Cromwell

If the Iranian regime gave any sort of a crap about the material well-being of its subjects, it would give up its nukes and sign a big, beautiful deal with Trump for sanctions relief. It doesn’t, and it won’t. Why?

Because the ayatollahs at the top of the food chain think their system is ordained by God; it is his will, not the material desires of the people, that must prevail, even in the face of calamity. And because the more prosaic interests of the instruments of repression–most notably, the Revolutionary Guards–are completely entwined with the current system; the Guards would be risking their power and privileges if they supported regime change.

As long as these two groups of people are united in their desire to maintain the status quo, there is no realistic hope of reform in Iran. If the regime splits, however, it is doomed, because it doesn’t have any public support. That probably won’t happen until Khamenei dies, which can’t happen soon enough.

My guess is that the Roberts Court will go down in history as the worst since the 1850s. From the creation of important new legal standards untethered to any provisions in the Constitution (“major questions”) to deliberate misstatements about the record (free exercise cases) to grubby political compromises (Obamacare) to the unscrupulous cherry-picking of history (gun cases; abortion) to an opinion based on hypothetical future facts that bear no resemblance to the actual record (presidential immunity) to rulings favoring parties who clearly lacked standing (most notably, student debt relief), this Court has done it all.

But which decisions were the worst? Here are my choices:

1. THE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY CASE: The Court ignores the actual facts of the case, the text of the Constitution, and the legislative history–that is, everything that would normally drive a decision–and crafts dangerous new standards to protect Donald Trump based completely on its own views of what the Constitution should say.
2. THE NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS CASE: The evil twin of #1. The Court makes a sweeping new rule that will result in grave injustice and administrative chaos based solely on its distorted views of equity and history.
3. THE GUN CASES: No reputable historian with whom I am familiar believes the Court accurately interpreted the historical record. Now we are left with a line of reasoning that requires judges to determine whether AR-15s are the modern equivalent of muskets.

Roger Taney would be proud.

The voters responded to Trump’s recession and foreign policy failures by giving the Democrats a mandate for fundamental change in 2028. AOC took power in January 2029 and promised to make America fair and prosperous again. Citing “emergencies” involving poverty, environmental decline, inequality, immigration, and gun violence, she immediately enacted a blizzard of new rules that were applauded by the left.

The right predictably used the judicial system to fight back. It won a string of victories in the Supreme Court. But AOC threw Justice Barrett’s words back at the Court. The correct response to executive overreach was not judicial overreach, according to the new president, and the Court’s jurisdiction was limited to the parties in front of it; the government would no longer treat its decisions as the equivalent of forbidden nationwide injunctions.

The McConnell Project was truly dead. The red team and the reactionaries on the Court were outraged. But what could they do? The template had already been established during the Trump years. They were reaping what they had sowed.

I was hoping that I would feel better about the nationwide injunction decision when I woke up this morning. I don’t. If anything, I am even more alarmed than before.

The Supreme Court is sending a message to the country–we are not the resistance. We will establish new precedents to limit our powers to deal with executive overreach. We will continue to assume that the federal government is operating in good faith even when all of the evidence tells us otherwise. We will do the absolute minimum to keep Trump from trampling on the rights of vulnerable Americans. If that means chaos and massive injustice, that’s your problem, mon; you will have to find another way to solve it.

Trump is largely expanding his powers under the guise of bogus “emergencies.” This case tells us that the Court is going to acquiesce to whatever the government calls an “emergency.” Then what?

Regardless of what happens thereafter, count on Justice Barrett to wash her hands of it.

In the 2024 Trump cases involving presidential immunity and the insurrection language in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court basically ignored the relevant text and legislative history and crafted a pro-Trump decision based on policy and administrative convenience. In today’s nationwide injunction case, on the other hand, the Court’s decision was based purely on its understanding of history; policy, we are told bluntly, has nothing to do with it, and if injustice to millions of people is the result, that is not the Court’s problem.

It was clear that the Court needed to craft some new prudential rules governing nationwide injunctions; that was not a partisan issue. But to ditch nationwide relief altogether is a horrible mistake. It will encourage Trump and other future presidents to engage in constitutional overreaching and result in administrative chaos.

I did not expect the Court to go this far. Frankly, I’m shocked and horrified.

Khamenei told the Iranian public that they had won the war. Really? The war proved that Iran was incapable of defending itself, and that the outside world was not riding to its rescue.

Two observations are pertinent here. First, I suppose it is comforting to know that we aren’t the only country whose leader operates in an alternative reality. Second, if the Ayatollah is stupid enough to believe what he says, Iran has no reason to negotiate over its nuclear program with Israel and the US and undoubtedly won’t.

Emil Bove told a Senate committee yesterday that he was no one’s henchman. His record at the DOJ, however, suggests otherwise; he will support the rule of Trump, not the rule of law, on the bench. Even so, the GOP members of the committee defended him vigorously.

Bove is to the judiciary what Matt Gaetz was to the DOJ–the most offensive nominee that anyone could possibly imagine. Trump is attempting to see how far he can push the envelope here. Are there any red lines at all with his judicial nominees? Will Collins, Murkowski, McConnell, and Tillis acquiesce? My guess is that some of them will, and Bove will wind up on the Supreme Court before Trump leaves office.

