Join institutional investors, analysts and strategists from the world's largest banks: Subscribe today
Already have an account? log in
What Happens Next…
It's not about regime change.
That was Pete Hegseth's message to Iran on Sunday morning, when US de
Nice clear article. Thanks.
Agreed.
Would you say this attack on the nuclear facilities is a bigger event than Trump killing Qasem Soleimani in 2020? Obviously there are large differences but killing Soleimani seems more important than this.
They shot missiles at a couple bases back then and that was the end of it. I could see something like that happening again. Also, where is the Ayatollah?
Killing Soleimani was a bigger deal in my view. Iran wasn’t going to nuke anybody. Look at Kim in Pyongyang: He’s a murderous psychopath who lives in a literal fantasy world, he has 50 nukes and how many of them has he ever used? By comparison to the Kim regime, Khamenei’s eminently rational. I mean, look, nobody wants to be menaced by the prospect of their arch rival newly-armed with nuclear weapons. No one’s saying Israel’s concerns were unintelligible. We all get it: It’s very annoying to wake up every, single day to Sayyids with furrowed brows talking about killing you and everybody who looks like you. And personally, I think it had gone on for too long with Nasrallah and Khamenei and I think they got not necessarily what they “deserved,” per se, but certainly what they’ve been asking for. They wanted it, and they finally got it.
But here’s the thing: They didn’t actually want it. And I think Israel knows that. When you’re a military superpower like Israel, you do have a responsibility to distinguish between blustering bullsh-tters and real threats. You can’t just fly around blowing up everybody who says they want to destroy you if they have no viable means of doing so. You kill the real threats like Soleimani (guys who’re responsible for real-world strategy and who’re actually involved in activities which, even if they don’t pose an existential threat, are nevertheless a clear and present danger) and let all that apocalyptic, nuclear carnival barking go. Because everyone knows the latter’s just bullsh-t propaganda.
As Sun Tzu says: In chaos there is also opportunity. China would definitely benefit from getting USA entangled in a quagmire in Mid-East. Russia would benefit because it would be discourage US involvement in Eastern Europe. I suspect China and Russia are encouraging IRGC in every way to retaliate on American assets instead of Israel, to provoke US so Trump would have to escalate. China and N. Korea will happily send missiles etc to help Iran provoke US so that US is less able to check and contest them in the South China Sea and Pacific Rim. Also, as central authority in Iran is weakened, is control of Iran’s oil export terminal/Kharg up for grabs ?? That export terminal is the real prize since it’s critical to maintain the cashflow from oil exports. Would it be prudent for US to also take over Kharg Island and have a US oil company manage its operation for next several years, as part of the US mission to protect Strait of Hormuz, and to keep crude oil prices from rising ?? I realize the pipelines supplying the oil into Kharg would remain under Iranian control. I think escalation and further US involvement in Iran appears inevitable.
If you’re the US, don’t you want regime change at this point? What’s the point of allowing Khameini to hang around after all of this? Is there going to be an Iranian government that officially despises the United States substantially MORE than the Islamic Republic does? There is at least a history of pro-western governments in Iran during the Pahlavi dynasty.
Does Iran fall into failed state status if the Islamic Republic comes to an end? I would guess yes, but on the risk-reward continuum, based on where we stand today, it seems worth the risk.
I don’t a good gosh darn about who runs Iran or what they do to themselves but as to regime change, I would change everyone but Powell. He’s the only thinking adult in our government and if there was a real God and he had a plan for us it would not be anything like the one before us at the present time and our regime would have been completely disappeared in its entirety four months ago. That’s my idea of a regime change. All of these turkeys gone.
From Israel’s point of view, there have always been very good reasons to make sure Iran never has nuclear weapons. Maybe Khamenei is too rational to launch nuclear-tipped ICBMs at Israel, but will his successors always be? What about not using missiles, but smuggling nuclear devices into Israeli cities, to obliterate the country with not even missile flight time warning? Or simply causing the Israeli people to live in perpetual dread and fear of its nuclear-armed self-declared mortal enemy?
