So it finally happened: the MM ran out of patience and decided to twat the MMs, though this was perhaps a little late for the tens of thousands already killed by the regime. There is of course a vast backstory on all this, see for example Reflections on recent events in the Middle East, but perhaps recent events in South America are also relevant.Ilya Somin thinks Donald Trump's Iran War is Unconstitutional and he is likely to be correct, in principle. However both House and Senate have rejected stop-the-war resolutions, and the armed forces are obeying their commander, so there is no practical constraint1. And as long as nothing terrible happens - a large number of USAnians killed, or the price of petrol staying high for too long, the horror - I doubt the public cares enough to matter.
Doing all this in violation of international law is something I covered in Reflections. But I'd add that coming from the lawyer-heavy UK, where nothing can be done, I feel that the time has come, if not to kill all the lawyers, at least not to leave them in charge.
2026/3/13: The Iranian regime has been the number one threat to peace and stability in the Middle East for years. U.S. forces continue to try to fix that, by pushing them into the number two spot. Well, that's how I read it on a first pass. Meanwhile, Brent crude is hovering around $100 per barrel, which is regrettable. I think the Yanquis should, and likely will, do something about that. Mostly, twatting the bits of Iran likely to attack shipping.
I'm in favour of this war, at least, when compared to all other practical courses of action or inaction. Diplomacy was obviously a waste of time, no matter how many highly paid high status elites it kept in lucrative employment. I opposed the Iraq war at the time, by actually bothering to go and protest, but I think far too many commentators are too ready to relearn the lessons of the last war: blah blah quagmire blah vague objectives blah and so on. Richard Hanania suggests that Killing bad people is an achievable goal that the US is good at and probably has positive effects on the world. We should do it more often, and do much less of many other aspects of foreign policy, and that seems reasonable. The most likely outcome is a weakened Iran, left with essentially no missile stockpiles or production facilities for same, and less capacity to export terrorism. The good outcome is the MMs get overthrown. The bad outcome is... I dunno: we take out some more schools, a pile of Iranian drones get through and destroy major infractructure and kill piles of Yanquis, and we retreat in confusion? Perhaps you, dear reader, can think of a plausible bad outcome; da meeja certainly hasn't presented any. Note how convenient it is that the Ivans are stuck in the quagmire of their own creation and are far too weak to cause any mischief.
Doing all this in violation of international law is something I covered in Reflections. But I'd add that coming from the lawyer-heavy UK, where nothing can be done, I feel that the time has come, if not to kill all the lawyers, at least not to leave them in charge.It becomes ever more obvious to me - as I think I said in Poling Pales - how central the Iranian poison is to the problems of the Middle East and how much better off the region - and of course even more so the people of Iran - would be, if they just settled down to tend their own garden.
Updates
I expect things to continue to evolve...
2026/3/10: The Economist tells us that "Donald Trump must stop soon" and this is the kind of armchair-warrior stuff that is in a way amusing, in its combination of taking-itself-oh-so-seriously and total irrelevance. But it is a good source for the common complaint that Trump needs to "define what you want to achieve". I don't think that's true: the general direction is of course clear, and Trump has said that he'd like to end up with regime change, but I see no reason why that should be a firmly-fixed objective. If it turns out to be really hard, why should he really be obliged to keep pounding away? Continuing, "War aims direct the campaign" and this is true but pointless: the initial aim was to take out the top MM; then destroy Iranian military infrastructure, and so on and so forth; and these aims dictate the current actions, regardless of the final aims. "Strategically, his failure to say what Epic Fury is for is its biggest vulnerability" is bullshit.
2026/3/13: The Iranian regime has been the number one threat to peace and stability in the Middle East for years. U.S. forces continue to try to fix that, by pushing them into the number two spot. Well, that's how I read it on a first pass. Meanwhile, Brent crude is hovering around $100 per barrel, which is regrettable. I think the Yanquis should, and likely will, do something about that. Mostly, twatting the bits of Iran likely to attack shipping.Refs
* Wealth of Nations: This masterwork is turning 250. It’s needed now more than ever; 250 Years Later, The Wealth of Nations Still Has Lessons To Offer the Political Class.
* The Anti-War Argument Is Actually a Pro-War Argument: One does not wait to attack an irrational actor while it gets more powerful.
7 comments:
If you think it is justifiable then you Brits should have done it yourselves. I am against this war. Not because of what it does to the Iranian regime--they are thugs who deserve what comes to them. But because of what it does to us. (We Mercans.) We do not need any more desensitizing to human life. Hey--you won the Falklands war! Go get 'em!
What we Brits do is largely irrelevant except for the visuals; I think Starmer looks as rubbish as ever; we will have disappointed anyone in the States paying any attention, which is likely few.
We discussed "what it does to us" last time; I agree with the overall sentiment, but am (a) doubtful that it applies this time; and (b) find it perhaps a little selfish of you; too "America First". Are you not prepared to suffer some pain to help the world?
Yes, of course--and I like to think that I do try to help the world (haven't suffered too much yet, but a little, sure.) But I prefer to make informed choices about the contributions I make--not hand over the power to an insane autocrat. Trump would f**k up a wet dream. He had to dismantle his 'charity' due to kleptocratic mismanagement. I would not want him to direct any efforts helping the world and I am a bit skeptical that any efforts he expends in that direction will prove fruitful.
You appear to be reasoning that "Trump is bad therefore the war must be bad" but that is invalid.
Actually, no. I think that Trump is bad. I also think this war is bad. Not because I want the Iranian regime to carry on, but because as is always the case, Trump chooses the most idiotic and inhumane ways to prosecute the war. No coalition of the willing. No warnings to civilians. Indiscriminate bombing of Tehran. No plan of action for the straits of Hormuz. He refused to accept Ukraine's offer of drone interceptors three months prior to the invasion. He's a moron. His motivation for this war is not to help Iranians. It is to distract from the Epstein files, a la Wag the Dog.
"Indiscriminate bombing of Tehran" is obviously wrong (by which I mean it isn't happening; your statement misrepresents reality. Not that it is occurring, and is morally wrong). It isn't at all clear to me that trying to corral a "willing" coalition together would have helped at all. And I think your analysis is weak. The question isn't "are things being done worse than they could be?" but "is the war better than the status quo?".
Imagine a world where the US and its allies had materially supported the protestors two months prior, had blocked Iranian sea traffic, strengthened sanctions, etc. The regime was at the point of failure at that point in time. There was no need for a decapitation strike at that point. If Mossad had targeted IRGC logistics instead of worrying about phantom uranium, they could have crippled the Iranian response to the protestors. I'm no military strategist and much of what I write can be very wrong. But there were sane alternatives to what Trump did.
Post a Comment