Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
There will be no Hili dialogue today, as those required the collaboration of Andrzej, who took the pictures and made up the dialogues, and Malgorzata, who translated Andrzej’s Polish into English. In honor of Malgorzata, who passed away yesterday, I will continue to call the morning posts “Hili dialogues.” I do not know if we’ll have any more.
Israel claimed it killed another senior Iranian military official on Tuesday, as President Trump returned to Washington to deal with the war between Iran and Israel.
Since Israel began striking Iran on Friday, it has dealt a major blow to Iran’s military chain of command, killing at least 11 senior generals. On Tuesday morning, the Israeli military said it had killed Maj. Gen. Ali Shadmani, describing him as the most senior military commander in Iran. He had been appointed to his post just four days ago, replacing a general who was killed by Israel on the first day of hostilities.
Iran did not immediately comment on Israel’s claim about General Shadmani. If confirmed, the killing could further destabilize what remains of Iran’s besieged military leadership.
As the two sides continued to exchange deadly fire, and Israeli officials pressed the United States to join its military campaign against Tehran, Mr. Trump departed early from a meeting of the leaders of the Group of 7 nations in Alberta, Canada. On the flight home, he told reporters that he was looking for something “better than a cease-fire” between Israel and Iran.
“A real end, not a cease-fire,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Air Force 1, saying he wanted Iran to give up while insisting that Tehran abandon any effort to develop nuclear weapons. “I’m not too much in the mood to negotiate,” he added.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday did not rule out plans to target Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Instead, he suggested that it would be a surefire way to “end the conflict” with the Islamic Republic.
Asked during an ABC News interview about reports that US President Donald Trump vetoed an Israeli plan to kill the Iranian supreme leader out of concern that it would escalate the fighting between the two countries further, Netanyahu was dismissive.
“It’s not going to escalate the conflict, it’s going to end the conflict,” he said.
“We’ve had half a century of conflict spread by this regime that terrorizes everyone in the Middle East,” said the premier. “The ‘forever war’ is what Iran wants, and they’re bringing us to the brink of nuclear war.”
“In fact, what Israel is doing is preventing this, bringing an end to this aggression, and we can only do so by standing up to the forces of evil,” he added.
Netanyahu did not reveal whether or not Israel would target Khamenei, saying only: “We’re doing what we need to do.”
US President Donald Trump said late Monday that the US is “not looking for a ceasefire,” but rather a “real end” to the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program, and that, after two months of talks in which Iran refused to dismantle its program, he is “not in the mood to negotiate.”
“We’re looking for better than a ceasefire,” he told reporters on Air Force One during his overnight flight back to Washington. Asked what would entail, he said, “An end. A real end. Not a ceasefire. An end… Or giving up entirely. That’s okay too.”
“Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, it’s very simple,” Trump said.
If there was one thing that Israel could do to bring on an Iranian revolution with an overthrow of the regime by the people (who by and large detest the theocracy), it would be taking out Khameni. Iran is full of lovely and ambitious people whose ambitions and ideas have been ruthlessly suppressed, and it has a great potential as a country. But not as a medieval theocracy in which women have no opportunities. Trump’s statement makes me believe he’s thinking of taking further U.S. action beyond brokering a phony “cease fire”.
President Trump is weighing a critical decision in the four-day-old war between Israel and Iran: whether to enter the fray by helping Israel destroy the deeply buried nuclear enrichment facility at Fordo, which only America’s biggest “bunker buster,” dropped by American B-2 bombers, can reach.
If he decides to go ahead, the United States will become a direct participant in a new conflict in the Middle East, taking on Iran in exactly the kind of war Mr. Trump has sworn, in two campaigns, he would avoid. Iranian officials have already warned that U.S. participation in an attack on its facilities will imperil any remaining chance of the nuclear disarmament deal that Mr. Trump insists he is still interested in pursuing.
Mr. Trump had at one point encouraged his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, and possibly Vice President JD Vance, to offer to meet the Iranians, according to a U.S. official. But on Monday Mr. Trump posted on social media that “everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran,” hardly a sign of diplomatic progress.
Mr. Trump also said on Monday that “I think Iran basically is at the negotiating table, they want to make a deal.”
The urgency appeared to be rising. The White House announced late on Monday that Mr. Trump was leaving the Group of 7 summit early because of the situation in the Middle East.
“As soon as I leave here, we’re going to be doing something,” Mr. Trump said. “But I have to leave here.”
Fears of a wider war were growing on Tuesday after President Trump called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” cited the possibility of killing its supreme leader and referred to Israel’s war efforts with the word “we” — all apparent suggestions that the United States could enter the conflict against Iran.
As the Trump administration contemplates next steps, in Israel and Iran, the conflict continues unabated into its sixth day. Past midnight, on Wednesday, sirens sounded in areas of Israel and the Israeli military said it had detected Iranian missile launches, on two occasions in short succession.
