Comments

There’s plenty of news on the Iran war — 25 Comments

1. Stupid of the Iranians because that ends the clock on the unconstitutional war powers act.

2. Might help President Trump in this war with members of Congress other other side. Iran declares open war let’s go at em full bore.

3. Jeez, I do not understand why we have stood down the Israelis. Let them pick off the leaders again–negotiating with any of them is a waste of time, and turn on all Economic Fury measures again. We don’t win this until somebody topples the regime–that’s most likely something Israel can do. I wonder if Vance is lebbying Trump to hold the Israelis back so he can continue negotiating. If so, Trump should tell JD to sit down and shut up.

   I like Rubio or DeSantis over Vance any day.

4. @ Bill (8:15 PM) I wholeheartedly agree. Hope GOP doesn’t do what Dems did last election feeling they had to go w/ VP.

5. Jeez, I do not understand why we have stood down the Israelis.

   A – f-ing – men.

6. “Hope GOP doesn’t do what Dems did last election feeling they had to go w/ VP.”

   I’m increasingly persuaded that Vance is another Pence. That’s been in the GOP’s playbook at least since Bush Sr. told Reagan he didn’t really mean it with his “Voodoo Economics” charge.

7. “Jeez, I do not understand why we have stood down the Israelis.”

   Well, it’s what we always do… “Just War Doctrine” you know.

   Once an enemy’s ability to directly threaten you is nullified, wiping out a mortal enemy would entail the use of ‘disproportionate force’. Think our ROEs when ‘pacifying’ Afghanistan.

8. The following analysis, astonishing in its breadth and for the way it pulls together global political, sociological and historical trends and movements, might be a bit OT…but just a little bit:

   “Naming the Threat: Third-Worldism”—
   https://www.zinebriboua.com/p/naming-the-threat-third-worldism
   H/T Powerline blog.

9. Reminder:

   1. This conflict ends when Muslims reform the Islamic religion.
   Everything else is whack-a-mole that lasts for various durations.
   They intend to “liberate” everything that is not already dar-el-Islam, and will lie cheat steal and behave with brutal lack of constraint and honor.
   Not all cultures are alike, kiddies.

   So: forget about Trump “solving” this or ending this “cycle of violence”… President Thomas Jefferson was fighting Muslim pirates…

   2. This administration is juggling the Iranian situation with other foreign threats, a longer-term realignment that dumps useless European weenie-allies.

   AND an all-important domestic race to wake up enough Americans to save the Republic. The immediate challenge is the midterms.

   He MUST be perceived as honoring the “no new foreign entanglements” promise he made – which plays well with both patriots and peaceniks.

   He must also hold fast to the new Trump Doctrines of foreign policy… it would be lovely to establish a democratic Iranian republic in the heart or dar-el-Islam, but it must not be perceived as Cold-war style American imperialism, and it must not (appear to) leave American boots on the ground… he has repeatedly tested the waters and invited the Iranian people and the Shah’s descendants to step up. Apparently we’re not there yet.

   Within those constraints this administration is carrying out a deep, brilliant strategy… Repeatedly boxing out the Chinese and Russians… Repeatedly refocusing the financial world back to America.

   But this approach may leave those wanting a Big Beautiful Victory disappointed.

   I discount almost all the reports of daylight between the USA and Israel as misinformation – finally an administration willing to fight lies and taqiyya with misdirection.

   Meanwhile Israel is establishing a sterile zone in the north, mopping up in Gaza….

   This administration is constantly playing 3-D chess and acheiving several things at once… no satisfying spectacle, but effective.

10. Excellent comment.
    Me? I don’t know WHAT to believe anymore…

    (I know what I’d like to believe…but that’s not going to pay the rent.)

