A Couple of Observations Relevant to Iran
Not really posts, but hey, here they are anyway.
Two thoughts that I felt like sharing, but weren’t going to be full posts.
Controlling the World Ain’t Easy. One of the claims that Trump made on the campaign trail was that the world was more peaceful when he was president, but under Biden, the Ukraine invasion took place, as did the 10/7 attacks on Israel, and the subsequent war in Gaza.
And now it ends up that not only are solving Ukraine and Gaza not easy, but Israel and Iran are at war.
Funny how the world actually isn’t in the total control of the President of the United States!!
We are about to be reminded that oil prices are determined by a global marketplace, and not the whims of whoever it might be who occupies the White House.
Regular v. Irregular Warfare. I have seen a number of people make various claims about the differences between fighting Hamas and fighting Iran. I have seen things like “If Hamas didn’t hide among the population of Gaza, Israel could target them like the targeted Iranian leaders.”
Well, indeed!
It is not a defense of Hamas to state that, well, obviously, they are hiding among the population. It is the nature of an irregular, guerrilla army. Hamas is not a formal military belonging to an established, recognized state.
They are in an asymmetrical conflict with Israel. That is why they deploy terrorism as a tool. Their most successful attack, the one that took place on 10/7, was a pretty crude one from a military point of view. It was utterly asymmetrical and aimed purposefully at civilians.
I point out what should be obvious, because I guess it isn’t, but this is a wholly different kind of adversary than fighting an established state, such as Iran.
Even though a state is a more formidable foe in terms of firepower and resources, in many ways, winning a military confrontation with a regular military is quite a bit easier than putting down an irregular force.
Note, for example, how quickly and decisively the US was able to defeat the Iraqi army during the 2003 invasion, to the point of utterly toppling the Iraqi government with astonishing ease. And then remember how difficult it was to quell the irregular forces that emerged after we took full possession of the country. (See also, Afghanistan, 2001-2021).
Military defeat on the battlefield and military destruction of an insurgency/irregular force are simply two different things. People too often make the mistake of assuming that it is just about relative firepower (which is, of course, why the Colombian military, one of the largest and best trained in Latin America easily defeated the FARC when they emerged in the 1960s fought a multi-decade war with the FARC that only ended in a peace deal in 2016, and even then did not stop all fighting.
Bonus Thought. Taking out the leadership of Iran is likely the easy part (in relative terms). Controlling what happens after that is not so easy.
Israel’s best hope is regime change.
Unfortunately, they don’t have any plan whatsoever to achieve this.
And any new regime would still need some kind of deterrent against – at the very least – the Saudis.
And let’s not forget, nuclear weapons are an 80-year-old technology at this point. It’s pretty much impossible to stop a country like Iran from building a bomb forever.
Also, what lessons will other countries learn from this?
Regardless how this ends, this will be one hell of a win for nuclear proliferation.
@drj: Regime change where and to what?
But isn’t all a matter of getting a good team of writers and sending Stallone to lead the mission? Shouldn’t that get it done in 90 minutes? 120 tops?
@just nutha:
The underpants gnomes have been put in charge of that part of the plan.
Short of total war and occupation of an adversary, fighting a war to trigger a regime change is the most Hail Mary of objectives imaginable. Not only is the battlefield an unpredictable place, the factional politics in a foreign country is even more chancy. Less a chess game, more like dropping a bomb on a building and hoping the pieces fall in the right places.
One of the biggest, and most common, errors in foreign policy is feeling that our side must win, usually without serious thought as to what “win” means. After all, “everybody knows” what “win” means.
After W’s invasion of Afghanistan somebody made an analogy between the Taliban and rednecks. Taliban wasn’t so much an organization as a life style, like redneck. The primary point being that we could invade Georgia to defeat the rednecks, but who signs the surrender document? Who could speak for all the rednecks to say we quit? And enforce it?
NB, the Taliban won.
@just nutha:
@drj:
Seems like Huckabee is angling for Trump to nuke the Iranians to bring about the end times. So, I guess Jesus?
I think we’re all going to find out what the idiots and fanatics of the world think is “victory”.
IMO Iran is not attempting regime change. They are going after military, nuclear, and command-and-control targets. Israel cannot invade, much less occupy Iran.
