Patterico's Pontifications

6/20/2019

Military Action in Iran? UPDATED x 2

Filed under: International — DRJ @ 9:25 pm



[Headline from DRJ]

Trump approved Iranian strike before pulling back: report:

President Trump approved a military strike against Iran on Thursday in response to the downing of a drone before eventually pulling back, according to a report from The New York Times.
***
The Times reported that there was a divide within the executive branch about whether to strike, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, national security adviser John Bolton and CIA Director Gina Haspel favoring a military response. Conversely, officials at the Pentagon warned that doing so could pose a risk to American forces in the region.

This story is developing

— DRJ

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Here is a window into Trump’s sober decisionmaking process:

The question in my mind ended up getting asked outloud by Ken White:

Congress, take back your power to declare war and make it mean something.

UPDATE 2 by DRJ: The story changes again – “planes were not in the air” when Trump called off the attack.

Plus from Hot Air: Trump: The Pentagon Told Me About Estimated Casualties A Half Hour Before The Iran Strike

171 Responses to “Military Action in Iran? UPDATED x 2”

  1. “Source familiar” and all, but it’s being claimed that we can thank Tucker Carlson for talking Trump down.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-tucker-carlson-privately-advises-trump-against-iran-war

    Davethulhu (bc6fa6)

  2. “Strong leadership!”

    Or, uh “Leadership”.

    Or something.

    Dave (1bb933)

  3. I’m just glad we have a president who’s almost certainly never read, or paid attention to, a single briefing on the subject making the call based on what the FoxNews chyron tells him.

    Dave (1bb933)

  4. So, leak the virtual smackdown and your decision to ‘abort’ w/a personal overrule ASAP as a ‘smack around’ of Walrus Gumbo and crew. Clever signaling; ‘the art of the deal’ — give the other guy an out. Well played, Captain, sir.

    Now, fire Gumbo, castrate Pompeo, send a bill for the drone and show’em who’s the Boss.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  5. “Gina, hold my coat! Mike, John, hold me back before I clobber dese guys! Just hold me back! Will you, for crying out loud, hold me back!”

    nk (dbc370)

  6. I’m kidding. Every time demented old loons, whether in DC or Teheran, are not getting young men killed in some stupid war, it’s a good thing.

    nk (dbc370)

  7. Kinda funny to see Stumpy confront a problem more serious than picking decorative elements for his pyramid, er, wall.

    Less funny when the realization strikes that we’ll all have to live with the consequences.

    john (cd2753)

  8. If Reagan was at his core a Hollywood pacifist (PJ ORoarke), Trump might be that guy that would have clipped his berries had he run out out of ways out of Vietnam.

    urbanleftbehind (0b39c8)

  9. Is this something that Trump’s damned if he does or damned if he doesn’t?

    I don’t think a unmanned drone being shot down is necessarily casus belli for a military strike. Especially if the news report is right that the estimated Iranian death would be ~150.

    I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I think Trump is 100% right to stop and announce to Iran that they were 10 minutes away from action till he gave the stand-down order.

    This also puts pressure on the EU allies to put more sanctions on Iran… which would never happen if US mitilarily responded imo.

    If actual US lives were lost…then all bets are off.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  10. UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Here is a window into Trump’s sober decisionmaking process:

    The question in my mind ended up getting asked outloud by Ken White:

    Congress, take back your power to declare war and make it mean something.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  11. It’s more than probable that the White House leaked Trump’s decision and that it was intended to send a message to the Mullahs. However, if the Iranian regime is testing to see if Trump is just a “twitter tiger”, they may have just gotten their answer.
    To me, the move looked indecisive and weak. Here you have two bombings of oil tankers and the shooting down of a $200 million drone the size of a 737, and Trump’s answer was “I’m sending a threatening message!” The Mullahs showed themselves to be Shiite bullies when Reagan was president, and they backed down after Reagan spanked them with airstrikes, and they haven’t changed their spots.

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)

  12. Is that Tucker Carlson at 0:43?

    Nope, no bow tie, but he had that Carlson stare.

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)

  13. @ my friend whembly, who wrote in part (#10):

    Is this something that Trump’s damned if he does or damned if he doesn’t?

    I don’t think a unmanned drone being shot down is necessarily casus belli for a military strike. Especially if the news report is right that the estimated Iranian death would be ~150.

    ….

    If actual US lives were lost…then all bets are off.

    This certainly is a situation where there are no easy or risk-and-cost-free solutions, and it’s a problem that every U.S. president since Jimmy Carter has faced.

    But they’ve been at war with us since 1979 — always trying to stay just short of triggering a massive and parallel response from us — and having watched Kim play Trump like an out-of-tune fiddle, and seeing the safety and time he’s bought himself to ramp up into a nuclear power with intercontinental delivery power, no one can doubt that they’re headed in short order for nukes. Our allies need no further proof than Iran’s effective repudiation of what’s left of the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

    And as for “actual U.S. lives”: Why would you possibly not count the U.S. lives lost to IEDs and other offensive weaponry funneled directly by Iran to American enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan? Those measure in the thousands, far more than died at Pearl Harbor — and of course the permanently maimed are many times that number.

    I genuinely respect the views of those who are highly skeptical of becoming involved in direct military conflict with Iran. I certainly agree that such should not be undertaken without explicit involvement from Congress, and that in turn is devilishly hard for any American president to muster, and probably impossible for a hyperpartisan like Cadet Captain Bonespur.

    But I am, and have been for many many years, an Iran hawk. I’d have imposed a naval quarantine — a blockade, which is indeed a traditional causus belli — during the Bush-43 administration if not sooner. I’d have used drones and when necessary combat aircraft to patrol the land routes into Iran. The economic sanctions we’re imposing now ought have been imposed years and years ago, even more aggressively.

    But I don’t think Trump has any strategic plan for either Iran or North Korea. He has no strategic plans, period — he operates moment to moment based on what he perceives as being “best for the Trump brand,” and Tucker assures him restraint will get him reelected, so that’s best for the Trump brand.

    This is a feeble, pathetic display by a feeble, pathetic POTUS. I expect next a supposed peace overture from the mullahs, a so-called summit between Trump and them, and a Tweet from Trump declaring that “the Nuclear Threat from Iran is ended,” while in the meantime the Iranians, just like Kim, continue apace to make themselves as militarily invulnerable as an ICBM-equipped nuclear power could ever hope to be.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  14. I (and others) may have inadvertently misled others by comparing the drone’s wingspan to that of a 737. The drone, intended for long cruising at altitude, does have the same wingspan, but its fuselage size and volume are considerably smaller. (I saw a statistic that the drone’s carrying capacity was equal to “fifteen tons of cocaine,” which made me laugh. Why not fifteen tons of compressed feathers?) If it’s not pay-walled, this WSJ article has an accompanying graphic that illustrates the similarities and differences.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  15. A link to Trump’s Twitter posts on Iran.

    DRJ (15874d)

  16. It appears the stand down order may have been issued about the same time Putin tweeted this. Probably a coincidence.

    DRJ (15874d)

  17. 14.

    This is a feeble, pathetic display by a feeble, pathetic POTUS.

    And Trump’s fans will eat it up.

