The news about Iran is worthless at this point
I haven’t written about Iran for the past few days for a very simple reason: the news is unreliable. I’m not just talking about the MSM, which is almost reflexively consistently unreliable on a host of things. I’m talking about all sources to which I have access, and that includes the blowing hot and cold messages from President Trump.
Of course, that doesn’t stop me from thinking about what’s going on there and even having opinions. But my opinions probably aren’t worth all that much, either. But here are a few anyway.
For example, I saw the reports to which commenter “Richard Aubrey” refers here:
Saw a report a day or so ago with what remains of the, more or less, civilian government saying they have no more say; the IRGC is in complete control.
Presuming this is the case, with whom do we negotiate? How much more killing does it take to convince the IRGC? Bering at least superficially military in structure, they no doubt have lines of succession well known and probably generally accepted.
As I said, I saw those reports, too. They usually include the idea that the people in control now are real “hardliners,” compared to the civilian government. The thing about that, though, is that for decades I’ve read and believed that the civilian government of Iran was mere window-dressing with little to no power, and that the hardliners (mullahs, IRGC) were really in charge anyway. So I conclude that if the pretend civilian leaders are gone now and the hardliners in control, that only changes the superficial appearance of things.
Then there’s the other problem Richard Aubrey mentions, “with whom do we negotiate? How much more killing does it take to convince the IRGC?” But that’s been the problem from the start of the negotiation phase. That’s been the problem even before the war began; you may recall that the war was preceded by fruitless and frustrating negotiations as well.
You may also recall that, at the start of the present negotiations, Trump kept saying we’re not sure if the people with whom we’re negotiating have any power over much of anything. At some point, they “proved” they did by letting some ships through the Strait or something of that sort, but that hardly proves much of anything in terms of the big picture. We know – and Trump knows, and Rubio surely knows because he’s talked about it at length – that the IRGC are fanatics who are uninclined to give up. And so we are left with the same question we’ve had from the start: what’s the point of these negotiations?
Your answer depends on your opinion of Trump, and if you think he’s a clueless idiot then that covers it. I don’t think he’s a clueless idiot – and I certainly hope I’m right about that – and I wrote recently about the possible tactical reasons for the negotiations, so I’ll just repeat here what I said then:
I strongly suspect (without actually knowing) that the reasons for the negotiations are as follows: (1) to reset the clock on the war for purposes of the need for Congress’ approval (2) intelligence gathering and planning (3) turning up the economic screws and letting the Iranian leadership fester in the problems that result (4) giving the Gulf States a needed rest; and (5) waiting to get what we want – the open Straits and the nuclear material – and then following up with more regime-weakening moves.
The IRGC could not care less about the Iranian people and their wishes. Then again, the regime never has. They have killed many many thousands for merely opposing them, and they’ve been doing that for decades. When the regime first came to power, they marked it by mass executions of their opponents and their rivals (including the leftists who had helped them). Periodically, there were incidents like this one in 1988:
Between late July and September 1988, the Iranian authorities forcibly disappeared and extrajudicially executed thousands of prisoners for their political opinions and dumped their bodies in unmarked individual and mass graves. Minimum estimates put the death toll at around 5,000.
This source says it was more than 30,000 in 1988, but who knows? The link was written in 2019, and it included the following:
Iran is among those governments that execute their opponents. 120,000 people have been executed in Iran since 1981 for their opposition to the government, at-least one-third of whom have been women. According to the international laws, pregnant women must not be executed, whereas in Iran, at least 50 pregnant women have been executed in the 1980s. …
Iran holds the world record in number of executions per capita. According to Amnesty International: “more than half (51%) of all recorded executions in 2017 were carried out in Iran.”
And those are the official executions.
So, the hardliners are in control now? They’ve been in control since 1979.
Probably good to remember Trump is no more acting alone in this matter than anyone on the Iranian side is, neither on the war nor the negotiation. It’s not about what Trump personally does or does not say or do. Quite aside from the hundreds of Americans involved, there are also allies involved, and not just Israel.
