Cromwell

He’s driving up the price of gas, so that has to be the reason. What? You don’t agree?

Yes, yes, and no. Yes, it is true that the Iranian weapons programs represented a meaningful threat to Israel, but not to the United States. Yes, in that Bibi openly admits that his goal was to use all of the resources at his disposal to force us to go to war for Israel’s benefit. But no, Trump had plenty of agency here, and the evidence suggests he didn’t need much persuading. The man with the golden gut was convinced that Iran was another Venezuela and that victory would be easy and painless. The rest is history.

From the perspective of the Iranian people.

We don’t need no ayatollahs.

We don’t need no thought police.

No weapons programs that lead to bombing.

Leaders, leave us folks alone.

Hey, leaders, leave us folks alone!

All in all, you’re just another brick in the wall.

All in all, you’re just another brick in the wall.

Xi will have been impressed by the tactical skill of the American military, if not by the strategic instincts of its commander. What does that mean for Taiwan?

It means he should focus on creating leverage and diplomacy rather than starting a war with an uncertain outcome. Snowing Trump is a lot easier than mounting an invasion.

Unsuccessful wars, assassination plots, and regime change—it should all feel depressingly familiar to MBS, because it is what he did as a rookie ruler. He’s older and wiser now, unlike Trump.

The Iran war will be a success for him only if it results in permanent and positive regime change, which is unlikely. The most plausible outcome, an American commitment to cut the grass indefinitely, is ok with the Israelis, but a disaster for him, because it just prolongs the instability and the Iranian threat to him without providing him with any tangible benefits. Look for him to move away from Trump a bit if my prediction comes true.

Bibi believes—probably correctly—that the Iranian government will never give up its goal of destroying Israel as long as it remains a theocracy. As a result, his preferred option for the end of the war is regime change. Unfortunately for him, that would require an invasion and an occupation. There is little chance of persuading Trump to do that.

The backup plan, therefore, is to compel America to cut the grass in Iran on a regular basis, just as Israel did in Gaza before 2024. There are two problems with this approach, however. First, the next American president is much less likely to do Israel’s bidding than Trump. Second, the Gaza template doesn’t provide a whole lot of assurances.

Early in Trump’s first term, Bibi persuaded him that Iran would fold if he tore up the nuclear agreement and imposed sanctions. Bad move. The Iranians, predictably enough, accelerated the nuclear program.

During the June war, Bibi told Trump he had an unprecedented opportunity to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. Trump took advantage of it and bragged that the program had been “obliterated.” As we suspected at the time, this was a gross overstatement.

Earlier this month, Bibi advised Trump that a sustained American air campaign against Iran would result in regime change. That hasn’t worked, either.

Now what? Can Bibi talk him into a ground assault? What about the use of nukes? TBD.

If you’re determined to prove that you’re the boss of everyone and everything, you have no one else to blame when things go wrong. What are your options at that point?

Either pull back and admit your failures or become even more authoritarian. Any guesses on what Trump will do?

George W. Bush’s domestic and foreign policy failures caused the GOP electorate to lose faith in its leadership. This led first to the rise of the Tea Party, and then to Trump. There is plenty of evidence that Democratic voters are now dissatisfied with the blue team’s leadership. Could this result in the creation of a left-wing version of the Tea Party?

Yes, and if it does, it will only increase the temperature in this country, which is hardly a development to be welcomed.

Bret Stephens thinks Trump can bring the Iranian regime to its knees by invading and occupying Kharg Island. Trump apparently agrees, up to a point; he attacked military facilities on the island by air, and is threatening to demolish the oil facilities, as well. The thought is that the prospective loss of oil revenues for an indefinite period will be enough to make the regime capitulate. Will that work?

The Stephens plan would involve the use of ground troops, which is a red line for Trump. It would result in a substantial number of casualties and, in all likelihood, the destruction of the oil facilities, which would eliminate any leverage. Trump’s plan has fewer risks, but the regime is unlikely to give in to his threats, partly because any American effort to reduce Iran’s ability to produce and transport oil will have a negative impact on the markets.

In other words, probably not.

For the left, AI is both an opportunity and a series of challenges. The opportunity revolves around the potential increase in productivity, profits, and government revenues that could be used to strengthen the welfare state; the many challenges involve plutocracy, redundant workers, the surveillance state, and increased computer crime.

The left would have to regulate AI in such a way as to permit tech companies to flourish without making them the masters of America. It will be a difficult task. Is the left up to the task? TBD.

Trump really wants to end the war by making a deal with an Iranian Delcy, but she is nowhere to be found, largely because all of the plausible candidates are dead. Whoops! Since the threat of more bombing won’t give him more bargaining leverage, what can Trump do now?

He could look for an Iranian Lenin—someone who can rally the opposition to the regime and overthrow it. Hey, it worked for the Germans in 1917.

Does such a person exist? Has Trump even considered it? Who knows?

1. CLs: Let the big dog eat! Sure, there may be some negative side effects, but we’ll get through them. We always have.

2. PBPs: A source of vast future profits, and the solution to labor shortages.

3. CDs: Anything that promises to make mankind superfluous has to be viewed with suspicion. Go slowly and regulate vigorously.

4. Reactionaries: Giving tech bros incredible sums of money and making American workers redundant doesn’t sound like a great deal to us. The government needs to impose strict controls on it.

Trump has sided with the CLs on this issue, but his coalition is badly divided. Look for AI to be a major issue in the 2028 primaries.

I have written hundreds of limericks for this blog. I honestly don’t remember most of them. But here is one that I wrote about ten years ago that is even more timely now than it was then:

The GOP hawks on Iran

Want to bomb just to prove that they can.

They’d start a new war.

What the hell is it for?

It’s more than the country can stand.

Bret Stephens can see four possible conclusions to the war. The first is a popular uprising that results in a liberal democratic Iran; even he admits the odds do not favor the Iranian people overcoming the repressive apparatus of the regime and seizing the opportunity provided by their good friends Trump and Bibi. The second scenario, the Delcy option, isn’t supported by any facts on the ground. Even Stephens doesn’t welcome the last scenario—complete state collapse and civil war. That leaves only the third scenario as a reasonable possibility.

Per Stephens, if the regime remains in place and keeps the old objectives, it will be a zombie that will implode in time. I disagree. If the regime becomes more nationalist in the face of American and Israeli bombing, it will enjoy more, not less, public support, and will attempt to rebuild its deterrence capability as fast as possible. The American response will be to cut the grass on a fairly regular basis. Iran will therefore become the American Gaza.