    Gryph (08c844)

  18. A link to Trump’s Twitter posts on Iran. His latest:

    Sméagol almost starts Sauron Wars Threes! Here it comes precious yes! Enjoys! NO! NOOO! Calls them backs! If we starts it then troll polls maybe worsens! Frowns all downs! Slumps into pits pits pits! They scorns us! Too risky! TOO RISKY! Maybe tomorrow, tomorrow yes maybe then…

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)

  19. I want to know who the General thinks will die, Iranians or Americans, and why.

    DRJ (15874d)

  20. Did it occur to you to ask how many people would die before you ordered the strike, instead of during the strike?

    This is ridiculous and ignorant. Would you rather have zero preparation while the details are being hammered out? This isn’t a video game. Does Popeshat think that a single button gets pressed and a strike is instantaneously fully underway?

    Maybe Popehat should think about what he posts before he posts it, not during.

    buduh (182d11)

  21. 20. You’re talking about a bombing run here. Whether it is Iranians or Americans who die, there is almost certain to be a non-zero number of collateral civilian casualties. Whether that would be worth the cost of an unmanned aerial vehicle is hardly debatable to me, but I’m sure Trump is thinking in terms of what makes him look bad.

    Gryph (08c844)

  22. 21. That’s kind of the point, Buduh. There was zero preparation before Trump ordered the strike. He called it off because he received the information he should have had before he went forward.

    Gryph (08c844)

  23. Apparently Iranian deaths:

    He added that those deaths would not be a proportionate response to the downing of an unmanned drone.

    DRJ (15874d)

  24. The preparation I’m talking about is the physical preparation, Gryph. There was plenty of debate over the fate of the Americans in Benghazi relative to the Obama administration’s timely response. Whatever the outcome could have been I don’t know of anyone who suggested that sitting around would have been better.

    Everything necessary for a counterattack has a finite amout of time attached to it in order to be utilized. I fail to understand why ordering the preparation to go forward while ironing out the details is problematic.

    buduh (182d11)

  25. I don’t want war but I also hope Trump doesn’t wait until Americans die:

    Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the head of the Revolutionary Guard’s aerospace division, told reporters on Friday that a U.S. spy plane with around 35 crew members was flying close to the unmanned U.S. Navy RQ-4A Global Hawk that was shot down, but that Iran chose not to target the manned aircraft. Separately, he told Iranian state TV that Iran warned the drone several times before downing it with a missile.

    DRJ (15874d)

  26. Trump ordered a strike. Warplanes were on their way and commercial aircraft were diverted from the region. That is massively inconvenient, at the least, expensive, and potentially dangerous to the military and commercial aviation. It is not helpful to do it that way if it can be avoided with thinking before you leap.

    DRJ (15874d)

  27. But they do wargames for the military and the President that help go through these things. Trump needs to understand this isn’t something to be ordered lightly. It isn’t a movie.

    DRJ (15874d)

  28. People such as myself should be shot right alongside Trump and his cabinet members, oh and his family, of course. Because we are not savy enough like you Bush geniuses. What a better world it would be without us. Good Luck, Einsteins.

    mg (8cbc69)

  29. God help me, but I agree with every word Beldar said in #14. And I am amazed at those who think Trump covered himself in glory (again) here. Sometimes 2+2 does not equal “whatever Trump said they were equal to.”

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  30. This will seriously damage Trump’s relationship with the military rank & file. In a WTF?! kind of way. It will also do nothing for his reputation at home. Even his fans will strain to reconcile this with the manly man’s man image they project. What a wanker.

    I’d say I have no words, but I have many; none of them good.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  31. I think Trump just decided at the last minute there were more important things for the government to be doing, like impeaching a president and releasing tax returns. Acts of war need to yield to more pressing concerns.

    Munroe (730b35)

  32. Beldar (fa637a) — 6/21/2019 @ 7:36 am

    no one can doubt that they’re headed in short order for nukes. I don’t think they are. I think they’re plan was always to buy a nuclear bomb from North Korea, while pretending to have produced it all by themselevs.

    Iran, and North Korea were working together on that faciliy Israel destroyed in Syria in 2007 (without making afuss or an announcement about it.)

    Right now I think North Korea would be kind of afraid to trnsfer anuclear bomb, or plutonium, to Iran, and they know it wouldn’t be plausible deniability for either one of them to claim tat atomic bomb didn’t come from North Korea. But that just takes us only a year two into the future. Maybe a bit more.

    Why would you possibly not count the U.S. lives lost to IEDs and other offensive weaponry funneled directly by Iran to American enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Well, that’s the proverbial frog being cooked ina pot (which doesn’t happen to actual frogs.)

    There was deniability, especially since some of the help, I think, went to Sunnni groups, and it took time to realize that, and even though now for some of these attacks it’s certain, it’s become part of the status quo, and the Iraqi government might not approve of retaliatory strikes. It also hasn’t been very well publicized to the American people.

    It wasn’t only Iran that did that. The old (or not so old, it’s still there) regime of Bashar Assad did that too, but the rise of ISIS and the Syrian Civil War put astop to that, since he and his advisers, including Iranian advisers, don’t want the U.S. intervening in the Syrian Civil War against Bashar Assad.

    And I suspect there were some others involved too besides the governmets of Syria and Iran.

    But I don’t think Trump has any strategic plan for either Iran or North Korea.

    Absolutely right. I don’t think he has any idea of where he s going, although he has a few ideas of where he doesn’t want to go.

    He doesn’t want Iran to get more disruptive, or become a greater danger, and he doesn’t want any military action, at least the kind that results in U.S. casualties, against Iran, or against North Korea or Venezuela for that matter. If Mike Pompeo and his other advisers can figure out a way to square the circle, he’ll take it.

    Sammy Finkelman (9974e8)

  33. And, really, are we back to “proportionate responses”?? Our responses are supposed to be disproportionate. That’s how a superpower says FYATHYRIO. When did Trump become Carter?

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  34. I gather there’s a “Three Sights Shooting Range” in or near Billings, Montana. I’ve read in Wikipedia that the Buddhists believe there were four sights viewed by Prince Siddhārtha on a journey out of his palace for the first time at age 29 — an old man, which revealed the consequences of ageing; a sick person, which revealed that all people are subject to disease and pain; a dead body, which revealed that death is inevitable; and an ascetic, which gave him hope that he, too, might be released from the sufferings arising from repeated rebirths.

    But which three sights do you think Trump had in mind in his Tweet?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  35. Looking over at the Instapundit comment-sewer, they’ve gotten their 2+2 answer update already. It’s the #neverTrumpers’ fault for trying to make Trump into a warmonger. Or something.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  36. Absolutely right, Kevin. If we fight, it should not be proportionate. That is Vietnam again and that was terrible.

    DRJ (15874d)

  37. Presidential Option Memo:

    ☑ Gandhi
    ☐ Dick Tracy
    ☐ Bugs Bunny
    ☐ Caesar
    ☐ Strangelove

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  38. Sorry about the “link” in my signature — garbage in the form

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  39. Did it occur to you to ask how many people would die before you ordered the strike, instead of during the strike?

    “Ready, fire, aim!”

    Dave (1bb933)

  40. “Trump needs to understand this isn’t something to be ordered lightly. It isn’t a movie.”
    DRJ (15874d) — 6/21/2019 @ 8:33 am

    A much stronger president would let the inconvenience of diverted commercial aircraft sway his decision to end 150 lives.

    I saw a movie once where this president guy starts a war on a bogus pretext, thousands are killed and maimed, then he flies onto a CV and proclaims with much fanfare “Mission Accomplished!”. End credits. Must’ve been Harrison Ford.

