1/2

Ok, ok. As it unfolded last night, I was clearly too conciliatory for everyone's tastes.

I'd love for America to throw whatever it takes at Iran – but that ain't gonna happen.

As a matter of practical prioritization, preventing a nuclear Iran – and a nuclear Middle East – is by far the critical goal. And I suspect that if Iran turns itself into a kind of pariah rogue state by tolling 20% of the world's energy, it will lead to another set of unintended consequences, probably positive for America after a few years. That is not a firm opinion – just a gut feeling that no plan survives contact with the enemy, especially when the enemy has Red Sea options. (I DON'T WANT THE TOLL, but if that's the only possible compromise...)

If Saddam had had an atom bomb, Kuwait would no longer exist.

Like a black hole bends time and space, Trump bends the logic and consistency of everyone in his gravitational field. Prior to Trump, preventing a nuclear Iran was a 90/10 issue embraced by every major U.S. politician and president. I'm astonished by the TDS-induced complacency.

Iran WILL go nuclear if we allow it to escape this situation. Even the anti-Trumpers admit as much. But somehow they no longer care.

Drones, missiles, proxies, we should hope the regime falls.

However it turns out, the simple question will be: Are we better off than we were before? Which status quo ante would we like to return to? 10/8/2023? 06/12/2025, before the 12-day war? 02/27/26, before the current war?

Of course, I probably don't know enough even to comment here – but who does that stop these days?

Evidence of the black hole:

Many of the same people who loved Tom Friedman’s argument when it applied to Hamas ignore it entirely once the possibility is raised that bombing might hasten regime change in Iran: