Hey, it’s Sunday, I couldn’t come up with a more original headline… I had written an extensive piece about the NYC primary election, which is on Tuesday. I’m hoping to send that out by Tuesday. In the meantime, I have been watching, in horror, what’s been happening in the Middle East. Here’s my Sunday hot take, amid quite the heat here in NYC…
Well, he didn’t chicken out this time, even though he should have.
You’ve no doubt heard that overnight, on June 21, the US bombed three nuclear sites in Iran. It comes over a week after Israel launched strikes on Iran, two days after Trump said he would weigh his options over the next two weeks—and only six months after he took office as president. At his inauguration he not only declared that he would “stop all wars” but that his “proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier."
So much for that.
In an address to the nation following the strike, Trump said that the “objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.”
A number of analysts have said that it could take weeks to assess whether the US successfully destroyed nuclear material—or whether Iran simply moved it out of the three sites, Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Not surprisingly, Trump did not wait for any assessment. He declared that “the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." He then called for “Iran, the bully of the Middle East,” to make peace.
In Istanbul, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi noted “Iran’s right to self defense under the principles of the united (UN) charter” and in accordance with that charter “Iran reserves all options to defend its security interests.” That might include closing the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital for shipping, particularly oil. The strait carries about 20 percent of global oil supplies. JP Morgan predicts that should Iran shut it down, oil could spike $120-$130 per barrel. Currently, it is $74 per barrel. Go fill up your tank.
It might also include targeting US military interests in the region, which the Iran Revolutionary Guard said “have doubled their vulnerability.” That would result in casualties of US servicemen and women—a priceless cost.
Everyone is now waiting for Iran’s move.
Last week, in Just Security, Dalia Dassa Kaye noted that Trump’s actions following Israel’s missile strikes on Iran “are seemingly based on the notion that Iran will be forced to capitulate.” She goes on to say that “it is difficult to see diplomacy succeeding soon in the aftermath of such a destructive war,” noting that Trump may be misreading Iran.
Given how thin his national security bench is, this is not surprising.
There seemed to be little deliberation about the US attack. A key reason is that there aren’t many deliberators. A month ago the White House began cutting National Security Council staff from roughly 350 to “fewer than 150.” National Security Adviser Mike Waltz was shoved aside in May, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio now wears the NSA hat as well—an unprecedented dual role that concentrates power in one person who is not privy to or interested in considering the economic, commercial, environmental, energy, and trade implications of war with Iran. I could go into how Henry Kissinger managed both hats from 1973-1975, but that would be a mighty rabbit hole…
In 2011, then President Barack Obama greenlighted a raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan—after nearly a year of painstaking assessments, planning, and deliberation. Obama’s national security team not only verified the intelligence about bin Laden’s possible hideout, but also built life size replicas of the former Al Qaeda leader’s hideout, red teamed every possible scenario, and forced every stakeholder to present the pros and cons of the mission before the president said “go.” Even then, there were factors that nearly jeopardized the mission, including a malfunctioning helicopter. That’s because real life has endless and unforeseen possibilities.
Sound policy depends on expertise and solid intel—especially in wartime. Last week, Trump dismissed Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s claim that Iran remained years from a bomb, a timeline she now warns could shrink to weeks. It is a worrying echo of what happened in 2003, when then Vice President Dick Cheney pressured analysts until they delivered the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) claims he wanted for Iraq—weapons that they never had. The US launched a devastating war in Iraq in which 4,500 service members lost their lives, which cost the US trillions in tax payer money, led to the rise of the Islamic State—and took us nearly a decade to exit from.
Team Trump insists that the “US is not at war with Iran” but with its nuclear program. On the Sunday talk shows, Vice President JD Vance shrugged off concerns that the US would, once again, get dragged into a lengthy war in the Middle East. “I understand the concern,” he said, “but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents and now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America’s national security objectives.” 🤔
Trump has not had many national security wins. He promised to end Russia’s war against Ukraine in 24 hours and stop the fighting between Israel and Gaza. Convinced that he could come to an agreement with Iran on its nuclear enrichment program and score a foreign policy win there, Trump dispatched Steve Witkoff to engage with representatives of the Islamic regime—making that announcement while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat next to him in the White House. He then jetted off to the Gulf where he cozied up to wealthy Arab autocrats who lined his pockets with planes and other financial promises and ignored Israel. Just as Trump’s deadline for the Iranians to come to an agreement expired, Netanyahu struck Iran.
Trump wants us to believe that he is in control of what’s happening in the Middle East. But, as Ed Luce writes in the FT, “Netanyahu has been dictating events.” Adding, “But even he cannot predict how Iran will respond.”
When Iran does, I suspect we’ll see not how much Trump has accomplished—but what’s he’s pushed the United States into. —Elmira
Editorial Team
Elmira Bayrasli - Editor-in-Chief