    Munroe (afb19e)

  41. Wonder of wonders, the NY Times plays it straight, and suggests that Trump’s performance was thoroughly correct.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/world/middleeast/trump-iran.html

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  42. President Bush made the right decisions based on the information provided to him. We are safer thanks to them.

    Dave (1bb933)

  43. @Beldar

    @ my friend whembly, who wrote in part (#10):

    Is this something that Trump’s damned if he does or damned if he doesn’t?
    I don’t think a unmanned drone being shot down is necessarily casus belli for a military strike. Especially if the news report is right that the estimated Iranian death would be ~150.

    ….

    If actual US lives were lost…then all bets are off.

    This certainly is a situation where there are no easy or risk-and-cost-free solutions, and it’s a problem that every U.S. president since Jimmy Carter has faced.

    But they’ve been at war with us since 1979 — always trying to stay just short of triggering a massive and parallel response from us — and having watched Kim play Trump like an out-of-tune fiddle, and seeing the safety and time he’s bought himself to ramp up into a nuclear power with intercontinental delivery power, no one can doubt that they’re headed in short order for nukes. Our allies need no further proof than Iran’s effective repudiation of what’s left of the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

    And as for “actual U.S. lives”: Why would you possibly not count the U.S. lives lost to IEDs and other offensive weaponry funneled directly by Iran to American enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan? Those measure in the thousands, far more than died at Pearl Harbor — and of course the permanently maimed are many times that number.

    I genuinely respect the views of those who are highly skeptical of becoming involved in direct military conflict with Iran. I certainly agree that such should not be undertaken without explicit involvement from Congress, and that in turn is devilishly hard for any American president to muster, and probably impossible for a hyperpartisan like Cadet Captain Bonespur.

    But I am, and have been for many many years, an Iran hawk. I’d have imposed a naval quarantine — a blockade, which is indeed a traditional causus belli — during the Bush-43 administration if not sooner. I’d have used drones and when necessary combat aircraft to patrol the land routes into Iran. The economic sanctions we’re imposing now ought have been imposed years and years ago, even more aggressively.

    But I don’t think Trump has any strategic plan for either Iran or North Korea. He has no strategic plans, period — he operates moment to moment based on what he perceives as being “best for the Trump brand,” and Tucker assures him restraint will get him reelected, so that’s best for the Trump brand.

    This is a feeble, pathetic display by a feeble, pathetic POTUS. I expect next a supposed peace overture from the mullahs, a so-called summit between Trump and them, and a Tweet from Trump declaring that “the Nuclear Threat from Iran is ended,” while in the meantime the Iranians, just like Kim, continue apace to make themselves as militarily invulnerable as an ICBM-equipped nuclear power could ever hope to be.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 6/21/2019 @ 7:36 am

    I don’t believe Trump doesn’t have a plan or really ANY good options here… but he’s the POTUS and I’m sure there are diplomatic and military resources are giving him loads of options here.

    I think the crux of the issue here, is that Trump isn’t the leader that we’d want for any military adventurism. I think most Trump voters recognize that for as bombastic he his in the political sphere… he has isolationist tendencies that appeals to the folks due to war fatigue. The wild card here, imo, is John Bolton. You know he’s an Iran-hawk and I’m surprised the Trump seems to mitigate Bolton’s tendencies a bit.

    I also echo Pat’s spiel about Congress needs to claw back their War Powers from the executive branch. I’m just not sure if that is possible now, since it seems like both parties recognize that they like having it when it’s their party in the White House.

    But for me, I’m tired of another Iraq/Afgan war and I think war with Iranian is much, much worse. I see only few options here, and I’d be interested in your take please:
    1) Do nothing militarily to Iran, and continue the current status quo. I disagree with this, yet struggle to find an appropriate meaningful response. (Trump looks weak)

    2) Argue that Trump didn’t immediately respond militarily, instead engage with allies to add more sanctions instead. Which shows that the US doesn’t really, REALLY want a war with Iran and would rather keep the economic/diplo pressure. (Trump looks weak-ish, but may convert additional allies to turn the screws on Iran). This is my preferred approach #1.

    3) My preferred approach #2 is a naval/land blockade. We’d have to do this by ourselves as the EU/UN would object. And we must be prepared to respond militarily if Iran pushes back. But, I struggle with what would be the “end game” here. Is it Iran finally giving up nukes and their terrorisitic ways? If so, we’ll be there for quite some time… are we ready for that?

    4) Limited airstrikes on military installations and oil fields. This is probably the plan last night, but what exactly the message here? Shoot down one of ours and we’ll destroy yours? Even with some loss of Iranian life? I’m not opposed to this plan, I’d only ask that it should NOT be proportionate. The response need to be something like – destroy all Naval ships and ports. It needs to be a very painful message. Not a pot-shot. But, for some reason, the diplomatic corp really frowns on that.

    5) Lastly – No repeat of Afgan/Iraq war – But it need to be similar to Japan/WWII + something like the Marshall Plan. Total invasion and pacification of the region with an honest to god “Shock and Awe” and a really solid Marshall Plan. I seriously doubt US (or the world) would tolerate such a plan, and yet, if we engage with Iran with a similar plan as Iraq…we’d just be repeating the mess that we’re in now.

    TL;DR: I consider myself an Iran-Hawk™. But I’m tired of the endless wars that we’re in now and struggle with what would be an appropriate response/engagement with Iran.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  44. Diverting commercial and military aircraft causes disruptions that can endanger people. They may be necessary and worthwhile but are not jokes.

    DRJ (15874d)

  45. Question to everyone:

    The question in my mind ended up getting asked outloud by Ken White:

    Did it occur to you to ask how many people would die before you ordered the strike, instead of during the strike?

    Just asking.

    — CockedAndLoadedHat (@Popehat) June 21, 2019

    *Do we KNOW that Trump didn’t know that till after he ordered the strike?

    Or, was this something the news media picked up and simply presented it in the most unflattering way?

    I find it hard to believe that his he wouldn’t know of any estimated death prior to ordering it. Otherwise, his military advisors isn’t doing any POTUS any favors…

    whembly (fd57f6)

  46. I also echo Pat’s spiel about Congress needs to claw back their War Powers from the executive branch. I’m just not sure if that is possible now, since it seems like both parties recognize that they like having it when it’s their party in the White House.

    The only way to do that is to threaten impeachment when the War Powers Resolution is ignored, as Obama did in Libya and Clinton did in Kosovo. (GOP Presidents have mostly gone the AUMF route, which IS asking Congress for war powers; the last two notable exceptions have been Reagan (Grenada & the Libya strike) and Bush Sr in Panama. On those occasions the duration and necessary operational secrecy mitigate the actions.)

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  47. Diverting commercial and military aircraft causes disruptions that can endanger people. They may be necessary and worthwhile but are not jokes.

    They remain diverted. Nobody wants to fly over Iran today.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  48. He skips most briefings. Why would he necessarily have a military briefing beforehand?

    DRJ (15874d)

  49. “Congress, take back your power to declare war and make it mean something.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha!

    I never cease to be amazed at #NeverTrump moral scolds who think that an individually immoral man with privileged authority is intolerably beyond the pale but a collectively and structurally immoral organization with privileged authority is our last hope, the best we’ve got, our only foot soldiers in the great war against lawlessness.

    “Individually, they’re a bunch of sunsvebeyootches who’d sell their own mother for a sizeable enough donation, but TOGETHER, they’ll find a moral compromise that we can all get behind, or that at least finds itself acceptable to a majority of their donors!”