Sure, it’s hard to wait for results, or for meaningful information about progress toward results. I find it hard to wait a whole six minutes for a microwaved baked potato some days.
Marking my own bewilderment on the subject of the US position on the Strait of Hormuz I can recall its inception on the day after the announcement of “Project Freedom” [initiating a CentCom action to free by force the trapped commercial vessels in the Persian Gulf] when the “Project” was abruptly “put on hold”, military clearing operations ceased, a blockade of Iranian commercial traffic began and shortly thereafter negotiations over opening the Strait commenced. I didn’t understand the transition then and can’t say I understand it today. I simply don’t grasp what changed in those 24 hours to flip that script. But flip it did.
On the other hand, today I think I understand the current primary aim of these same negotiations referred above: number one, get the Strait open by means of an Iranian declaration that “the Strait is open without restrictions”, that Iran declares “we will not attack commercial vessels transiting, nor toll any such vessels in transit”. Or so I read Sec. Rubio’s testimony to the Senate yesterday and the House today. Why (exactly) this is so, I cannot say. But I start there.
Then there’s number two: get Iran to commit to a separate and second round of negotiations concerning their nuclear materials, their nuclear weapons aspirations and any future development thereof.
Of course this isn’t exhaustive of my own peculiar ignorance of the subject, but I’ll leave it there for now, while remaining open to instruction toward improvement.
One would have to know much more of the intelligence Trump has and what his plans are to judge what’s going on.
My guess is that Trump will continue to play hard for a deal, but he doesn’t depend on it. Maybe he knows that Iran can’t survive another two months. Maybe he really is not that worried about the midterms. (Democrats are not triangulating towards the center, or at least pretending to, as might be sensible and expected.)
Trump may be guilty of hubris, but never cluelessness.
Well, maybe I am too easily disillusioned, but color me disillusioned.
My biggest problem is all of the big, tough talk that leads nowhere. If there is a strategic plan, and I hope there is, then implement it, and then show the results; but don’t talk like a school yard tough guy one day and then not follow through. Trump may be trying to address multiple audiences, but he needs to be careful that the primary one believes the core message.
For folks who were active during Vietnam, and later for Iraq and Afghanistan, constantly talking about the progress you have allegedly made, and what you are going to do, becomes a danger signal.
Credibility is an emphemeral concept. I think ours is very much on the line around the world.
On another level, publicly bragging that he gave Netanyahu a profanity laced lecture just disgusts me. Netanyahu should have, and maybe did, tell him, ‘talk to me about restraint after terrorists have been firing rockets into your residential areas for years. ‘Trump, you finish your business in Iran, and Israel will take care of business on our northern and southern borders.’
Peter Zeihan, whom I follow, thinks Trump’s problem is that he thinks he can manage the USA, the Middle East War, the Russia/Ukraine war, and negotiations with China single-handedly. Or with a small handful (Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff) of negotiators who don’t know Iran in depth. And then he grows bored when the problem isn’t resolved in a week and walks away from it.
I will not say I agree with him fully, but I think there is some truth to that. Having worked in the State Department, I know how they can get down into the weeds on a subject, but sometimes that all-encompassing familiarity with another country bears fruit in negotiations. Just as an example, did anyone suggest to Trump before he went in with Israel to decapitate the Iranian leadership that there was a chance individual IRGC generals would become wild hares, shooting off missiles without central command and thus no longer responsive to the Ayatollahs? As much as we dislike the Ayatollahs, at least there was some discipline there.
As I said, I tend to be skeptical of Zeihan’s pronouncements, but I also observe Trump’s operating style and I think there are better negotiating techniques than sending two real estate developers who know little about Iran and the Arab nations to negotiate an end to the war.
And just now the US Congress voted to invoke the War Powers Act, with 6 Republicans joining Democrats to pass the resolution.
Trump kept telling Americans he’d end the Ukraine and Middle East wars in less than a week. And now the Congress is getting restive as they face elections in 4 months. He’s gotta stop blowing smoke and deliver.