What might precipitate regime change is how the Israelis so quickly dominated Iran’s proxies and then military forces. The complete inability of Iran to stop Israel or even shoot down a single plane, the fact that Iran gained air dominance over the capital in 48 hours, the fact that Iran’s counterattacks have been ineffective, all point to the regime being substantially weaker than most of us believed. The Iranian people can see that too, see that most everything the regime told them were lies. If there is regime change, it won’t come from Israel or the US, it will come from Iranians.
Personally, I’m skeptical it will happen, but anything is a guess at this point. This would be an emergent situation, not something that can be accurately estimated.
Israel and Iran have been at war for 45 years. For that matter, Iran long declared war on the US.
But degrading Iran’s nuclear progress, removing the current power brokers keeping the regime in power both have value for a possible radical change in Iran. And the damage will impact Iran’s capability to keep supporting Hamas and the Houthis. At least until another Democrat enters the White House and gives the mullahs aid and funding again as Obama and Biden did with pallets of cash.
As is often seen when an ideology is enforced by government violence, religiosity of Iranians has been in decline since 1979.
And there are still refugees from Iran but no one seems to advocate for them
@Beth:
Huckabee is urging Trump to listen to God.
@drj:
The Saudis are unlikely to have any fantasies of imposing a Arab and Sunni ascendancy over Persion and Shia Iran.
The were not even prepared to go all-out against the Houthis in Yemen, once the US indicated its doubts.
An Iran not pursuing schemes of regional rejectionist and/or Shia based “leadership” is not obviously liable to being subjugated by any any other regional Power.
The greatest likelihood of “regime change” comes not from anyting imposed externally, but from ordinary Iranians looking at the aftermath and thinking: “Forty years of hardship and sacrifice, IRG repression and IRG corruption. And all for what?”
Latest Trump post:
And thus the last hope of a figleaf for a deal goes flying out the window…
@Andy:
50/50 on the regime falling, but I’m interested in how Iranian Kurdistan sees this moment.
@JohnSF:
Each time you think Trump couldn’t get any dumber. . . The man paradoxically has a genius for stupidity.
ETA: Now we’ll see if anti-war MAGA actually sticks to their position or surrenders. Unconditionally.
Two points:
1) an irregular force tends to not have nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons capability.
2) holding Iran only matters if you care about what happens next in Iran. The other option is just to blow the shit out of the country, walk away, and be prepared to do so again in a few months/years. It’s not like either the US or Israel shares a border with Iran.
Anyway, I’m sure that if we invade we will be greeted as liberators, so all this worry about irregular forces, the rise of a Shia ISIS, or a worry that chaos over there will somehow lead to terrorism over here is completely overblown.
@Michael Reynolds:
From what I can tell by checking on Lucianne.com, AKA MAGA Central, they’re all solidly behind Trump on this, as they are on whatever he says or does, even if it directly contradicts what he said or did two hours ago.
Are we being myopic in stressing conflict with Iran? Iran is far away and militarily and economically a lot smaller. The US has challengers that are much bigger than Iran and, I fear, much subtler than our leaders. China and the Russians will find ways to support the current regime in order to weaken us. BTW, even Trump must know that Putin is not a friend. Sure, we can degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but what happens in five years, ten years, or twenty five years? In 1963, we thought that North Vietnam would be turned back with a limited number of advisors, and twelve years later we were pushing people away from the last helicopters leaving Saigon. I suspect that military planners in the Kremlin and the Forbidden City study that as well as Mogadishu and Afghanistan. Political power is not a Dirty Harry movie. Remember that the Brits got pushed out of India by a half naked guy. I do not doubt the valor of our soldiers, but our top leadership can’t organize a parade in DC.
@JohnSF: Demanding an unconditional surrender (or suddenly announcing our own unconditional surrender) is just a rhetorical shart, which Trump considers part of deal making with a strong hand.
It does not bind anyone in any way, and I strongly doubt that anyone other than Trump sees it as anything other than bluster and a demand that his ego be stroked.
Huckabee is urging Trump to listen to God.
At gunpoint?
@Gustopher:
I think you are missing my point. The comparison I was making was between Hamas v. Israel and Israel v. Iran. I was not talking about invading Iran.
@JohnSF:
There are, of course, many, many things the Saudis might like to do short of completely subjugating Iran.
Even presently, it’s not great to be Shia in a Sunni world. But I’m pretty sure you knew that.
And it’s not exactly like Iran’s conventional deterrence is looking particularly credible right now.
