The strikes on Iran might look strong, but they could backfire in ways we’re not prepared for. This article unpacks why the rewards don’t outweigh the risks
This seems to me a "rules for thee but not for me" moment beyond Trump's typical moderate disdain for "rules based international order."
I am not sure what was accomplished by the exercise. The attack was telegraphed and Iran had time to remove equipment and secure those sites (we have sat. photos of them doing it). Bushehr NPP hasn't been touched in all of this (the Russians are there btw.) Iran either had or didn't have a nuclear bomb. Taking out those sites only removes the ability for a nuclear bomb to be made at those sites not the existence of said bomb or the parts to make said bomb. It did nothing to degrade Iran (or Israel) from taking pot shots at each other.
What it did do is give Iran (and China with its surveillance boats parked off shore) a bunch of data on the B-2, hitherto unused weapons systems, our order of operations, very specific US violations of international law and treaties which can be brought before the UN and international courts, legitimizes Iran's targeting of US military ascents (and ICBM targeting the US mainland) according to the rules of war, gives reason for Iran (and others) to leave the NPT, and gives a very strong reason that khamenei should rescind his fatwa and Iran should build a bomb.
It does nothing to secure Israel, which is what a bunch of war-hawks want.
Is this, though, just 4D chess to give the neo-cons a bone so that they pass the BBB? Or is Trump's agenda going to get swallowed in a sand trap?
The pressing issue is to what degree does this suppress the MAGA base from turning out in the midterms? Congress critters are already seen as rather feckless in not codifying Trump/Doge, EOs, doing something about the courts. How does this get MAGA out to vote in the midterms? It doesn't, and it might have a suppression effect -- not a negligible amount of MAGA is serious about "no new wars"/"bring our troops home" as a mandate.
You raise a lot of excellent points. Regarding the neocons and the BBB--there are Republican senators (Graham, Tillis, Cotton, etc) who definitely ARE holding up Trump's domestic agenda as leverage to get these strikes. In that regard, it's worth noting that one of Trump's first posts on Truth Social this morning was not about the attack, but a call for Republicans to "Now let’s get the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill done!" https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114727722676535055
I referenced in the article that Iran might have to do a "for show" attack to save face. One thing I had thought of was that this attack might have been Trump's own effort to save face--that he allowed himself to be misled into thinking Iran would cave after the initial Israeli hit and was looking for an off-ramp. Under this theory, he telegraphs the attack for days, Iran moves their stuff, we put on a big show and that's it. I'm not saying I subscribe to that theory (I'm really not sure what theory I subscribe to), but that it's possible. Your points about Iran moving their stuff are a piece of evidence in favor.
As much as I like the "it was for show" conspiracy (as it has precedents with the assassination of Soleimani), there are still two pieces that don't fit. 1.) It does nothing about Israel's larger aggression in the Middle East. Independently of the justification of Israel in responding to the 10/7 attack (of which there are are lot of 9/11 style conspiracy theories surrounding), Israel has been unjustifiably aggressive both towards Gaza and it its neighbors. 2.) The Trump administration can be accused of negotiating in bad faith using negotiations as cover for the Israeli strike as well as last nights strike. Iran was at the negotiating table, even if they were dragging their feet -- but that is an allowable part of the game. As Iran said this morning, how does doing this get Iran to the negotiating table if they have never left the table?
Do you know why Trump has such a personal vendetta with Iran? The whole "Iran must not get a nuke" with Trump goes back decades.
I don't really know what Trump's goal in all of this is. I know that Trump likes chaos as a means to create the space in which new patterns can emerge and new deals struck -- in this way, he is very much congruent with Pope Francis' modus operandi. That said, I have been operating under the assumption that Trump is trying to pivot to a multi-polar world and that might be a false assumption as attacking Iran does not further that end.
What with today's Iranian retaliatory strikes at our base in Qatar, which was pre-notified, limited, and ineffectual, it is looking like the "it was for show" conspiracy is the correct one.