Given his record and personal shortcomings, it is easy to see why New York voters would reject Andrew Cuomo. But Mamdani embodies all of the usual awful cliches about progressives–defund the police, freeze rents, etc. In addition, he has no obvious qualifications to run New York except youth and enthusiasm. This was a battle between bad and worse, and worse won.

It isn’t clear that Mamdani will prevail in the general election. If he does, two results are guaranteed. First of all, Trump and the GOP will have an even better foil that Gavin Newsom. We will be hearing all about the New York hellhole for the next few years. Second, Mamdani’s record will have a major impact on the blue team primaries in 2028. If, against all the odds, he is perceived to be a success, it will help the progressive candidates; if not, the centrists will use him against the left.

The first line of Elvis Costello’s “Shipbuilding”–an incredibly poignant song about the Falklands War– is “Is it worth it?” It’s a fair question to apply to Trump’s air strikes. Assuming, for purposes of argument, that the current intelligence analysis is right and that there is no more retaliation, did the benefits of the strikes justify the risks?

Not even close. Trump has set a precedent for future military involvement with Iran, made a favorable regime change less likely, and driven the Iranian nuclear program underground in order to set back the program by 3-6 months. That is a failure by any reasonable standard.

Thom Tillis is facing a difficult re-election campaign, possibly against a popular former governor, in 2026. He is responding by moving a bit into Susan Collins territory; he expresses concerns about some of the leadership’s priorities, but he ultimately votes the party line anyway.

Two different clean energy lobbying groups are running commercials in North Carolina reminding him of the consequences to them and him if he rolls over on their tax credits. How will he respond? If history is any guide, he will vote for the BBB, including the tax credit repeal, and expect gratitude for his expressions of sympathy with its victims.

Events are occurring as I predicted, but slightly faster; Israel and Iran have agreed to a cease-fire, although there are indications that it has been breached already. In any event, both sides need a break; the Israelis are running out of plausible targets, and the Iranians are running out of missiles and hope. Even if the cease-fire doesn’t hold, the war will end–for now–shortly.

The Iranians have apparently rejected the most dramatic forms of retaliation, which is good news in the short run. That doesn’t mean they won’t retaliate later; they just want to wait until conditions improve, from their perspective.

Don’t expect Iran to come back to the bargaining table. Whatever doubts the leadership had about building a bomb have been resolved. The program is going deeper underground and will be more dangerous than ever.

On Trump and his new Iran war.

It has shaken his base to the core.

Will it have a quick end?

Will we send troops again?

Either way, you can’t say it’s a bore.

Elon Musk gets Trump on the phone. Trump takes the call.

M: How’s the most powerful man in the world today?

T: Great! I just kicked ass in Iran! They’ll be begging me for mercy soon. How’s the richest man in the world?

M: Not so great. My businesses aren’t doing well, and I’m feeling remorseful about some of the things I said about you. How did things go so wrong?

T: You made three mistakes, Elon.

M: Which were?

T: First, you proved to be a liability during that election in Wisconsin. I don’t need that kind of baggage. The job is hard enough as it is.

M: Wisconsin probably was a mistake. What else?

T: You lost track of the real rationale behind DOGE. It wasn’t about saving money; it was about showing the deep state who was boss. You did well with that, but then you started complaining about my big, beautiful bill because it increased the deficit. I don’t care about the deficit. I care about being the boss. Which leads me to the third mistake.

M: Which was?

T: You may be the richest man in the world, but I’m the boss, and I don’t tolerate any open dissent. You started criticizing me. That’s unacceptable.

M: I’m not used to being a sidekick.

T: Life is about who has the cards. I’m the president. I always have the cards. Always. Never forget it. The Iranians sure won’t.

M: Is there anything I can do to get back in your good graces?

T: Maybe. Maybe not. If not, you’ll always have the destruction of USAID. That’s your legacy–thousands of dead African children.

M: Empathy is the enemy. Even if I’m not in your ear, never forget it.

T: No fears on that score. (Trump hangs up)

Iran’s foreign minister is meeting with Putin today. In a sense, you might wonder why; the American air strikes are already over, and the Russians did nothing to deter them. But Russia can conceivably prevent America from widening the war in the future to include regime change. Even more to the point, the Russians could replace the lost nuclear capability. A nukes for drones deal could well be on the table here.

Unless Putin and Trump have a secret deal in place–Ukraine for Iran. That’s not totally out of the question, either.

As I expected, the damage caused by the American air strikes was significant but did not put an end to the Iranian nuclear program. What the Iranians do next will undoubtedly be the subject of considerable debate within the regime. Here are my predictions:

1. There will be no further meaningful negotiations on nukes. The government will move the program even deeper underground and commit privately to building a bomb as quickly as possible.
2. The immediate retaliation will be directed at American bases and will be fairly minimal.
3. Further acts of retaliation will take place over a period of years and with limited fanfare. The objective will be to cause as much pain as possible without provoking a massive response.
4. The current war will wind down in a matter of weeks. Trump will not escalate. He will, however, have turned himself into Bibi’s lawn guy. America is now committed to a sporadic war in the Middle East for the foreseeable future.
5. The regime will tighten its grip on the public, this time with popular support. A viable succession plan will be formulated. The chances that the system will be liberalized after the death of the Supreme Leader have been reduced.