Look, I’m hating the ayatollahs as much as the next guy, but you can’t overlook the fact that the US is arming the crazed fanatics in Riyadh to the teeth, seemingly without a care in the world.
In case you managed to forget, there is a direct line from Saudi Wahhabism to the Afghan mujahideen to 9/11 to the theology of IS (even if the latter and the Saudis don’t see exactly eye to eye).
Any Iranian government would get nervous.
@Gustopher:
Exactly.
The only part about any of this that reminds me of the 2003 invasion of Iraq is all the cheerful talk of how easy it is going to be and that the outcomes (whether in terms of nukes or the regime) will all be to Israel’s (and the US’s) long-term advantage.
We should know better, but look at how gleeful JKB and even some of the non-MAGA commenters are leaning in all of this.
@Slugger:
I strongly suspect it’s pretty much a dick measuring contest now. The humiliation of the hostage crisis has to be undone somehow.
None of the Iran hawks ever bring up the 1953 CIA-backed coup that ensured the return to power of an autocratic shah, though.
The US fucks with other countries, not the other way around, amirite?
@CSK:
“Huckabee is urging Trump to listen to God.”
That is an improvement from Huckabee’s usual commentary, for God to listen to Trump.
@drj:
And it has been decidedly sub-optimal for many Sunni and “sorta-seculars” in the states dominated by Iranian allies. But I’m pretty sure you knew that. 😉
I’m aware of the multiple misdeeds and unpleasantnesses of the al Saud and their Wahabi ulema partners.
But actually, the Kingdom is not what it was.
And both Riyadh and the emirates various have shown a willingness, recently, to reach reasonable accords with Iran.
There is, imho, zero prospect of the Saudis mounting an offensive, conventional or unconventional, against Iran, a country three times its size in population.
The area that might be vulnerable to a Saudi-vs-Iran contest is Iraq.
A prudent US administration *eyeroll* would be working seriously to prevent that.
@CSK: As if either one of the would recognize God if He were standing in front of them.
@Michael Reynolds: Anti-war MAGA is only a posture for when Democrats are making FP decisions. Just like all other MAGA “convictions.” It’s always about the “conservatives are against whatever” etc.
ETA: @CSK: Exactly!
@Steven L. Taylor: Indeed! I don’t know about others, but when JKB agrees with me, it’s a signal that I should reexamine my position closely. 🙁
On requiring predetermining an end-state when embarking upon war:
Historically, this has seldom been the case.
The UK and France had no plans for any “replacement regime” when they decided in 1939 to declare war on Germany.
Or Roosevelt for the political consequences in Japan of his confrontation with Japan over trade sanctions relating to Japanese actions in China and Indo-China. Where the possibility of Japan risking war over the issue was estimated as very high.
It can be very difficult to foresee such outcome, and often considered so liable to contengency as to be pointless.
Whether the potential risks of possible outcomes of acting outweight those of not acting is often impossible to calculate.
So the usual basis is that the current situation, and the probable outcomes of its current course continuing, are simply considered so unacceptable as to justify running the risks of possible adverse consequences.
@Michael Reynolds:
Turkey has long said that there will be no Kurdistan. Iran is clearly no longer capable of staving off airstrikes. The Kurds have shown remarkable persistence, but not every ethnic group gets to carve out its own country.
@Steven L. Taylor:
It feels like a 6th grade class project in regime change, dashed together at the last minute, using things where they are because there’s no preparation, cribbing from a summary of the Wikipedia article about the second Iraq war, and not reading ahead to how things turned out.
If there is a movie to draw parallels to, it wouldn’t be The Dirty Dozen, but something like one of those awkward Coen Brothers movies that is about when idiots collide — I’m thinking “if only Burn After Reading had a sequel”.
From The Guardian:
Of course, Gabbard is also kind of a sad joke, either working for the Russians, or just spewing Russian propaganda on her own for years.
ETA: I predict a Coalition Of The Willing of Israel, the US, El Salvador, and a half-dozen Alberta Separatists who keep getting referred to as “Canada” by Trump and who keep correcting him.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Yeah, I don’t like the cheerful war talk. War is inherently uncertain. The imagined long-term advantages that those who promote war quite frequently turn out to be something different. Iran is learning this lesson the hard way. Russia is still learning this lesson the hard way – the war there is on its third bloody year with no obvious end in sight, much less where the long-term advantage (if any) will fall. And Israel (and the US) may learn it the hard way too. Or it may turn out better than expected.
