9:36 PM EDT — As we noted yesterday, the potential of launching an air attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran was something which had to be based on intelligence estimates, and sometimes intelligence estimates are wrong. As William Teach noted on the 20th, President Donald Trump had set a two-week window for negotiations with Iran to produce an acceptable result, but the President loves misdirection, and like the monitored communications between Captain Spock and Admiral Kirk in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, when hours could seem like days, apparently days could seem like weeks . . . or vice versa.
I cannot say that I am unhappy that the United States attempted to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons sites, because, in the end, Iran simply cannot be allowed to develop and possess nuclear weapons. But I certainly am concerned, because we have, in effect, entered yet another foreign war. The President is scheduled to address the nation at 10:00 PM EDT, and I very much hope that he will tell us that this was one-and-done, that we are now staying out of the war between Israel and Iraq. But, of course, one nation cannot simply call off a war; there is the little matter of the enemy, and whether he will consider it called off. Iran will certainly talk big, and the Houthis will threaten American shipping, but only the Lord knows how this will play out.
I guess that I have to add the video Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran!
“When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” a plaque on Chuck Colson’s wall, attributed to many different sources.
The thing is that what we have often thought as having them by the balls has not worked out that way at all.
“Rolling Thunder” was the policy of adding both punishments and incentives to get the North Vietnamese to quit fighting; did it work? We do know that Nazi Germany’s blitz against London and the United Kingdom didn’t get the British to quit, but strengthened their resolve. We know that the Allied bombing campaign against the Third Reich didn’t get the Germans to quit; they fought until the bitter end. Our bombing campaign against Japan virtually destroyed the country’s ability to fight any further, even though the militarist government wanted to keep up the fight, even though they knew it was lost. It took the two atomic bombs to strengthen the Emperor’s hand enough to force surrender.
Iran is a nation of 92 million people; how many of them do you believe we must kill to make them stop fighting?
Carlos Barria/ Press Pool via AP
Mr Trump noted that there are other sites in Iran which the United States could simply and easily target and destroy, but said that he really didn’t want to do that. Peace would have to come, and come quickly, so that we would not continue to strike the Islamic Republic.
Robert Stacy McCain snarked that apparently Vice President J D Vance didn’t get the Red Tie Memo.
Jackson Hinkle, the apologist for all things Islamist, tweeted that the Iranian state media stated that there was “No IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE at Fordow”. Mr Hinkle is not to be taken seriously, and neither are the Iranian state media.
Sunday, 8:00 AM EDT — Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY 4th District) said that the President’s action was unconstitutional. Mr Massie is a hard libertarian — not Libertarian! — so this was expected.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY 14th District) tweeted that this attack was “absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,” but she’d impeach President Trump for using the wrong toothpaste if she could.
I’m sure I’ll blather on after Mass today, including adding to the Related Articles from others lists.
12:15 PM EDT — The New York Times has continual updates here.
Vice President JD Vance declined to say on Sunday whether Iran’s three nuclear enrichment sites bombed by U.S. forces overnight were destroyed, but he said its potential to build a weapon had been set back substantially.
Mr. Vance, in an interview with Kristen Welker on NBC News’s “Meet the Press,” said: “We’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program.”
Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi militia, who had threatened to attack American ships in the Red Sea if the U.S. attacked Iran, appeared to be avoiding fiery statements that could further escalate the conflict. On social media, Houthi political official Mohammed al-Bukhaiti said that the group would “stand by any Arab or Islamic state that faces Israeli or American aggression,” but then added that they would not be “more kingly than the king,” — an Arabic expression akin to “holier than the pope.” He did not respond to a request for comment asking for clarification.
On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized the Trump administration’s message that the U.S. military’s strike on Iran was a surgical one, and that what comes next is up to Tehran. Rubio said “it doesn’t matter if the order was given” by Iran to develop a weapon, arguing that the enrichment levels that Iran had were far beyond anything for civilian use. Pressed on what the intelligence from the U.S. actually showed, Rubio called a description of the March intelligence assessment that Iran was not in process of building a bomb an “inaccurate” representation of the intelligence. While Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, believes that Iran can achieve a nuclear weapon in 15 days, American spy agencies believe that it could take several months, and up to a year, for Iran to make a weapon. — Maggie Haberman
At this point, does it matter? If American intelligence estimates are that Iran could have built an atomic bomb in “several months” and “up to a year,” the case for destroying their nuclear weapons facilities is not significantly different from Mossad’s estimates of two weeks.
Representative Massie was the Republican opponent that CNN trotted out to make his case that the strikes were unconstitutional.
__________________________________
Related Articles:
- Wiliam Teach, “US Strike Iran’s Nuclear Sites“
- Robert Stacy McCain, “How Trump Ruined the Media’s Weekend“
- Deanna Fisher, “Trump Gives The Order To Bomb Iran, Then Sends A Message“
““Rolling Thunder” was the policy of adding both punishments and incentives to get the North Vietnamese to quit fighting; did it work?”
Rolling Thunder didn’t work because we were bombing the wrong places, in uncoordinated ways and with no strategic goal in mind.
All targets had to be approved by Washington and ended up being more political than strategic. That also introduced delays so when intelligence identified a target, by the time approval was received, the enemy had moved and we ended up bombing nothing but empty jungle.
A campaign like that has no hope of succeeding.
Bombing can achieve specific goals, both tactical and strategic.
Notably, when Nixon was trying to end the war and North Vietnam left the negotiations, Nixon authorized massive bombing of North Vietnam including Hanoi. That got the North back to the bargaining table pretty quickly.
Specific goal, focused campaign, success.
The fact that we abandoned South Vietnam to the North after the democrat landslide following Watergate doesn’t negate the fact that we had beaten them thoroughly and the final bombing campaign(s) of Nixon were what brought the North Vietnamese to the bargaining table.
Our bombing in WWII didn’t get Germany to surrender, but we basically eliminated their industry and ability to resupply their forces…which ended with the same result. No tanks, no planes, no guns, no ammunition, you lose. I’d call that a success.
Same sort of concept in Iran…we aren’t trying to take over the country. We had a specific goal: remove the threat of them attaining Nuclear weapons any time soon. Mission accomplished (assuming the BDAs are accurate)…no ground forces required.
If their government falls as a result of this…well, that’s their problem, not ours.
May be our problem again in 20 or 30 years, at which time we can reassess and decide whether we need to shoot our space lasers at them or fire a couple of crust buster missiles from our moon base.
At any rate, my point is air power isn’t the answer to every question: dropping bombs can’t occupy territory or even force an an enemy to surrender, but it can certainly destroy armaments and manufacturing capability, which was our goal here.
Curt wrote:
The Paris Peace Accords were signed on January 27, 1973, just after President Nixon’s second inauguration, following a 49 state landslide victory.
“The Paris Peace Accords were signed on January 27, 1973, just after President Nixon’s second inauguration, following a 49 state landslide victory.”
Correct. The Peace Accords guaranteed military equipment and support to South Vietnam to ensure that the North would uphold the treaty.
Nixon resigned in 1974 and the Democrats won the mid-terms resoundingly. Beginning in January 1975 they had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and gained enough seats in the house to over-ride any veto.
The Democrat congress promptly abandoned support for South Vietnam and cut off military aid.
Saigon fell three months later.