There have also been very good reasons to not attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. War with Iran’s proxies, with Iran itself, and with many other Arab countries, is a heavy price when Israel lacks the weapons to definitely take out Iran’s deepest facilities and the US won’t help.
Over the past year, the calculus changed, decisively. Maybe the actual threat from Iran’s nuclear program increased and maybe it didn’t – I think it did but don’t know how much – but the reasons to not attack all went away.
Israel neutralized Iran’s proxies in Gaza and Lebanon; the Houthis are still proxying, but too far away to be a big threat. Iran’s ill-advised missile attacks on Israel last year gave Israel an excuse to destroy much of Iran’s air defenses and learn what they’d need to destroy the rest. The more aggressive Arab countries – Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan – are focused inward and have no capacity for warring, at least at the moment. The others – Saudi, Egypt, etc – have no interest in confronting Israel, amply proven by their inaction on Gaza, and would quietly like Iran to go away. Iran’s big military ally, Russia, is struggling with its Ukraine war, and couldn’t even spare a battalion for the ‘Stan conflict. Iran’s big commercial ally, China, is a regional military power but not a global one, and has never demonstrated any interest in forcefully intervening anywhere but Taiwan.
The final piece was Trump. Netanyahu figured out how to manipulate Trump, maneuver him into a corner, play to his ego and political instincts and impatience, and get the final missing piece of the puzzle.
I don’t remember much about when Trump I terminated the Iran nuclear deal, which arguably led to all this. Perhaps Israel had a part it that?
Was it morally “right” for Israel and now the US to attack Iran and its nuclear program? Will it be morally “right” to keep pushing for regime change?
Who and what are clearly morally right or wrong in the Middle East? How can anyone tell? Even the most heinous acts – Hamas slaughtering Israelis, Israel slaughtering Gazans – are just more chapters in the endless exchange of eyes for eyes, death for death, with backstories too deep to ignore and too long to understand.
Many of us are history buffs, I think. When you read history – and especially the history of wars – notice how little attention is paid on who was morally in the right or wrong. After everyone who knew and loved the dead are themselves gone, which only takes a few decades, it’s just geopolitical moves and counters.
Looks to me like the bombing is an exclamation point marking the failure of diplomacy.
In 2018 when Trump 1 abruptly ended the nuclear enrichment treaty the estimates I’m reading were that it would have lasted 10 to 15 years. Sure it wasn’t perfect, but it kept the US engaged with an organized and in control counterparty who had stretched themselves to the limits of their trust; something to be encouraged, fostered and developed, not just for Iran but for other countries who need to see the US as dealing reliably and externally providing support to internal moderating forces. Of course, a bombing campaign as backup was always an option and Netanyahu (who has been arguing publicly that Iran is 2 years or less away from having a bomb since 2012) would only be happy to oblige.
Instead, we are looking at the possibility of manufacture of nuclear weapons in as short as 2 years now (given that the remaining hundreds of scientists and lower tier military are able to keep the location of themselves and the remaining cylinders and centrifuge parts hidden better than they have the leaders). And the hope that somehow the people will rise up against the remainder of the oppressive regime, join with Netanyahu and the US, and follow the Shaw’s son into a western democratic ideology seems naive. More likely it will be fragmented, with the threat more difficult to monitor, the warfare more asymmetric, and more likely to target the US, for what?
Seems like it could also be politically great if you show military might, keep boots off the ground, and the liberal left chooses to condemn the strikes, so you can point at them and say “these guys want the terrorists to have nukes”.
After initial silence, there is already much complaining to be read in the international press at least along the lines of how dare the US bomb this innocent terrorist-funding, Russia-supporting, assassination-planning, oppressive Islamist regime’s nuclear weapons program. That line of argument seems like it should at least have a possibility of backfiring when presented to regular people.
Well, in fairness, it’s important to note that the “terror” funded by Iran is different in character from the terror funded by the Sunni powers. It wasn’t Hezbollah operatives running around Paris killing innocents and it wasn’t Iranians flying planes into skyscrapers one fine morning in September of 2001. The most effective weapon against ISIS and other, similar Sunni extremist groups in the region was Qassem Soleimani.