“Peace for our time” was, of course, the phrase uttered by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain on September 30, 1938 after he returned from signing The Munich Agreement with Hitler. That treaty allowed Nazi Germany to occupy the Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia, in return for Hitler’s promise to leave the rest of Czechoslovakia—and Europe—alone. That was a lie, of course, and Germany invaded Poland, beginning World War II, on September 1, 1939. Chamberlain, and other dupes who believed Hitler, had thought that the treaty would avert war in Europe. Skeptics like Churchill disagreed, and Chamberlain resigned on May 10, 1940, giving the PM slot to Churchill.
Now we are told by Trump and others that we’re close to peace for our time in Iran; here’s Trump’s announcement, bereft of details, from Truth Social:
It doesn’t say much about Israel except Trump had a “very good call” with Netanyahu. Israel is being shoved aside in Trump’s hell-bent desire to get some kind of peace with Iran. But what kind will we get? We can see more details in The Times of Israel. which partly quotes the NYT (headings below are mine, extracts from the ToI are indented, and my words are flush left):
Uranium:
Iran has agreed to give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium as part of an agreement with the US to end the war, two US officials tell the New York Times.
According to the officials, Iran has committed in a general statement to giving up the uranium, rather than reaching an agreement with the US on exactly how it will relinquish it. Instead, the exact details will be worked out during the negotiations that will begin once a deal is reached.
The report comes days after Iranian sources claimed that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, had issued a directive that the near-weapons-grade uranium should not be sent abroad.
Iran has a stockpile of more than 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium in its possession, which Israeli officials have said is sufficient for 11 nuclear bombs if enriched further.
Earlier this month, a senior Israeli military official said if the uranium wasn’t removed, the war launched in February could be considered “one big failure.”
More on uranium:
And, reports the Times, the officials say issues relating to Iran’s nuclear program will be put off, to be negotiated within 30 to 60 days.
The Times adds the caveat that it is “not clear if the proposal Iranian officials said they had agreed to was what President Trump was referring to in his post on social media.”
Citing Middle East officials, The Times also says the leaders of Arab and Muslim-majority countries with whom Trump spoke in a conference earlier today told him that they support the proposal and urged him to accept it.
The Strait of Hormuz:
While Iran’s Fars news has derided President Donald Trump’s talk of a deal being nearly done, with the Strait of Hormuz to reopen, three senior Iranian officials tell the New York Times that Tehran has agreed to “a memorandum of understanding that would stop the fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.”
The deal would release $25 billion in Iranian assets frozen overseas, the officials are quoted as saying.
The Times says the officials say the agreement “would halt fighting on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”
They add that its terms focus “on opening the strait— including lifting the US naval blockade against Iran and allowing free commercial traffic without Iran charging any tolls.”’
. . .Iran’s Fars news agency says the Strait of Hormuz will remain under Iran’s management under the provisions of the latest exchanged text for a deal between Iran and the US.
Fars, a semi-state outlet close to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, dismisses as “incomplete and inconsistent with reality” Trump’s announcement two hours ago that the deal was now being finalized and would include the reopening of the strait.
Trump posted on social media that an agreement with Iran “has been largely negotiated.” He specified that the deal would include the opening of the strait, the key pathway for the global oil supply that Tehran has largely blocked since the beginning of the war some three months ago.
Regime change:
None, of course. Although some in the Trump administration say there has been regime change, all that means is that the Ayatollah Khamenei is dead, his son, the Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, may be alive but isn’t doing much, and military hard-liners still run the country and the war. The Iranian people are no closer to freedom than they were before the war.
Lebanon and Hezbollah:
No information yet; see Segal’s excerpt below in which Iranian sources claim that the agreement would stop fighting in Lebanon (but would presumably not require Hezbollah to disarm).
As you see, not much is clear, and the fate of Iran’s uranium stockpile—the reason Trump says we attacked Iran—remains unclear.
Over at It’s Noon in Israel, Amit Segal’s post about it is called “The art of a bad deal,” with the subtitle, “Trump’s proposed deal threatens to leave Iran stronger than it was before Operation Epic Fury.” Excerpt:
t’s Sunday, May 24, and at the outset of Operation Roaring Lion, there were two definitions of victory on the table: capturing Iran’s enriched uranium or toppling the regime altogether. Given that regime change does not appear to be materializing and one of the parties appears hesitant to make the necessary investments for such an outcome, the sole remaining path to victory appears to be securing the uranium.
