↓
 
Home » The war in Iran is a Rorschach test

The war in Iran is a Rorschach test

The New Neo Posted on by

Or if you prefer, it’s Schrödinger’s cat.

Take your pick.of metaphors – either way, how the person sees it at the moment is more a reflection of that person’s attitude towards Trump, war, and Iran itself than any reality. Do you think Trump’s a bumbling fool? Then you probably think it’s a foolish and perhaps even evil war. Do you think Trump’s a wily old bastard with many tricks up his sleeve? Then you probably think the war has achieved a great deal towards defanging an active terrorist state bent on the destruction of the West, and you are willing to trust that Trump has no intention of undermining those gains and every intention of extending them, as well as the ability to do so.

If you’re a pacifist or isolationist and thought Trump was one too, you’re probably angry and feel betrayed. And of course, if you think Iran’s a great place and the leaders are heroes who had no evil intent and need nuclear weapons, you’re on their side.

But sooner or later, the inkblot turns into a recognizable picture. Sooner or later, the box is opened and you either observe a live cat or a dead cat. The basic question is: at what point will that happen? Some think it should have happened already. Others are willing to wait.

One of those willing to wait is Roger Kimball, who writes:

Trump held Iran’s head underwater for six weeks. He pulled it up and let it sputter while he offered the mullahs an off-ramp. But Secretary of State Marco Rubio, responding to the press, is right. “The idea that somehow this President, given everything he’s already proven he’s willing to do, is going to somehow agree to a deal that ultimately winds up putting Iran in a stronger position when it comes to nuclear ambitions is absurd!”

Indeed. Trump is waiting impatiently while the Iranians prance and posture. The IRGC tried laying some mines in the Strait of Hormuz and: pow! The US took out the boats involved and destroyed a surface-to-air missile battery in Bandar Abbas that was targeting US warplanes. “These were defensive strikes,” a US spokesman said. “They do not indicate the ceasefire is over.”

What they do indicate is that Trump is serious about his terms.

Kimball also believes that the Iranian regime “may shatter” once “a few cracks appear.” I think “may” is doing a lot of work there. Of course it “may” shatter, but IMHO that will take more than “a few cracks.” A lot more.

Trump isn’t making a deal contingent on the regime shattering; he’s making it contingent on their cooperating on his key points. But is that even possible, and would capitulation be meaningful if they can’t be trusted? I think the answer is “no.” I think this particular regime will never yield on those points and even if they do is not to be trusted. And I think Trump, Rubio, and the rest of the American negotiators know that. That’s why the endgame is a conundrum.

NOTE: Here’s a piece about the Rorschach test. And here’s one about Schrödinger’s cat.

Comments

The war in Iran is a Rorschach test — 28 Comments

  2. I trust kimball because he has been so right so often however the gordian knot might be the right metaphor

  3. The only test I see is if one is infected with TDS. If so, then that determines all thinking on Iran. For the rest of us, we can have varying degrees of doubts on the current status, but I also think that we all agree it was a necessary action.

  4. Whos actually in charge the ‘right people’ cant even tell us that

  5. I agree with Neo’s assessment.
    The IRGC has a tight grip on Iran, and will not let go. Those who feel the oppressed Iranians should just overthrow their rulers are nuts. The governing fanatics already murdered with mass shootings by the IRGC maybe 20,000 (? more) demonstrators, and Iranians all know that.
    The boycott/blockade must be sustained for a long time, several decades, and Iran will slowly and surely become horribly impoverished. Oil is the only asset of Iran. Once all their oil storage tanks are full, the oil wells with their pumps will deteriorate because slow pumping of oil with no place to put it yields damage to wells and their pumps, and it will take money and time to undo that.

  6. I’ve always been a fan of Roger Kimball. But frankly, his record as a prognosticator, is dreadful. He’s always totally optimistic. He was sure Romney would beat Obama.

  7. Few realize that the original intent of Schrödinger’s “Cat” thought experiment was to illustrate the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

    The idea was to extend the indeterminate state posited for a Uranium nucleus in the subatomic world “up” to our everyday world, showing that if one accepts the former, it logically leads to dead / alive cats and other illogical things.

    Ironically, the proponents of Copenhagen said in effect “Precisely so!”, and the Cat became an illustration not of quantum impossibility, but of the true weirdness of the quantum world!

