The Hili dialogue will be shortened today as I was preoccupied with the war between Iran and every other country.
Welcome to the first day of March: Sunday, March 1, 2026, and International Rescue Cat Day. Here’s the rescue of a kitten in Malaysia, and of course it ends well (the woman who rescued him had nine cat!). Click “play on YouTube” or go here:
It’s also Casimir Pulaski Day, honoring the Polish man who helped the colonies during the Revolutionary War, but was neither born nor died on this day), and National Banana Cream Pie Day.
Here’s the March entry from the Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry (1412-1416), showing plowing and other spring planting activities at the Château de Lusignan. Almost nothing remains of the castle, château, and town.
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the March 1 Wikipedia page.
Da Nooz:
I’ll feature the latest on the war today, but concentrating on opinion beside the news. First, though, an update from the NYT and the Times of Israel.
First, the NYT headline, which affirms that the Supreme Leader was taken out. Click on headline to read, or find it archived here:
An excerpt:
The Iranian government vowed on Sunday that it would retaliate for the attacks that killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s longtime supreme leader and an implacable enemy of Israel and the United States, as attacks on the country entered a second day.
The Iranian state news agency confirmed the ayatollah’s death on Sunday morning, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps — a powerful institution answering to the supreme leader — said that Iran would avenge him. Ali Larijani, a senior leader and Khamenei confidant, vowed that Iranian forces would fight even harder.
The ayatollah’s death prompted a range of reactions within Iran on Saturday. Large crowds poured into the streets of Tehran and other cities to celebrate the toppling of a leader who had ruled with an iron fist for nearly 37 years. Others mourned him.
The killing is a seismic political shift that raises the prospect of chaos and a power vacuum in an already turbulent region.
The United States and Israel said overnight that they were still attacking Iran. President Trump said on social media that U.S. strikes would continue “throughout the week or, as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!”
In Israel, where the authorities reported one death on Sunday, air-raid sirens warned of further Iranian missile launches. Iran fired waves of ballistic missiles at Israel in retaliation for the initial strikes. The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait — all of which host U.S. military bases — said they had come under attack, as did Jordan.
Of course Iran is already retaliating as hard as it can, and I’m not sure how they’ll retaliate even harder. I am shedding no tears for the death of Khamenei; as he really was a guiding force of Iran and its use of proxies. The council of theocrats he appointed will of course choose a replacement. Iran should have given up its nuclear program, but of course that was never in the cards.
From the Times of Israel:
An excerpt:
US President Donald Trump threatened early Sunday morning to hit Iran with unprecedented force after Tehran warned it would step up attacks in retaliation for the killing of its supreme leader and fired successive volleys of rockets at Israel for a second consecutive day Sunday.
In Iran, the Israel Defense Forces continued to carry out strikes on military sites, including a massive blast in Tehran. The army announced that it had dropped over 1,000 pieces of munition in just over 24 hours of attacks that kicked off Saturday morning with a strike that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top officials.
“Iran just stated that they are going to hit very hard today, harder than they have ever hit before,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social social network. “THEY BETTER NOT DO THAT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IF THEY DO, WE WILL HIT THEM WITH A FORCE THAT HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE!”
His comments came just a few hours after the Iranian regime confirmed that its longtime leader Khamenei had been killed in a strike on his office early Saturday morning.
Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said Sunday morning in a video carried on state TV that Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have “crossed our red lines” and “will suffer the consequences.”
The elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps vowed in a statement Sunday that Iran’s armed forces would soon retaliate again with the “most ferocious offensive operation in history” against US bases and Israel.
“The hand of revenge of the Iranian nation for a severe, decisive and regrettable punishment for the murderers of the Imam of the Ummah will not let go of them,” the IRGC said in a statement.
Waves of sirens rang out repeatedly across much of central, southern and northern Israel on Saturday night and Sunday morning as Iran fired ballistic missiles at the country, sending millions of Israelis to shelter. Iran’s state broadcaster said 27 US bases in the region, as well as Israel’s military headquarters and a defense industries complex in Tel Aviv, were among the targets in the new wave of strikes.
There were no reports of impacts in residential areas or direct injuries following the salvos, medics said. Magen David Adom said it treated people lightly hurt by falling while running to bomb shelters.
Police said they received reports of missile and interceptor fragments that landed in the Jerusalem area, and the Fire and Rescue Service said it was responding to a gas leak caused by falling shrapnel in the West Bank.
In contrast to the large barrages fired at Israel during the 12-day war with Iran in June, most salvos Saturday and Sunday have consisted of small number of missiles, usually three at a time, with breaks of a few minutes between each launch, according to the IDF.
There has been one Israeli killed, a remarkably small toll for a supposedly big reprisal:
The attacks have caused only a small number of injuries, aside from a particularly large barrage of some 20 missiles toward the Tel Aviv area Saturday night in which one projectile managed to evade air defenses, hitting near a residential building and killing a woman.
The slain woman, a foreign caregiver for an elderly woman, did not manage to reach a shelter in time, the military said Sunday after an initial investigation. The woman she was caring for was extracted by rescue workers from the rubble alive.
According to the NYT, the CIA helped locate the Ayatollah, which led to the attack taking place when it did:
Shortly before the United States and Israel were poised to launch an attack on Iran, the C.I.A. zeroed in on the location of perhaps the most important target: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader.
The C.I.A. had been tracking Ayatollah Khamenei for months, gaining more confidence about his locations and his patterns, according to people familiar with the operation. Then the agency learned that a meeting of top Iranian officials would take place on Saturday morning at a leadership compound in the heart of Tehran. Most critically, the C.I.A. learned that the supreme leader would be at the site.
The United States and Israel decided to adjust the timing of their attack, in part to take advantage of the new intelligence, according to officials with knowledge of the decisions.
Another NYT piece (archived here), summarizing world reaction, says that most governments in the West, save Australia, have urged restraint in the attacks, and few (save Spain, Turkey, and some Arab states) have outright condemned the attack on Iran. I’m surprised by the mildness of the reaction, but it seems to come from Iran’s position as a promoter of worldwide terror, combined with the reported killing of up to 30,000 of its own citizens who protested the government.
Those protesting the attacks include the MSM, including the New York Times. whose op-ed yesterday was called “Trump’s attack on Iran is reckless.”
Mr. Trump’s approach to Iran is reckless. His goals are ill-defined. He has failed to line up the international and domestic support that would be necessary to maximize the chances of a successful outcome. He has disregarded both domestic and international law for warfare.
. . .A responsible American president could make a plausible argument for further action against Iran. The core of this argument would need to be a clear explanation of the strategy, as well as the justification for attacking now, even though Iran does not appear close to having a nuclear weapon. This strategy would involve a promise to seek approval from Congress and to collaborate with international allies.
Mr. Trump is not even attempting this approach. He is telling the American people and the world that he expects their blind trust. He has not earned that trust.
The Washington Post is a bit milder, but also faults Trump for having no clear endgame and not getting Congressional approval:
It’s hard to see how “freedom for the people” can be accomplished in any meaningful sense without some U.S. boots on the ground, at least for a time. Yet Trump appears to lack any appetite for doing so. That might give pause to civilians trying to decide whether to risk their lives by rising up.
Whether Trump has made the right call will hinge on factors now beyond his control. No president has ever intended to get drawn into a quagmire.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Short of that, the War Powers Act ensures the legislative branch will get a say on this war of choice. It’s essential that the people’s elected representatives get to vote on whether these strikes are justified. A comprehensive case has yet to be made, and better late than never.
Most of the NYT op-eds are critical of Trump and say the attack either was useless or conducted incorrectly. Here’s a screenshot of some the paper’s op-eds (there is at least one pro-attack one, see below):
But then there’s Bret Stephens, whose take on the war seems to be sensible (i.e., it resonates with mine). His column yesterday was called “The case for striking Iran” (archived here). An excerpt:
It’s happening. On Saturday, the United States and Israel jointly launched what President Trump has described as a “massive and ongoing” series of strikes on Iran, aiming not only to destroy the Islamic Republic’s military capabilities but also to overthrow the regime itself. The president may rightly be faulted for barely bothering to spell out the reasons for war in the weeks leading to Saturday’s attack. But it doesn’t mean there isn’t a compelling case for action.
There are three, in fact.
Iran poses a threat to global order by way of its damaged but abiding nuclear ambitions, its deep strategic ties to Moscow and Beijing, its persistent threats to maritime commerce and its support for international terrorism.
It poses a threat to regional stability, not just through its support for anti-Israel proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, but also by its meddling in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and (until the overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad regime) Syria.
And it’s a mortal threat to the life and safety of its own people, many thousands of whom it slaughtered last month. There was a time not long ago when Americans, both left and right, cared enough about human rights to believe it could, in some circumstances, justify military intervention.
Why is a military attack crucial? Look at what hasn’t worked to change the regime’s behavior.
He then lists all the sanctions, economic engagements, failed diplomatic efforts that have failed. Those failures would have simply continued without the US/Israel attack on Iran. Stephens concludes this way:
No wonder protests in Iran have resumed, this time among university students who are bravely undaunted by the terrifying risk. Their protests seem connected to the 40-day memorials for the victims of last month’s massacres. But it’s not a stretch to assume those protests are also a signal to Trump that his promise last month to Iranians that “help is on its way” hasn’t been forgotten, and that ordinary Iranians are prepared to join the fight for their own liberation.
If so, then there is at least a reasonable chance that a sustained military operation that not only further degrades the regime’s nuclear, missile and military capabilities — a desirable outcome in its own right — but also targets its apparatus of domestic repression could embolden the type of sustained mass protests that could finally bring the regime down. Even more so if the leaders who give the orders, including the supreme leader and his circle, are not immune from attack.
For all of its willfulness and the evil it has wreaked over 47 years, the regime does not stand 10 feet tall. It nearly fell during the 2009 Green Movement against that year’s fraudulent elections. It nearly fell again in 2022 during the Women, Life, Freedom protests.
The difference on those occasions was the absence of external military support. Donald Trump now has a unique opportunity to provide it. Despite the risk that military strikes entail, the bigger risk, in the judgment of history, would be to fail to take it.
His sentiments are echoed in the short video below by Elica Le Bon, an Iranian-American activist and lawyer whose parents fled Iran during the Revolution. Here is her eloquent indictment of the Western media and defense of the attack on Iran. She winds up in tears. (If you can’t see this 3-minute video, go to her X page here.)
In my view, now that the attack has commenced, the horse has left the barn. It has to be seen through because the Iranian people need to live free. All the kvetching by the press seems to me like so much pilpul, writen largely because it was Trump who did it. It also seems that the MSM, and my own Democratic Party, would prefer that there would never have been an attack on Iran, and, though they criticize the Iranian regime, would sit on their hands rather than stop its horrors, its nuclear program, its spread of terror to other countires, including the U.S., and above all, the slaughter of its people. The kvetchers would, I think, prefer Iran to continue as it has (as Stephens notes, no attempts to change the regimes behavior have worked). And if the results are nuclear weapons in Iranian hands, well, too bad. Of course Trump needs a viable endgame, and he hasn’t articulated one, nor did he have a decent one in Gaza. But once the attack was begun—and I was ambivalent about that from the start—it has to be carried through. We can’t simply stop and let Iran go back to how it was. And, in their hearts, I think that most Western countries agree, despite their calls for caution or even a ceasefire. I am moved by Le Bon’s words.
******************
And we can’t forget The Princess!
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is befuddled again.
Hili: I’m trying to understand the world and I’m not sure.
Me: What are you not sure about?
Hili: Whether these attempts aren’t a waste of time.
In Polish:
Hili: Próbuję zrozumieć świat i nie jestem pewna.
Ja: Czego nie jesteś pewna?
Hili: Czy te próby nie są stratą czasu.
I wish that I could trust the current U.S. administration, but I do not. Like it or not, however, the U.S. has made a promise to the Iranian people and Bret Stephens makes a good case that we should follow through on the promise. I have no idea what the follow-through might look like. I worry, but I hope.
NYTs running propaganda for I.R. Iran:
“Iran’s attacks on the Persian Gulf countries crack their safe haven image.”
no, obnoxiously stupid Times – that was the INTENTION, which NYT is endorsing.
I’m …pretty good on both investments and Int’l Relations (both comprise much of my life).
This current Iranian madness will not bother Gulf monarchies long term. The Houthi missiles against Saudi Arabia a few years ago –proved — that the neighborhood can just sweep up and keep going. Russian “government officials”, Chechnyan warlords -and more legit rich people – will always need their Emirati locked boxes.
Israel – which has flourished in the last 5 years, also proves this to the investor class.
Plus, this is temporary. The investors aren’t going to budge for this spasm of madness: for a Ayatoddler throwing his toys out of his stroller.
D.A.
NYC
The attacks on the Persian Gulf Arab states do have some very practical consequences. The states in question, will now hate Iran even more. They are now free to allow US military forces to attack Iran from their territory. The leaders of Iran have made big mistakes and will suffer accordingly. This is hardly new, Iran took American diplomats hostage years ago, and suffered from diplomatic isolation when Saddam attacked.