The most recent proposal—which Donald Trump claims is already “largely negotiated”—seemingly attempts to follow this path. According to a report from Channel 12, the agreement would reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the lifting of the naval blockade and substantial financial relief. However, the core issues regarding the nuclear program and the extraction of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile would not be resolved upfront; instead, they would be deferred for separate negotiations over a 60-day period. Critically, Senior Iranian sources speaking with The New York Times said the deal would release $25 billion in Iranian assets frozen overseas. They added that the agreement “would halt fighting on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”
If the enriched uranium is indeed surrendered to the United States, it is indeed a notable achievement, but there are two caveats:
The first caveat concerns the actual scope and reality of the nuclear concessions. According to current reports, the negotiations slated to follow the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz will focus exclusively on uranium enriched to 60 percent—the roughly 440 kilograms currently believed to be buried beneath the rubble of the Natanz facility. Meanwhile, the tons of uranium enriched to three percent appear destined to remain inside Iran, with any future restrictions on its enrichment left dangerously ambiguous. Compounding this uncertainty, a senior Iranian official bluntly told Reuters today that Tehran has not actually agreed to hand over any material at all, emphasizing that the preliminary agreement does not even formally address the nuclear issue.
The second caveat is procedural, but no less critical. The framework currently on the table is not a finalized treaty, but merely a temporary Memorandum of Understanding meant to serve as a baseline for future talks. All the thorny details regarding the nuclear stockpile are slated to be ironed out over a 60-day negotiation window. The official justification for this delay is logistical—that safely extracting highly enriched uranium from bombed-out, irradiated rubble is a highly complex operation. In practice, however, it is far more likely a calculated delay, offering Tehran an extended opportunity to rest and recover before entering their next phase of nuclear intractability.
Israel has greeted the news with deep skepticism and more than a touch of fear. The reported memorandum makes zero mention of ballistic missile restrictions. What began largely as a defensive shield for Iran’s nuclear ambitions has mutated into a formidable threat in its own right. Even without the ultimate deterrent of a nuclear warhead, an Iranian ballistic arsenal numbering in the tens of thousands is more than sufficient to paralyze any military action against the Islamic Republic. According to Channel 12, this critical issue—whether through an immediate American concession or a simple lack of interest—never even made it to the negotiating table.
The current form of the deal also leaves the Islamic Republic holding another critical asset: the Strait of Hormuz. While the strategic waterway is slated to reopen, it does so not by virtue of an American victory, but rather by Iran’s sufferance. The current framework temporarily ensures toll-free passage, but absolutely nothing in the agreement guarantees that Tehran won’t eventually set up a toll booth—or abruptly choke off shipping the moment they feel the subsequent 60-day negotiations are stalling.
A secondary, but equally pressing concern in Jerusalem is that the regime has not yet fallen. While never explicitly declared as a military objective, regime change has been the unofficial policy undercurrent of the entire conflict. So far, Tehran has successfully managed to cling to power. Yet, senior Israeli intelligence officials maintain that a collapse from within remains a distinct possibility—provided the crippling economic blockade is sustained through the end of 2026. If the blockade and economic warfare are traded away for a partial agreement today, that window permanently closes. Meanwhile, domestic repression continues apace; just this morning, Iran executed a man accused of sending information to the US and Israel during the war. Cutting this deal now would not just throw Tehran a financial lifeline—it would constitute a total abandonment of the Iranian protesters who began this entire conflict.
Segal also discusses Lebanon, where fighting has escalated but Israel has pretty much held its fire until Iran stopped fighting. Tehran wants to link the Iran peace deal to Lebanon, allowing Hezbollah to continue attacking Israel. Israelis won’t stand for that, or so I think. Segal sums up the deal this way:
For a leader who has spent decades building his brand as the sole guarantor of Israeli security, accepting a deal that leaves the regime intact, Hezbollah armed, the ballistic missile program recovering, and Tehran flush with sanctions relief is electoral assisted suicide for Netanyahu. Hanging in the balance of these negotiations is the fate of more than one regime.
To me, this seems like a bad deal for the U.S. and especially for Israel. Nuclear enrichment could continue with the unenriched uranium possessed by Iran, it could eventually build a bomb, Hezbollah might persist as a threat to Israel, there is no regime change (we’re blowing a chance for one, says Segal), and the fate of the Strait of Hormuz remains unclear. Trump just keeps putting up deadline after deadline and then ignoring them, hoping that something will fall into place.
So I ask readers to weigh in by checking one box in this unscientific poll. I’ve given a deadline, but am just assessing reader sentiment here; so please check a box:
Loading ...
It is humiliating to start a just war, and lose it. USA as the “leader and effector of the free world,” is now a joke.
Imagine those left behind of Americans whose son or daughter died for this “cause.”
Imagine the deaths of tens of thousands of citizens who objected to living under the thumb of a theocratic dictatorship. They thought the Leader of the Free World would unhinge their slavery state.
Humiliation.
We have a madman as the [italics start] supposed [end italics] leader of the free world.
In reply to an earlier question, he has done only one good thing during his reign:
He proved that we weren’t diligent in our fight for freedom for all; that it was easy to slip back to apathy and evil.
