Thank you for this. Lots of coffee for you today, John! Whether one agrees with the intervention or not, there is unquestionably a strategy at play, and it can be followed. Yes, this is surely no time for realists to resign, perhaps they are needed now more than ever. There’s little value in retreating to a “told you so” position.
For me, in the shadow of the last two weeks, and last night.... I think the truest acts of courage emerge when all sides choose diplomacy, forging a path towards peace where humanity triumphs. MaybeI am just putting rose colored glasses? The hard resolve is to navigate competing interests and unflinching pragmatism.
I agree Dianne, it’s a sad day for this to happen, regardless of how you feel about Iran. I personally was not in favor, and now brace for what kind of terror attacks might follow… but I do think John is right; Israel’s actions and Iran’s posture over the past week didn’t leave the US with many other good options. Fingers crossed the response is muted.
Option's are always there..Fear can be a formidable barrier, but it need not define us. Leaders are called to act with resolve. Our collective courage will forge the path ahead.
JJ, (something from a John Hulsamn discussion a few week ago).. I ask, were you one of the ones who would not have departed on the ships leaving Europe 250 plus years ago for America ?
I only saw the chat for the first time about a week ago, so I missed that discussion… I’ve never thought about that before, but I’d like to think I would’ve boarded! At least one of my ancestors came here in the early 1700s, so perhaps the adventurer blood runs in my veins.
Hi JJ , I still remain hopeful, we do not have all the information. I have spent the morning looking for inspiration.. found something form Jean Paul Sartre " No Choice is a Choice, Forevermore" Looking forward to the coming days, Iran with a nuclear weapons in my mind now... was not good idea. I know I will face backlash here in the community but "each path a price must pay" . Continued dialogue will follow along with more information revealing some details.
Earlier on in the analysis, you made the point that, from Israel’s perspective, the crisis was not any imminent threat from Iran’s nuclear program but that the US’s diplomacy with Iran seemed to be making progress towards a deal on terms that really might have been effective. Netanyahu wrecked that strategy (which was actually working) and is rewarded by co-opting the US into doing the job he couldn’t finish. This is not a ‘one-off’ for the Israeli government by any stretch. But it lacks means. America, you are on a road not of your choosing.
The next step, the Iranian counter-move, is crucial as to whether this is a Soleimani moment (which wuldnt’t suit regime-changers anywhere) or the beginning of a process of being dragged into another open-ended war. There is still a lot of analytical road ahead
I pray this is a Soleimani moment. Sadly I think unlikely, given the epic nature of this attack, and with the whole world watching. If the response is indeed limited, this is a huge strategic win for the Trump administration… thanks for the tireless analysis, John. Get some sleep!
Thanks JJ, as you rightly imply, your enemy has a vote in what happens, too. There is a lot of analytical read ahead, not least how hard (and how) the Iranians choose to strike back. Your are entirely welcome for our community analysis this endless day. Now off to get some of that precious sleep!
Dammit, John. I think we may be agreeing. ;) Funny story for you: I was given a tour of Qom by a mullah who had been the senior cleric for the Shiite community in Dubai for a long period - until the Saudis had him expelled. A rather elegantly robed man in his 60s, who spoke excellent English, he confessed that he and his wife had been very sorry to have to leave. His three children had all been born in Dubai and elected to stay. “My daughter,” he eventually confided, “is a gym instructor and teaches Body Pump classes”. Change is coming for sure. They may not like the US (but after 46 years that has acquired a rather symbolic status: hatred loves a void and paper flags are cheap to burn) but that doesn’t stop them wanting to be like the US. And in many ways: as you have noticed, the depth of Iran’s cultural identity and history gives it a stature that others around it lack. If Nixon could go to China …
Yes, James, such polling as there is shows the Iranian people more pro-Western than almost anyone else in the region; that’s what comes from repression. Again, just as the Shah forgot Iranians are Muslims as well as Persians, so the Mullahs forget their people are Persians as well as Muslims. Over time, there could well be an opening here in the medium term
Yes James I agree with you! I don’t think it’s as simple as POTUS wants us to think. The Mullahs hate us, I don’t think they are going to view our actions as a precursor to peace talks. And can we have peace talks with them if they have stated “wiping us off the map?” It’s easy to say we are not interested in regime change, but circumstances may force us to get involved… exactly what we don’t want.
