Joint Chiefs Chairman Cautious About Iran Fight
Will POTUS listen?
WaPo (“Trump’s top general foresees acute risks in an attack on Iran“):
As the Trump administration weighs an attack on Iran, the Pentagon’s top general has cautioned President Donald Trump and other officials that shortfalls in critical munitions and a lack of support from allies will add significant risk to the operation and to U.S. personnel, according to people familiar with internal discussions.
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed his concerns at a White House meeting last week with Trump and his top aides, these people said, cautioning that any major operation against Iran will face challenges because the U.S. munitions stockpile has been significantly depleted by Washington’s ongoing defense of Israel and support for Ukraine. Caine’s remarks at the White House meeting have not been previously reported.
Separately, in Pentagon meetings this month, Caine also has raised concerns about the scale of any Iran campaign, its inherent complexity and the possibility of U.S. casualties, one person said. The general has said that any operation would be made all the more difficult by a lack of allied support, this person said, speaking like others on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
In a statement, Caine’s office said that in his role as the president’s top military adviser, the chairman “provides a range of military options, as well as secondary considerations and associated impacts and risks, to the civilian leaders who make America’s security decisions.” Caine, the statement adds, “provides these options confidentially.”
Caine is, in other words, carrying out his statutory duty, laid out in the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, as the chief military advisor to the President and the National Security Council.
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said Trump listens to a “host of opinions on any given issue and decides based on what is best for U.S. national security.” She described Caine as a “talented and highly valued member of President Trump’s national security team.”
I think everything about that, except the basis of the decision, is correct.
Trump, after this article’s publication, posted on social media that it is “100% incorrect” that Caine is “against us going to War with Iran.” Trump said that the general would not like to see a military confrontation with Iran but that if it did happen, “it is his opinion that it will be something easily won.” The people who spoke to The Post about Caine’s thinking directly contradicted Trump’s optimistic characterization.
Alas, I don’t think any of that is true.
First, while a retired National Guard three-star would not have been my top choice for Chairman (indeed, I would have retained CQ Brown), he’s by all accounts a professional. Caine isn’t offering his opinion as to whether we should attack Iran. Rather, he’s providing military options and conveying the associated risks. And no one in his position would tell the Commander-in-Chief that such a war would be “easily won.” There’s a reason—several of them in fact—why none of the eight U.S. Presidents since the 1979 Revolution have gone beyond very limited military incursions into Iran despite our belligerent status.
The White House meeting on Tuesday included Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and White House adviser Stephen Miller, one person told The Washington Post.
Caine’s views, reported earlier by Axios, are seen as highly credible by the administration because of the successful execution of two other major operations he has overseen: the assault on Iran’s nuclear sites in the summer and the January raid to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Caine, said one person familiar with his conversations, will support whatever decision the president makes, as he did with previous operations, and does not want to be seen as taking any option off the table.
A recent episode of the Ezra Klein show was titled, “Who Has the Power in Trump’s White House?” The short answer, not shockingly, is President Donald J. Trump. But Klein’s guests, Atlantic journalists Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer, do a credible job of explaining who has access to the President, who he takes seriously, and how he ultimately decides.
POTUS listens to Caine. Trump likes his confidence, sees him as loyal, and the success of MIDNIGHT HAMMER and ABSOLUTE RESOLVE has cemented the impression that he’s a winner. If he’s saying this has significant risk, it will give the President some pause.
Further, it’s pretty clear that Trump is leery of “forever wars.” He wants big, quick wins. So, if he’s convinced there’s a substantial risk of either getting bogged down in a messy fight or coming away with an L, he’ll change course.
I can’t imagine Steven Miller and most of the other major voices in the administration much care about Iran; their motivations are almost entirely domestic culture wars and the like. Caine is the biggest voice on military affairs, though Marco Rubio (who I would expect to be similarly cautious about an overly ambitious mission set) also has some sway. And Trump will also listen to his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, if she tells him that the risks will play out poorly with the public.
Still, the biggest takeaway is that, unlike the first Trump administration, there’s no one who is going to tell POTUS “No.” If he decides he wants to take a high-stakes gamble, they’ll rally around him and carry out the mission.
There’s the rub. Trump surrounded himself with sycophants, ideologues, power hungry asshats and grifters…his kind of people. They feed his childish fantasies…none of them give a damn about what’s right or good for the country. Nor do any of them know, or care, what comes the day after Trump does something stupid.
@Charley in Cleveland:
The day after, El Taco usually blames the bad outcome on someone else.
“Daily Beast”
…
…
Trump is issuing extreme demands that Iran is unlikely to comply with. So if this starts, hard to see the end point.
Not knowing your end point is not a good way to start a war.
ETA: The joint chiefs told Dubya it would take 500,000 troops to do an Iraq occupation. All Dubya/Cheney had available was 130,000 so they decided to go with that, they were that determined to have their war.
@charontwo:
I had not heard that. I knew the Brits had refused us Diego Garcia. I wonder if this includes Qatar, and/or Jordan, because that would be more than just a logistical complication. I really hope Donald isn’t going to try and take on Iran with carriers and US-based bombers alone.
I was a bit surprised that Portugal let us use Lajes for refueling. US presence on Terçeira (Azores) has been drawn way, way down and the island doesn’t really rely much on the US for the local economy. I wonder about Rammstein. Are the Germans going along with this? Is Iraq OK with US overflights out of Jordan? How about the Saudis? Is overflight OK, bases not so much?
I am all for regime change in Iran – in theory. Who doesn’t like watching a murderous regime brought down? But Bush/Cheney botched Iraq and as incompetent as they turned out to be, they’re strategic geniuses compared to the Trump gang.
I can’t believe that neither Biden nor Trump launched an all-out effort to build our stockpiles of missiles. How are we proposing to fight China, if that war comes?
“Drezner“