He’s not a madman by any measure. He is an amoral coward.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sociopath
Well, yes, I do believe that in a democracy the elected leader does fundamentally reflect the character of the people. After all, their tribunes (also elected) can remove him from office if he displeases them. So there is that.
Foreigners don’t let Americans as a class off the hook just because some of them protest that “Trump isn’t my President!” Yes he is.
I’m not sure if my edit was rejected or I just didn’t submit it correctly. It was:
I still believe in our form of democracy and that we can correct this. This time, we’ll have learned due diligence.
‘This time, we’ll have learned due diligence.’
Sounds a tad optimistic to me. If the country didn’t learn its mistake the first time round, i.e. through attempted vote rigging, election lies, a wholesale attempt to derail the democratic process. An attempted insurrection started by the idiot in chief. Not to mention his shocking ignorance, bullying of opponents and attempted interference with nationally crucial legal processes.
Then it’s not gonna learn from his latest shit show either.
Not to mention that the next Dem administration will be immersed in the same zeitgeist — resentment and revenge. After Nixon came serious attempts at reform (the 1975 Church Committee, etc.); after iDJT will come a deluge of payback; rinse and repeat. Turning and turning in the widening gyre….
“Freedom for all” means what? Open borders? The “freedom” of men to invade women’s sports and spaces? Race-based hiring and university admissions? I dislike Trump too but he has done some good things IMO – got the border under control, put the brakes on takeovers of institutions by DEI and radical trans ideology, standing with Israel, etc. Just imagine an alternate reality where Kamala had won.
Kamala lost not because Trump was so great but because she stood for widely unpopular policies – mass illegal immigration, men in women’s sports and spaces, and race-based discrimination. The “Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you” ad was a killer.
Agreed, that ad really put a nail in the coffin of Harris’ presidential campaign.
Though Kamala was certainly not the best possible candidate to offer on the Democratic ticket, Trump was and remains the worst of all possible choices. So as far as imagining an “alternate reality where Kamala had won”, I can do that easily and am quite certain the country and the world would be in a much better place than it is now.
I mentioned none of those things. Why would anyone think that if I’m for freedom I would automatically be for everything on your list?
For the record, I am mostly against trans in women’s sports, want border control and helping Israel.
All of these can be under discussion. The far right and far far left seems to only consider ‘their’ dogma.
In the long run, however: Though I disliked Harris (and Hillary as well–i think she is an opportunist of the worst stripe) I believe both would have caused far less damage to our country and the world, and would have been responsible for far less deaths on this planet.
Thanks for the clarification. I still wonder though what you think Kamala would’ve done better. I regard the things I listed as “damage to our country” and she would’ve furthered such damage. I also doubt she would’ve supported Israel to the extent Trump has.
I should add I have never voted for Trump, and regard him as an embarrassment. Nevertheless I approve of many of the actions he has taken on the issues mentioned.
I just read that Trump has said that enriched uranium is a deal breaker. He needs to bite the bullet and finish the Ayatollahs.
Short of nuking the entire country, which he doesn’t want to do, there’s no way to do this. They’ve been doing everything short of nuking they can for a few months already. It hasn’t worked.
Yuk. Trump will boast of victory under the cover of superficial results that don’t amount to a hill of beans. Even under the promise of opening the strait, oil prices will drop and people will be a bit happier. Although not most of the Iranian people. This just ahead of mid-terms, but nothing has really changed in Iran.
In the weeks and months ahead you still have the major problem of when and how the enriched uranium is “secured” versus when and how the sanctions are relieved versus when and how the strait will actually open.
Iran of course will push for sanctions relief first. Ha ha. Trust us, they will say. This will be where things will bog down.
The most we and the Israelis will get from this deal is “a plan for a plan.” Iran’s statements that they will neither give up enriched uranium nor relinquish control over the Strait of Hormuz are the statements of record. Trump and his advisors surely understand this, yet Trump is moving forward with this “deal” anyway.
Both Iran and the U.S. are playing the delay game. For Iran, delay means running out the clock on the Trump administration, knowing it will give way to a more dovish successor. For the U.S., delay signals hope that a miracle might happen—either through negotiation or through world events—and that we can get out of the mess without having to go back to kinetic operations. Since both sides benefit from delay, we have a deal to delay. Delay may mean “peace in our time,” but it will blow up in due time.
As a counterpoint, several Republican lawmakers have raised the alarm that Trump is about to accept a bad deal. This is what may be behind Trump’s statement today that he’s in no rush. Yesterday the deal was “largely negotiated.” Today, “time is on our side” and we “won’t rush.” So, maybe there will be a deal; maybe there won’t. This is how Trump rolls.
If the GOP leadership is worried that President Trump is about to make a bad deal, which would flow from recognizing the limits of what the military can achieve, it could always use its bi-cameral majority to pass a war powers resolution expanding his freedom to use further military force to achieve a better deal. If you can get the enemy to surrender, you don’t need to negotiate with him. You dictate terms.