    Sunk cost fallacy inherited from their donors, you think? Or professional respect for an organization doing ‘parasitic oligarchy’ better than themselves? Either way, such persistent inanities usually hide less childish motives.

    Axe Cop (6f7058)

  50. Folks indulging in tanker denialism last week dont get the benefit of the doubt this week.

    Narciso (2e50d8)

  51. He skips most briefings. Why would he necessarily have a military briefing beforehand?

    DRJ (15874d) — 6/21/2019 @ 9:44 am

    According to unnamed sources… right?

    Can you count the number of times that a story from “unnamed sources” end up being right?

    Are you really not willing to give Trump any benefit of doubt in this regard? That he’d willingly send our armed forces without getting any briefings on the subject on hand?

    *same NBC website with a news alert*
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-says-he-did-not-given-final-approval-iran-strikes-n1020386
    President Donald Trump said Friday that he hadn’t given final approval to any military strikes against Iran and that no planes were in the air.

    …and so the story in the last 24 hours change… which shows last night’s unnamed sources possibly wrong.

    Again.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  52. We had an agreement with Iran, which our Stable Genius tore up without even attempting to take advantage of the enforcement provisions, which would have re-imposed tough sanctions within a period of a few weeks if Iran were found in violation. The US did not even initiate the first step of the enforcement procedure, or allege any specific breach, prior to giving our allies the finger and walking away from the deal unilaterally.

    Was the agreement ideal? Of course not. You don’t get (or maintain) agreements unless all sides get something out of it. But it was a stupid decision because all of the alternatives are even worse. Now Iran is free to refine whatever Uranium it wants, without inspections, and without the tough international sanctions that forced them to the bargaining table in the first place.

    But at least Cadet Bonespurs got to gratify his cultists and himself by playing Rambo on Twitter.

    Dave (1bb933)

  53. Dave, Iran was free to refine whatever Uranium it wanted w/o inspection in that Deal anyways.

    Iran had the power to block inspections to many sites.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  54. MALWA-Making America Look Weak Again. If had no intention of retaliation ( a dubious case at best) he should have done nothing. Now all he has accomplished is to look foolish.

    Rip Murdock (50b3b6)

  55. Iran had the power to block inspections to many sites.

    And we and our allies had the power to unblock inspection to *any* site deemed suspicious within 24 days.

    Dave (1bb933)

  56. If he found out there would be deaths just 10 minutes before the strike, then we have to assume that Trump never thought to ask because he rarely has briefings where they go over things like this. But even if he has had ongoing briefings in this specific case, did he:

    1. Have full, multiple military briefings but no one told him about possible casualties in any briefing (which I find unlikely), or

    2. Relied on briefings from the NSA and Bolton to make the decision and they did not include this information, either because they did not know or did not want Trump to know.

    Which do you think is more likely?

    DRJ (15874d)

  57. So what pophat asked, in which Pat alluded to…

    In that NBC interview:

    Trump said before he issued a final decision, he asked his generals, “I want to know something before you go. How many people would be killed, in this case Iranians?”

    The generals came back to Trump and said approximately 150 people would be killed, the president said.

    Right before his final decision, Trump had to be the one to ask how may people would be killed? (note, it wasn’t during as what popehat thought)

    Where were his military advisor on this? Why wouldn’t expected casualty numbers be SOP during the briefings. Yet, it took the POTUS to ask that question right before green-lighting the plan?

    His advisors are failing him there…

    whembly (fd57f6)

  58. Iran had the power to block inspections to many sites.

    And we and our allies had the power to unblock inspection to *any* site deemed suspicious within 24 days.

    Dave (1bb933) — 6/21/2019 @ 10:00 am

    Iran can *move* their operations out of that site before the inspectors would arrive. Furthermore, military sites were exempted.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  59. Sunk cost fallacy…

    Applies to poker and other investments. In anything based on lasting agreements and predictability, like foreign policy or a lot of actual business, inertia is a virtue.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  60. @DRJ #56… see my #57. 😉

    whembly (fd57f6)

  61. Sunk cost fallacy…

    Applies to poker and other investments. In anything based on lasting agreements and predictability, like foreign policy or a lot of actual business, inertia is a virtue.

    Kevin M (21ca15) — 6/21/2019 @ 10:05 am

    Kev… this pique my brain… can you elaborate?

    whembly (fd57f6)

  62. Furthermore, military sites were exempted.

    They were exempted from round the clock monitoring.

    The 24 day process allowed inspection of any site in the country deemed suspicious by us and our allies. Nothing was exempted.

    Dave (1bb933)

  63. I saw a movie once where this president guy starts a war on a bogus pretext, thousands are killed and maimed, then he flies onto a CV and proclaims with much fanfare “Mission Accomplished!”. End credits. Must’ve been Harrison Ford.

    — I see squirrel, Natasha. But where is moose?
    — Is binary choice, Boris darlink. You see either moose or squirrel.

    nk (dbc370)

  64. “You don’t get (or maintain) agreements unless all sides get something out of it. But it was a stupid decision because all of the alternatives are even worse.“
    Dave (1bb933) — 6/21/2019 @ 9:52 am

    Exactly. Obama, Kerry and Ben Rhodes got an agreement without Senate ratification, and the mullahs got pallets of dough. Win-Win!

    Munroe (fe1e3d)

  65. Dave. Think about what that means.

    Iran has 24 days to move suspected stock/equipment after being notified by the inspectors of the impending visit.

    The deal was so farcical it amazes me people still defend it.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  66. These military clowns march in with sterile “packages” recommended and endorsed by the likes of Walrus Gumbo and Pompeo for a final decision with totally unrealistic and unvetted casualties numbers.

    For Christ’s sake, you don’t attack a sovereign state w/a low balled number of 150 dead; it’s a disproportionate response to an unmanned drone loss.

    The Walrus is managing this up to the CIC for final decision- he’s the Nat’l Security Advisor w/ Pompeo at his side and presents the recommendations. They’re flying those big drones as target bait; the Straits are monitored as well as if not better than the air and sea traffic around Manhattan from high above, the coasts from and below– and not just by the U.S.

    Trump made the right call. Well done, Captain, sir.

    Fire Gumbo. Castrate Pompeo.

    NOW.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  67. And if we had demanded access to some site under the agreement, followed the procedure, and Iran had refused to meet its obligations, that would have put them in violation and triggered reimposition of sanctions.

    Dave (1bb933)

  68. Sure. In things where the is no external cost to cutting losses, like poker or investing, the notion that money you’ve already put in the pot is called the “sunk cost fallacy.” The money is the pot’s money now, not yours, and your remaining money has no loyalty to it.

    In foreign policy or business relationships there there ARE external costs to cutting losses, and the loss of reputation or perceived unreliability will affect future dealings,

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  69. *the notion that money you’ve already put in the pot is still somehow “yours” is called the “sunk cost fallacy.”

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  70. Iran has 24 days to move suspected stock/equipment after being notified by the inspectors of the impending visit.

    And they did that how many times? Zero.

    Because we never even bothered to avail ourselves of enforcement provisions.

    Obama gave them some concessions in return for them giving us some concessions.

    Trump gave them complete freedom in return for nothing.

    Dave (1bb933)

  71. I’ve always wondered how much leakage there was in those pallets fo money.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  72. @28. He’s not getting complete info; the hawkish twits who are feeding it to him are trying to manipulate him; they want war w/Iran. Same stupid mindset that said there was WMB in Iraq; that to bomb missile sites in Cuba you get 90% of them and must follow up w/an invasion; Gulf of Tonkin; Guns of August: do you unleash a major war in a critical region ’cause a zealot shoots down one U2 and kills one pilot? JFK said no to that spark and we don’t glow in the dark.