    Many examples exist of such turnarounds, for example the common term “Big Bang”. Today, most of us accept it as a description of what was supposed to have occurred, even those of us who are skeptical that it did. But originally, it was intended to be a rude, mocking description of such a beginning of the universe, designed to demean those who could possibly believe in it!

  8. Militarily, it is inarguable that “the war has achieved a great deal towards defanging an active terrorist state bent on the destruction of the West”.
    I am certain that Trump has no intention of undermining those gains and every intention of extending them.
    I am somewhat doubtful that Trump has the ability to do so without sufficient Senatorial support.

    “The boycott/blockade must be sustained for a long time, several decades, and Iran will slowly and surely become horribly impoverished.” Cicero

    Yes and the effectiveness of that strategy depends upon its longevity. Which will be determined by whether the next administration supports it and whether Congressional support remains firm.

    Both are at least somewhat problematic.

  9. Ps. Copilot says that “Big Bang” is an example of “Amelioration” of a negative term, while Schrödinger’s Cat is an example of “Reductio reversal”, in which a reductio ad absurdum argument is turned on its head!

    Pps. I must add that after reading many others’ thoughts on these subjects over the years, I am personally somewhat skeptical of the current evolved interpretation of both these… thingys.

  10. Iran just rejected turning over any enriched uranium if it were to leave the country.

  12. Ray Van Dune,

    Given Schrodinger’s subsequent books like Mind and Matter, I think your interpretation of his Cat to illustrate the absurdity of QM is quite wrong.

  13. Good post at the Washington Free Beacon.
    https://freebeacon.com/culture/whats-the-deal-with-iran/

    The observations today by Mike Watson about the deal and MOU conditions is not unique, but this analysis was interesting, and generally in line with what Victor Hanson said in the interview physicsguy linked in the Open Thread. (repeated below)

    When conducting diplomacy, Americans often make two fatal errors: The first is that they tend to ignore or downplay the ideologies and narratives that motivate their counterparts and hope that offering economic benefits will paper over other differences. The other is that they think initial agreements build goodwill that will lead to further, better deals.

    These blindnesses contributed to the failures of two of the most consequential American diplomatic acts of the past four decades, the Oslo Accords and the Obama-era JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran. Oslo was a fine provisional measure for establishing some governance over disputed territory. But it could not lay the foundation for a fuller peace because it did not resolve the fundamental contradiction between Zionism, the belief that the Jewish people should have their own state in their historical homeland, and the anti-Zionism rampant in the region. Similarly, the JCPOA did not lead to a new understanding between America and the “death to America” crowd.

    There are two better ways to conduct diplomacy. One is developing a serious understanding of how other countries view their own interests and creating options for them that are more robust than the typical Beltway pablum about overcoming differences and taking risks for peace. When negotiating with people whose goals are either fundamentally opposed to America’s or are irrelevant to its interests, the goal of diplomacy should be to change facts on the ground in our favor rather than to create good feelings.

    Unlike the JCPOA or the Oslo Accords, the Abraham Accords worked because they fit the overall goals of the Arab countries that joined. They generally saw their fossil fuel reserves as wasting assets and wanted to transition into other industries, including tourism and emerging technologies. Few tourists or investors relish visits to war zones, so this transition requires peace and stability. A partnership with Israel offered important benefits: Israeli military strength was a powerful deterrent for Iranian aggression, and Israeli innovation promised to leap them ahead technologically.

    The new leaders in Tehran do not appear likely to abandon their raison d’être, to destroy Israel and harm Americans, so using the negotiations to lock in tangible gains is the best course left. They promised to reopen the Strait during the ceasefire, but did not and triggered the blockade. Imposing consequences for further violations will be important.

    So will preventing Iran from reconstituting its war machine. The bombing offensive severely degraded the regime’s ability to enrich uranium or build long-range weapons. Removing existing stockpiles of enriched uranium from their control would reduce the threat still further. The mullahs could use any sanctions relief to rebuild their arsenals, but they would risk an uprising from their furious and impoverished subjects.

    If the negotiations actually begin, that is. Reports of Revolutionary Guard attacks on international shipping began swirling shortly after Sec. Bessent described Trump’s red lines. Their masters in Tehran are unremittingly hostile to Americans and their allies, after all.

