Meanwhile, in Iran
An announcement from Trump:
U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered the Navy to attack any Iranian boats mining the Strait of Hormuz. His decree, issued on Truth Social, also claims the U.S. is currently demining the strategic waterway. His announcement comes hours after the U.S. boarded another Iranian-linked vessel in the Indian Ocean and a day after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) fired on at least three ships and seized two of them in the Strait.
I’ve been curious about this “seized two ships” business. My question is: says who? Well, to start with, says Iran:
Nour News, affiliated with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) opened fire on the first ship, which it called the Epaminodes, after it had “ignored the warnings of the Iranian armed forces”.
A second ship, named Euphoria, was then stopped after being “fired upon”, followed by the targeting of a third vessel, the MSC-Francesca, according to BBC Verify. …
IRGC Naval Command said both it and the Panama-flagged MSC-Francesca had been seized after endangering maritime security “by operating without the necessary permits and tampering with navigation systems”.
The two vessels will have their cargo and documents examined, it added in an announcement reported by Iranian state television. …
Four other vessels in the convoy have since crossed the strait, according to maritime data from Linerlytica. They appear to have turned off their transponders, which share a ship’s location, during the passage. …
Greece’s Foreign Minister Giorgos Gerapetritis later said he could not confirm that the Epaminondas had been detained.
He told CNN: “I can confirm that there was an attack against the Greek cargo ship, but I cannot confirm that this has been seized by the Iranians.”
Clear as mud.
And what of Iran’s Supreme Leader? This report might be credible, although it’s based on a NY Times story:
Mojtaba Khamenei remains seriously wounded, isolated and running the country under an unprecedented security umbrella.
Doctors at his side, senior officials at a distance
Access to the younger Khamenei is described as “extremely difficult and limited.” He is surrounded by a dedicated medical team that, unusually, also includes Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, a heart surgeon by training, and the health minister. Commanders in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and senior government officials are avoiding visiting him in person for fear that Israel could track their movements and eliminate the leader at his hiding place.Khamenei’s physical condition is described as serious but stable. According to official Iranian sources who spoke to The New York Times, his leg has been operated on three times and he is awaiting a prosthesis. His hand was also operated on and is gradually regaining function. He is suffering from severe burns to his face and lips, making it difficult for him to speak. He is expected to undergo a series of plastic surgeries in the future. But despite the injuries, four senior Iranian officials said he is “mentally alert and involved in what is happening.”
Khamenei has refused to appear in video clips or audio recordings so as not to be seen by the public as “weak or vulnerable.” Communication with the leader is being conducted in an underground-style system: messages are passed only in handwritten form, signed and sealed in envelopes, through a chain of couriers traveling by car and motorcycle along side roads to the hideout. His instructions are returned the same way.
I think most of the other current leaders are laying pretty low, as well, after what happened to their predecessors.
In WWll, we did not let German and Japanese civilian deaths deter us. That is because Americans still understood what William Tecumseh Sherman so unflinchingly declared; “War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want. You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm, as against these terrible hardships of war. War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it; the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
Bomb baby, bomb.
@Geoffrey Britain
Heck, we did not even allow allied or neutral civilian deaths to deter us. We killed thousands of French civilians during the Normandy campaign from sheer collateral damage. We bombed Switzerland by accident multiple times. That doesn’t make it good but at some point we need to steel ourselves and accept that there are few clean struggles of this importance.
it looks like a wilderness of mirrors to me, the bbc is the arbiter of what is happening, not the greek government, is this like the whopper lloyds list, put forward that Chris Murphy bit on, like a file o fish sandwich,
one notes the greeks are the most intrepid of the tanker crews, going back as far as onassis and niarchos if not earlier
I agree with GB and Turtler. However the culture today is vastly different than WWII and the CW. The public, including independents and a good portion of conservatives, will not tolerate such. Probably because the threat from Iran is still abstract. There’s been no Bull Run, Pearl Harbor, or bombs on London to make the threat truly concrete. Tel Aviv nuked would focus a lot of minds.
A lot of people are just Alfred E Neumanns.
Over on another thread Bill posed the idea that “Congress is supposed to be a necessary check to executive power. Checks and Balances. That’s the beauty of our system. I didn’t know this was controversial. But I guess it is.” regarding the executive branch’s use of the military without Congress authorizing it.
But is that the norm? Apparently not.