This sounds more to me like the leadership is trying to distance itself from the President’s fortunes as the mid-term elections augur poorly for them but are irrelevant to the President.
“…the mid-term elections…are irrelevant to the President.”
Talk about misreading the room…Texas, anyone? And the imminent chaos that has and will continue to follow?
Not to put to fine a point on it, but how many times has POTUS made this same announcement: that we are close to a “deal” (not a treaty, or an agreement, or an understanding, mind you).
Recognizing that no source is without its unique “perspective” on this conflict, i am struck by the difference of tone in this report: “US, Iran inch closer to deal to end the war: What to know” (Dateline in May 24, 2026): “But despite optimistic statements from Trump, Iranian officials say major disagreements remain, especially over the status of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear programme and conflicts involving Tehran-backed groups in Lebanon.”
“Iranian officials have confirmed negotiations are ongoing and that some headway has been made. However, they have pushed back against some of Trump’s claims.
…Meanwhile, Iranian state-linked media Fars news agency reported early on Sunday that the agreement would allow Iran to manage the Strait of Hormuz and that Trump’s assertion on the key waterway, through which almost a fifth of the world’s oil shipping once passed, was “inconsistent with reality”.
Just saying…
I don’t believe anything that Trump says. Ever. This may just as likely be another manipulation of the stock market to enrich himself and his mafia.
This is the primary problem with the administration. The routine untruths, manipulations, and lies, mixed, seemingly without reason, with true statements, leads to outright rejection from many people, and adulation from others as they hear what they want to hear and ignore the rest.
Those that reject the administration outright seem to have a different basis than how it has happened with other admins. In the past half dozen dacades, we have seen a lot of ideological rejection, and occasional racism/sexism/religious basis. This seems different. I find it difficult to support even those actions I think beneficial, as the history drives me to look for the ulterior motive, the grift.
It is difficult NOT to look for what’s in it for him, as his entire business career has been a salute to the sunken cost fallacy, backed by nuisance lawsuits to impoverish opponents. But one must still accept that once in a while, truth does happen, and actions, for the right reason or not, may be appropriate and beneficial to the country and the world as a whole. Follow through has been lacking in many cases (good and bad), but this is what we have right now, the backup being, in my opinion, more distasteful.
Serious question: who is is doing our negotiation?
This is not trivial. Trump regards himself as a master deal-maker, and one imagines that he considers his envoys, drawn from the business world, to be the same. And the business world is indeed a rough and tumble, no-holds-barred world, which does not take into account the human costs of their actions. (Of course making people unemployed is not the same as killing them: let’s not take this too far.)
The Iranians consider themselves master bargainers. Centuries in the Middle-East can do that to you, especially if you have been playing off the great powers for some time. But there are several major differences between the types of negotiations that each side feels that it is conducting. America is in this for the short term. This is one of the weaknesses of democracy without a strong, principled leader. And Iran believes that, because of this, they can hold out for some years. In any event, the Muslims look upon the Western nations as Crusaders, and they are willing to make concessions for the short term, always with an eye on the long term.
And there is one other thing. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a religious government. And by Islamic law, a treaty with non-Muslims is not binding: they may deceive the infidels and break the agreement at any time. Of course, many in the naive West will not believe that, considering it “Islamophobia”, but any scholar of Islamic law will confirm that.
So what worries me is that we have a naive West confronting a cynical Iran in these negotiations, and moreover, a West that believes that the clock is ticking toward elections. And the politicians leading the West are far more concerned for their own power than that of their countries. That is also true of Iran, but their power comes from the barrel mod a gun, and as Masih reminds us, they do not hesitate to use it.
Thank you for the explanation. You made a couple of vital points that hasn’t occurred to me. May I share them with friends?
Hadn’t, not hasn’t
Trump’s contracts are not binding either. What is bankruptcy but a broken promise?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, grants Congress the power “To establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”
That people use bankruptcy laws to game the system is reprehensible, but they are essential to the health of the economy.
@John D. above but others weigh in.
There is a subtle but important contradiction implicit in your post that I hear frequently. For those who wish for toppling the oppressive, theocratic Iranian regime for the sake of freeing the Iranian people (we all want that), who will do it? The US at least had the guts (bravado? stupidity?) to do something different after half a century of Iranian proxy war against Israel by striking Iran directly and killing Khomanei and top government officials. Technically, that was illegal under international law but we took the risk anyway with the hope of denuclearizing Iran, giving the Iranian people a prayer of toppling their theocratic regime, and stopping Iran from arming proxies that constantly strike Israel. The air campaign (at great cost to US taxpayers) was insufficient which means boots on the ground would be needed.
I’m not criticizing you specifically but wondering what would’ve been your approach to the Iran problem (nuclear weapons development, attacking Israel, and oppressing their people)?