In short, no one knows how this is going to turn out. We don’t even really have an idea of what the war termination conditions and situation will be. A lot of this will be up to Iran, which is losing, and it’s the loser who generally decides when wars end.
It could very well be that the current rulers and ruling elite in Iran will try to cut a deal, save their lives, and hope their people don’t overthrow them, or they could become true believer dead-enders like the entire leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah.
The final point I’d make is that the US and its allies tend to excel at war and warfare, but struggle with managing the post-war period. Libya, for example, is still a disaster. That’s a conflict that resulted in regime change and then unending civil war. That could be Iran’s future too, nut I don’t know enough about Iranian society to make a judgment.
US efforts to bring stability to East Africa have mostly been failures. We all know how “nation-building” turned out. You mentioned Colombia and the FARC.
These are all examples of why I’ve become skeptical of armed interventions and engaging in war, except when absolutely necessary. I didn’t think it was necessary with Iran, and I would prefer the US not get involved more than it already has, but intervention is a strong norm in American politics.
@Gustopher:
Seen reports that Gabbard was NOT included in the Camp David discusions on Iran/Middle East on June 8.
What the hell sort of clown show is this anyway?
People were singing “bo-bo-bomb, bomb bomb Iran” (sung to the tune of the Beach Boys hit) back in the early ’80s. Given Brian Wilson’s recent death, it only seems fitting for the same serious people to bring that back.
@Gustopher: I sorta* agree with John SF on this one. The demand for unconditional surrender will be taken literally by the fanatics in Iran, as the claims from a few politicians more than a decade ago in Iran to “wipe Israel off the map” (as the fanatics translated the statements) are taken literally by Israelis and our own neo-con fanatics are today.
* “…sorta” is due to the possibility Iran might feel so vulnerable they seek some kind of truce regardless. There is still “a chance” IMO.
@JohnSF:
Trump’s having a fight with Gabbard. She said that Iran wasn’t close to developing nukes. Trump’s response was that he doesn’t care what she said.
Just the usual Trump clown show.
@JohnSF:
She’s been repeating the long held US intel community assessments that Iran’s program is quite far from producing a nuke, let alone a missile deployable one. which contradicts the Israeli intel. Persona non grata. Doubtful the Izzies would even show up if she was allowed in the room. Trump probably has her locked in a closet somewhere.
All US Navy ships at Bahrain have reportedly put to sea, and aircraft have moved from the airfield there. Satellite imagery shows US aircraft have all departed Al Udeid in Qatar.
These would all be facilities within easy reach of Iran’s very accurate short-range ballistic missile systems.
So, I’m 95% certain we’ll be attacking Iran, probably tomorrow, but it could be tonight as it’s only 11:30 pm in Iran currently.
@Andy:
I think a lot of people are a bit misguided by the relatively stable outcomes in West Germany and Japan post-WW2.
Overlooking how it could very easily have been otherwise.
Both countries had societeies inclined to “orderliness”, and had experienced the massive psychological impact of undeniable military defeat, accompanied by large scale military casualties AND devastating bombing of their cities.
For counter-examples, you dont have to look too far: the chaos of China in 1945, civil war in Greece and Yugoslavia, the political strength of communist parties in France and Italy, the Soviet reign of terror in central Europe.
Still more, look at much of central and eastern Europe 1917 to 1920.
Not a few British and French leaders in in the period up to 1940 were extremely worried that the defeat of Germany would lead to the “bolshevisation” of much of central Europe.
And that there was no prospect of their having the strength to impose “liberal” government on Germany, let alone the rest of the region.
In the event, that turned out to be the least of their problems.
@JohnSF:
All good examples, and that’s what has me worried about Trump’s “unconditional surrender” nonsense. He’s a stupid and ignorant man and is likely overconfident about what can be accomplished.
@dazedandconfused:
Frankly, I’d doubt Gabbard’s intelligence assesments if she said it tends to get light in the morning and darker at dusk.
She is, not to put too fine a point on it, a fool.
The latest IAEA report indicate Iran has a sizable quantity of very near to weapons grade uranium, that would require only another enrichment pass to be weaponisable.
Whether that would mean missile-practical warheads depends on whether they are limited to a “Little Boy” type, which is beyond the four tonne throw-weight of Iranian missiles capable to striking Israel from Iran.