— Grok
I think most everyone would think that as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the President would have some inherent Constitutional authority to use the military, and I suppose the AUMF tries to strike a balance. But here are some conflicts where the act first and then seek approval have been used:
— Grok
I know some don’t like the use of AI, but it does save a lot of time and research. In some instances Grok does get it wrong, but looking at the big picture of this concept of Executive vs. Legislative authority, it does make the valid point that most of our use of the military has been directed solely by the Executive branch. A lot of these uses have been minor, but the principal is there.
President Trump is coming up on the 60 day AUMF requirement for congressional approval, and I wonder if the President’s use of the ceasefire will give him cover.
President Obama, after committing US to the extended NATO bombing of Libya never sought authorization, though he did meet the reporting requirement.
Obama’s administration (2011) notified Congress within 48 hours, then—once the 60-day mark hit—argued the limited U.S. role (mostly intelligence, refueling, and occasional strikes under NATO/UN auspices, no ground troops, no U.S. casualties) did not constitute “hostilities” that triggered the withdrawal requirement. They kept operations going without ever getting an AUMF.
Trump could make an even stronger version of the same claim now:
With the ceasefire actively extended and strikes halted, there are no ongoing combat exchanges involving U.S. forces.
The blockade is a non-kinetic enforcement measure, not direct “hostilities.”
Therefore, U.S. forces are not in a situation “where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated,” so the WPR’s 60-day limit doesn’t force withdrawal or congressional approval.
According to Grok, “this is the classic executive-branch reading of the WPR that multiple presidents (Republican and Democratic) have used: the law only bites on sustained, kinetic combat. A pause/ceasefire de-escalates the situation enough to reset or sidestep the clock. The White House has already signaled they believe they’re operating “within the bounds of the war powers statute.””
@Brian E:Over on another thread Bill posed the idea that
He amply demonstrated that he either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or that he’s straw-manning. No one was talking about giving Trump unlimited power to wage war or anything else. Bill appears to think that “unitary executive” and “no checks and balances on the President” are the same thing. If he thinks that, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and if he doesn’t think that, he’s just trying to confuse the issue.
Anyway, before you can say the Constitution is being violated, you have to know what it actually says. Few people bother, even though it is very short.
Bill essentially emotes, as he did years ago regarding immigration and illegal aliens. He could be an idiot, ignorant, or both on this topic of Iran.
Pearl Harbor
TBF, I’ve have wondered if more than 50% of today’s population would be upset if such were to occur, especially if a Republican were president at the time. A large percentage would probably be upset, but not think it bad enough to go to war over. A smaller percentage would blame the US and seek to use it for political advantage. I think what is missing is a sense of the place of the US in the world. We have become very insular, separated not only from the world, but from each other as well. No one has the moral authority that FDR possessed after the attack.
Chuck
For a certain percentage of the population, everything, every living thing bad that happens, is our fault. They are enough in numbers and noise to kinda sorta convince another portion of the population which only seeks to be tolerant and wise.
From the NYT story: “This account of Iran’s new power structure is based on interviews with six senior Iranian officials, two former officials, two members of the Revolutionary Guards, a senior cleric familiar with the inner workings of the system and three individuals who know Mr. Khamenei well. Nine other individuals with ties to the Guards and the government also described the command structure. They all spoke on the condition they not be identified because they were discussing sensitive matters of state.”
So, this is how these people describe Iran’s power structure.
Nothing more.
Apple Betty:
Is the NYT plagiarizing the fable about the blind (or blindfolded) men describing an elephant?
@ AppleBetty – I thought for a moment you had commented about the Atlantic’s hit on Kash Patel.
Same kind of sources.
I doubt they are even in the same room with the elephant.
PS What intrepid reporters are embedded with so many Iranians who that familiar with the “inner workings of the system”?
Instapundit today:
https://instapundit.com/792282/
“This report might be credible, although it’s based on a NY Times story:”
That is beautiful, neo!
@physicsguy: “Probably because the threat from Iran is still abstract.”
Thank you. I think you’re right but I realize people here disagree
My understanding from what I’ve read from the commenters on this site is that a) Trump’s pledges of “no new wars” by definition excluded launching an attack on Iran because we’ve always been at war with Iran (at least since 1979) and we have credible evidence that if we didn’t launch this attack we would be nuked and b) we’re at war, so let’s bomb them into the stone age and get this over with quick.
(Also, it’s nice to be remembered, even if only because commenters here think I’m an idiot. I literally haven’t posted in five years. I don’t consider you guys enemies. Maybe we could just talk? Too much to ask?)