Should US soldiers fight and die to liberate the oppressed Iranian people with 1,000s already killed? But if we really flexed our power to lead the Free World to your satisfaction, this “cause” would inevitably result in more dead US sons and daughters to explain and 1,000s more dead innocent Iranian civilians, both of which you rightly lament and that sounds contradictory. Explain why the loss of US lives (which you rightly recoil at) to preserve Iranian lives is justified when it is their problem.
I sure hope Trump gets Iran to capitulate as I think the devastating internal effects of cutting off their finances and immense pressure on their govt from the world has been underreported.
(for the record, never-Trumper here and would’ve stopped attacking Iran after bombing their nuclear facilities)
I think the answer to the questions you pose to your interlocutors is just, “I dunno. Something else better than what Trump did.”
They aren’t showing muddled thinking in general as much as, “whatever Trump does must be wrong a priori, so there must have been an alternative that someone else would have chosen that was demonstrably right.” With Trump particularly, there is a certain glee among his detractors when something seems to be going wrong, as if it is better that America fail in its war aims as long as it helps to bring down the President: “Please God let this be another Tet.” This is perhaps understandable among foreigners who resent the United States anyway and live to see it humbled. Two birds with one stone.
I don’t see what constrains President Trump from using nuclear bunker-busting bombs against Iran’s enrichment sites that are far from population centres. It would be one heckuva legacy for a guy who was supposed to be a one-term President on his way to jail. What does he care about the mid-terms? As Randy Newman sang, that’s “Political Science”.
Using nuclear weapons even for such a constrained task will considerably weaken the inhibition to use the nuclear option in other actors and will make the world an even unsafer place, with escalation into catastrophic scenarios not only a theoretical possibility. When the US nuked two Japanese cities as a means to hasten the end of the war/end Japanese resistance, it was the only actor who had such weapons.
We no longer live in that world.
Iran has been kept from building a weapon by lower grade measures (including military ones) for many decades now. I am probably the only one here, but I think Trump’s biggest mistake was quitting Obama’s treaty during his first term.
Excellent questions. As a fellow never-Trumper (libertarian, actually), the best option would have been to not attack without clear goals and a rational plan to achieve them. Trump is probably incapable of even thinking in those terms.
Where do we go from here? If it were my responsibility, the goals are:
1) Regime change to free the Iranian people from the theocracy.
2) Ensuring the Straight of Hormuz is open and not controlled by Iran.
3) Eliminating Iran’s threats to Israel.
4) No American boots on the ground.
These aren’t necessarily in order of priority and 3 flows, partially, from 1.
As commander in chief, I’d have the military sink every Iranian ship and boat, bomb the ports until they’re useless, and provide escort or air cover to allow traffic to flow through the straight. Simultaneously, I’d completely cut Iran off from all imports, exports, and access to the world financial system.
This isn’t how to solve the issue from a clean slate. It’s probably the best that can be done now that Trump has already screwed everything up.
I strongly disagree with these types of “nuke ’em” or “bomb them into the Stone Age” comments. These comments ignore the existence of an Iranian civilian population. If we really want to effect regime change to a democratic government, and stop nuclear development, we have to consider the effects of our actions on the Iranian people. Do we really want to turn the average Iranian citizen against us? If Iran’s population feels that it is under an existential threat from a much larger and somewhat irrational and untrustworthy power (ie today’s USA), they will see no choice but to get nukes, and we cannot stop them (though we may be able to keep them from building conventional delivery systems). Even if we took all their enriched uranium, they could still buy an atomic weapon from North Korea or another state. Killing lots of people does not usually lead to peaceful solutions.
And whatever we do in Iran removes some restraints on what Putin can do in the Ukraine and what China will soon do to Taiwan.
Answering the charge of advocating mass murder:
Iran’s main uranium enrichment sites, Fordow and Natanz, are located inside mountains in the desert, about 100 miles from large cities. Essentially no civilians (other than those militarized by working in a military facility) would be killed by nuclear penetrators. There would likely be some fallout escaping from the collapsed mountain, most of it safely gone in two weeks, not enough residual to poison the planet.
I personally don’t care what kind of government Iran ends up with or what the Iranians think about anything. They will have little control over what their regime does in any case. Americans, not foreigners, should be the focus of President Trump’s thinking. The feelings and bonhomie of the Iranian people matter less to me than Iran not getting a deliverable nuclear weapon. I don’t want President Trump to order a B-2 crew to kill any of them gratuitously.
However:
Many commenters here have said, “Iran must absolutely [my emphasis] not get a nuclear weapon, no matter what.” If the commenters are serious about this, then they have to be willing to use nuclear weapons (or invade Iran) if Iran won’t end its nuclear ambitions voluntarily. If they aren’t, then they don’t really mean “absolutely, no matter what.” They mean, “We should stamp our feet and hold our breath till we turn blue, but if that doesn’t work then, Meh….we can live with a nuclear-armed Shi’a theocracy who calls us the Great Satan.”