    From the link under the bolded sentence in the last paragraph:

    Amichai Stein
    @AmichaiStein1
    Iranian sources: The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps attacked four ships in the Strait of Hormuz region, including American vessels.
    1:51 PM · May 28, 2026

    Hanson link:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HM3nWRj8U

  14. Don Surber notes this about the Iran war (among a long list of other news items and some joking around), retweeted from Newt Gingrich.
    I have always thought that much of the controversy surrounding Trump’s actions comes from not knowing what’s going on behind the scenes – either not leaked by the administration or not seriously addressed by the media.

    https://donsurber.substack.com/p/highlights-of-the-news-3af

    Gingrich’s tweet is copied completely by Surber.
    https://x.com/newtgingrich/status/2060280411641569337

    After spending this week reviewing the Iranian war I am now convinced President Trump is on the edge of an historic victory. The real breakthrough for me came as I reviewed President Trump’s decisions and maneuvers not from the standpoint of American unilateralism but from the standpoint of the leader of a remarkable historic coalition, the largest coalition ever put together in the modern Middle East.

    Everyone understands that Israel is an important ally. What is little discussed is the depth of support from the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region. It has to be sobering for the Iranian dictatorship to realize that it does not have a single ally willing to challenge the American naval blockade. Slowly, gradually, timidly, our European allies are lining up to help with the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

    A great deal of President Trump’s maneuvers against Iran make sense once he is seen as a coalition leader and not just as a unilateral American President. I spent a lot of the last couple weeks reviewing kinetic options including wining the battle of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz and if necessary using the shocking and shattering level of force President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger used against Hanoi and Haiphong in Christmas 1972 (which both leaders believed convinced the North Vietnamese to agree to a truce and the freeing of American POWs).

    If this were a unilateral American campaign I could enthusiastically support a more aggressive kinetic campaign. However it is also clear it would shatter the coalition because our Arab allies are convinced Iran could still do enormous damage to their oil fields and infrastructure. Coalitions are inherently slower than unilateral campaigns. However coalitions ultimately bring vastly more power to the fight.

    I am as frustrated as everyone else by the pace of talking with the dictatorship but having reviewed the correlation of forces and the options available to the coalition on one side and the Iranian religiously motivated dictatorship on the other I am prepared to assert that President Trump’s coalition leadership (something almost none of his critics want to acknowledge) is within reach of an enormous historic victory.

    And if the Iranian dictatorship ultimately proves it is hopelessly committed to a suicidal position there will be plenty of time for a kinetic campaign of enormous power and effectiveness. Either way we are on the edge of an astonishing victory for our values and for a safer Middle East.

    Don ends with: “I told you 9 years ago this picture would be on the final exam.”

    See if you can guess what it is before peeking.

  16. I sure can’t read what’s going on. The Trump administration keeps saying that real progress is being made in the negotiations. Iranian leaders keep saying that they aren’t giving up on the uranium dust, uranium enrichment and control of Hormuz.

    Which would seem to mean that no progress has been made since the ceasefire. Or that the Iranians negotiators are saying something different in the negotiations.

    It’s true that as the blockade and sanctions continue, Iran grows weaker by the day. Which can’t go on forever, but might last long enough to damage the midterm elections.

    Trump is also using the Iran War as leverage to pull the Gulf States into the Abraham Accords. So that’s another piece of the puzzle.

    I guess the key is that Trump can return to military operations whenever he chooses and he will continue to talk up the negotiations with the usual threats until he decides to bring the hammer down again.

    I suspect that’s what will happen, but no one will know when, neither us nor the Iranians.

  17. Meanwhile, POTUS doesn’t have a distracting, unnecessary fight with our real enemy (the donkey party) over the unconstitutional war powers act.

  18. 1. We elected this president to undo the erosion of deterrence that was caused by decades of skittish post-Vietnam “limited engagements” and failed drive-thru-window attempts at “regime change”.

    2. The drumbeats of doubt, manufactured deadlines, and false expectations emanate from the same media/pundit class that nurtured Western defeatism in the first place.
    This chattering class has repeatedly demonstrated ignorance of how the world really works, and anything resembling resolve.

    So why are we (you!) listening to them about Iran?

    3. The last *successful* regime change (WWII) took 5-7 years, depending how you count – plus decades of occupation and “de-Nazification” of a basically Judeo-Christian country.

    How long do you think it will take to deNazify Iran?

    Trump is successfully confusing/neutralizing the naysayers while continuing the program – without angering his base too much.

    In terms of the REAL time frame for regime change – we haven’t even reached the morning coffee break.

    https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/germany/iran

  20. Schrödinger’s Cat was designed as a critique — a demonstration that Copenhagen’s collapse postulate becomes absurd when applied to everyday objects.