Around the same time, the Israeli military published an evacuation warning for an industrial area in Tehran, the Iranian capital, saying it would be taking action in the coming hours to attack military infrastructure there, and shortly afterward said its Air Force was conducting a series of strikes in the area of Tehran.
I think it that Trump’s “doing something” refers to Iran. This is the way I see it: if we and the West are serious in the determination to not letting Iran build nuclear weapons, then there is no kind of “deal” to be struck that will prevent that. Iran has always lied and cheated about its ambitions, and it has just been caught again. The only thing to prevent that will be to destroy its nuclear capabilities. An overthrow of the government would also ensure that, because the Iranian people don’t want the endless warring that comes with their country threatening the Middle East with nukes. My guess
President Trump warned he is losing patience with Iran, calling for unconditional surrender and saying he wouldn’t target the country’s leader “for now,” as he escalated his rhetoric toward Tehran.
Trump, in a series of social-media posts on Tuesday afternoon, said the U.S. knows where Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is hiding. “He is an easy target, but is safe there—We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding, “Our patience is wearing thin.”
“UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” he wrote in a separate post.
Trump also said Tehran had lost control of Iran’s airspace. “We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,” Trump wrote. “Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn’t compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured ‘stuff.’ Nobody does it better than the good ol’ USA.”
In his posts, Trump used the word “we,” but it wasn’t immediately clear if that meant that the U.S. is taking a more active role in Israel’s unfolding attacks on Iran. The U.S. has said it hasn’t joined Israel’s strikes.
Trump returned to Washington early Tuesday morning, leaving a Group of Seven leaders summit in Canada a day early to focus on the crisis in the Middle East. Aboard Air Force One, Trump told reporters he was looking for a “real end” to the conflict, not a cease-fire.
Yes, that “we” is ambiguous, but I doubt that the U.S. is going to engage is discussions about nukes in the near future. Yes, even Trump has to know that Iran can’t be trusted, though Biden, Obama, and other Democratic Presidents didn’t seem to realize it.
A federal judge on Monday ruled that the Trump administration’s canceling of federal health grants over their connections to “gender ideology” and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” was unlawful and void.
U.S. District Court Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, ruled on Monday that targeting research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) based on certain topics was unlawful and arbitrary. The federal government has been directed to immediately make the funds available to grant recipients again.
In February, the NIH issued directives terminating grants relating to LGBTQ issues; gender identity; and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
In response, several organizations including the American Public Health Association (APHA), the American Civil Liberties Union, Ibis Reproductive Health and others sued to reverse the directives.
“The ideologically motivated directives to terminate grants alleged to constitute DEI, ‘gender ideology,’ or other forbidden topics were, in fact, arbitrary and capricious, and have now been ruled unlawful,” said Peter G. Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and a plaintiff in the case.
“We’re certainly very pleased with the judge’s decision, and actually the way he portrayed it as, you know, discrimination. I think that’s pure and simple, that the administration was trying to undermine the health and well-being of these populations,” Georges Benjamin, executive director of the APHA, told The Hill.
The federal government plans to appeal or halt Young’s ruling.
“HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people,” Health and Human Services (HHS) spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement.
“Under the leadership of Secretary Kennedy and the Trump administration, HHS is committed to ensuring that taxpayer dollars support programs rooted in evidence-based practices and gold standard science— not driven by divisive DEI mandates or gender ideology,” he added.
I have mixed feelings about what the government did. On one hand we shouldn’t be spending taxpayer money on ideologically motivated projects whose outcomes are all but predetermined. On the other hand, these grants were apparently sussed out by the government simply by looking at keyword searches in grant titles. That’s not a fair way to judge the value of a proposal, for some of these could have indeed have had a salubrious effect on public health. And it should be scientists who judge the grants, not the government. But of course the grants were already awarded, so they had been vetted and approved by panels of scientists. If there are indeed garbage grants being funded by the NIH, then scientists need to clean up their act. But I have no ideas about how to do that.
*The male boxer Imane Khelif, raised as a female, won a gold medal in the Paris Olympics in the women’s welterweight boxing competition, causing considerable controversy. Doubt has swirled around his biological sex, as there was evidence he had an XY chromosome constitution, but he refused further testing, Now Khelif has withdrawn from a women’s boxing tournament in the Netherlands after it implemented a new sex testing policy (h/t Ginger K.)
The Algerian boxer who has caused significant controversy after taking home an Olympic gold medal in the women’s category last summer has now decided to exit a women’s tournament following the implementation of a new sex testing policy. Imane Khelif had previously been disqualified by the International Boxing Association (IBA) from competing against women, when, in 2023, a genetic test revealed that Khelif has a male karyotype.
In May, Khelif had been announced as a participant in the upcoming Eindhoven Box Cup in the Netherlands, set to take place between June 5 – 10. According to a celebratory announcement from the Eindhoven event officials, now deleted from the organization’s social media, Khelif intended to defend his previous win at the 2024 iteration of the event.
However, on May 30 the sport authority World Boxing announced a new policy that would require mandatory sex testing for all boxers, in order to “ensure the safety of all participants and deliver a competitive level playing field for men and women.”
World Boxing clarified in their statement that the new regulation was implemented in direct response to Khelif’s highly controversial bouts at the Paris Olympics – which saw multiple female athletes protest against his participation and generated international outcry.
“In light of plans to introduce this policy and the particular circumstances surrounding some boxers that competed at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, World Boxing has written to the Algerian Boxing Federation to inform it that Imane Khelif will not be allowed to participate in the female category at the Eindhoven Box Cup or any World Boxing event until Imane Khelif undergoes sex testing,” read the authority’s statement.
. . .Multiple international news outlets report that Khelif has failed to complete the registration process by the deadline for the Eindhoven Cup, effectively unofficially withdrawing from the match due to a refusal to undergo the sex test, which would have been conducted via a simple cheek swab. Despite the fact that he will not enter the tournament, social media for the Eindhoven Box Cup has been posting articles supportive of Khelif as the news of his absence there breaks.
Spokesperson for the Box Cup in Eindhoven, Dirk Renders, announced Khelif’s withdrawal to Dutch media while referring to him with feminine pronouns and emphasizing that this was not the decision of the organization. “She officially missed the deadline for registration for the tournament. Imane’s decision not to participate was not made by us. We are very sorry.”
But the mayor of the town apoparently wants biological males to box against women:
The Mayor of Eindhoven, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, expressed his opposition to the new sex screening policy by way of a letter to the World Boxing association. “All athletes are welcome in Eindhoven. Exclusion of athletes based on controversial ‘gender tests’ certainly does not fit in. We let our disapproval of this decision today and call on the organization to allow Imane Khelif to be admitted,” Dijsselbloem said.
Not likely! Over at Reality’s Last Stand, Colin Wright explains that Khelif almost surely has a disorder (or “difference”) of sex determination that, while producing ambiguous genitalia at birth, also allowed him to go through male puberty, androgenizing his body and giving him the physique and musculature that got him the gold in Paris. In terms of the biological (gametic) definition of sex, Khelif was a male. While Khelif may have thought he was a female back then, since he was raised as one, he now has no excuse to refuse sex testing. And given World Boxing’s new policy, Khelif will likely have to box in male leagues or not at all.
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is silent. This is a picture I took on a visit to Dobrzyn last November:
*******************
A flower I photographed on the way home yesterday:
Like the U.S., Masih is telling Iran to surrender unconditionally. Do watch her video:
Force Ali Khamenei and his regime to give up entirely.
It’s time for democratic nations to act with pressure.
Stand with the people or stand with their oppressors.
There is only one solution to end this war.
Please, listen to my message in this video.https://t.co/Ul4grfDAnspic.twitter.com/VgEkBNWHaY
Ahmadreza Mohammadi-Doostdar, 39, a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen, and Majid Ghorbani, 60, an Iranian citizen and resident of California, have been sentenced to prison terms of 38 months and 30 months, respectively, for their criminal convictions relating to their conduct conducting surveillance of and collecting identifying information about American citizens and U.S. nationals who are members of the group Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK).
On Jan. 15, 2020, the Honorable Paul L. Friedman sentenced Doostdar to a prison term of 38 months, 36 months of supervised release, and a fine of $14,153. Ghorbani was sentenced to a prison term of 30 months and 36 months of supervised release.
On Oct. 8, 2019, Doostdar entered guilty pleas to one count of acting as an agent of the government of Iran without notifying the Attorney General, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 951, and one count of conspiring to violate that statute, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. On Nov. 4, 2019, Ghorbani entered a guilty plea to one count of willfully violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations 31 C.F.R. Parts 560.204 and 560.206.
“This case illustrates Iran’s targeting of Americans in the United States in order to silence those who oppose the Iranian regime or otherwise further its goals,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers. “The defendants, working for Iran, gathered information on Americans that could then be used by the Iranian intelligence services to intimidate or harm them or their families. These prosecutions should serve as a reminder to anyone here working covertly for Iran that the American law enforcement will pursue you to protect this country, its citizens and the First Amendment principles upon which it was founded.”
It’s Monday & I have some fucks:
Fuck Israel for genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank
Fuck Israel for apartheid
Fuck Israel for bombing Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen
— Alireza Doostdar علیرضا دوستدار (@docstobar) June 16, 2025
More “anti-Zio” hatred:
The criminal Israeli settler colony has lost hope that Iranians will rise up against their government (an insane thought to begin with) so now is taking its mask off and directly threatening that it will murder civilians.
— Alireza Doostdar علیرضا دوستدار (@docstobar) June 16, 2025
From Bryan; a bizarre post about Ozzy Ozbourne:
. @OzzyOsbourne is 1 of 1. But @LiquidDeath is selling his actual DNA so you can recycle him forever.
Yes, Liquid Death really got the Prince of Darkness to drink from 10 cans of their low-calorie Iced Tea. And yes, he actually crushed each can himself. In the process, he left… pic.twitter.com/FSb98hdWh3
1) Adactylidium: Always enjoy stories about how the creation reveals to us the mind of the almighty creator.
2) What scared them? Whoever was filming them.
Adactylidium family reunions must be tense affairs.
“Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is silent.”
Always the wisest one – a good idea to honor Malgorzata. Condolences.
Absolutely. Very tastefully done.
Good bye, Malgorzata. We miss you and are very sad.
+1
Agree.
Me too.
With regards to Iran, using Moab bombs to end their nuclear program of course would be a good thing, but it isn’t enough. With current leadership they could re-start it. And meanwhile Iran continues to supply its proxy wars and to supply drones for Putin’s war with Ukraine.
And the words strung together of our Dear Leader seem like those of a 12 year old after finding his parents’ stash of Jack Daniels.
I am hoping the regime will collapse, which is what the people of Iran want.
I wish it would too, but I don’t think a foreign power killing their leader is the way to do it. It will have the opposite effect. And any moderate leader who tries to take his place will now be tarred as a puppet of Iran’s enemies. I know I am in the minority here but I think this attack is terrible and will leave the Middle East even more tense than before.
And from their point of view, this humiliating attack further supports the Iranians who say that they must get nuclear weapons or else they will continue to be humiliated by Israel and the US in the future.
I think that prior to this attack, if Iran developed nuclear weapons, they would not use them offensively, because they know they would be annihilated in response. Now, after this attack, the calculus might change a bit.
You don’t understand radical Islam, where getting “annihilated in response” is known as “martyrdom” and guarantees entry into Paradise – which is all that the theocratic fascists care about. It is a death cult.
Not necessarily. Pakistan, for example, is a strongly Islamic country with nuclear weapons.
I hope so too, Jerry.
Killing the Ayatollah mightn’t be such a good idea b/c what happens next?
Two options: a committee of the IRGC or his idiot son Mojtaba (sp?) who has been waiting in the wings despite the whole thrusts of the revolution which was against monarchy. He’s a nasty piece of work.
Of course, even communism couldn’t prevent the human desire for inherited power – Note North Korea’s third generation of dear leaders (the latest is nicknamed Fatty the Third in China 🙂
Also.. tipping over the Islamic Republic is a very tall order. It has been in cultural power since 1979 and is deeply entrenched. We get a distorted view of how unhappy many Iranians are with it: we hear from English speaking elites, many secular, all educated and many exiles. The attachment the proles and country bumpkins and very religious (waaay more than in the west) is quite firm I think.
That said, onwards Israeli bombers.
D.A.
NYC
I love those AI renditions of children’s drawing. But it’s another reminder that AI will obliterate jobs for commercial artists, along with 99 percent of the market for stock photography.
I’m hoping that the U.S. sends B-52 bombers and bunker-buster bombs to destroy the Iranian nuclear sites definitively. If the regime falls, so be it, even though it is unclear what could emerge afterwards. Most likely it will lead to a scramble among the Iranian Revolutionary Guards for power, but it could even mean anarchy. Nonetheless, Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons must be brought to a close. Unless the entire infrastructure is destroyed, the allure of obtaining an operational nuclear weapon will remain.
And now, over the past two days, I’ve read hand-wringing over how far Iran really is away from a bomb. Israel says it could be months or a year, and that Iran can sprint to having enough enriched uranium for several bombs within days (leaving to the side how much longer it would take to build an operational weapon with that enriched uranium). CNN says that Iran is years away from an operational weapon.*
This sideshow over how long is irrelevant. Iran’s effort to produce a nuclear weapon must be brought to an end. With the country weak and it’s defenses in shambles, now is the time.
Indeed! These are the the ones who gave the world the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, Assad. So much blood on their hands. The really disgusting thing about Iran’s leaders is that in reality, they don’t give a goddamn about the Palestinians. Their sole purpose has been to sow unrest in the various countries where they’ve installed these groups. They despise the Arabs, couldn’t care less about the Palestinians but hate the Jews even more. How evil can you get? Use your enemies to slaughter your bigger enemy. The MSM is completely ignorant to these facts.
I strongly disagree. All this attack will do is make Iran more determined to build a bomb. And push moderate Iranians towards defiant patriotism. Think of how 9/11 pushed our country towards the right, towards fascism and militarism, starting wars based on lies. That same dynamic will play out now in Iran.
This guy very much reflects the mindset of my close friends who moved to the US post 1979. None of them can safely return, either. Most of them have family remaining there and it’s heartbreaking for them. My closest Iranian friend suffers from debilitating depression due to being separated from her mother and older siblings. She’s terrified that her mother will die while they’re apart. It’s likely that that will happen. She is overjoyed at Israel going after the nukes and the people associated with the program. Masih Alinejad — the one whose tweets Jerry includes in his daily post — has been a hero of hers for years.
I meant to say that they (the friends who left Iran) CAN’T safely return). Big typo. Sorry.
For those on the political left who would like Trump to join Israel’s war and authorize attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities, how do you reconcile that with “The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War” and your approval of last weekend’s “No Kings” rallies? Do you borrow a page from Putin and insist you are not at war but are instead waging a “special military operation?” Do you play the bipartisan linguistic games with the word “emergency?” Do you assume that Iran won’t drag you into operations lasting longer than 60 days, further testing the constitutionality of presidential actions under the War Powers Resolution?
If you are opposed to striking Iran, and you fall back on the Article 1 clause, may I ask whether you applauded (or ignored) Obama’s actions in Libya? Or did you support (or ignore) Biden’s military engagement in Ukraine? I mean military planning, training, intelligence, targeting, and logistics, not simply supplying weapons. One needn’t pull a trigger to be engaged in war; active involvement in the kill chain makes you a belligerent.
Congress might well approve it.
That would be my preferred course.
Yes, only congress can declare war and raise, provide for and support armed forces for that war, but the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the power to direct the military, including responding to attacks or threats against the U.S. irrespective of whether congress has declared war. That is part of the president’s authority
Should a president use that authority? It’s a good question. But it isn’t a game, though it’s fun to accuse people who can see distinctions in events of engaging in one. That fact is, there is absolutely nothing contradictory about “No Kings” and approval of lawful presidential power. The problems really start to mount when those distinctions become less clear. There is little doubt in my mind that the orange toddler will try to push boundaries, nor do I dispute that other presidents have either. But it isn’t a game.
For the record, personally, I would give Trump my qualified support in allowing the US military to provide Israel what it needs to destroy Iran’s ability to make nukes. Israel is doing for the world what everyone -EVERYONE- knows needs to be done. But my support for the felon-in-chief in this would be quite limited; no US boots on the ground, for one example. That’s what thinking adults do on the right or the left; they weigh the evidence, the risks, what is being done, and consider their conscience and make distinctions.
Having at one point of my military career written directives for presidential signature, I am somewhat aware of presidential authority to direct the military. As you are leaning on Article 2 and you pride yourself on being an adult thinker who can see distinctions that are apparently invisible to others, I would ask you to define “threat” and “emergency.” Both terms are infinitely elastic, to the point of negating Congress’s Article 1 authority, and both terms have been abused by both parties on several occasions since WW2. You cannot simply wave a vague term in the air and declare that exercise of presidential authority is lawful whenever the president declares it is lawful. That is practically a definition of monarchy.
I asked the questions from two opposing perspectives because I am genuinely curious how people reconcile the contradictions existing on each side. I fully expected that some would be unwilling or unable to see the contradictions. The fact is that our line of responsibility between the executive and legislative branches was established when warfare was a very different creature than it is now. We have never successfully adapted those responsibilities to the modern era. Most people simply pretend the lines are clear. Mostly what they are doing is engaging in motivated reasoning, justifying whatever action will achieve their desired result, and supporting (or denouncing) actions in predictable partisan manners. Or should I say, “they are making distinctions”?
You say that “thinking adults” will “weigh the evidence, the risks, what is being done, and consider their conscience and make distinctions.” The evidence will not be available to most people; what is available will often be inconclusive; those who have access to the best evidence will disagree about what it means. The risks are situational, and most who advocate for the use of force face no personal risks. You object to boots on the ground. Wonderful. But boots in the air are no less subject to Article 1 approval, WPR loopholes don’t negate congressional authority, and Iran gets a vote as to whether they will engage your boots on the ground—and for how long and where.
And conscience is lovely—I would prefer to hear something about the Constitution.
Doug, I wonder if you could comment on the difference (if any) in your view of the U.S. Constitution between war-declaring and war-like fighting. The first is clearly (in the United States) a Legislative prerogative but the state’s use of violence is, to me, more of an Executive tool of foreign policy. To amplify, a state of war between two (or more) countries suspends a number of conventions that nations can normally rely on in their trade and “intercourse” with one another. A belligerent nation at war can molest the commerce of other nations, even neutral nations that are attempting to trade with its enemy, which by long convention it agrees not to do in peacetime. If a civilian ship’s owner knows, from the publication of the Declaration of War, it will be attacked in the sea lanes if detected by a belligerent, this will affect his decision to make the voyage or sail in armed convoy….especially if the belligerent’s policy is to sink it on sight and abandon the crew in the water rather than taking the mariners on board the raider before sinking (or impounding) the target. (Of course rogue actors can disrupt shipping without a declaration of war. That’s another story.)
Anything short of declared war generally protects shipping from molestation by naval vessels on the high seas. President Johnson didn’t seek a declaration of war on North Vietnam, for instance, (even though it was making war on the country) because this would have served notice to the USSR and neutral nations that the U.S. reserved the right to sink their cargo ships en route to Haiphong, and that North-Vietnamese-flagged ships might be sunk anywhere in the world. This was a conflict-widening risk that the Administration didn’t want to take….and in any event Congress might have refused the President’s request for a declaration of war knowing that this might well happen as a result.