Just as it did vis-à-vis Japan, the United States has a nuclear monopoly over Iran, for now. It’s rational, now as in 1945, to exploit that advantage for the same benefit: to impose will without a costly ground invasion. Fear of alienating the Iranian people is demonstrably not a reason to hold back. Many, many more Japanese (and Germans) were killed by Allied air raids than Iranians would be killed by a nuclear strike on Fordow and Natanz. No need to bomb them back to the Stone Age…but those subterranean factories have got to go.
Finally, if Iran would just buy nuclear weapons from North Korea, why have they not done so already? Two rogue states, why not? Much simpler than enriching uranium from scratch.
Using a nuclear weapon to deter the development of Iran’s nuclear weapons would be dangerously crossing a line uncrossed since 1945. If we have other ways to destroy those facilities, they should be used before unleashing a nuclear hell on earth in Persia is even considered. If boots on the ground become necessary, perhaps the administration can use George H. W. Bush’s playbook to create a large international force to destroy those facilities. The playbook worked to drive Iraq out of Kuwait anyway.
That’s a good point about Japan; they did not hate us for very long in spite our massive fire-bombing and nuclear attacks.
But you did not address my point about China/Taiwan and Russia/Ukraine. And where does it end? US/Russia? Do you really want to live in a world where chaos and jingoistic self-interest rule? Even if you are only interested in your own well-being, you should not want such a world. Enlightened self-interest probably involves avoiding nukes and massive civilian casualties.
My last comment in this thread…
I never suggested bombing civilians. The best solution would have been to not get in this mess. Since we’re in it, the best solution seems to be to eliminate Iran’s military ability to control the Straight of Hormuz and, if possible, support regime change.
Latest headline and subhead from the Times:
U.S. and Iran Agree in Principle to Reopen Strait of Hormuz, U.S. Official Says
The official said Iran had also agreed to dispose of highly enriched uranium, but stressed that a deal had not yet been signed. American and Iranian officials have described the terms differently.
My comment: who knows what’s happening? Too early to declare defeat but it’s trending that way.
Seen from the Israeli side, this deal looks like a disaster. There is always the chance that Trump is still planning an attack if the Iranians do not follow through on the essentials: giving up the enriched uranium and having the Straits open to all traffic, including Israeli, which is required by international law.
Israel is worried that the exact parameters of the enriched uranium are yet to be worked out. Iran will delay, “negotiate and delay again until the Americans just give up, and/or a more sympathetic Democratic (or isolationist Republican) wins the next presidential election. I predict that the uranium will remain in Iran at least until that time.
I also predict that Iran will starts charging for use of the strait. While they know that they can’t legally do that, they will charge some out of fee, such as an “environmental protection fee” of some sort. Most of the world will let that slide. Hopefully the US will not do so.
And Iran will still keep their ballistic missiles. While their missile production has been severely damaged, they will have it up and running, at least to some extent, within a year. And as far as we know, that topic is not even under negotiation.
And what will be the “deal” regarding Iran’s proxies, especially Hezbollah. Will this deal include a “peace agreement” between Israel and Lebanon, leaving Hezbollah with their arms, and freedom to rebuild their arsenal and infrastructure? Keep in mind that the north of Israelis still under constant threat from missiles from Lebanon, though those missiles are few and small at the moment. Nevertheless, there are sirens in the north every day. Will Trump demand that Bibi restrain the IDF?
Those are the matters that keep Israel’s military and intelligence officers and soldiers from sleeping at night. Meanwhile, Bibi’s supporters are demonstrating outside the home of the Chief of Staff of the IDF, calling him a traitor. Bibi and his minister of defense have not condemned the demonstrations.
Iran has already set up a “Persian Gulf Strait Authority” and are charging tolls on the small number of ships allowed through.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_Strait_Authority
They also claim to have mined the international waters of the Strait (forcing ships to check in at the toll booth.)
Yes, it’s a bad deal, but Iran holds the cards. Trump just wants a way out so that he can go on to his next imperial fantasy, invading and occupying Cuba probably.
Keep in mind that the “imperial fantasy” has an element of retrenchment to it.
Even Trump realizes, albeit only dimly (Richard Mulligan’s “Custer” comes to mind), that the USA is overextended and people whose interests are most immediately threatened in that region will have to bear a heavy burden (that means both Europeans broadly and Israelis – Americans will not support “boots on the ground”).
The Mullahs will not stop, they must be stopped, and it seems likely to me that WMD will come into play at some later time in yet another “crisis.”
I don’t understand what the US gains if the Iranians give up the uranium. I’m sure Vladimir Putin would be happy to replenish their supplies.
While attention right now is focused on reported terms of a deal, I find it useful to ask why we are negotiating at all. I am not discounting a critical shortage of defensive and precision munitions; this would have implications for potential US engagements globally.