They sure will, Frank, a boon to us and civilization. The Kuwaitis have always hated the Iranian revolution, only eclipsed by hatred for Saddam (for obvs reasons).
The Emiratis were more tolerant, a LOT of illegal sanctions “stuff” goes via and with the UAE given its open policies and look the other way attitude. Maybe less now.
Emirates is closing its Tehran embassy TODAY.
Saudi Arabia closed its Tehran one a decade ago (mobs, riots) but reopened with Chinese help maybe 3? years ago.
Qatar is different. Most of its Money comes from the North Field (gas) which it shares with Iran, so they’ve always been more accommodating w/ Iran. (Plus their shia minority aren’t a problem).
Not so Bahrein where the shia/sunni rift is HUGE as a sunni monarchy oppress a shia majority there.
There ya go: today’s lecture in Middle East politics.
D.A.
NYC
– columnist, Middle East politics. 🙂
Americans don’t get the Sunni/Shia schism in Islam. I try to explain it in terms of the Protestant/Catholic schism in the West (which Americans do understand). Of course, Americans have never heard of the schism of 1054, that split Christianity. Somewhat ironically, I have close ties to Eastern Christianity. For some number of years I helped with Greek fest in Chicago. I was recruited with the line “we need folks with strong backs, and really small minds, we thought of you first”. These days my kids attend Greek schools.
I don’t know what the future will hold over there. The situation is brittle enough that events may unfold that bring about a real end to that regime. The people might rise up in a true Bastille Day moment, and a significant arm of their military might flip and join them. The latter must happen for there to be any real chance in this, given the zero prospects of boots on the ground.
I’m doubtful of a popular rise-up at the moment Mark – I have been for awhile.
There’s an argument that our actions there are a good idea though, similar to Venezuelan events: as a shake up. Some consequences and 2rd order effects could be terrible (Libya, anyone?) but some could be at least less bad. Nothing was happening new otherwise and –our– price has been relatively small.
best,
D.A.
NYC
So far the death toll here in Israel is 11 killed ( think).
By the way, there have been cases of responders to shrapnel and missiles rescuing cats and dogs (appropriate for Cat Rescue Day) Pet cats are distinguishable from street cats in that the former are friendly and the latter react to humans in a manner that says “if I were one of my tiger cousins, you would be my dinner”.
HA! As an aside.. there is a big difference (I think civilizational) of how cats and dogs are treated in Israel verses the Islamosphere. As an animal lover and Islamophobe you don’t want to start me on that. (plus I’m out of Roolz loudmouthery limits)
Keep yourself safe over there Mr. Starwolf.
D.A.
NYC
Banana cream pie is not only my favorite pie, it is my favorite dessert.
It is one of Trump’s faults that he does not feel the need to explain himself. This is typical of a CEO, but a President, to the extent he wants public support, must explain himself.
I listened to Steve Dahl’s “Ayatollah” (1979) yesterday. That came out when I was 14. I don’t know if it got much airplay outside Chicago. (Dahl was a Chicago radio personality for decades and had a number of bands with which he performed Weird Al like paradies.)
EDIT: Just saw this “Bohemian Rhapsody” A.I. parody called “Iranian Rhapsody.”
I do wonder though if Trump’s refusal to explain his reasoning to us might be in part due to prudence or strategy concerning a military action. It confuses and alarms the enemy, too.
Connecting President Trump to “prudence and strategy” may be a hard sell, but here we are. I have no trouble thinking of this as a rescue mission.
I remember Steve Dahl’s Ayatollah on Detroit radio, where Dahl was on AOR stations before he went to Chicago. That sure stirs up crazy memories.
Trump on June 21, 2025–“Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”
Hegseth on June 22, 2025–“Thanks to President Trump’s bold and visionary leadership and his commitment to peace through strength, Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.”
Trump on June 24, 2025–“It was my great honor to Destroy All Nuclear facilities & capability, and then, STOP THE WAR!”
If Iran’s nuclear capability AND ambitions had been totally destroyed, then the rush to attack Iran based on some nuclear threat is based on lies. This administration is filled with pathological liars and nothing they say can be trusted. The Iranian government is cruel but not a threat to the USA. If we’re truly attacking threats to stability, we would be attacking North Korea.
It has never been the case that decisions to bomb a country or not is solely because of some measures of right and wrong, threat or no threat. A very big factor is whether a despotic country has nuclear weapons are not. North Korea has nuclear weapons, and the capability of doing a lot of damage with them. Iran does not (yet) have them. That is the reason why bombs are dropping where they are, and knowing that, that is the reason why Iran wants them.