So the President can’t by himself change the legal environment that the world’s commerce operates in. If he tries, impeachment would be the remedy.
But can the Executive carry out righteous violence as a state actor without a declaration of war? Obviously it has, the last declared war in history until Israel’s declaration of war after Oct. 7 having ended in 1945. But ought it to?, I think is your Constitutional question. Can the U.S. President smite his country’s enemies (or those of his allies) as he sees fit as long as he operates within the limits the Constitution sets down?:
1) He can’t declare war,
2) He can’t raise funds money through taxation to support the military independent of Congressional appropriation. (This was how the English Parliament progressively wrested control away from the King: by refusing to raise taxes for the Kings’ wars.)
I fully agree that any involvement in the kill chain is war-making, and the only difference between air power and infantry is the political risk from the expected larger number of casualties. I don’t think it’s a question of conscience, either, unless military people are faced with disobeying unlawful orders. I do think there is a Constitutional opportunity here for the President to use violence in his conduct of foreign policy and his continuation of diplomacy with other means.
(In Parliamentary monarchies such as the UK and Canada, the Executive is responsible to the Legislature. Any action the Executive takes, including advising the King to declare war, is considered to be done with the confidence of the Legislature, which can bring down the Government and force an election if it withdraws that confidence. There is not the same explicit possibility of stand-off there is in Separation of Powers, which is why I find your views thought-provoking.
Let’s keep in mind that Iran’s hostility to Israel is rooted in theology. The return of the 12th Imam (al-Mahdi) requires the destruction of Israel.
These people are certifiable and should not be allowed to have a nuke.
The US Supreme Court has upheld a Tennessee law banning gender transition care for young people, in a decision expected to have consequences nationwide, given that 25 states have similar laws.
[…]
The decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who said that the law, known as SB1, does not discriminate against transgender people.
He also wrote that: “Tennessee concluded that there is an ongoing debate among medical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with administering puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence.”
“SB1’s ban on such treatments responds directly to that uncertainty,” he concluded.
Very good. This is a victory for common sense. Vulnerable children and young people are protected instead of being abused as guinea pigs.
I would love if Andrzej is ever up to it to send Hili dialogues even in Polish only.
We could then all still be in touch with him and Hili. It would be wonderful to hear from him if he is up to it.
Yes please.
Agreed. The Hili posts have been helping me learn some Polish (I studied Russian in university and I know some Czech, so I can usually puzzle out other Slavic languages).
I’m very sad about Malgorzata and feel for Andrzej right now, so I can understand if he might want to take time to grieve.
1) Adactylidium: Always enjoy stories about how the creation reveals to us the mind of the almighty creator.
2) What scared them? Whoever was filming them.
Adactylidium family reunions must be tense affairs.
“Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is silent.”
Always the wisest one – a good idea to honor Malgorzata. Condolences.
Absolutely. Very tastefully done.
Good bye, Malgorzata. We miss you and are very sad.
+1
Agree.
Me too.
With regards to Iran, using Moab bombs to end their nuclear program of course would be a good thing, but it isn’t enough. With current leadership they could re-start it. And meanwhile Iran continues to supply its proxy wars and to supply drones for Putin’s war with Ukraine.
And the words strung together of our Dear Leader seem like those of a 12 year old after finding his parents’ stash of Jack Daniels.
I am hoping the regime will collapse, which is what the people of Iran want.
I wish it would too, but I don’t think a foreign power killing their leader is the way to do it. It will have the opposite effect. And any moderate leader who tries to take his place will now be tarred as a puppet of Iran’s enemies. I know I am in the minority here but I think this attack is terrible and will leave the Middle East even more tense than before.
And from their point of view, this humiliating attack further supports the Iranians who say that they must get nuclear weapons or else they will continue to be humiliated by Israel and the US in the future.
I think that prior to this attack, if Iran developed nuclear weapons, they would not use them offensively, because they know they would be annihilated in response. Now, after this attack, the calculus might change a bit.
You don’t understand radical Islam, where getting “annihilated in response” is known as “martyrdom” and guarantees entry into Paradise – which is all that the theocratic fascists care about. It is a death cult.
Not necessarily. Pakistan, for example, is a strongly Islamic country with nuclear weapons.
I hope so too, Jerry.
Killing the Ayatollah mightn’t be such a good idea b/c what happens next?
Two options: a committee of the IRGC or his idiot son Mojtaba (sp?) who has been waiting in the wings despite the whole thrusts of the revolution which was against monarchy. He’s a nasty piece of work.
Of course, even communism couldn’t prevent the human desire for inherited power – Note North Korea’s third generation of dear leaders (the latest is nicknamed Fatty the Third in China 🙂
Also.. tipping over the Islamic Republic is a very tall order. It has been in cultural power since 1979 and is deeply entrenched. We get a distorted view of how unhappy many Iranians are with it: we hear from English speaking elites, many secular, all educated and many exiles. The attachment the proles and country bumpkins and very religious (waaay more than in the west) is quite firm I think.
That said, onwards Israeli bombers.