Or if they have the ability to produce a South African type “uranium gun”design in the 1 tonne range, which at least some of their missiles might be capable of using.
Much as I dislike Likud in general, and Netanyahu in particularr, I can understand why Israel is not inclined to run any risks about this.
I would not, in their place.
@Andy:
Even in WW2, Roosevelt’s “unconditional surrender” announcement, if understandable, caused concern among many in Washington and, especially, London.
So much so that Churchill attempted to insinuate it came as a surprise to him.
(Examination of the evidence indicates it did not.)
In retrospect it was probably the best policy, to avoid the assertions of “surrender on terms” and betrayal as per Germany after WW1.
But that is the wisdom of hindsight.
British defence analyst Shashank Joshi:
I think the fact that Tulsi Gabbard is the DNI right now is really not ideal.
British understatement at its finest.
I have little faith in this Confederacy or Dunces being successful.
Threatening the leader of Iran by Truth Social post doesn’t inspire any more faith.
On top of it all, Trump going to war without a Congressional Declaration of War is just one more Constitutional crisis.
Please remember, we are only here because the Doughboy welched on the JCPOA.
If I were Bibi, I’d be telling Trump that all he has to do is break out our big bunker-busters, take out the deep underground sites, and take credit for “ending the war”.
Probably has, but the fact is nobody knows if our bunker busters are capable of doing that. The claim they can penetrate “200 feet of ground” is semi-BS, as
sand and solid granite both qualify as “ground”. When Trump asks our generals to guarantee the desired result, he will not get it.
@dazedandconfused:
It will be people deciding to take his nonsense literally as part of their own tactics and strategies.
Netanyahu will also pretend to take it literally and hold Trump to it.
But no one making any decisions will believe it.
And Trump will declare any deal that comes out of this crisis as an unconditional surrender — if Iran gave him a dog as a gift*, he would declare it an unconditional surrender of the dog.
*: someone sent someone a dog recently as an insult. Somewhere in the Muslim world, the story just slid over me leaving barely a trace in my memories.
@JohnSF:
It’s a superpower collapsing under the weight of very wealthy, very powerful and very stupid people who believe they are geniuses, while they also try to profit off the collapse and scurry away to somewhere where they will be insulated from any personal harm. All being egged on by far-left and far-right accelerationists who believe that they will get to rebuild America as their ideologically and/or racially pure fantasy. And being opposed by establishment Democrats who believe that if they just believe hard enough and do nothing that might disrupt comity, things will go back to normal and they can get back to arguing over a modest change to marginal tax rates — but don’t worry, they have some very strong questions for the administration.
Hope that helps!
(Since thins are accelerating anyway, I’ve decided to become an accelerationist — it’s part of my optimistic nature)
@JohnSF:
Help me out here, I’m not seeing anything in that report that matches the assertion you made for it. “One more pass”??
@Gustopher:
I usually only become an accelarationist when there’s an annoying BMW in the vicinity.
But don’t bother when it’ an actual M.
“A man’s gotta know his limitations.” 😉
@dazedandconfused:
If Trump were an American president, he’d respond, “This helps more than hurts the United States how? Gimme bullet points, charts, and footnotes.”
I am reminded that Netanyahu has remained buddy-buddy with Putin despite years of Putin waging hybrid warfare on the US and our European allies. Netanyahu declined significant assistance to Ukraine.
If the roles were reversed, and a US president remained as friendly with a regime waging cyberwar on Israel + hot war on Israeli allies, that president would be summarily labeled an antisemite. Isn’t it time to start calling Netanyahu anti-American, as he repeatedly thumbs his nose at the American people?
Not understanding why so many Republicans and Democrats both cater to the one-sidedness here.
A nuclear Iran is not in US interests. But, according to Israel itself, strikes have already degraded Iran significantly — extending this permanent delay cat-and-mouse game we’re playing, hoping the Ayatollah dies before getting the bomb.
So what does the US gain from deeper lethal entanglement now with a regime less threating to us than Russia, China, or N Korea? Not yet seen a compelling answer. Unfortunately, the president is an unqualified Epstein-bestie rapist surrounded by incompetent DUI hires. Not likely make rational decisions, and their military parade sucked.
@JohnSF:
I take the basic point.
BUT.