But, by far, the greatest contextual factor in Trump’s drive to secure a deal is the upcoming midterm election. We all know this. It has been said on these pages many times. What is less emphasized is the reason why the midterms are so important. It is no secret that the Democrats want Trump to cease all operations. They sponsored seven or eight War Powers Resolutions, with near-unanimous support in the House and only Fetterman dissenting in the Senate. Additionally, they have 77- to 85-percent party support in the Senate to deprive Israel of select military assistance.
The Democrats believe they can ride public dissatisfaction with the war and the resultant economic pain to short-term political power. And they very well may. They would then block Iran-related funding, initiate countless investigations to hinder action there, and block all nominations.
This raises a direct question for those who believe this is a just war: What should Trump be doing given that political context? I would continue the blockade, force open the Strait of Hormuz before any deal, and strike any significant military capabilities that are recovered or newly-discovered. But I understand the drive to get a deal—and I think it will be a bad one without greater pressure on Iran.
There is one timeline and one major faction driving Trump toward a bad deal—aside from whatever shortcomings the man brings to the table. The strongest card Iran holds is current US political opposition. For those who support this war, do you think you’ll get a better deal or future military course of action if you help return Democrats to control of one or two chambers in Congress?
Your question:
For those who support this war, do you think you’ll get a better deal or future military course of action if you help return Democrats to control of one or two chambers in Congress?
Answer: No. The Dems don’t want Iran to have nuclear arms but they are not willing to do anything about it. (Think of an obese person who wants to lose a substantial amount of weight but also does not want to change his/her diet and get off the couch more often.)
The strongest card of the Iranians is the weak will of the US president. Trump never gave a damn about the yapping of Democrats and suddenly it’s so important?
Much more critical is the opposition within his own party. The GOP has a majority in both chambers and yet couldn’t put together a war powers act.
Once the trigger was pulled, a potential escalation should have been priced in. Blockade should have been up from day 1. The categorical exclusion of boot on the ground was also a major mistake. Seize Bandar Abbas and the adjacent heights. Control the sight lines onto the straits and your allies can export while Iran bleeds dry.
Also practice some leadership. It’s no wonder nobody likes a war without a clear goal.
And of course Trump didn’t write that — he’d never get all those Arabic names right.
Iran has 10 tons of 20% uranium. This, according to Grok, can be taken to 60% in days or weeks. 60% to 80% can also be done in days or weeks. Getting uranium ore to 20% is what takes most of the time.
This “deal” is extremely dangerous, even if we assume Iran is being honest.
Chamberlain (partially) doesn’t deserve the obloquy he gets. He built up UK defense forces in preparation for WWII. The following is a quote from Google AI “Neville Chamberlain, as Chancellor of the Exchequer and later Prime Minister during the 1930s, played a critical role in rearming and expanding the Royal Air Force. His “Expansion Schemes” prioritized air defense budgets, facilitating the production of the Spitfire and Hurricane and the creation of the Chain Home radar network, which were essential for the victory in the Battle of Britain”
Topflight British historian Richard J. Evans:
Why Neville Chamberlain will forever be discredited by his policy of appeasement. New Statesman, Jan 19, 2022
The 1938 Munich Agreement failed to prevent war with Hitler. Now a Netflix film, based on Robert Harris’s novel, attempts to rehabilitate the former prime minister – but his legacy is difficult to defend.
https://archive.ph/0Wd4q
Let me offer a partial defense of Chamberlain. The British used the years of peace before and after 1938 Munich agreement to prepare for the coming war. FDR did the same thing in the US. I have actually been to the Churchill war rooms in London. Rather famously Churchill (not Chamberlain) made a speech to a joint session of Congress (on 1941/12/26). He actually made two speeches to Congress.
Trump’s acquiescence is a gift to Iran. Why aren’t the Democrats jumping for joy?
No comment.
No one is in control of this debacle, just more human wastage for political, religious ideology.
Google: Yogi Berra famously put it, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Love that.
If the Iranians were to use nukes on Israel the Palestinians would cop the fallout along with Lebanon and other neighbouring states. How would that go down?
The right of reply by the Israelis, let alone others would make Iran a wasted martyre-ville without the sponge cake. Sorry Yogi.
For me the answer is not political, in zero-sum games, but in human behaviour. We have clearly not asked the right questions of ourselves and where it is we want to go. 5000 odd years is not enough.
Peace is temporary, more’s the pity.
The reason why this war was so sketchy from the start is that it was just another of Trump’s vanity projects, a HUGE stunt, biggest evah, peace in the Middle East, plus OIL! Showing off all of America’s military might to symbolize HIM and HIS enduring strength and glorious legacy was too tempting.
He was on a high after capturing Maduro, he “seized all his oil”, it was so easy, and that “win” carried over into Iran. At the same time, Epstein was everywhere, Minneapolis was an abysmal failure, as well as his tariffs and economy and polls, and then…another opportunity for an easy win came into view. And something BIG that would distract not only America, but the entire world. And Nuclear shmuclear, you think he would have taken such a gamble if Iran was bereft of black gold?