D.A.
NYC
I love those AI renditions of children’s drawing. But it’s another reminder that AI will obliterate jobs for commercial artists, along with 99 percent of the market for stock photography.
I’m hoping that the U.S. sends B-52 bombers and bunker-buster bombs to destroy the Iranian nuclear sites definitively. If the regime falls, so be it, even though it is unclear what could emerge afterwards. Most likely it will lead to a scramble among the Iranian Revolutionary Guards for power, but it could even mean anarchy. Nonetheless, Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons must be brought to a close. Unless the entire infrastructure is destroyed, the allure of obtaining an operational nuclear weapon will remain.
And now, over the past two days, I’ve read hand-wringing over how far Iran really is away from a bomb. Israel says it could be months or a year, and that Iran can sprint to having enough enriched uranium for several bombs within days (leaving to the side how much longer it would take to build an operational weapon with that enriched uranium). CNN says that Iran is years away from an operational weapon.*
This sideshow over how long is irrelevant. Iran’s effort to produce a nuclear weapon must be brought to an end. With the country weak and it’s defenses in shambles, now is the time.
*https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-close-was-iran-to-the-bomb-and-how-far-has-israel-pushed-it-back/
Indeed! These are the the ones who gave the world the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, Assad. So much blood on their hands. The really disgusting thing about Iran’s leaders is that in reality, they don’t give a goddamn about the Palestinians. Their sole purpose has been to sow unrest in the various countries where they’ve installed these groups. They despise the Arabs, couldn’t care less about the Palestinians but hate the Jews even more. How evil can you get? Use your enemies to slaughter your bigger enemy. The MSM is completely ignorant to these facts.
I strongly disagree. All this attack will do is make Iran more determined to build a bomb. And push moderate Iranians towards defiant patriotism. Think of how 9/11 pushed our country towards the right, towards fascism and militarism, starting wars based on lies. That same dynamic will play out now in Iran.
This link is interesting, a little insight into the Iranians on the ground:
Discussing the Iran–Israel War with an Iranian Dissident | Quillette
https://quillette.com/2025/06/18/discussing-the-iran-israel-war-with-an-iranian-dissident-quillette-cetera-ep-48/?ref=podcasts-newsletter
This guy very much reflects the mindset of my close friends who moved to the US post 1979. None of them can safely return, either. Most of them have family remaining there and it’s heartbreaking for them. My closest Iranian friend suffers from debilitating depression due to being separated from her mother and older siblings. She’s terrified that her mother will die while they’re apart. It’s likely that that will happen. She is overjoyed at Israel going after the nukes and the people associated with the program. Masih Alinejad — the one whose tweets Jerry includes in his daily post — has been a hero of hers for years.
I meant to say that they (the friends who left Iran) CAN’T safely return). Big typo. Sorry.
For those on the political left who would like Trump to join Israel’s war and authorize attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities, how do you reconcile that with “The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War” and your approval of last weekend’s “No Kings” rallies? Do you borrow a page from Putin and insist you are not at war but are instead waging a “special military operation?” Do you play the bipartisan linguistic games with the word “emergency?” Do you assume that Iran won’t drag you into operations lasting longer than 60 days, further testing the constitutionality of presidential actions under the War Powers Resolution?
If you are opposed to striking Iran, and you fall back on the Article 1 clause, may I ask whether you applauded (or ignored) Obama’s actions in Libya? Or did you support (or ignore) Biden’s military engagement in Ukraine? I mean military planning, training, intelligence, targeting, and logistics, not simply supplying weapons. One needn’t pull a trigger to be engaged in war; active involvement in the kill chain makes you a belligerent.
Congress might well approve it.
That would be my preferred course.
Yes, only congress can declare war and raise, provide for and support armed forces for that war, but the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the power to direct the military, including responding to attacks or threats against the U.S. irrespective of whether congress has declared war. That is part of the president’s authority
Should a president use that authority? It’s a good question. But it isn’t a game, though it’s fun to accuse people who can see distinctions in events of engaging in one. That fact is, there is absolutely nothing contradictory about “No Kings” and approval of lawful presidential power. The problems really start to mount when those distinctions become less clear. There is little doubt in my mind that the orange toddler will try to push boundaries, nor do I dispute that other presidents have either. But it isn’t a game.
For the record, personally, I would give Trump my qualified support in allowing the US military to provide Israel what it needs to destroy Iran’s ability to make nukes. Israel is doing for the world what everyone -EVERYONE- knows needs to be done. But my support for the felon-in-chief in this would be quite limited; no US boots on the ground, for one example. That’s what thinking adults do on the right or the left; they weigh the evidence, the risks, what is being done, and consider their conscience and make distinctions.
Having at one point of my military career written directives for presidential signature, I am somewhat aware of presidential authority to direct the military. As you are leaning on Article 2 and you pride yourself on being an adult thinker who can see distinctions that are apparently invisible to others, I would ask you to define “threat” and “emergency.” Both terms are infinitely elastic, to the point of negating Congress’s Article 1 authority, and both terms have been abused by both parties on several occasions since WW2. You cannot simply wave a vague term in the air and declare that exercise of presidential authority is lawful whenever the president declares it is lawful. That is practically a definition of monarchy.