    Anyway, here’s a pair of articles—there’s no end to them—that demonstrate the problem with the current rampant dishonesty and lunacy:

    “WHEN THEY TELL YOU HOW THEY WIN, BELIEVE THEM”—
    https://instapundit.com/811487/

    “THIS IS NO STORY, JUST LIKE OBAMA’S DEAD CHEF”—
    https://instapundit.com/811542/

11. I doubt that anyone in the Trump administration does or says much that isn’t approved by Trump. Trump has bashed Israel a lot in this Iran conflict: has trump bashed Israel in this Iran war?

    Yes, Donald Trump has repeatedly clashed with and criticized Israeli leadership during the ongoing 2026 U.S.-Israel war with Iran. While the U.S. and Israel initially launched the war as partners, a severe rift has opened between Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump’s frustrations stem from his belief that Israel’s aggressive actions are undermining U.S. efforts to secure a ceasefire deal with Tehran. (Google AI Mode)

    Partnering up with Israel in the beginning was a great move; however, typical Trump flip-flopping and chaos has been going on since someone thought they could ‘Make a Deal’—bargain with Iran, IMHO.

    Iranians had a chance to revolt against the regime and they didn’t. Why do Iranians still have electricity? Water? Cut off the electricity and see if the Iranians finally stand up and revolt…I dunno, but playing patty cake with them makes them look in control, IMHO.

    CRINK: China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. If Iran is bad for America then so are the other three…

12. Re: Vance – Unless Don Jr. runs (for the love of all things, please no), Vance is the closest thing to a continuation of the Trump movement. He is chasing the energy of the populist right that Trump unleashed. You want all those young men and minorities who watch Joe Rogan and voted for Trump? There would be no Trump 47 without them. And they’re probably not going to vote for Rubio and certainly not for DeSantis. The only thing that Trump has brought to the GOP that (might) outlast his own cult of personality is represented by Vance, Joe Rogan, and Tucker Carlson.

    I’m not saying that Rubio and DeSantis couldn’t win. They are actually my 1 and 1A preferences for 2028. They would just have to draw middle class normies who abandoned the GOP over Trumpian sleaze. Especially if the Dems run Kamala or a DSA candidate, this is plausible and maybe even likely. (And if the GOP really wants to make sure Dems don’t take the White House in 2028, they should run Nikki Haley. She would unlock a vast swath of normie voters who, sadly, are probably unavailable to Rubio or DeSantis. And the whole “we need Trump because Nikki Haley is a war monger” argument really hasn’t aged well.)

    And I’m saying this as someone who initially liked Vance. I thought his book was brilliant, made a great and necessary argument about culture, and that he had a great potential as a future leader. I’m dismayed now by his footsie with Tucker and his “the Jews did it” argument over the Iran MOU. I think that Trump put him in an impossible situation when he made a quagmire in Iran over Vance’s contrary advice, but even given that, Vance hasn’t covered himself in glory and that’s becoming a pattern.

13. Backward looking and topic adjacent, nevertheless, worth a read. From Lillian H. Meuller:

    Hear, hear

    The New Yorker @NewYorker reveals in a poignant analytical article the profound frustration within the Biden administration toward Israeli PM Netanyahu @netanyahu throughout the wars in Gaza and Lebanon.

    The article presents a clear picture of a prolonged confrontation between an American administration that sought to curtail Israel’s freedom of action and a prime minister @netanyahu who insisted on keeping it firmly in Israeli hands. Biden’s senior officials describe this with frustration, yet acknowledge that Netanyahu did not yield to the pressures, did not adopt Washington’s rules of the game, and continued to manage the war according to Israel’s defined interests.

    The article frames Netanyahu’s steadfastness as a successful defense of Israeli sovereignty amid intense allied friction, while underscoring the Biden team’s ultimate inability to dictate the terms of Israel’s military campaign.

    Key Points from the Investigation
    Senior former U.S. officials—including National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, his deputy Jon Finer, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin—detail their repeated efforts to shape Israeli policy. These included pushing for cease-fires, constraining military operations, and even contemplating conditions on arms shipments. Yet Netanyahu consistently refused to align with American expectations and continued to direct the campaign based on Israel’s interests.

