It was my understanding that Iran was complying with the deal as per the IAEA before Trump pulled out of it. I think in the past you’ve seen top secret information that you can’t share to the contrary, so I’m not sure what to do with that. It seemed to me the deal was probably the best we could get, with the other alternative to do what Israel just did. When Trump pulled out it probably meant this attack was a foregone conclusion. Given how Iran has been a bit neutered by events lately if there was a time to do the attack it was now. I actually support it - assuming it works and the blowback is limited. Only time will tell.
Before the ink was even dry. Israel tried to tell us. Saudi Arabia tried to tell us with independent sources. In some cases, no one disputed the facts, just the interpretation of them. In other cases, the argument was made that there was just no way Israeli intelligence could be that detailed; therefore, it must be fabricated and can be discounted. But look at what Israel pulled off yesterday and ask if that should have been one of our basic assumptions. The former Obama/Biden government officials (usually State, never IC or military) who will make the argument that the deal was working will emphasize that the Iranian government (by which they mean the general government) was in letter-of-the-law compliance. And I won’t dispute that. Neither will our IC, Israel, Saudi Arabia et al. These are the questions to ask for which you probably won’t get a straight answer: 1. Was the IRGC in compliance? 2. Was the Iranian general government aware that the IRGC was or was not in compliance? 3. Were we aware of the general government’s awareness of the IRGC’s compliance? I’m sure you’ll agree those are fair questions, and you should get straight answers to them if the whole truth is that Iran was following the spirit of the deal Obama put together presumably in good faith.
Hope not. That means war for us certainly. It’s one of the few scenarios on which the liberal internationalists and realists agree.
Dr. Mearsheimer is right about many things. The situation in Ukraine is not one of them. Much of his analysis reveals that he doesn’t even understand how the IR theory of offensive realism he sponsors applies in the case of Ukraine vis-a-vis Russia. His pure military analysis has been suspect from the start as well, since Russia has been on the cusp of overwhelming decisive victory since February 2022. Of course, many of thought that in the beginning, but we had the good sense to walk that back since Russia proved itself incompetent in the field. Mearsheimer still seems to think Russia is toying Ukraine like a cat playing with its food.
That's what I'd attack if I were Iran plus the nearby long-range radar. Iran can't win. Their best case scenario is a strategic draw with a few-to-one unfavorable casualty ratio. The only way to get that is at the negotiating table and they have to get there soon. Fastest way is to get the major nuclear powers to drag both sides to said table ASAP.
China will bide its time . . . for now. They want to see the U.S. distracted or badly damaged before they act.