His war of choice was actually a very reasonable decision if you’re a decrepit, desperate malignant narcissist.
For those interested in an informed, reasoned discussion of the current situation, I recommend Dan Senor’s latest Call Me Back podcast episode, titled “What We Know About the Emerging Iran Deal,” featuring prominent Israeli journalist Nadav Eyal and chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies Mark Dubowitz.
Trigger warning for Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers: The opinions expressed are thoughtful, well informed, and not reflexively anti-Trump.
The sad thing is Chamberlain knew all too well it’ll fail. He was appeasing his own party who favored Hiter over the commies at worst and simply had the memories of WW1 at best and had no desire for war.
After Munich he accelerated development of the RAF, the costal radar network and got the army and navy to start gearing up.
He bought time, drew a line in the sand and sacrificed his honor for it.
See 17
Amazing!
Do you think he wasn’t appeasing Hitler, but his fellow Tories?
I mentioned none of those things. Why would anyone think that if I’m for freedom I would automatically be for everything on your list?
For the record, I am mostly against trans in women’s sports, want border control and helping Israel.
All of these can be under discussion. The far right and far far left seems to only consider ‘their’ dogma.
In the long run, however: Though I disliked Harris (and Hillary as well–i think she is an opportunist of the worst stripe) I believe both would have caused far less damage to our country and the world, and would have been responsible for far less deaths on this planet.
I just wanted to underline what I was doing in laying out the argument for using nuclear weapons to destroy what’s left of Iran’s uranium enrichment. Obviously I have no say in the decision and I’m sure President Trump isn’t giving what I say any weight at all.
My goal was to probe just how seriously those who say Iran must “never” get a nuclear weapon are willing to back their views up with action. I’m sure you are all sincere, that a nuclear weapon wielded by a fundamentalist theocracy is inherently more dangerous to infidel survival than those of the other powers are. Even a North Korean nuke seems almost Ruritanianly cute. I laid out an amateur view of how a careful nuclear strike could be uniquely effective with civilian casualties in the acceptable range given the value you all attach to eliminating the threat. Yet everyone blanches at the thought. No way, not ever.
So what you are all really saying is that you accept that Iran will one day soon make a nuclear weapon. You are reduced to hoping, not planning, that the mullahs will never use it eschatologically on you or people you care about. This is fine — a self-imposed constraint the enemy knows you won’t violate is useful for his planning — but it makes carping about Trump’s failure to achieve de-nuclearization through negotiation ring a little hollow, since nothing you yourselves are willing to do would have achieved it either. No nuclear strike, no invasion. Happy to be running Iran (and Natanz specifically) I’d be.
P.S. Lou Jost reminds me I didn’t address his concerns that a strike on Natanz would give licence to Russia and China. Russia hopes to occupy Ukraine and China Taiwan, i.e., live there. Wide-scale nuclear destruction of surface infrastructure would make both places too radioactive to settle and too cluttered with rubble to be economically worth it (especially Taiwan.) But their use of nuclear weapons in either theatre is not an existential threat to us here in North America. If we believe that an Iranian nuclear program is an existential threat to us, we should be willing to accept any risk as worth the benefit of eliminating it. But if you don’t think an Iranian nuke particularly “matters”, then no, you shouldn’t nuke it in the bud. And Iran will get its nukes.
(Thus endeth my 10%.)
“So, what you are all really saying is that you accept that Iran will one day soon make a nuclear weapon.”
Not all. The nuclear option must remain on the table, but it’s not a saber that one in a position of power should rattle.
You’ve quite ably addressed the difference between bunker-busting strikes with dial-a-yield weapons vs “nuke ‘em till they glow.” You are also correct, I think, in discounting the argument from moral suasion: “We need to keep the taboo. If we use one, Russia will use one, too.” Russia will do what Russia believes it must do; Putin doesn’t need tacit permission from us. The “lead by example” crowd vastly overrates the influence of both talk and modeled behavior on violent men. We’ve seen the fruits of that both at home and abroad.
One point you might consider is the effect on our nuclear deterrent if a nuclear strike on Iran were to fail. The odds aren’t high, but it’s part of the calculation. We also have to have very high confidence that we know where all of the nuclear materials are. If we do, then I am fine for now with recurring strikes that leave those materials buried. If we don’t, then a nuclear strike is risky in leaving Iran with a near- to mid-term capacity to retaliate.
But that goes to the heart of the matter, doesn’t it? One either believes Iran is an existential threat that cannot be deterred or one does not. Act accordingly. And ask yourself whether you would rather be accused of unnecessarily eliminating a threat that will later be called overhyped—or fail to eliminate one that does prove existential. There is, after all, only one way to demonstrate decisively that Iran is the threat many of us believe it to be.