    Sullivan acknowledged that the administration weighed harsher measures against Jerusalem on multiple occasions, particularly ahead of the Rafah operation in spring 2024 and again in July of that year. Nevertheless, President Biden refrained from a decisive break, citing concerns over the hostages’ fate, Israel’s security, and the viability of negotiations.

    American officials expressed deep irritation over Israel’s opaque timelines and intentions. Finer noted that Israel did not fully disclose its plans. A pointed exchange between Blinken and Netanyahu confidant Ron Dermer highlighted the tension: Israeli counterparts repeatedly estimated “another two weeks” of fighting until Blinken exploded in protest; Dermer quipped back that he would say “fortnight” instead.

    The assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah further strained relations. A former White House source described Biden as feeling “humiliated” that Netanyahu ordered the strike with minimal advance notice—just days after the U.S. and its allies had called for a three-week cease-fire with Hezbollah. Washington ultimately avoided sharp public criticism and stood by Israel.

    The report also highlights Biden’s personal involvement. He repeatedly rejected proposals to leverage arms deliveries as pressure tactics. Sullivan later characterized the situation as a “trap” for the administration: any escalation of pressure inevitably resurfaced issues surrounding the hostages, Israel’s security needs, and ongoing diplomatic efforts.

    Biden even considered a direct address to the Israeli public warning against the pursuit of “total victory,” only to revise the speech at the last moment into a call to accept a hostage deal after Israeli clarifications.

    Source in Hebrew: @C14_news

    https://x.com/i/status/2079542143815758146

    Of course The New Yorker downplays the extent of the Biden Admin perfidy, but then we’d expect no less.

14. Once again for CC™-R The Great Orange Whale is the root of all evil, today it is turning J D Vance into a puppet without agency.

    Don Trump Jr., is The Little Orange Whale?

15. Excellent comment from Ben David, as usual. Thanks.

16. “…Nevertheless, President Biden refrained from a decisive break, citing concerns over the hostages’ fate, Israel’s security, and the viability of negotiations…”

    Ah, those jokers.
    (That would be President “Biden”, of course…)

17. Punctuation question for Barry M

    Should it be

    President “Biden” or

    “President” Biden or

    “President” “Biden” or

    “President Biden”?

    Sorry, I missed that lesson in 4th grade …

18. om, I just scroll by now. Life is too short.

19. Nikki Haley is a wind sock with no American heritage. DOA.

20. Bauxite:

    At this point, Rubio is more a continuation of Trump in terms of policy (not style, although his style is hard-hitting). Vance is a continuation of neither policy (certainly not foreign policy) nor style. However, Vance certainly has more of the Tucker following – but that group is angry at Trump. The real question is this: how big is that following? I’ve been trying to answer that question and so far I can’t. There is evidence that Tucker’s traffic is heavily from Muslim countries, especially Pakistan, and bots. That’s not to say he doesn’t have an actual following among American voters, but its size is unknown and polls are few and far between.

21. Excellent question.
    I would say “All of the above”.

    (Punctuation is fungible—at least mine is….)

22. The US and the West entered into an informal but necessary alliance with Israel at the founding of modern Israel.

    The core dynamic since 1973 has the US/West constraining Israel victories against radical Islamic jihadists where a strategic win was possible to a tactical victory, always keeping the defeated enemy alive and in some instances helping them recover.

    Our global geo-political interests haven’t always aligned, but at each stage of this decades long battle between Islamic and Judeo-Christian values left the jihadists stronger.

    Cases in point. I asked Grok for a synopsis of wars fought between Israel and Muslim forces where we have always forced Israel to settle for a tactical win, rather than a strategic victory.

    Israel has repeatedly achieved clear tactical and operational victories:

    Degrading enemy forces, destroying infrastructure, assassinating leaders, imposing heavy costs, and restoring short-term deterrence.
    Examples: the 1982 Lebanon War (PLO military infrastructure smashed and expelled), the 2006 Lebanon War (Hezbollah rocket arrays and command hit hard), and every Gaza round from 2008–09 through the post-October 7 campaign (Hamas battalions attrited, tunnels collapsed, leadership decimated).

