, funded by Iran, still control the red sea. Thus only outcome is the US backing down. The only significant variable is how much damage the US will sustain (deaths, loss of treasure, economics, and humiliation) until that happens. An amusing variant would be the Iranians asking that Russia and China guarantee its independence.
To turn the gaze to the internal rather than foreign politic: this war can only end, as the American Revolution did, in "Whitehall". Whan Trump says that he will increase the misery of Iranians, what he really means is he will continue emiserating _Americans_ until _they_ can take it no longer. One hopes this will be sooner rather than later but it could run until Jan 2027.
==
(re-reading the rest of this message makes it look like a mad conspiracy theory):
Removal of T, mass impeachments and exercise of the War Powers Act could actually happen if people are fed up enough. But even if the regime is toppled, There will be madness in the streets. Nazis (and not just officials) were hanging their perceived "enemies" in the streets as the nazi capitulation was being signed. MAGA holdouts complaining "we wuz robbed" will continue to support their lost cause for decades to come.
But the most surprising possibility is that the US military could reform and try to prepare for the next war rather than the last. China might need to attack Taiwan while the US is prostrate because the replacement could be worsemoer dangerous. Imagine a huge fleet of (unmanned) aircraft carriersnone larger than 50 m.
Those of us alive for it will live in interesting times...
"But even then, what does “attack” mean in this environment? Iranians sit in tunnels and bunkers, fly drones, launch missiles, rely on asymmetric harassment and mining, and try to keep communications sufficiently low‑signature to avoid being obliterated."
Or they adopt a Ukrainian 20 klick kill zone. We would be unable to respond because of our glacial procurement cycle and ideological "warfighter" tactical direction. Even assuming we condescend to learn from the Ukrainian example. The Iranians will certainly have Russia's technology to copy. And at $2M per ship, they can afford it.
…he had thought carefully about the issue, even having a conversation with the editor of The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, who summarized the views of her readers that the inspection regime was sufficient. The former representative could not explain why he remained opposed to the agreement. He won the primary and election and continues to hold the seat.
Trump will eventually leave office, either under his own power or in a hearse. But the supporting players will remain, to commit more blunders that lead to strategic and financial costs we cannot afford.
I'd like to expand on Brad's model of the military. In normal times, the military is expert at malicious compliance, if the Word From on High contradicts internal military folkways or goals. You don't get to be a three-star general if you don't know which orders to ignore or subvert. Unfortunately, war is the exception to this, where the senior generals are compelled to behave as if they were junior soldiers.
Re: The US carrier force in 1944.
The actions of Kamikaze's off Okinawa was a fore taste of drone warfare.
yes...
This is an admirable summary of the state of play.
I would only add that the JCPoA, flawed as it was, should have been regarded as the confidence-building foundation for future agreements between longstanding adversaries. No one should have expected the military orchestras to rummage through their briefcases for the score to “Kumbaya”, yet that was the standard Netanyahu insisted upon.
The JCPoA controversy was live during the run-up to the Illinois Democratic congressional primary in which the former representative was competing with a local mayor in my district. Both Jews, one in favor of JCPoA, the other against it. I was reporting on the race for a national Jewish weekly, The Forward, and the former representative, who opposed the deal, told me he
Re: looking for an avenue to de‑escalate and slink home
Post the attack on the Beirut Marine Barracks, Ronnie slunk home to Grenada. Is there a small island where tDrumpf can slink home to??? It sure as hell not Kharg Island.
The use of an atomic weapon doesn't seem like slinking away.
A high level group of congress critters needs to have a conversation in the oval office.
Re: Odious
Iran considers regimes in Israel and the US odious.
"they have empowered exactly the Iranian hardliners who argued that the U.S. would never keep its word—and were proven correct"
I am not confident that this was inadvertent. It is normal for fanatical extremists to target the other side's moderates. Because the last thing you want is for their moderates to sit down with your moderates and come to a peaceful agreement. And in both America and Israel, it is the fanatical extremists who are in charge.
What I recall reading many times over the last fifty years is that the purpose of carrier groups was to “project power.” It seems, however, that they have only been good for projecting power against states that could not fight back, at least in the sense of threatening the carriers. Thinking even farther back, the Navy in WWII was always uncomfortable with bringing the carriers close to shore, unless land-based air had already been thoroughly suppressed. They didn’t close up to the Japanese coast to stay until the war was nearly over, with the Doolittle raid (1942) as a hit-and-run exception.