Leaders are calling for “restraint.” That’s pro-forma diplo-speak. What it really means is that we’re with you but we don’t want to say it explicitly. I don’t think that very many capitals really want to see the current government of Iran survive.
I think the main goal of this war is what Bret Stephens calls “a desirable outcome in its own right”: “a sustained military operation that not only further degrades the regime’s nuclear, missile and military capabilities.” The liberation of the Iranian people—regime change—is the secondary goal.
My concern is for what happens next. Most likely: the government remains in power, essentially accomplishing nothing.
Worse: descent into anarchy.
I have heard and read much from the media about Trump lacking an “endgame” and about how he has “failed to line up the international and domestic support that would be necessary.” To this reflexive stance I ask:
In 1942, what was the United States’ endgame for Germany and Japan?
In 1941, what percentage of Americans supported US military action in Europe? December 7 changed that, but if there had been no sneak attack, then what? Simply more talk and economic support to the UK? Should the US or Israel have waited for an Iranian replay of the Pearl Harbor attack before ever taking military action? Or should they have accepted the blithe assurances of some that there would never be such a day with nuclear weapons involved?
Which countries whose international support is supposedly necessary did we fail to line up? The only one with relevant military might? No, Israel is on board. The logistical support of the Gulf Arab states who host our troops? Wrong again. News flash to the NYT: those others who have routinely denounced Israel for the last two years, as well as those who are militarily incapable of defending their own countries, are neither necessary nor desired.
Future events in Iran are unlikely to be either predictable or easy—unlike the facile criticisms now populating the Op-Ed pages.
To annihilate the whole A level in Iran is a good idea, maybe an absolute necessity and a joy to the beholder. But the attack comes from two very despicable grifters in chief who don’t seem to have an idea (at least certainly not Trump, maybe Netanyahu) of how to complete their strategy and at what price.
I’m convinced the Iranians negotiators were in bad faith, but if you send two shady realtors to make a deeply strategic deal your chances of success are quite slim. Also, we still have to understand what Don’s cronies in the Gulf are going to respond to anything different from a blitzkrieg
The campaign in Iran has been in planning for months if not longer. Whatever the ostensible justifications, regime change is the real goal; without regime change, any other interim “deal” would prove worthless. My assumption is that Trump has a good idea of what the next steps are that are going to be taken. It will be difficult…the Iranian regime is peopled with brutal diehards who think nothing of slaughtering their own people. For that reason more than any other, the abscess has to be drained.
Unfortunately for the Trump haters, he is proving to be an historical figure in global geopolitics, not just because of Iran, but also Venezuela and perhaps Cuba to come. Gaza was a slaughterhouse when he took office; it is at least moving in the right direction and Hamas doesn’t have a friend in the world. We’ll have to see. But there is not another American political figure….Harris or Biden or Obama or Hillary or Mitt Romney or Nikki Haley….who, for better or worse, would have acted as Trump has acted in Iran or elsewhere.
On an entirely separate note, there are a set of benches and a sidewalk plaque on DOG Street in CW….for the “Pulaski Club”….you’ve walked by it innumerable times. In my younger years I always wondered what it was but not many years ago I found out it was a real active club, asserted by its members to be the oldest social club in America. It was formed (they say) at the suggestion of George Washington to honor Casimir Pulaski, has a fixed number of members equal in number (32?) to the number of years in Pulaski’s life, when one member dies another is invited to join from among Williamsburg “dignitaries”.
Revealing that the IRGC refers to Khamenei as “Imam of the Ummah”. Not just Imam of Iran, but of the Ummah, i.e., the entire Muslim world. Surprising that it wasn’t “Imam of he universe”, but then again the IRGC’s goal is death, rather than conversion, for its opponents (such as Israel and the US) in the rest of the universe.
The endless mistakes of the Islamic theocracy—from its self-inflicted isolation to the failed pretense of negotiating—reveal the theocratic mind perfectly. Instruction comes not from the evidence of events, but from magic transmissions beamed from Allah to the Imams who alone can receive them. Exactly how Church and Mosque discover everything in Physics, Medicine, engineering, water management, civil administration, etc. etc. etc..
Yes, Jon.
Ruhollah Khomeini was called “The source of imitation” and hints at him being the magical “Hidden 12th Iman” whose discovery will – legend has it – lead to paradise, etc. Turned out he wasn’t.
LOTS of magical thinking in Shi’ism, saints, shrines etc.