    Yet these have rarely translated into lasting strategic victory—defined as permanently removing the enemy’s ability and will to regenerate as a viable existential threat**, changing the political/ideological status quo, or ending the cycle. Instead, the result is usually a temporary reset (“mowing the grass”), after which the adversary rebuilds with external help and resumes.

    How Western (especially U.S.) influence contributes

    The 1973 precedent set the template and has echoed:

    U.S. enables the tactical wins (qualitative military edge, airlifts/munitions, intelligence, UN vetoes, diplomatic cover). Without this, Israel could not sustain the series of victories.

    U.S./Western pressure then caps the strategic outcome. Goals short of total destruction of the enemy’s war-making capacity and political regeneration are insisted upon—or imposed via leverage over arms, financing, diplomacy, and international institutions.

    1973: Classic case—airlift saves Israel, then Kissinger + DEFCON 3 + ceasefire pressure save the Egyptian Third Army so Egypt remains a viable interlocutor.

    1982 Lebanon: Israel drives on Beirut and aims to destroy the PLO as a military-political force and reshape Lebanon. Reagan administration pressure, Marine deployment, and diplomacy force a pullback; the PLO survives (Tunis), and Hezbollah emerges as the stronger successor.

    2006 Lebanon: Bush team delayed a UN ceasefire (confirmed by John Bolton and others) to give Israel more time, yet the eventual UNSCR 1701 left Hezbollah intact, rearming, and able to claim “divine victory.” No strategic elimination.

    Gaza cycles: Repeated IDF superiority, but ceasefires, humanitarian corridors, restrictions on reoccupation or long-term control, and massive post-war aid flows (much of it Western-funded or facilitated) allow Hamas to regenerate tunnels, rockets, and governance. Post-Oct 7 has been the most ambitious attempt at strategic change, yet U.S. pressure on timing (Rafah), civilian harm thresholds, endgame arrangements, and “day after” planning has still limited freedom of action.

    Western norms, media, NGOs, lawfare (ICC/ICJ), European diplomacy, and funding streams (UNRWA and others) amplify the effect: they raise the political cost of decisive measures and help keep Palestinian rejectionist structures and Iranian proxies administratively and financially viable.

    It is wrong, IMO, to constrain Israel’s wars and then force them to accept a future where 35,000 projectiles are launched into the country in a two year period, and thousands of increasingly sophisticated projectiles are fired into the country in the foreseeable future, possibly forever. At some point we have an obligation to help Israel degrade the Islamists capabilities and give Israel a window of rest.

    We have reached this point because at each juncture we’ve forced Israel to accept a temporary pause. But the strategy and the capability that Iran had built and will continue to strengthen requires a strategic victory against this foe.

    There will no doubt be new Islamic fundings of the terrorist proxies seeking to surround Israel, but none whether it be Turkey or Qatar or Pakistan will have the will and the means that Iran has.

23. Exemplary post, Brian.

    Note, however, that Erdogan seems pretty determined to chisel his name into the history books, even more than he already has…

24. More on why we’ve told the Israelis to stand down.

    https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/why-israel-is-sitting-out-the-latest-u-s-bombing-campaign-in-iran-55713b77?st=KsmoUv

    And the reasons are just as stupid as you might have expected.

    The Persian Gulf’s Arab states are lobbying the U.S. to ensure that Israel doesn’t resume strikes on Iran, said Arab officials familiar with the discussion. They fear Israeli involvement would trigger a fierce response from Tehran that potentially targets their energy infrastructure, the officials said. It also would make it harder politically for Gulf states to join in the attacks on Iran themselves if necessary.

25. “And the reasons are just as stupid as you might have expected.”

    Forget it, Mike. It’s the Middle East.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>