    These neocon leftovers want regime change; war— and want to go unilaterally, w/o consulting w/allies. Other nations make use of the petrol products passing through the Straits. As galling as it may be to the peanut-gallert-PopePutz and assorted critics, Trump made the correct call on this. Gumbo must be fired, if only to make the world a little safer, NOW.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  73. @57. They’re not failing him, they’re trying to manipulate him. They’re failing all of us. And assorted remaining allies.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  74. #67 And if we had demanded access to some site under the agreement, followed the procedure, and Iran had refused to meet its obligations, that would have put them in violation and triggered reimposition of sanctions.

    Dave (1bb933) — 6/21/2019 @ 10:15 am

    Dave.

    You can follow the procedure to the letter. Iran would have 24 days to *move* the contraband.

    How are you not getting this?

    whembly (fd57f6)

  75. Thanks Kevin!

    I understood what sunk cost means, but I was struggling on how you thought that there isn’t a sunk cost with regards to our Iranian foreign policy.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  76. At the time of the Iran deal, after decades of sanctions, the Iranians were supposedly two years away from having a bomb.

    The alternatives were:

    1) Keep sanctions in place for two more years. Iran gets the bomb. If sanctions were sufficient, they would not be only two years from the goal sanctions were intended to prevent.

    2) Go to war. Iran probably doesn’t get the bomb, but thousands of Americans die, and there is no more likelihood of a clean outcome/exit than there was in Afghanistan or Iraq.

    3) Negotiate. This implies agreeing to something Iran will accept, otherwise go back to #1 or #2. Iran will get a bomb eventually, but it will take longer if they honor the agreement. One might hope that during that time the present hard-line regime will fall or be moderated, and/or that reduction in tensions and increased trade will persuade them to pursue less adversarial relations.

    There’s only one way to prevent Iran from having a bomb, if they are committed to getting it. One way.

    The worst possible strategy appears to be the one Trump is pursuing: pull out of the agreement, giving them cover for violating it and having the bomb in the shortest possible time, and then (like North Korea) try to deal with them after they have it (and the much stronger negotiating position it provides).

    Dave (1bb933)

  77. You can follow the procedure to the letter. Iran would have 24 days to *move* the contraband.

    Whereas now, they can just keep it where it is, and don’t have to inconvenience themselves by moving it or answer to anybody.

    How are you not getting this?

    Dave (1bb933)

  78. @56. Your number 2 point, DRJ. The stink of Gumbo is all over this mess.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  79. #70

    Iran has 24 days to move suspected stock/equipment after being notified by the inspectors of the impending visit.

    And they did that how many times? Zero.

    Because we never even bothered to avail ourselves of enforcement provisions.

    Obama gave them some concessions in return for them giving us some concessions.

    Trump gave them complete freedom in return for nothing.

    Dave (1bb933) — 6/21/2019 @ 10:19 am

    Dave…

    Those provisions were embarrassingly weak.

    That deal far from a panacea to prevent a nuclear Iran. It was both an Obama legacy and a means for some of our allies to engage economically with the Mullah regime.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  80. In related news, during a meeting with reporters, Big Rocket Man swooned over another beautiful letter from his true love, Little Rocket Man.

    It was all downhill from there.

    Dave (1bb933)

  81. #77

    You can follow the procedure to the letter. Iran would have 24 days to *move* the contraband.

    Whereas now, they can just keep it where it is, and don’t have to inconvenience themselves by moving it or answer to anybody.

    How are you not getting this?

    Dave (1bb933) — 6/21/2019 @ 10:49 am

    Because the bloody deal isn’t what it was advertised as. That is, this deal was supposed to STOP Iran from being a nuclear power. Instead, it was a legacy vanity project by Obama who couldn’t give a damn whether or not Iran get nukes.

    Having a toothless Deal is *worst* than Trump withdrawing the deal. The old sanctions are working.

    The sanctions has real BITE because Iran is trying to get off this current trajectory.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  82. That deal far from a panacea to prevent a nuclear Iran. It was both an Obama legacy and a means for some of our allies to engage economically with the Mullah regime.

    Right. It was not as good as the deals we dictated to Germany and Japan at the end of World War Two, or either of the ones we imposed on Saddam Hussein after crushing military defeats. Sadly, those were not on offer.

    Please explain how the present situation Trump has created, in which we have spurned our allies, and in which Iran is free to develop the bomb in the minimum possible time, free of any restraint at all, is better.

    Dave (1bb933)

  83. The sanctions has real BITE because Iran is trying to get off this current trajectory.

    So: there is no longer a nuclear threat from Iran?

    Hoorah!

    Dave (1bb933)

  84. Are you almost disgusted with life, little man?
    I’ll tell you a wonderful trick
    That will bring you contentment, if anything can –
    Do something for to somebody, quick!

    Are you awfully tired with play, little girl?
    Wearied, discouraged, and sick?
    I’ll tell you the loveliest trick in the world,
    Do something for to somebody, quick!

    Though it rains like the rain of the flood, little man,
    And the clouds are forbidding and thick,
    You can make the sun shine in your soul, little man,
    Do something for to somebody, quick!

    Though the stars are like brass overhead, little girl,
    And the walks like a well-heated brick,
    And our earthly affairs in a terrible whirl,
    Do something for to somebody, quick!

    nk (dbc370)

  85. @30. This mess goes back a lot further than ‘1979’ Kevin; history doesn’t start, then. The CIA coup to install the Shah back in ’53, accessing the oil and so forth is an old wound that has never healed; they don’t forget.
    _________________

    Situations like this always bring to mind a time as a youth having access to meetings of some very senior U.S. oil execs discussing similar events over their scotch and sodas in our living room. And inevitably one would ask: “What would the Russians do?” The response always brought a guarded chortle- and clarified the difference between them and us.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  86. Allahpundit’s take is on point, as always:

    “An age of wonders,” said Michael Brendan Dougherty in response. “A moral and spiritual reprobate articulates a classical Augustinian just war argument. And conservative Christians hate it.” Well, hawkish Christians, but yes, that’s most of them. My solution to this quandary: Let Tucker and Hannity karate-fight live at 9 p.m. on Fox tonight. Winner gets to set U.S. Iran policy.

    […]

    I’m not sure how effective a leverage play can be when it’s increasingly clear that Trump, not Iran, is the party that’s more desperate to negotiate. Just like I’m not sure how intimidating Trump’s “madman” persona really is to America’s enemies at this point if he’s on Twitter wringing his hands about “disproportionate” attacks. The point of the “madman” strategy in foreign policy is to convince your rivals you’re apt to do something crazy and disproportionate if they don’t bend to your will. Now here’s Trump saying the opposite, that he cares too much about Iranian lives to pull the trigger. Given his obvious reluctance to go to war and his insistence on talks, it’s Iran that momentarily has the leverage and controls the field of play. If they want to escalate further, they can by attacking another American interest. What’s Trump supposed to say if they shoot down six more unmanned American drones tomorrow? If they want talks, they can have those too. If they want to just forget this whole thing happened and go back to leaning on Europe to provide them with relief from U.S. sanctions, they can also do that by refraining from any further attacks. Very clearly, though, Trump’s preference is talks and a renegotiation of the Obama nuclear deal.