As you can imagine, I’m with F and oldflyer here. I watched Rubio’s testimony and wasn’t convinced. If, as Neo makes the case, the IRGC is in charge, then the only thing they understand is death. I’m very sorry if that involves civilian casualties also and infrastructure destroyed. At this point I think Trump’s negotiating ego is getting in the way of reality.
The House vote was performative theater by the Ds and RINOS.
The War Powers Act has no teeth. No president has ever acknowledged its constitutionality.
Re Trump’s behavior, I do wish he’d somehow restrain himself. He repeatedly over-promises on negotiations, whether it be with the Ukraine situation or Iran. Just shut up and do the work.
While I’m personally a type A and want a clear, quick result, I do believe his plan with Epic Fury being paused and Economic Fury and the blockade going strong is a good one. None of our troops or assets are being harmed, we don’t need anything out of that Strait, and the economic impacts on Iran are huge. Bessent, no fool, says inflation is 200%, currency has cratered to over 1.3 million rials to the dollar,they’re losing $500 million/day in lost oil sales, only half of their troops are being paid, and police are not showing up to work. Meanwhile stress on the civilians must be excruciating, possibly to the point of an explosive revolt, our best outcome. With no arms though, tough duty.
I also think Trump wants to leave the Iranian infrastructure intact for the civilian population to have a shot at recovery if somehow the IRGC is overcome, either by US/Israeli force or a successful revolt.
I’d like to see Trump get out of Bibi’s way and let him keep culling Iranian leadership as well as Hezbollah. No agreement with either the IRGC or Hezbollah is worth the paper its written on.
Lastly, get this thing over one way or the other in time to salvage the mid-terms. If we lose those, its game over for the good guys–meaning normal Americans. I don’t think democrats are normal anymore given the people they elect and the policies they favor.
I can make a case for all of Trump’s actions regarding the war except one. Why hold Israel back from going after Hezbollah if that’s what they want to do?
In high stakes negotiations of this sort the very last thing negotiators should be sharing with any third parties is transparency of their goals, actions, and terms of settlement.
“How much more killing does it take to convince the IRGC?”
You kill as many as it takes. Not out of pleasure and in spite of the horrors inflicted but rather because a rabid dog is a mortal danger to everyone. Extinction level extermination is the only ‘cure’.
“did anyone suggest to Trump before he went in with Israel to decapitate the Iranian leadership that there was a chance individual IRGC generals would become wild hares, shooting off missiles without central command and thus no longer responsive to the Ayatollahs?” F
How does that current reality invalidate the then absolute necessity to decapitate the Iranian leadership followed by progressive deterioration of Iran’s military and economic infrastructure?
Well stated, GB at 708pm
And yes, why is Trump trying to restrain Israel in Lebanon? They need to take Hezbollah out just like the IRGC needs to be taken out. Very disappointed in Trump with regard to this.
“Why hold Israel back from going after Hezbollah if that’s what they want to do?” Mike Plaiss
I suspect the currently prevailing opinion in the WH is that negative “optics’ attach to any consideration of WH approval of Israel going back after Hezbollah.
Everyone who has Trump’s ‘ear’ has an agenda.
Bill, I concede that strangulation without damaging infrastructure is probably the plan. Or should I say hope?
If that is the plan, then the constant bluster stresses his credibility.
This strategy has a sell by date.
If he doesn’t care about the Straits, and he has said that on occasion, then he has to face the rest of the world that does care; because there is cause and effect here. He cannot deny that his actions precipitated Iran’s reaction; and it should have been obvious to the brain trust that their most viable response was in the straits.
One day the straits are important to him; on another day hey are not. Well, he owns the straits. With the assets that we have on hand, why can’t he control the straits?
He also owns the missiles headed for Kuwait, Oman, etc. I assume that we have the ability to detect a launch in real time. Why isn’t there ordnance on the launch site within minutes if not seconds?
Every time Iran violates the phony cease fire, the administration runs out to say , ‘well it wasn’t really a violation.’. Why?