The mullahs are not the problem any more. They seized power in 1979. 46 years on, the generation of excitable young clerics who followed Khomeini are done. And they know it. The medieval rural society that put them in power has all but disappeared. But the armed apparatus that claimed its legitimacy by supporting the religious establishment has not. And - as we have seen - they continue to be effective at snuffing out domestic opposition. So we are stuck dealing with the Revolutionary Guard or something that will look very like it. Kettling and bombing the Iranians will simply consolidate their power unless it brings about anarchy. So I would encourage everyone to remember what the wider objective is here. We definitely don’t want to find Iran’s stocks of enriched uranium on the open market (and they have had plenty of time to split it up and move it around before the bombing). Better to make a deal with someone who can credibly and verifiably prevent that happening.
Hi James, as you can guess I’m swamped and largely off the grid for the much-loved community chat; but wanted to write. Yes, thinking through what comes next is a pretty basic political risk tenet, tied to the ethical realist virtue of prudence. And in the rest of the world, it isn’t usually the democratic US AID-supported foreign NGOs who are the darlings of the Washington cocktail set. In fact, almost never. In this case, I think a veneer of the mullahs will remain, but it is the Revolutionary Guard that is by far the most stable and sturdy force in the country. They will come to power, proving to be ever bit as nationalistic (if not more) than what came before. The only hope is that they are less ideologically blinkered in the sense that the religious component will be downplayed. But in any case, what comes next will be anti-American, anti-western, and not prone to give up on the nuclear program, though perhaps open to pragmatic negotiations over time. But it will be a hard nut to crack in the best of cases
Agree totally Terri; the Iranian counter-move matters immensely. and over that, in political risk terms, you have limited control at best. My John made just this point at our latest meting of the day (I’ve lost count)
Agree. The asymmetrical threat is the one to be looking at, and I suspect we are about to find out just how any cells there are out there globally, and also how component they are. The US may not be looking for regime change, but if Tehran is unable to respond in any meaning fashion, then what legitimacy do they have left?
Thank you for this. Lots of coffee for you today, John! Whether one agrees with the intervention or not, there is unquestionably a strategy at play, and it can be followed. Yes, this is surely no time for realists to resign, perhaps they are needed now more than ever. There’s little value in retreating to a “told you so” position.
For me, in the shadow of the last two weeks, and last night.... I think the truest acts of courage emerge when all sides choose diplomacy, forging a path towards peace where humanity triumphs. MaybeI am just putting rose colored glasses? The hard resolve is to navigate competing interests and unflinching pragmatism.
I agree Dianne, it’s a sad day for this to happen, regardless of how you feel about Iran. I personally was not in favor, and now brace for what kind of terror attacks might follow… but I do think John is right; Israel’s actions and Iran’s posture over the past week didn’t leave the US with many other good options. Fingers crossed the response is muted.
Option's are always there..Fear can be a formidable barrier, but it need not define us. Leaders are called to act with resolve. Our collective courage will forge the path ahead.
JJ, (something from a John Hulsamn discussion a few week ago).. I ask, were you one of the ones who would not have departed on the ships leaving Europe 250 plus years ago for America ?
I only saw the chat for the first time about a week ago, so I missed that discussion… I’ve never thought about that before, but I’d like to think I would’ve boarded! At least one of my ancestors came here in the early 1700s, so perhaps the adventurer blood runs in my veins.
I like that...we are not that far apart ...
Hi JJ , I still remain hopeful, we do not have all the information. I have spent the morning looking for inspiration.. found something form Jean Paul Sartre " No Choice is a Choice, Forevermore" Looking forward to the coming days, Iran with a nuclear weapons in my mind now... was not good idea. I know I will face backlash here in the community but "each path a price must pay" . Continued dialogue will follow along with more information revealing some details.
Sorry, apologies, I needed to edit this. And, I do believe Iran's choice is its destiny.
Earlier on in the analysis, you made the point that, from Israel’s perspective, the crisis was not any imminent threat from Iran’s nuclear program but that the US’s diplomacy with Iran seemed to be making progress towards a deal on terms that really might have been effective. Netanyahu wrecked that strategy (which was actually working) and is rewarded by co-opting the US into doing the job he couldn’t finish. This is not a ‘one-off’ for the Israeli government by any stretch. But it lacks means. America, you are on a road not of your choosing.
The next step, the Iranian counter-move, is crucial as to whether this is a Soleimani moment (which wuldnt’t suit regime-changers anywhere) or the beginning of a process of being dragged into another open-ended war. There is still a lot of analytical road ahead
I pray this is a Soleimani moment. Sadly I think unlikely, given the epic nature of this attack, and with the whole world watching. If the response is indeed limited, this is a huge strategic win for the Trump administration… thanks for the tireless analysis, John. Get some sleep!