    And given his track record in renegotiating other deals, like NAFTA and the USMCA, the new Trump nuclear deal would likely end up looking verrrrrry similar to the old Obama nuclear deal. I’m surprised Iran hasn’t realized that yet. If they want sanctions lifted, just meet with Trump, agree to re-christen the Obama nuke deal the Trump Disarmament Protocols or whatever, and they’re done.

    Read the whole thing…

    Dave (1bb933)

  87. Iran exists in a permanent state of being six months away from nuclear weapons.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  88. #82

    That deal far from a panacea to prevent a nuclear Iran. It was both an Obama legacy and a means for some of our allies to engage economically with the Mullah regime.

    Right. It was not as good as the deals we dictated to Germany and Japan at the end of World War Two, or either of the ones we imposed on Saddam Hussein after crushing military defeats. Sadly, those were not on offer.

    Please explain how the present situation Trump has created, in which we have spurned our allies, and in which Iran is free to develop the bomb in the minimum possible time, free of any restraint at all, is better.

    Dave (1bb933) — 6/21/2019 @ 11:10 am

    Dave.

    Iran was free, with very little restraint, to develop the bomb UNDER the Iran Deal.
    -the “Managed access,” was a 24-day fundamentally flawed process, and additional Iran performing their own inspections. Why can’t you admit that this is problematic?

    -the deal rolled back previous restrictions on Iran’s nuclear missile development program.

    -the deal did not mandate dismantlement of Iranian enriched uranium centrifuges and no decommissioning of Iranian nuclear facilities. Instead, this deal allows Iran to improve its advanced centrifuges and retain its nuclear facilities.

    -the deal had dubious key constraints – such as restrictions on the number and type of centrifuges, the number of enrichment facilities Iran may construct, stockpiles of nuclear material, and development of advanced centrifuges… actually expires after 10-15 years, literally putting Iran on a trajectory toward a nuclear bomb. If that’s not “kicking the can down the road”…

    -Even the inspectors have had mentioned how problematic about this deal.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/08/obama-administration-sold-bad-iran-nuclear-deal-editorials-debates/34700171/
    As the former No. 2 at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Olli Heinonen, has doggedly pointed out, the Iranians already may have a substantial secret stockpile of component parts for advanced centrifuges. The Obama administration chose to ignore this real possibility, as it chose to ignore most of the “possible military dimension” concerns that should have been at the heart of a real arms-control agreement.

    On the eve of Trump’s decision to withdraw from the deal, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s disclosed captured Iranian documents that more or less confirmed the obvious: Iran never had any intention of forgoing its nuclear-bomb-making efforts:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/world/middleeast/israel-iran-nuclear-agreement.html

    I’ll admit that I don’t know how we can stop Iran for doing so under current circumstance. But, the Obama administration’s Iran Deal wouldn’t have stopped them either.

    At least the Trump administration isn’t punting this issue, like previous administrations has…even though, it’ll likely put us at heightened warfootings.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  89. @86. He should step away from the bong; the ‘big drones’ circling are bait, chummed out by Gumbo and crew for bites.

    Cornering Iran -or any other adversary- is foolish; always give the other guy an out.
    ________

    The next step in escalation is to grab a vessel- or people- civilian or military- ‘inside’ territorial waters and dry ‘spies’– then dispute it. Petroleum personnel, IDF commandos and “others” be on alert accordingly. Vividly recall being sat down and told: ‘if somebody grabs you, we’re going to consider you “gone” and work back from that accordingly.’ That’s exactly how they said it. Literally thought the folks and firm were kidding; they weren’t.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  90. ^dry = cry

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  91. “On the eve of Trump’s decision to withdraw from the deal, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s disclosed captured Iranian documents that more or less confirmed the obvious: Iran never had any intention of forgoing its nuclear-bomb-making efforts:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/world/middleeast/israel-iran-nuclear-agreement.html

    Remember this? https://i.imgur.com/2keniL6.jpg

    Eight years ago.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  92. #92 Sure. Question everything, I have no problem with that.

    Our elected officials are at the mercy on the accuracy of our intelligence services (and allies as well).

    But, You’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?

    whembly (fd57f6)

  93. @48. Unless it’s a stealth drone; but they aren’t for bait.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  94. On the eve of Trump’s decision to withdraw from the deal, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s disclosed captured Iranian documents that more or less confirmed the obvious: Iran never had any intention of forgoing its nuclear-bomb-making efforts

    Those were from before the agreement. It was a brilliant sleight-of-hand: show that Iran was doing things prohibited by the agreement before they signed it and agreed to stop doing those thing.

    Trump’s official order breaking the agreement doesn’t even accuse them of any substantive violation.

    Dave (1bb933)

  95. Dave… the deal required them to disclose it. They did not. That was Netanyahu’s point.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  96. Here Trump had the perfect opportunity to divert attention away from impeachment and it only would’ve cost 150 lives. What a moron. Unfit. Impeach!

    Munroe (285201)

  97. That’s the stupidest question I’ve ever heard. Here’s a comic exaggeration: We need to bomb Tehran. Why? Think of all the lives it will save.

    Dumb. We don’t NEED to kill 150 Iranians because they shot down a dumb drone. Iran KNOWS if they escalate – Trump will respond proportionality. We need armchair warriors hoping 150 people get killed because “Hey, maybe, it will save more lives”

    Does Popehat support the death penalty? Because, if not, he’s a complete Hypocrite.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  98. I’m always astounded how these characters who opposed the death penalty, and weep bitter tears because that child killer got put to death and MIGHT have been innocent, will blithely support wars and sanctions that kill dozens, hundreds, even thousands of innocent people.

    The poster boy was Neo-Con Chris Hitichens who blubbered over murderers being executed, but laughed about dropping the A-Bomb on Baghdad.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  99. Good to know Iran was making the same promises as N Korea.

    harkin (647002)

  100. Let’s all blast Trump, or praise him, for not going ahead with the strike on Iran. No doubt all the commenters here would have handled the situation better, or would have adroitly adopted policies that prevented it from ever arising. OK — that’s a cheap shot, none of the commenters have spent millions to persuade the American people that they are the best person to make these decisions; Trump asked for it and deserves whatever flak he gets.

    Regardless, it’s a good thing that another 150 or so people get to live another day. 150 funerals that aren’t needed just yet, 150 kids or parents or brothers or sisters who lives weren’t changed forever because their dads or moms just got blown up. I’m no peacenik but am OK with that short-term result.

    And it underscores Patterico’s original point. Congress should never have delegated away its power to declare war as it has — the War Powers Act, IIRC, essentially gives the executive a 60-day free pass to engage in all manner of acts of war. Granted, there have to be exceptions — you shoot at us, we get to shoot back right away — but don’t we want the branch of government that the Constitution vested the warmaking power in to at least weigh in before we strike another country?

    RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa)

  101. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General.

    That little detail right there is Trump’s tell – he’s lying. Any reporters doing any kind of digging to find out who this general was who told Trump 150 people would die, where this estimate came from? Because the whole story stinks and I’d bet a considerable sum of money that it didn’t happen the way Trump told it.

    Jerryskids (702a61)

  102. Jerryskids (702a61) — 6/21/2019 @ 1:40 pm

    Any reporters doing any kind of digging to find out who this general was who told Trump 150 people would die, where this estimate came from?

    The Pentagon always makes casualty estimates, for public relations reasons and to report to Congress if for no other reasons.

    The big qauestion is why didn’t Trump realize there was a problem until it got very late. He probably got the question from the Democrats, because they were brought into it very late.