To answer your question, yes, he did.
This seems to me a "rules for thee but not for me" moment beyond Trump's typical moderate disdain for "rules based international order."
I am not sure what was accomplished by the exercise. The attack was telegraphed and Iran had time to remove equipment and secure those sites (we have sat. photos of them doing it). Bushehr NPP hasn't been touched in all of this (the Russians are there btw.) Iran either had or didn't have a nuclear bomb. Taking out those sites only removes the ability for a nuclear bomb to be made at those sites not the existence of said bomb or the parts to make said bomb. It did nothing to degrade Iran (or Israel) from taking pot shots at each other.
What it did do is give Iran (and China with its surveillance boats parked off shore) a bunch of data on the B-2, hitherto unused weapons systems, our order of operations, very specific US violations of international law and treaties which can be brought before the UN and international courts, legitimizes Iran's targeting of US military ascents (and ICBM targeting the US mainland) according to the rules of war, gives reason for Iran (and others) to leave the NPT, and gives a very strong reason that khamenei should rescind his fatwa and Iran should build a bomb.
It does nothing to secure Israel, which is what a bunch of war-hawks want.
Is this, though, just 4D chess to give the neo-cons a bone so that they pass the BBB? Or is Trump's agenda going to get swallowed in a sand trap?
The pressing issue is to what degree does this suppress the MAGA base from turning out in the midterms? Congress critters are already seen as rather feckless in not codifying Trump/Doge, EOs, doing something about the courts. How does this get MAGA out to vote in the midterms? It doesn't, and it might have a suppression effect -- not a negligible amount of MAGA is serious about "no new wars"/"bring our troops home" as a mandate.
You raise a lot of excellent points. Regarding the neocons and the BBB--there are Republican senators (Graham, Tillis, Cotton, etc) who definitely ARE holding up Trump's domestic agenda as leverage to get these strikes. In that regard, it's worth noting that one of Trump's first posts on Truth Social this morning was not about the attack, but a call for Republicans to "Now let’s get the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill done!" https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114727722676535055
I referenced in the article that Iran might have to do a "for show" attack to save face. One thing I had thought of was that this attack might have been Trump's own effort to save face--that he allowed himself to be misled into thinking Iran would cave after the initial Israeli hit and was looking for an off-ramp. Under this theory, he telegraphs the attack for days, Iran moves their stuff, we put on a big show and that's it. I'm not saying I subscribe to that theory (I'm really not sure what theory I subscribe to), but that it's possible. Your points about Iran moving their stuff are a piece of evidence in favor.
As much as I like the "it was for show" conspiracy (as it has precedents with the assassination of Soleimani), there are still two pieces that don't fit. 1.) It does nothing about Israel's larger aggression in the Middle East. Independently of the justification of Israel in responding to the 10/7 attack (of which there are are lot of 9/11 style conspiracy theories surrounding), Israel has been unjustifiably aggressive both towards Gaza and it its neighbors. 2.) The Trump administration can be accused of negotiating in bad faith using negotiations as cover for the Israeli strike as well as last nights strike. Iran was at the negotiating table, even if they were dragging their feet -- but that is an allowable part of the game. As Iran said this morning, how does doing this get Iran to the negotiating table if they have never left the table?
Do you know why Trump has such a personal vendetta with Iran? The whole "Iran must not get a nuke" with Trump goes back decades.
I don't really know what Trump's goal in all of this is. I know that Trump likes chaos as a means to create the space in which new patterns can emerge and new deals struck -- in this way, he is very much congruent with Pope Francis' modus operandi. That said, I have been operating under the assumption that Trump is trying to pivot to a multi-polar world and that might be a false assumption as attacking Iran does not further that end.
What with today's Iranian retaliatory strikes at our base in Qatar, which was pre-notified, limited, and ineffectual, it is looking like the "it was for show" conspiracy is the correct one.