This is utterly a war of choice. If a state is going to enter into a war of choice, especially one that might involved regime change as a goal, it is important to think through the possible outcomes.
I would underscore that neither France nor the UK chose the war with Germany in any way that is analogous to what Israel chose to do vis-a-vis Iran.
Interesing statement by German Chancellor Merz:
I’d estimate a fair likelihood this reperesents the European post-G7 consensus.
The US military is “toy” in the hands of a child.
@JohnSF:
Would that Merz and other European leaders could thread the loop, and ask themselves where is their vis a vis Putin’s ongoing attack on European stability and sovereignty.
German Defense minister: Germany not considering to provide Ukraine with long-range Taurus missiles (Euromaidan, 13 June 2025)
Oh.
@CSK: Over at NRO Corner they seem a bit confused by this. Per one commenter,
Apparently with a straight face.
@Steven L. Taylor:
On that, I’d disagree.
The UK and France could well have stood aside; their comittments to Poland were hardly more binding than those to Czechoslovakia, and some at the time and since have considered it would have been better to abandon Poland, continue re-armament, and been ready to strike when Germany and the Soviet Union fell out.
I think that argument much mistaken.
But then, had it been up to me, as with some people I knew who were around at the time, I’d have declared war in 1935 when Germany reintroduced conscrition, as from that point on the fuse was lit.
But it WAS an argument that has been made.
The point is it was a war of choice.
Just as was the UK deciding to uphold the Belgian Treaty in 1914.
Or, not so much deciding on war, but deciding to risk it, Roosevelt re Japan in 1940/41.
I’d repeat, the decisions upon “appeasement” from 1920s to 1939 were in large part motivated by fears of the potential consequences not of defeat but of victory.
As well as a British desire to not again be involved in a contienental wars.
Isoaltionism was not just an American impulse.
The frequent US view then and since that “Europeans should resolve their problems” would have come as a surprise to the British of the 1920’s only insofar as they were reagrded as “European.”
A recurrent, rather irrational, attitude of large parts of the British public that the Channel is equivalent to the North Atlantic.
Otoh, the complacency of some Americans that the Atlantic was an impassable moat was also short-sighted.
@gVOR10:
Well, the MAGAs at Lucianne.com seem reluctant to address the subject of Gabbard, but there’s this:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/17/trump-iran-israel-nuclear
Gabbard should prepare herself to be replaced.
@Dk:
Germany keeps playing “grandmothers footsteps” on Taurus, and other items.
It relates partly to the ingrained “crouch” of German military policy; and especially with a massive desire not to offend Washington. Berlin is riven with angst about a full breach with the US due to Trump’s sensitivities over Ukraine.
In contrast, the UK and France are far more inclined to just go ahead and try to patch things up after.
It should be noted: this NOT entirely new under Trump.
The Biden administration also defaulted to chin-stroking “calibration”, which London and Paris sidled around.
Albeit, Biden never tried to pressure Ukraine by an supply suspension, a la Trump.
Notice: the lack of UK/European overt protest over that.
Some want to avert full breach until European defence capability has ramped; others hope to avoid such a breach altogether.
Yet others waver between hedging and hoping.
It can be hard to be overly pure over matters of essential national defence.
Otoh Merz also said, re Trumps expressed desire that Russia be back in a “G-8”
Germany has its limits.
As, again, does the rest of Europe.
It’s an itresiting point for the MAGA to contemplate: how far does the capability of the US to project effective force in the Middle East depend upon the cooperation of those horrid, rotten, euro-weenies?
@JohnSF: While I see your point, I don’t see that this is comparable to WWII. It may be comparable to the situation just before WWI, however, but I’m not particularly certain of that (nor do I care anymore, the world’s just this crazy now).
@gVOR10:
Oh, wtf. That is insane on multiple levels.
@Kurtz:
How did the Deep State manage to force Tulsi on Trump? I thought he was strong, tough, decisive and able to make his own picks–only the best people, as he claims.
@CSK:
Exactly. That’s one level.
@JohnSF:
I will confess to being overly simplistic.
But still, I don’t think these are analogous circumstances.
@Kurtz:
And another is the US intel community assessments of Iran’s nuke program has differed markedly from those of Israel’s for several administrations.
It’s not as if it changed when Tulsi stepped through the door.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
It’s not that the situations are necessarily directly comparable.
(They are not, imo.)
