In discussion of war on Iran, I remember what I read in a book about the hostage crisis. Carter wanted to be careful that he did not by aggressive action give Russia a pretext to roll across Iran’s northern border. So, lots of caution, which is not in trump’s wheelhouse. Probably Russia does not have the wherewithal to run an occupation of Iran today, but that doesn’t mean they won’t try—or try infiltrating in a clandestine but very thorough way, if we start blowing up the existing order with no plan to paste up a new order.
I am betting trump never attacks though. He tweeted “if you riot, I will help” and then he sent no help. Maybe he belatedly thought it through, but just as likely he already had what he wanted: the impression he helped.
His whole attemp to co-opt the protests was pretty weird. Reminded me of GHWB telling the Kurds to rise up against Hussein and we'll be there, yes we will, you've got a friend.
If Trump attacks it will be a big bombing run only, at some primal level he understands putting boots on the ground leads nowhere but dead boots blamed on him. But its unlikely he'll get do even do that. The Arab states don't want their fingerprints on this clusterfuck so they're not granting airspace access, and somebody is going to have to step up and volunteer to build a government on the rubble left behind. And pay for it.
Megadittos, as someone used to say. I like the level of detail, like the reasons for those infamous "pallets of cash" that were fine under Bush but doubleplusbad Obama.
Iran is a weird case, something everybody in Washington agrees on. Iran is a Bad Actor and must be forcefully opposed. Sometimes it feels like Republicans are running Iraq III: Atomic Boogaloo. Who's gonna stand up for Iran? They'll welcome us as liberators! Republicans are heavily weighted toward Bomb Bomb Iran, but it all hinges on who talks to Trump last, whenever last is.
Whatever Donald feels will grab the most attention, he is more likely to do. Maybe he invades Iran, maybe he doesn't, just as long as we are fixated on him one way or another.
You covered so much ground here so well and so comprehensively. A pleasure to read! One question re Iran. What do you think of the possibility of Reza Pahlavi sweeping in to replace the Iranian regime? I read an article in Politico yesterday, "Why Iranians are Increasingly Willing to Settle for Reza Pahlavi" that suggested this might really happen, with Trump's assistance.
In this crazy world anything is possible, but it probably depends on if there is internal support for Pahlavi and how much with who. As the Boss notes below, Chalabi is a good example of what happens when you try to parachute in a leader. South Vietnam comes to mind as well.
Jeez, I hope not. But Bongbong Marcos is president of the Philippines now, which is crazy similar (not the same—he returned from exile after like five years in 1991 and has been in legitimate politics ever since, whereas Reza hasn’t been in Iran at all for over 40 years), and apparently Bongbong is a real improvement over his predecessor, so who knows.
Nevertheless: We know that a lot of especially young Iranians hate the current government, as they showed at terrible personal risk in January (and demonstrations are still going on), but I don't think we have any idea how they feel about the Shah, who some of their parents at least remember, with his corruption, brutality, and murderous secret police. I think a US invasion might bring back memories of the Shah and his American alliance, as well as not making America itself more popular. (Gromet below notes how Trump broke his promise that he'd help the demonstrators, and with the example of Venezuela before them, not to mention the sanctions themselves, they may feel extremely wary about any American plots.)
Great perceptions, thank you for this.
In discussion of war on Iran, I remember what I read in a book about the hostage crisis. Carter wanted to be careful that he did not by aggressive action give Russia a pretext to roll across Iran’s northern border. So, lots of caution, which is not in trump’s wheelhouse. Probably Russia does not have the wherewithal to run an occupation of Iran today, but that doesn’t mean they won’t try—or try infiltrating in a clandestine but very thorough way, if we start blowing up the existing order with no plan to paste up a new order.
I am betting trump never attacks though. He tweeted “if you riot, I will help” and then he sent no help. Maybe he belatedly thought it through, but just as likely he already had what he wanted: the impression he helped.
His whole attemp to co-opt the protests was pretty weird. Reminded me of GHWB telling the Kurds to rise up against Hussein and we'll be there, yes we will, you've got a friend.
If Trump attacks it will be a big bombing run only, at some primal level he understands putting boots on the ground leads nowhere but dead boots blamed on him. But its unlikely he'll get do even do that. The Arab states don't want their fingerprints on this clusterfuck so they're not granting airspace access, and somebody is going to have to step up and volunteer to build a government on the rubble left behind. And pay for it.
>“if you riot, I will help” and then he sent no help.
I forgot to include that and it's so important.
Right? And that is something a victorious Democratic Iran will never forget.
I always enjoy your style and angle of attack. Thanks for posting.
Megadittos, as someone used to say. I like the level of detail, like the reasons for those infamous "pallets of cash" that were fine under Bush but doubleplusbad Obama.
Iran is a weird case, something everybody in Washington agrees on. Iran is a Bad Actor and must be forcefully opposed. Sometimes it feels like Republicans are running Iraq III: Atomic Boogaloo. Who's gonna stand up for Iran? They'll welcome us as liberators! Republicans are heavily weighted toward Bomb Bomb Iran, but it all hinges on who talks to Trump last, whenever last is.
Thanks!
Whatever Donald feels will grab the most attention, he is more likely to do. Maybe he invades Iran, maybe he doesn't, just as long as we are fixated on him one way or another.
You covered so much ground here so well and so comprehensively. A pleasure to read! One question re Iran. What do you think of the possibility of Reza Pahlavi sweeping in to replace the Iranian regime? I read an article in Politico yesterday, "Why Iranians are Increasingly Willing to Settle for Reza Pahlavi" that suggested this might really happen, with Trump's assistance.
In this crazy world anything is possible, but it probably depends on if there is internal support for Pahlavi and how much with who. As the Boss notes below, Chalabi is a good example of what happens when you try to parachute in a leader. South Vietnam comes to mind as well.
Jeez, I hope not. But Bongbong Marcos is president of the Philippines now, which is crazy similar (not the same—he returned from exile after like five years in 1991 and has been in legitimate politics ever since, whereas Reza hasn’t been in Iran at all for over 40 years), and apparently Bongbong is a real improvement over his predecessor, so who knows.
Thanks for the kind words!
Nevertheless: We know that a lot of especially young Iranians hate the current government, as they showed at terrible personal risk in January (and demonstrations are still going on), but I don't think we have any idea how they feel about the Shah, who some of their parents at least remember, with his corruption, brutality, and murderous secret police. I think a US invasion might bring back memories of the Shah and his American alliance, as well as not making America itself more popular. (Gromet below notes how Trump broke his promise that he'd help the demonstrators, and with the example of Venezuela before them, not to mention the sanctions themselves, they may feel extremely wary about any American plots.)
Also don't forget who owns Politico https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/feb/20/politico-owner-axel-springer-joins-rival-telegraph-bid-led-by-dovid-efune They're absolutely capable of running a propaganda operation to back Reza (like the people who told us Iraqis would welcome rule by Ahmad Chalabi back in 2003, remember that?)
I don't know what the outcome of an attack on Iran will be, but if Trump has a hand in it, it can't be good.
Let's commission a new "boat" for him. Boaty McTrumpface.