    A more informed president wuld have realized there was this question much earlier. Other presidents may not have considered that factor or even realized it after the fact. Trump falls in the middle here.

    His reference to proportionality shows that he identifies with Israel or because Israel often gets asked that question, often by the United States. Now how would it be to question Israel and not abide by the same principles yourself? The people killed would be poor conscripts mostly.

    So now they’ll try to make Iran pay $130 million. Trump also has accepetd apparently that it was argue commander. An argument for that is that this does not be coinected to a planned sabotage mission. An argument against that is that maybe Iran was testing out its capability.

    Because the whole story stinks and I’d bet a considerable sum of money that it didn’t happen the way Trump told it.

    It’s quite possible that no one actually addressed him as Sir. But the story actually makes sense. The Democrats probably brought it up.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  103. Obviously Trump should have followed the wise and judicious precedents going back to the Bay of Pigs, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Iraq War,…you know. The Smart People.

    The ones that “deliberated,” in the fashion deemed judicious by Trump’s critics, went forward based on suspect information, and got a lot of people killed.

    If only Trump had emulated them.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (6b1442)

  104. And it underscores Patterico’s original point. Congress should never have delegated away its power to declare war as it has — the War Powers Act,

    They’ve been “Delegating” their war powers since FDR and that was 77 years ago. Besides, no one wants clowns like Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, or Chuck Schumer deciding foreign policy.

    What a joke!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  105. Not really. Christopher Hitchens was always a loony. Here is, pretending to be Jewish, despite not being raised as one:

    When I am at home, I never go near the synagogue unless, say, there is a bar or bat mitzvah involving the children of friends. But when I am traveling, in a country where Jewish life is scarce or endangered, I often make a visit to the shul.”Al-Qaida’s Latest Target: Understanding the Istanbul synagogue bombings”, Slate, 18 November 2003, ISSN 1091-2339

    “Bombing Afghanistan back into the Stone Age” was quite a favourite headline for some wobbly liberals… But an instant’s thought shows that Afghanistan is being, if anything, bombed OUT of the Stone Age.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  106. You don’t attack assets inside a sovereign state w/projected deaths low-balled to 150 over the loss of a non-stealth, unmanned drone, particularly if you’ve been teasing it as ‘bait.’

    End of story.

    Fire Gumbo; castrate Pompeo. NOW.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  107. Besides, no one wants clowns like Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, or Chuck Schumer deciding foreign policy.

    Straw man. The power to declare war is NOT the same thing as deciding foreign policy. I’m pretty sure the founding fathers understood this point.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  108. Death penalty? You think that’s relevant and comparable to warfare? You live in a strange alternate universe, rcocean.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  109. Actually, Congress just need to enforce the War Power Act itself.

    Per wiki:
    The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

    Not sure the courts can step in to stop the Executive branch as I don’t think that’s been tested yet.

    But Congress? They have the power of the purse. They have the ability to stop war adventurism themselves (which is why I don’t think the courts would get involved, as Congress does have the means to “check” the executive here).

    whembly (4605df)

  110. @ RL formerly in Glendale (#100): How many more Americans killed and maimed by Iranian proxies and weapons since 2001 will it take to change your mind?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  111. I understood what sunk cost means, but I was struggling on how you thought that there isn’t a sunk cost with regards to our Iranian foreign policy.

    There may well be one, but there are other factors, too. There’s a “team” that we’ve put together to deal with Iran, and we can’t pretend that we are completely free agents. There usually aren’t team considerations in poker.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  112. Iran KNOWS if they escalate – Trump will respond proportionality.

    This is sadly true, and not a good thing at all. I want Iran to KNOW that if they escalate, or response may be very disproportionate and not something they should presume to calculate.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  113. All that is necessary is to warn Iran that they shouldn’t try to fine tune it.

    Trump can say that he himself what he is going to do – which is the truth.

    Sammy Finkelman (9974e8)

  114. Congress should never have delegated away its power to declare war as it has

    Congress never did. The War Powers Resolution was an attempt by Congress to rescue its power to declare war from the grasp of the Imperial Presidency in the aftermath of Vietnam.

    Prior to the WPR, Presidents asserted the power to conduct military operations without consulting Congress except for funding, and the Supreme Court agreed that the power of the purse was Congress’ main control (and was eventually used in Vietnam, and later in Central Ameridca).

    Every President since has stated that the WPR was an unconstitutional power grab BY CONGRESS, putting limits on the President’s CinC powers and his sole power to conduct foreign policy. And having said that most of them have, most of the time, adhered to its requirements.

    There was nothing to give away, it was an attempt to recover something long lost.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  115. Besides, no one wants clowns like Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, or Chuck Schumer deciding foreign policy.

    I think that, on any given question, I would rather have Mitt Romney making the decision that Donald Trump. Trump might actually be right some places where Mitt would be wrong, but it would be random chance versus reason, and that’s not the way to bet.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  116. whembly,

    I don’t read your NBC link to say what you think it says, but it may not matter since Trump has changed his story. See Update 2.

    DRJ (15874d)

  117. Death penalty? You think that’s relevant and comparable to warfare? You live in a strange alternate universe, rcocean.

    Of course its relevant. Its the state killing people. Its we Americans giving our Government the right to Kill people. Dropping a bomb on an Afgan village and killing people is in the same category as using state power to execute Joe Blow for raping/killiing a little girl. Its all the same. State power and killing.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  118. rcocean, Joe Blow is a criminal who’s been caught, arrested, given due process including a lawyer and a trial, plus appeals. The death penalty is not remotely the same thing as warfare, and I’m left to conclude that you understand neither.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  119. @ Patterico: You’ve been making war all these years you’ve been a homicide prosecutor — in rcocean’s parallel universe.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  120. @ Patterico: You’ve been making war all these years you’ve been a homicide prosecutor

    But he’s in California, which has a called a permanent cease-fire in that war 🙂

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  121. #118 @DRJ

    whembly,

    I don’t read your NBC link to say what you think it says, but it may not matter since Trump has changed his story. See Update 2.

    DRJ (15874d) — 6/21/2019 @ 3:44 pm

    …I’m not sure I’m misreading it.

    But your updated links provides a little bit more clarity.

    First, we had unnamed sources stating that the planes were in the air, implied that the green-light was already given and he changed his mind mid-strike. That doesn’t seem right.

    Second, Trump tweets and not surprisingly muddy the waters a bit, but really doesn’t clarify if he gave said green-light.

    Third, I posted that NBC link, and in that interview he stated that he never gave that green-light.

    Granted, what doesn’t add up to me is this: he claims that he didn’t get the estimate for collateral death till late in the deliberation. That is strange to me and I’m convinced he’s fibbing here. Because otherwise, it’d be really REALLY scary that his advisor didn’t inform him of this that late.

    It’s most likely spin as Allah stated that he’s either chickened out at the last minute, or this was a “face saving” for Iranian leadership that a commander went rogue.

    …so the big question is… now what?

    whembly (4605df)

  122. Trump tweeted “10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, …”

    He did not say 10 minutes before the order was given or the decision to attack was made. He said 10 minutes before the strike. Trump is the source, not unnamed sources, and now he has changed his story.

    DRJ (15874d)

  123. And that is why Popehat and Patterico focused on why Trump did not ask questions like this before ordering a strike. Now he has changed his story to say he did ask before the order to strike. Is it true? Who knows? We never know the truth with him.