I imagine that a good number of people are asking those questions. Rhetorical questions because no one will answer them.
If Trump thinks he can convince the IRGC through his deal-making skills to stop the craziness, someone ought to remind him of how that approach worked with Putin. Some people you just can’t deal with. Period.
Kill enough of them and they’ll stop fighting. …Curtis LeMay
Is that what will have to happen? I hope not but..
Every time Iran violates the phony cease fire
And we retaliate. I don’t see the problem with having negotiations while fighting is still going on, or a ceasefire for that matter, those are just words. And no, they don’t mean a lot, we aren’t dealing with a dictionary. The Iranian defense was designed to disperse authority when the top was removed. The easiest way to deal with that is to bleed it dry. If there has been no progress an couple of months, I might worry a bit. But I am not unhappy with the current situation.
We go into hysterical garment rending apoplexy about collateral damage inconveniencing, or heaven forfend, even possibly slightly injuring a random street merchant in a country which is one of our staunchest and most violent enemies. “We want to end the regime, not injure the people.”
Yet that same regime exhibits no reluctance whatsoever to killing its own citizens wholesale if it might help them stay in power another week.
We, and the Israeli military, have demonstrated the ability to be quite precise in our application of lethal force; “quite precise” does not mean “with no collateral damage or risk of injury.”
Either we are serious about “regime change” – which even the greatest dullards among us should be capable of understanding to mean requiring the elimination of those in control, present and future, of enemy forces – or we’re just on holiday in a warm, sandy place.
Somewhere between “don’t upset the poor street merchant” and “turn the entire effing place into molten glass” is a solution that will be effective but not necessarily entirely injury-free to bystanders. Carl von Clauswitz noted that, first, “war is diplomacy by other means,” and “war is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.”
It’s easy to condemn innocents to death or injury when they’re both far away and of little interest to oneself; were the situation reversed it would, indeed be horrible, but it should not be forgotten that Iran’s oft-repeated intent is to actually perform that reversal which is why they’re so adamant about, first, developing nuclear weaponry and second, retaining the ability to do do.
If it’s a choice between me, my neighbors, the productive citizens of Israel, even the whiners of Paris and the buffoons of Trafalgar Square, Brussels, and Berlin, or the entire population of Iran, I wouldn’t hesitate the briefest of moments to put the entirety of Iran on the chopping block; one doesn’t negotiate with rabid dogs, one shoots them and if it startles, or injures,the person on the other end of the leash so be it; it is not as if Iran, its mullahs and their military do not have a half century of history and so damn little of that history is even the slightest bit positive that hesitating to achieve resolution must be considered suspect.
We have had four weeks of bombing followed by eight weeks of negotiations with Iran (and counting) while the Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed. I don’t think that any reasonable person can contend that this was part of the Trump’s initial plan. I dare say that if Trump knew this would be the result of his initial attack, he would have done something different.
neo is not wrong about the Iran news being worthless right now. But it requires a significant suspension of disbelief to think that things are going well.
Newsmax repeating a WSJ article that the only red line for Trump to resume full military operations is the death American soldiers.
https://www.newsmax.com/world/globaltalk/trump-wont-break-iran-ceasefire-unless-us-troops-are-killed/2026/06/03/id/1258495/
It appears to me the purpose of the effective and successful US and Israeli joint attacks on Iran beginning on Feb. 28 have either been forgotten or were misunderstood from the jump. Forgotten or misunderstood, of course, not by those who determined them, but by members of the (inconsequential) commenting peanut gallery.
Of course there no actual quote from that journal piece just more mind reading
If the gist of the axios piece is true, its sort of distressing but israel apparently was not deterred
Mossad armed Kurdish militias with Hamas, Hezbollah weapons before Trump halted plan https://share.google/KrroN7xwIUy0eSD7W
Was this true perhaps no one can tell ankaras double dealing is very clear
Cavendish at 5:03 am conflated the Iranian Regime with Iran’s population in general, which has been brutalized by that Regime.
President Trump has stated that Regime Change is not among our primary objectives.