Yes, I plead guilty for not wanting us to kill civilians.
I do have some personal connections. I work next door to an Iranian. He’s a really good guy, he has family in Iran. My niece is married to an Iranian – he’s a brilliant guy w a phD working for one of the biggest tech companies in our country. He’s a great guy and his parents live in Tehran.
At my church there is a young Iranian couple (w families in Iran) who recently committed their lives to Christ and were baptized. I don’t know them but one of my friends (who voted for Trump) was the one who led them to conversion.
But even if I didn’t know these people, I still hope that I would want us as a country to be very careful in reaching the decision that we’re OK with tons of civilian deaths. I don’t think this opinion is crazy or stupid. I hope you don’t either
I know wars are sometimes necessary. WW II certainly was, and I understand Sherman’s end game in the civil war. But I also firmly believe that every human being is made in the image of God and we need to not be cavalier about wasting human lives, especially civilians, which include men, women, little kids.
We better know what we’re doing and WHY, and I don’t think in this case we do. But I realize I’m the minority here.
Regarding the Iranians I mentioned above. The one who works with me has no love for the regime and my guess is that’s true for my niece’s husband and the couple at church. The Iranian theocracy was/is terrible.
But they also, even more so, don’t want their relatives, parents, friends killed.
Bill illustrates idiocy that is tied to over reliance on emoting over thinking. He might as well say that he is opposed to killing puppies with a pavement roller, unlike some on this blog. Even Christians in Texas fall into his foolishness.
Actually, I am opposed to killing puppies.
I didn’t realize that was controversial.
I’m even more opposed to killing humans, especially civilians, though I understand that in warfare things happen.
Monsters using their own people as human shields. They must be destroyed. Again the monsters have been very, very clear. They want to end the world. Millions if not billions of humans dead. For the sake of humanity, kill these bastards and free the Irani people.
Our military is the most humane in the history of the world BTW.
Ending the Iranian regime and sparing/freeing the Iranian people is the goal. That would be good.
This is in some conflict with the “bomb baby bomb, then make the rubble bounce” contingent on this thread, which might achieve the ending of the regime (and hopefully not just open the way for another more radical wing to fill the gap) but would also kill untold numbers of innocent people.
” . . . we have credible evidence that if we didn’t launch this attack we would be nuked and b) we’re at war, so let’s bomb them into the stone age and get this over with quick.”
This is straight up sophistic garbage and hence, in my view at least, frankly stupid. Of a piece with Bill’s initial sally in the “I wonder . . . ” thread. Discourse on such a level will, I believe, be fruitless, timewasting, of little use at all. So. Out.
Bill is emoting, can’t conceive that IRGC really does want to destroy this country, Christians, and Jews.
Untold bouncing bodies Bill.
Explosively Formed Projectiles made in Iran killed more than just puppies Billie.
@sdferr, don’t leave.
I’ll leave. All good.
Oh Bill, I’m not going anywhere, just opting out of your appeal to “Maybe we could just talk?”. Yeah, not so long as blather remains your aim. Fix that, and we’ll see.
Some years back, on the Belmont Club, Richard Fernanez posed The The Three Conjectures. It’s now a pamphlet on Kindle, I think, for a couple of bucks. Detailed, maybe kind of talky.
But he asks what we do when terrorists, who don’t mind destroying themselves in their quest to destroy….Israel, the West, the US, or in pursuit of universal Islam, get nukes. What do we do?
Needs to be answered.
Bill, I have to agree with sdferr that you are simplifying the positions here to the level of caricature that makes a discussion difficult.
I had a Palestinian co-worker with whom I had extensive discussion during the Iraq War. Bottom line: he thought we invaded Iraq for the oil, though he was happy that Saddam and his regime had been taken out.
As to the civilian deaths in Iran, here is an estimate that I found surprising. Given the level of bombing, I would have expected it to be higher.
Let’s compare those numbers up against the 30-40,000 protestors that were gunned down over a two day period by the Islamic regime.
It looks like we’re doing everything possible to minimize civilian deaths. But it does create a moral quandary.
Richard Aubrey posed a question that I hope you answer.
“…what we do when terrorists, who don’t mind destroying themselves in their quest to destroy….Israel, the West, the US, or in pursuit of universal Islam, get nukes. What do we do?”
Brian. Thanks for the ref.
The answer is, “They’d never do that!! It would be crazy!” IOW, now they think like we do,, after generations of different-cultures-think-differently-and-who-are-we-to-judge?