A study of the differences between the sects is an interesting one.
D.A.
NYC
Well, Andy Young called Khomeini a “saint”.
Also magical thinking.
Thank you for your good wishes.
But Khomeini did at least issue a ruling that Muslim men are allowed by Allah to have sex with sheep and goats.
Whew! I’ll sleep better tonight knowing that. My sheep and goats will take the news rather hard, though.
(The advantage of kilts is that there is no zipper noise to scare them off.)
Well, that ruling was conditional. A man could have sex with a sheep or a goat, but then he was forbidden to eat that sheep or goat.
And yes, that was a real ruling by Khomeini.
Darn! I really, really wanted to eat that goat after we had sex.
I wonder if former JCS Chair CQ Brown Jr. would have been able to produce an attack plan as efficient as the one to capture Maduro or the one in use today v Iran.
DrB: We were encoding hormonal-inspired Chicagoland memories at the same time. Thanks for the flashbacks! I couldn’t remember whether Dahl was part of the “Steve and Garry” show at the time, or whether he was then on WLS or The Loop FM. To my great surprise, I’ve discovered that The Loop is now broadcasting “in the Christian contemporary format via the K-Love network.” My, how the former home landscape changes! In any case, I bet they might still sneak in “Ayatollah” after dark.
Rick: Neither the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff nor the service chiefs develop attack plans nor are any of them in the operational chain of command. That would be the responsibility of the Commander, US Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations. There would be close coordination among all parties and the respective staffs. That said, your core point holds: the CJCS can have profound influence on whether the president directs the combatant commands to prepare for war. So, in that regard, there plainly can be a difference from one general to the next.
What will happen to the nuclear materials stockpile? To leave it in Iran would may be too tempting for any new regime, next week, or next year. Will Iran try to move it to a sympathetic country?
I suspect that after this war, it will be the United States that decides where those nuclear materials will be stored.
Iran’s nuclear program grew back faster than Trump’s ear.
Team America. World Police.
Bak. Derk-derk-Allah. Derka derka, Mohammed Jihad. Haka sherpa-sherpa. Abaka-la,”
followed by a terrorist responding with “Ahhh! Derka derka derka!”.
Does the left over Iranian leadership even hear themselves?
Ok, war IS serious business, people die, lives destroyed. I’m glad my offspring’s family passed through the area before this happened… only just.
Putin will be feeling it. Let’s hope it hard and disrupting his bowl movements. He lost a despot supporter out of his current pool of despotics and it’s to early to say for Ukraine if it will be of any significance in the long game.
China must be bleeding him dry while eh…helping out.
He so lonely. Nevermind.
Patience. The British Empire and later allies ground away at Germany and Japan for six long years. The tide of bad news turned our way only in 1942 with El Alamein (“the end of the beginning, as Churchill put it), Midway, Stalingrad, and Kokoda*. The Atlantic Convoy War, Canada’s main operational theatre through the middle years where the Navy and Air Force performed with middling effectiveness, didn’t start to turn until late 1943. The Luftwaffe wasn’t destroyed until spring 1944 and the night fighters that preyed on our bombers never did stand down.
The U.S. and Israeli commands aren’t going to share everything they know with the people. Secrecy is vital in war and diplomacy, even (especially!) from one’s own people. Public opinion is fickle and often at loggerheads with itself. It must be allowed to influence policy and war aims only in carefully controlled ways. Even in democracies, war is a professional matter between states and not primarily about “The People.” It’s better that vast conscript armies of cannon fodder are no longer necessary because it keeps the people from getting the completely unwarranted misapprehension that they run the show. I don’t believe Congress will, or should, take the United States out of a war, declared or not, that it has committed to. A country doesn’t always have the luxury of a broadly popular leader “fit to govern” with bi-partisan affection and support when circumstances say it has to go to war.
Anarchy in Iran would be Iran’s problem, not ours. Iran as a nuclear-armed Islamofascist terror state is our problem. Fix what we can. Let’s go for anarchy. I agree with Jerry’s last paragraph. Every word.
(*New Guinea. The first time Japan was defeated on land, ending Australia’s near-death experience.)
I understand the concern about Trump. He is impulsive and short-sighted.
But I have to assume* Trump wasn’t the main architect behind this. Rubio, US intelligence, the Pentagon, surely will all have been working behind the scenes with Israel.
I’d love to think that Mossad, at least, have some endgame in sight. They’re damn smart.
Anyway, I’m cautiously optimistic.
*For my own peace of mind, if nothing else.