We're Finally Fighting Back
Monday, March 02, 2026
Will it be enough?
Over the weekend, the United States and Israel launched widespread, coordinated attacks against Iran. The apparent aims are of neutering that country's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capabilities, and toppling its theocratic regime, which has been at war with both countries and the West in general ever since 1979.
| Yaron Brook's initial reaction. Commentary starts about 1:50. |
It's about time, and I have heard that the top echelon of its leadership, including "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamanei, died during an incredibly short time span.
Good riddance.
The case for attacking Iran -- something that should have been done decades ago -- is clear-cut. Less so is whether the sitting President -- a thoroughly corrupt and amoral whim-worshiper -- will carry through this endeavor to the point that Iran no longer poses a threat to the West.
Worse, as clear as it is that we should obliterate this regime, it is equally clear that Trump does not have the authority to order military operations of this magnitude without Congressional approval. I am concerned that Congress will either fail to offer its belated authorization or even attempt to end our participation in this war before it has been prosecuted to the extent it should be.
I can only hope our militaries do enough damage before things change enough politically that the regime is effectively done, and the Iranian people are able to establish the freer, rights-respecting government they seem to want. By its nature, such a government would be at minimum cease being a threat, and would likely be friendly to our countries and its neighbors. At worse, almost any other government would at least be less of a threat.
Having noted my own reaction to this generally welcome turn of events, I'll end with a short listing of items I gleaned over the weekend, in no particular order:
- A Rundown on the War as of 2-28 -- roles of U.S. and Israeli forces, objectives, Iranian retaliation notes, Iranian casualties not yet known
- Garry Kasparov -- the good of waging this war and the bad of who's in charge in a nutshell
- Agustina Vergara Cid -- expresses qualified agreement with Ilya Somin's analysis of the constitutionality of the war and its feasibility as a means of achieving regime change
- Adam Mossoff -- counters Ilya Somin's assessment of the wisdom and morality of the attacks
-- CAV
2 comments:
I have two thoughts on this.....
First, it's worth pointing out that Russia--who has been in a war of aggression since 2014--has three allies: North Korea, Iran, and China (who is not entirely an ally). I don't think it's possible to discuss what Iran has been doing in Israel (via proxies) outside the context of the Ukraine War. While the USA's attacks may not be seen as an extension of that war on our part, Russia, North Korea, and China will view it as such. Which could go either way--either it scares them into behaving like civilized countries, or they drop all pretense and attack the USA.
My second thought is that in the past few years we've seen a troubling normalization of violence in international affairs. Violence has always been part of international politics, but at least in my lifetime it was seen largely as exceptional. The USA was considered weird (useful, but weird) because we were willing to move so quickly to bombs and bullets. While I don't deny the morality of attacking Iran, I also don't think that the current president--who is undeniably evil as well as recklessly impulsive and extremely thin-skinned--is doing this for moral reasons. This isn't Afghanistan, where the world agreed we were in the right. Nor is it Iraq, where there was at least some justification for the immediate action. This seems very much like Trump just wanting to flex his muscles and shoot something. My worry is that Trump's petulance will cause the world in general to accept a higher level of background violence, in a world where nuclear weapons are fairly widely available.
Dinwar,
I'd forgotten that Iran makes many of the drones Russia uses in Ukraine, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump has no clue about that. Good point on how this could work out for good or ill, RE Russia and China. (It can do so for Islamism, too. A decisive win will discourage terrorism. A half-measure that leaves this regime in power will ultimately backfire.
As for normalizing warfare, even if Trump weren't a loose cannon, he'd face a dilemma there. Letting Iran carry on with terrorism and its non-stop proxy wars would do the same.
I agree that Trump isn't doing this for moral reasons. Netanyahu and MBS have lobbied him to do this. Whatever they have said to him seems to have carried the day for now, and there is nothing like a war to distract from very unpopular domestic policies.
On that last front, with so many Democrats siding with the Mullahs, there may well be accidental pressure to be decisive in this action and continue at least until election season. This war will be good for Republicans/bad for Democrats for middle-of-the-road voters unaware of how anti-war some MAGA factions are. Rashida Tlaib and her ilk may well save the Republicans' congressional majority if the war goes on long enough. And, if things stay close enough, Trump may be motivated to act more decisively before he loses a house or two.
Gus
Post a Comment