Thanks JJ, as you rightly imply, your enemy has a vote in what happens, too. There is a lot of analytical read ahead, not least how hard (and how) the Iranians choose to strike back. Your are entirely welcome for our community analysis this endless day. Now off to get some of that precious sleep!
Ice cold water and cooler heads urgently needed in the midst of this.
Yes, I hope this is not Trumps “Mission Accomplished” moment
Dammit, John. I think we may be agreeing. ;) Funny story for you: I was given a tour of Qom by a mullah who had been the senior cleric for the Shiite community in Dubai for a long period - until the Saudis had him expelled. A rather elegantly robed man in his 60s, who spoke excellent English, he confessed that he and his wife had been very sorry to have to leave. His three children had all been born in Dubai and elected to stay. “My daughter,” he eventually confided, “is a gym instructor and teaches Body Pump classes”. Change is coming for sure. They may not like the US (but after 46 years that has acquired a rather symbolic status: hatred loves a void and paper flags are cheap to burn) but that doesn’t stop them wanting to be like the US. And in many ways: as you have noticed, the depth of Iran’s cultural identity and history gives it a stature that others around it lack. If Nixon could go to China …
Yes, James, such polling as there is shows the Iranian people more pro-Western than almost anyone else in the region; that’s what comes from repression. Again, just as the Shah forgot Iranians are Muslims as well as Persians, so the Mullahs forget their people are Persians as well as Muslims. Over time, there could well be an opening here in the medium term
Yes James I agree with you! I don’t think it’s as simple as POTUS wants us to think. The Mullahs hate us, I don’t think they are going to view our actions as a precursor to peace talks. And can we have peace talks with them if they have stated “wiping us off the map?” It’s easy to say we are not interested in regime change, but circumstances may force us to get involved… exactly what we don’t want.
Only time will tell
The mullahs are not the problem any more. They seized power in 1979. 46 years on, the generation of excitable young clerics who followed Khomeini are done. And they know it. The medieval rural society that put them in power has all but disappeared. But the armed apparatus that claimed its legitimacy by supporting the religious establishment has not. And - as we have seen - they continue to be effective at snuffing out domestic opposition. So we are stuck dealing with the Revolutionary Guard or something that will look very like it. Kettling and bombing the Iranians will simply consolidate their power unless it brings about anarchy. So I would encourage everyone to remember what the wider objective is here. We definitely don’t want to find Iran’s stocks of enriched uranium on the open market (and they have had plenty of time to split it up and move it around before the bombing). Better to make a deal with someone who can credibly and verifiably prevent that happening.
Hi James, as you can guess I’m swamped and largely off the grid for the much-loved community chat; but wanted to write. Yes, thinking through what comes next is a pretty basic political risk tenet, tied to the ethical realist virtue of prudence. And in the rest of the world, it isn’t usually the democratic US AID-supported foreign NGOs who are the darlings of the Washington cocktail set. In fact, almost never. In this case, I think a veneer of the mullahs will remain, but it is the Revolutionary Guard that is by far the most stable and sturdy force in the country. They will come to power, proving to be ever bit as nationalistic (if not more) than what came before. The only hope is that they are less ideologically blinkered in the sense that the religious component will be downplayed. But in any case, what comes next will be anti-American, anti-western, and not prone to give up on the nuclear program, though perhaps open to pragmatic negotiations over time. But it will be a hard nut to crack in the best of cases
Actually, am I that far off saying the Mullahs don’t have a favorable view of Americans?
James, thank you for the correction, I mistakenly used that term to describe the leadership. Either way, I am worried about the aftermath.
To me the risk here is whether Iran, despite being so severely weakened will “let it” be a one time attack. The smaller cells are concerning to me.
Obviously John, I know you are busy today, the chat runs well because you give us so much to chat about!
Agree totally Terri; the Iranian counter-move matters immensely. and over that, in political risk terms, you have limited control at best. My John made just this point at our latest meting of the day (I’ve lost count)
Agree. The asymmetrical threat is the one to be looking at, and I suspect we are about to find out just how any cells there are out there globally, and also how component they are. The US may not be looking for regime change, but if Tehran is unable to respond in any meaning fashion, then what legitimacy do they have left?
Although perhaps the strike in Qatar is indicative of a more measured, symbolic response - as was the case after the hit on Soleimani.