Cromwell

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.

While Trump’s political objectives in Iran change on an hourly basis, the military goals have been clear: to take out Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and navy. How is that campaign going, and do the objectives make sense?

As to the nukes, of course, Trump said we obliterated the program last June. The Iranian supply of enriched uranium, the centerpiece of what remains of the program, is missing. Building short-range missiles is pretty easy—even Hamas had them—so they can be replaced quickly, as the Iranians did after the June war. Finally, the Iranian navy is no threat to anyone as an offensive weapon. It only presents a problem if Iran is attacked.

The truth is that Trump can only win his war for good with a ground invasion and an occupation. Otherwise, he is requiring America to be Bibi’s yard guy on a regular basis. The latter is far more likely.

There was a time, not so long ago, when Trump used tariffs to show the world he was the boss. Look at him sideways, or say something bad about him on social media, and he would shove a big tariff up your butt the next morning.

But the Supreme Court took that kind of arbitrary power away from him, and his military action apparently worked in Venezuela, so now he prefers bombs to tariffs. The next question is, how far will he go? Will the next victim be London? Mexico City? Ottawa? New York City?

Trump has encouraged domestic oil production and discouraged the use of renewable energy sources in an effort to achieve what he calls “energy dominance.” Oil prices, however, are set on a worldwide basis; the loss of supply outside the Western Hemisphere consequently impacts prices here even if there are no shortages in America.

In other words, Trump is exposing us to escalating energy prices by attacking Iran even if we have accomplished his “energy dominance” objective. This would not be a problem if we had more clean energy, but that, of course, is a scam.

Not Iran. They are being pulverized, and their retaliation has been ineffective.

Not us. Instead of changing the regime, we have strengthened its position. We are now Bibi’s yard guy. And gas prices are soaring.

Not Putin. Higher oil prices will help him fight Ukraine, but he’s losing a key ally and looking impotent.

Not China or Europe. They can’t do anything to stop the chaos, and they’re paying higher prices for oil.

No, the winners are Israel and some international oil companies.

Donald Trump wrecks everything in his path. He brings chaos to all that he touches. Fortunately for us, we’re used to it.

Not so the rest of the world. Get used to it, folks. We still have three years to go, and Trump is determined to show you that he is your boss, too.

It turns out that Putin is providing the Iranians with some intelligence behind the scenes, which isn’t doing them a whole lot of good. Ukraine, on the other hand, is helping us deal with Iranian drone attacks. Will Trump respond with gratitude?

No. Trump doesn’t do gratitude. He identifies with Putin as a fellow strongman aggressor with nukes, and he thinks Putin holds the cards. Nothing that happens in Iran will change that.

You know the rest. The prospect of having a new Supreme Leader named Khamenei would have resulted in widespread protests during peacetime. Now, I have serious doubts.

Strange how the theocrats didn’t follow Trump’s directions. The election must have been rigged. Trump should order Hegseth and Bondi to seize the voting machines immediately.

Can you imagine Trump and Hegseth using AI to create a mass surveillance state for their own political purposes? Of course you can. That’s why the power of the government to use AI needs to be strictly controlled.

On the other hand, can you imagine Elon Musk—in full Bond villain mode—using Grok to bring down a Democratic government? Of course you can. That’s why we can never have an AI system that is too powerful for the government to control.

The obvious solution to these problems is bipartisan legislation. The obvious concerns are that bipartisan legislation is an endangered species, and that Trump would probably ignore any limitations on his discretion. Don’t expect any meaningful progress on this front until 2029.

Trump truly savors acts of spectacular violence and cruelty. Can’t you imagine him as a Roman emperor feeding Christians to the lions in the Colosseum?

Sure you can. And this is the man most American Christians view as their indispensable leader. The irony is overwhelming.