I asked the questions from two opposing perspectives because I am genuinely curious how people reconcile the contradictions existing on each side. I fully expected that some would be unwilling or unable to see the contradictions. The fact is that our line of responsibility between the executive and legislative branches was established when warfare was a very different creature than it is now. We have never successfully adapted those responsibilities to the modern era. Most people simply pretend the lines are clear. Mostly what they are doing is engaging in motivated reasoning, justifying whatever action will achieve their desired result, and supporting (or denouncing) actions in predictable partisan manners. Or should I say, “they are making distinctions”?
You say that “thinking adults” will “weigh the evidence, the risks, what is being done, and consider their conscience and make distinctions.” The evidence will not be available to most people; what is available will often be inconclusive; those who have access to the best evidence will disagree about what it means. The risks are situational, and most who advocate for the use of force face no personal risks. You object to boots on the ground. Wonderful. But boots in the air are no less subject to Article 1 approval, WPR loopholes don’t negate congressional authority, and Iran gets a vote as to whether they will engage your boots on the ground—and for how long and where.
And conscience is lovely—I would prefer to hear something about the Constitution.
Doug, I wonder if you could comment on the difference (if any) in your view of the U.S. Constitution between war-declaring and war-like fighting. The first is clearly (in the United States) a Legislative prerogative but the state’s use of violence is, to me, more of an Executive tool of foreign policy. To amplify, a state of war between two (or more) countries suspends a number of conventions that nations can normally rely on in their trade and “intercourse” with one another. A belligerent nation at war can molest the commerce of other nations, even neutral nations that are attempting to trade with its enemy, which by long convention it agrees not to do in peacetime. If a civilian ship’s owner knows, from the publication of the Declaration of War, it will be attacked in the sea lanes if detected by a belligerent, this will affect his decision to make the voyage or sail in armed convoy….especially if the belligerent’s policy is to sink it on sight and abandon the crew in the water rather than taking the mariners on board the raider before sinking (or impounding) the target. (Of course rogue actors can disrupt shipping without a declaration of war. That’s another story.)
Anything short of declared war generally protects shipping from molestation by naval vessels on the high seas. President Johnson didn’t seek a declaration of war on North Vietnam, for instance, (even though it was making war on the country) because this would have served notice to the USSR and neutral nations that the U.S. reserved the right to sink their cargo ships en route to Haiphong, and that North-Vietnamese-flagged ships might be sunk anywhere in the world. This was a conflict-widening risk that the Administration didn’t want to take….and in any event Congress might have refused the President’s request for a declaration of war knowing that this might well happen as a result.
So the President can’t by himself change the legal environment that the world’s commerce operates in. If he tries, impeachment would be the remedy.
But can the Executive carry out righteous violence as a state actor without a declaration of war? Obviously it has, the last declared war in history until Israel’s declaration of war after Oct. 7 having ended in 1945. But ought it to?, I think is your Constitutional question. Can the U.S. President smite his country’s enemies (or those of his allies) as he sees fit as long as he operates within the limits the Constitution sets down?:
1) He can’t declare war,
2) He can’t raise funds money through taxation to support the military independent of Congressional appropriation. (This was how the English Parliament progressively wrested control away from the King: by refusing to raise taxes for the Kings’ wars.)
I fully agree that any involvement in the kill chain is war-making, and the only difference between air power and infantry is the political risk from the expected larger number of casualties. I don’t think it’s a question of conscience, either, unless military people are faced with disobeying unlawful orders. I do think there is a Constitutional opportunity here for the President to use violence in his conduct of foreign policy and his continuation of diplomacy with other means.
(In Parliamentary monarchies such as the UK and Canada, the Executive is responsible to the Legislature. Any action the Executive takes, including advising the King to declare war, is considered to be done with the confidence of the Legislature, which can bring down the Government and force an election if it withdraws that confidence. There is not the same explicit possibility of stand-off there is in Separation of Powers, which is why I find your views thought-provoking.
Let’s keep in mind that Iran’s hostility to Israel is rooted in theology. The return of the 12th Imam (al-Mahdi) requires the destruction of Israel.
These people are certifiable and should not be allowed to have a nuke.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crr7ej97y0eo
Very good. This is a victory for common sense. Vulnerable children and young people are protected instead of being abused as guinea pigs.
I would love if Andrzej is ever up to it to send Hili dialogues even in Polish only.
We could then all still be in touch with him and Hili. It would be wonderful to hear from him if he is up to it.
Yes please.
Agreed. The Hili posts have been helping me learn some Polish (I studied Russian in university and I know some Czech, so I can usually puzzle out other Slavic languages).
I’m very sad about Malgorzata and feel for Andrzej right now, so I can understand if he might want to take time to grieve.