The Prince Sultan Air Force Base attack a few days ago reminds me of MacArthur leaving the B-17s parked wing-tip to wing-tip at Clark Field in the Philippines notwithstanding the Pearl Harbor attack the day before.
And what about the grand sweep here? The USA blew up what there was of international diplomacy when it thumbed its nose at UN 1441. The NPT coulda been a contender. But see now how deeply buried it has become. Obama's Iran deal was always a way of avoiding the NPT, which obviously could and should and indeed must apply to Israel. It also remains a treaty that technically (and Constitutionally) applies to us.
The "flawed" nuclear deal netted Iran $150 billion in exchange for a promise to give up development of nuclear weapons. (The exact amount varies based on sources and points of view.) Iran also agreed to inspections, but later made some military locations off limits for "security" reasons.
The real problem with the nuclear deal was that it was no different than paying protection money to some mafia kingpin. Another problem is that it allowed Iran to shift money from the nuclear program to providing more funding for terrorist proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis . This is why Israel was opposed to the deal.
So now we're stuck in a war. The probability of regime change was never better than 10%-25%. (Although Israeli intelligence still seems to think the Iranian regime will fall within the next six months.) And we're not really stuck. We can credibly declare victory any time we want.
But we declared victory in the first Gulf War too. And we later got stuck enforcing two "no fly" zones in Iraq. So after we "win" this war, there is a high probability that the U.S will have to enforce a "no missile" and "no drone" zone in order to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
As Kurt Vonnegut liked to say "and so it goes."
Iran has complete control of both the persian gulf and the red sea and that control cannot be dislodged (the Houthis, funded by Iran, still control the red sea. Thus only outcome is the US backing down. The only significant variable is how much damage the US will sustain (deaths, loss of treasure, economics, and humiliation) until that happens. An amusing variant would be the Iranians asking that Russia and China guarantee its independence.
To turn the gaze to the internal rather than foreign politic: this war can only end, as the American Revolution did, in "Whitehall". Whan Trump says that he will increase the misery of Iranians, what he really means is he will continue emiserating _Americans_ until _they_ can take it no longer. One hopes this will be sooner rather than later but it could run until Jan 2027.
==
(re-reading the rest of this message makes it look like a mad conspiracy theory):
Removal of T, mass impeachments and exercise of the War Powers Act could actually happen if people are fed up enough. But even if the regime is toppled, There will be madness in the streets. Nazis (and not just officials) were hanging their perceived "enemies" in the streets as the nazi capitulation was being signed. MAGA holdouts complaining "we wuz robbed" will continue to support their lost cause for decades to come.
But the most surprising possibility is that the US military could reform and try to prepare for the next war rather than the last. China might need to attack Taiwan while the US is prostrate because the replacement could be worsemoer dangerous. Imagine a huge fleet of (unmanned) aircraft carriersnone larger than 50 m.
Those of us alive for it will live in interesting times...
"But even then, what does “attack” mean in this environment? Iranians sit in tunnels and bunkers, fly drones, launch missiles, rely on asymmetric harassment and mining, and try to keep communications sufficiently low‑signature to avoid being obliterated."
Or they adopt a Ukrainian 20 klick kill zone. We would be unable to respond because of our glacial procurement cycle and ideological "warfighter" tactical direction. Even assuming we condescend to learn from the Ukrainian example. The Iranians will certainly have Russia's technology to copy. And at $2M per ship, they can afford it.
…he had thought carefully about the issue, even having a conversation with the editor of The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, who summarized the views of her readers that the inspection regime was sufficient. The former representative could not explain why he remained opposed to the agreement. He won the primary and election and continues to hold the seat.
Trump will eventually leave office, either under his own power or in a hearse. But the supporting players will remain, to commit more blunders that lead to strategic and financial costs we cannot afford.
I'd like to expand on Brad's model of the military. In normal times, the military is expert at malicious compliance, if the Word From on High contradicts internal military folkways or goals. You don't get to be a three-star general if you don't know which orders to ignore or subvert. Unfortunately, war is the exception to this, where the senior generals are compelled to behave as if they were junior soldiers.