CROSSPOST: DAN DREZNER: There Is No U.S. Plan on Iran
Is this the Epstein War, or the Netanyahu War? Dan Drezner thinks it is the Netanyahu War. Dan’s heading: "Maybe, just maybe, the Trump Administration does not know what it is doing in Iran...
Is this the Epstein War, or the Netanyahu War? Dan Drezner thinks it is the Netanyahu War. Dan’s heading: Maybe, just maybe, the Trump Administration does not know what it is doing in Iran.
On the general line of spitting against the wind, or rolling the Sysiphean boulder uphill, I have found Dan Drezner to be the best despairing man yelling at clouds and keeping my head in the right place with respect to Trumpian chaos-monkey foreign and security policy.
This AM he argues the Trump administration joined Israel’s war on Iran with maximalist goals but no coherent strategy, driven by alliance entraoment and wishful thinking rather than serious planning. In Dan’s view the situation was this: Netanyahu was going to strike, and Trump decided that he would rather appear to lead the parade rather than appear weak, on the back foot, and struggling to catch up to events. Senior Trumpian officials appear to have latched onto an implausible best‑case CIA scenario of a more “pragmatic” IRGC leadership, ignoring far more likely, worse outcomes. Overall, he concludes the internal thinking is chaotic, the regime remains resilient, and the administration is essentially improvising in a high‑stakes war. Washington has no credible opposition partner or successor élite in mind, the Iranian regime’s coercive apparatus is largely intact, and hopes for popular overthrow are fanciful.
Piss‑poor crisis decision‑making.
What do I think? Again: far outside of my wheelhouse here. But: Appearing strong and in control on social media by blowing stuff up is an ethos. The U.S. way of war since Grant has been to blow stuff up, and then see what is left.
Given the amount of stuff we have been blowing up, casualties so far have been mercifully light: only 1000 or so. This is not carpet‑bombing of entire cities, but it is not pinprick strikes either. In Iran, we have confirmed devastation of senior‑leadership compounds (including Khamenei’s), IRGC command-and-control, air bases, air-defense sites, missile and drone launch facilities, and key military airfields—plus hits on civilian infrastructure: hospitals (Gandhi Hospital), emergency-services HQ in Tehran, residential buildings in Sanandaj and other cities, the Minab school, and damage around major squares and near airports like Kermanshah. In Israel, Iranian missiles have hit populated areas (e.g., Beit Shemesh) and forced repeated use of shelters; in the Gulf, repeated Iranian salvos against airports, ports, hotels, and towers have produced a pattern of punctured cityscapes—very localized severe damage, widespread disruption, but not yet city‑levelling.
All so that Trump does not appear weak on social media where Netanyahu appears decisive. (Or possibly, possibly, to get social media talking about something other than Jeffrey Epstein.)
Dan has put his piece <https://danieldrezner.substack.com/p/on-iran-there-is-no-strategy-there#footnote-anchor-1-189723814> behind his paywall, so I will just give brief excerpts:
There Is No U.S. Plan on Iran
Maybe, just maybe, the Trump Administration does not know what it is doing in Iran.
Daniel W. Drezner :: Mar 03, 2026 :: Paid….
The more we learn about Trump’s decision-making process to bomb Iran, however, the clearer it becomes that there is no real strategy or end goal. Consider the talking points… the Trump White House provided to congressional Republicans…. “The objectives are clear: 1. Destroy their missiles, and raze their missile industry to the ground. 2. Annihilate their Navy. 3. Ensure the regime’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces, and no longer use their IEDs or roadside bombs, which have gravely wounded and killed thousands and thousands of people, including many Americans. 4. Ensure that Iran can NEVER obtain a nuclear weapon. While Operation Midnight Hammer obliterated Iran’s three major nuclear sites, the regime was committed to enriching and rebuilding their nuclear program, and they REFUSED to make a deal, despite months of extensive talks and good faith efforts by President Trump’s top negotiators.”… “Régime change” is not listed… despite Trump talking about regime change constantly….
These are pretty maximalist goals!… [of the] “nuke the sitr from orbit” kind….
Marco Rubio basically confirmed Israel’s role in forcing Trump’s hand…. The imminent threat was the Iranian response to an Israeli attack?!… [This is] the textbook definition of entrapment, in which an ally drags a great power into a conflict… [plus] obvious wishcasting on the part of Trump’s advisors….
I don’t know how this conflict plays out over the next dew weeks. The one thing I am certain about is that the Trump administration does not know either…
I don't subscribe to Dan Drezner and thus can't read his opinion, but I'd point out a perpetually chaotic, weak, but hostile Iran is likely Netanyahu's preferred outcome. Just because Trump has no plausible theory of victory doesn't mean that Netanyahu has no plausible theory of victory. A few but not too many casualties in Israel also serve his interests.
Eric Berne’s website is busted rn but years ago I captured its 1-page summary of “Let’s You and Him Fight”—
This may be a maneuver, a ritual or a game. In each case the psychology is essentially feminine. Because of its dramatic qualities, LYAHF is the basis of much of the world's literature, both good and bad.
1. As a maneuver it is romantic. The woman maneuvers or challenges two men into fighting, with the implication or promise that she will surrender herself to the winner. After the competition is decided, she fulfils her bargain. This is an honest transaction, and the presumption is that her and her mate live happily ever after.
2. As a ritual, it tends to be tragic. Custom demands that the two men fight for her, even if she does not want them to, and even if she has already made her choice. If the wrong man wins, she must nevertheless take him. In this case it is society and not the woman who sets up LYAHF. If she is willing, the transaction is an honest one. If she is unwilling or disappointed, the outcome may offer her considerable scope for playing games, such as 'Let's Pull A Fast one on Joey'.
3. As a game it is comic. The woman sets up the competition, and while the two men are fighting, she decamps with a third. The internal and external psychological advantages for her and her mate are derived from the position that honest competition is for suckers, and the comic story they have lived through forms the basis for the internal and external social advantages.
Here, I would say it’s the American Public who gets roped into war with Iran, while Netanyahu and Trump run off with our democracies