It’s that the persons involved, then and now, are making “decisions under conditions of uncertainty”.
With the added factors now that the US administration is also subject to decisions under circumstances of nacsissitic idiocy; and Israel and circumstances of opportunism.
But Merz is neither a fool, nor a narcissist, nor an opportunist.
So when he says something like that, it’s sensible to consider what he is saying without being overly prejudging due to antipathy to either Trump or Netanyahu.
@dazedandconfused:
That’s not in the report, directly.
But the inference is obvious.
If Iran has a sizable quantity of just-below weapons grade U, it takes a relatively small further isotopic separation to acheve weapons grade.
Weapons grade is ove 90% U235.
By the time you are at say, 80%, most of the work is done, natural U being only 0.7% U235; reactor fuel is enriched to 7% for most reactor types; up to 20% for some specialised types.
CANDU-type reactors can use unenriched uranium.
There is no non-weapons reason for enrichment over 20%.
The sole purpose is for atomic weapons.
Once you are at high-enrichment, the final cycles are easier simply because you are most of the way there.
You only need to separate off the final 10% or so of non-U235 to get where you need to be for a weapon.
Isotopic separation does not get harder as you enrich more, it gets easier
@JohnSF:
Assumes facts not yet in evidence. Verdict is very much out on that score.
Weakness is in today’s word foolish, and there’s no sign yet Merz is ready to grow a pair and lead with any more strength than his namby-pamby predecessor.
@JohnSF: The report you posted says they believe there is some refined to 60% but they have no idea how much. Nor is there an assessment of how much time it would take to refine enough of what they have with their available centrifuges to make even a single bomb. Then there’s the assembly and testing to be done.
What did Bibi say, something like it’s only weeks away?
@dazedandconfused:
Once Iran tests a successful nuke it’s ball game, over. There is not necessarily a gap in time between testing and deployment, witness Trinity on July 16 and Hiroshima on August 6. And that was when the tech was far less understood.
Does Iran have the lift capability? Don’t know, but there have been too many rounds of, ‘Oh they still can’t do X,’ followed by, ‘Oh, I guess they did X.’ If Ukraine can sneak trucks full of drones into the UK, Iran may be able to sneak a nuke into Israel by truck or by boat. A bomb aboard a fishing boat in Haifa harbor is feasible if Iran has the nuke.
Iran must not develop nuclear weapons, whatever the cost.
@Michael Reynolds:
Um. . . Russia, not UK.
Note to self: Coffee first, then write.
@Michael Reynolds:
You are generally right about Israel’s very low tolerance for risk on this matter.
But one quibble: Trinity and Hiroshima were entirely different.
Trinity was Pu implosion rather “iffy” design and physics, required testing.
Was the type used at Nagasaki.
Hiroshima was U235 collision design, known to be fully viable, was never going to be tested at all.
The importance of the Pu design is that plutonium does not require isotopic separation.
So long as you have reactors designed for plutonium production you can feed in low-enriched uranium, run the reactor, and the separate out the plutonium chemically.
That means you can produce bombs much faster and more efficiently.
By summer 1945 the US was producing U235 at a annualised rate of 6 uranium gun bomb cores.
With the Pu design validated, it jumped immediately to over annualised 30 plutonium implosion cores.
This was rather important to the US Chiefs of Staff, because they were starting plans for an invasion of Japan using atomic weapons in a “tactical” role to help secure the landing areas.
@JohnSF:
Well, that is not in any way encouraging, John. No test! Fuck us all.
@Michael Reynolds:
I’m just not buying into the narrative, despite all the effort that has been put into the propagation, that the Iranian government is suicidal. ISIS? Yes, AQ? Perhaps. But Iran is our ally against those guys.
Back when the desired narrative was that Iraq was the Great Satan, Israel took Iran’s side and developed a close relationship with the same regime that is supposedly bent on the utter destruction of Israel today. The connection were so good Olly North ran his gun running op through it. There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Khomeini and Khamenei.
Is it good for Iran to have a nuke? No. They agreed when they signed on to the JCOPA. They didn’t tear it up, we did. Doesn’t shock me a bit that they would seek some defense against us, as with multiple incidents, such as invading Iraq on total bullshit, we have demonstrated madness. We have elected a game-show host as POTUS twice. Yet today everybody insists the only possible reason Iran could want a nuke is to do a suicidal attack on Israel is an indisputable truth.