    Schrödinger and Einstein both felt this way, and my sources indicate his book “Mind and Matter” did not change that position.

  21. In this morning’s newspaper, Thomas Friedman has spoken, to the effect that the only question will be how big a plate of crow Trump has to eat in order to escape from Iran, and will he lie and claim it’s actually lobster, or it’s steak?

    Whew! When such a great as Friedman says you’re screwed, you know you are golden!

  22. @Ben David: So why are we (you!) listening to them about Iran?

    I do so love being addressed as “you,” then lectured.

  23. @Ray Van Dune: Schrödinger’s Cat was designed as a critique — a demonstration that Copenhagen’s collapse postulate becomes absurd when applied to everyday objects.

    That’s my understanding as well:
    ___________________________________________

    The solutions to Schrödinger’s equation, unlike the solutions to Newton’s equations, are wave functions that can only be related to the probable occurrence of physical events. The definite and readily visualized sequence of events of the planetary orbits of Newton is, in quantum mechanics, replaced by the more abstract notion of probability.

    This aspect of the quantum theory made Schrödinger and several other physicists profoundly unhappy, and he devoted much of his later life to formulating philosophical objections to the generally accepted interpretation of the theory that he had done so much to create. His most famous objection was the 1935 thought experiment that later became known as Schrödinger’s cat.

    A cat is locked in a steel box with a small amount of a radioactive substance such that after one hour there is an equal probability of one atom either decaying or not decaying. If the atom decays, a device smashes a vial of poisonous gas, killing the cat. However, until the box is opened and the atom’s wave function collapses, the atom’s wave function is in a superposition of two states: decay and non-decay. Thus, the cat is in a superposition of two states: alive and dead.

    Schrödinger thought this outcome “quite ridiculous,” and when and how the fate of the cat is determined has been a subject of much debate among physicists.

    –Encyclopedia Britannica, “Erwin Schrödinger”
    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Erwin-Schrodinger

  24. Ah flathead removing all doubt, he has been nearly as bad as robert fisk who rightly became a verb, after a particularly cringey twist (where he waa accosted by afghan tribesmen and blamed himself)

    As with halberstam getting vietnam wrong at the outset then moving on to other venues like auto industry

    The perspective from the levant is appreciated many of these same type of critics attack netanyahu with similar vituperance

    The irgc is much like the ss the artesh like wehmacht the basij like the gestapo

  25. Thomas Friedman does have this rather tiresome tendency of letting us in on his most fetid fantasies and fever dreams.

    Not sure why he feels he must share all this personal dreck with the Rest of World but I guess that’s what he believes he’s being paid to do…as a STAR (if a very dark one) in the totally corrupt firmament known as the Left-Wing Media.

    Merely another case of “By their dreams (and fantasies) thou shalt know them”…

    (Thomas Fetishman?)

    Meanwhile POTUS46 proves he’s not only President Fentanyl-Tranq; he’s also President Let’s Incinerate Whole Families…

    “Non-English-Speaking Bus Driver Faces Manslaughter Charges After Horror Virginia Crash Kills Entire Family”
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/non-english-speaking-bus-driver-faces-manslaughter-charge-after-horror-virginia-crash

    (Alas, Pete Buttigieg was unavailable for comment…)

    + Bonus:

    Trump Toughens Terms Of Iran Deal Framework, As Bessent Pinpoints Tehran’s ‘Big Mistake’

    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-tightens-terms-iran-deal-framework-bessent-pinpoints-tehrans-big-mistake

  27. @Ben David: So why are we (you!) listening to them about Iran?
    Huxley: I do so love being addressed as “you,” then lectured.
    ————————————-
    Sorry – I couldn’t figure out the keystrokes to display a waggling finger icon to go along with the lecture…

    More seriously – there are still many educated people who have somewhat gingerly, reluctantly admitted that The Donald is not “literally Hitler” – but are still susceptible to the Gell-Mann amnesia effect in all things Trump.

  28. I get a bit put out of shape by good folk like Lee Smith (see his latest at Tablet) who for months now see and recognize the “Op” being run by our enemies against the Trump-Netanyahu tag team, warns us all not to fall for it, again, for months running, yet nevertheless turns about to fall for it himself. I mean, it’s nuts, and, I guess, a powerfully effective Op (to the extent that being run in the same pattern, over and over on different events) finally boon-swaggles even those who know it’s out there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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>

Web Analytics
↑