    DRJ (15874d)

  124. plus, now it wasn’t 10 minutes, it was a half hour.

    DRJ (15874d)

  125. In fact, the munificent Papal Headgear was not supporting any strike on Iran. He was pointing out an obviou s flaw in Trump’s decision making process: if the question was that important, why didn’t Trump ask it much earlier in the process. The question is reasonable no matter what your position on war with Iran might be.

    Rcocean seems to have totally misunderstood Popehat.

    Kishnevi (c91988)

  126. #111 How many more Americans killed and maimed by Iranian proxies and weapons since 2001 will it take to change your mind?

    Not trying to be obtuse, but change my mind about what? Of course there can be exigent circumstances when any president would have to act, and would be derelict if he didn’t, e.g., if the Iranians commandeered a tanker or attacked a Navy ship and killed sailors no one should expect us to wait around for Congress to get involved to retaliate, and I would hope that our retaliation would be whatever it took to be effective and not hamstrung by concerns about “proportionality.”

    But in this latest incident, fortunately no Americans were maimed or killed. I’m glad we haven’t killed a bunch of people because of it, at least not yet. Maybe we should strike Iran in retaliation, and maybe kill even more than 150, but it we’re going to do that, let’s follow the Constitution as much as we can and have Congress authorize it. I don’t necessarily disagree with you about Iran — the wrongs they have committed against us since 1979 vastly outweigh, to me, their grievances about Mossadegh and all that. But I don’t like Congress shirking its responsibilities and ceding the power to authorize acts of war to any president.

    RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa)

  127. @ whembly: Before a POTUS can be briefed fully, he has to sit still for a full briefing.

    Trump won’t. He won’t read. He wants one-page memos with bullet points.

    I completely believe that he didn’t ask that question until the last minute, probably after Tucker asked it of him, and assured him that his superfans will forgive him anything, even a 180-degree pivot on a dime, and suggested that he needed a fig leaf for his fecklessness. Before that, Trump wouldn’t sit still for a comprehensive enough briefing to include anticipated casualty figures. What, give his top military and diplomatic advisers five minutes, and cut into his Executive Time watching Fox & Friends?

    Jonah Goldberg’s G-File email today had this observation:

    … The culture war is everything now, subsuming the political parties, economics and even foreign policy. That’s in part because Donald Trump is, perhaps second only to abortion, the most important touchstone in the culture war. For example, right now, you can see various conservatives struggling to figure out what they want to do about Iran because they want to support whatever Trump ends up doing. It’d be easy if Trump had a coherent and easily understood position on the question. He doesn’t. So yesterday morning, Trump lickspittle [heh!] Seb Gorka was positively tumescent about Donald Trump’s imminent strike on Iran. Then it didn’t happen. I don’t know what Trump will end up doing – no one does, including Trump – but you can be sure Gorka will hail it as brilliant no matter what. Bismarck may have said “No man is a hero to his valet” but he never met Gorka. To be fair, his sycophancy is cartoonish even for a Trump praetorian, but it is symptomatic of the larger problem.

    I differ only in two particulars: (1) Trump is now a bigger culture war issue than abortion. (2) Jonah hasn’t met rcocean, Harcourt Fenton Mudd, or Munroe, all of whom may fairly be described as Trump praetorians who are as enthusiastic as Gorka.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  128. Why is the consideration limited to “this latest incident,” RL formerly in Glendale? You think the Iranians were writing on a blank slate, absolved of all prior sins, before they shot down this drone?

    I repeat: How many more dead and maimed Americans will it take to change your mind about whether America should stay its hand over the prospect of 150 dead — most of whom would be Quds Force or other members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  129. It precisely because the vevak sepah pasdaran, has been responsible for 40 years of mayhem that one requires a decisive blow, one missile launcher or one naval base will not be enough. And consider their full missile air

    Narciso (2e50d8)

  130. ‘You open the ball on these people, and you have to go all the way…what are you prepared to do’ you think when missiles fall on manama and udeid, Schumer will go along

    Narciso (2e50d8)

  131. I don’t know how many drones just like this one are in the U.S. Air Force’s arsenal. Given its reported cost, I doubt there are many. It was unmanned, yes. It was vulnerable to shoot-down, yes. What was it for, though, and why did the Iranians choose it rather than something else?

    Because it was loaded with our most sophisticated surveillance gear, and they do not want us to know what they’re doing.

    Let’s say we have three more. If the Iranians shoot down each of them in sequence, no Americans will be killed. But we’ll be, metaphorically, blinded with respect to all the kinds of intelligence this kind of drone provides.

    American soldiers and sailors would certainly risk their own lives to protect an intelligence asset like this one if they were called by their country to do so. Should the fact that we’ve developed technology sufficient to spare them from that risk somehow make it okay for the Iranians to destroy our rare and incredibly expensive physical intelligence assets?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  132. (I ought have said, “U.S. military’s arsenal” in #133. This was technically a Navy drone.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  133. How about if the Iranians sink an American missile frigate, but the entire crew & officer complement escapes alive?

    Are we to hold our hands from retaliating because we might kill 150 Iranian combatants?

    The one thing that can be said for this fig leaf of an excuse is: Since the excuse is so ridiculous, the fig leaf probably still has room to hide Trump’s tiny penis.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  134. You are correct DRJ, Trump’s the source that precipitated Pat’s comment and I mentioned he muddied the waters up a ton by his twatting. But he has a history of either not being clear or being too simplistic or flat out exaggeration.

    He gets himself in trouble here because of that.

    Its definitely not a good look here.

    But we’re dealing with a situation that deserves more works than what twitter provides.

    whembly (4605df)

  135. #129 @Beldar.

    That is very concerning that Trump refuses to be engaged with the necessary briefings. I can’t defend that.

    As for your other post, I think more sanctions is required as a response for that downed drone.

    As for a hypothetical for a sunk missile frigate, even if the sailors survives? That’s a bridge too far for me that would require total decimation of all Iranian military assets.

    whembly (4605df)

  136. @136 *words not ‘works’. Wished wordpress had an edit function…

    whembly (4605df)

  137. They straight up stole one of our drones and made a mockery of it when Obama waffled. Now they blow one up. As far as I’m concerned, the US military should be sufficiently respected that this doesn’t happen. Even if that drone flies through Azadi tower shooting red white and blue smoke, they shouldn’t shoot it down.

    Trump’s leak of this military strike, and his last second waffling, are bluster. It’s like tweeting about how his button is bigger. It’s like warning Syria’s buddies about that Tomahawk strike. Trump wants our enemies to think he’s not one to piss off, but Cruz was wrong… Trump’s not one to make waves when there are real consequences.

    And to some extent that’s very good. I lost a lot of friends in Iraq in a friendly fire incident and I do not think war is anywhere near as worthwhile as I used to (the USA simply lacks any commitment if it means one political party letting the other be successful at anything). But if an Iranian refinery were to suddenly blow up, and a stealth bomber or 3 were to completely obliterate every suspected nuclear weapons facility, and Trump claimed it was fake news that we had anything to do with it, but tweeted a winking emoji, I’d be Ok with that.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  138. Joe Blow is a criminal who’s been caught, arrested, given due process including a lawyer and a trial, plus appeals. The death penalty is not remotely the same thing as warfare, and I’m left to conclude that you understand neither.

    Legalism and public policy/morality are two different things.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  139. #130

    I guess my disagreement is over whether “America should stay its hand…” I’m not saying America should stay its hand. All I’m saying is that neither Trump nor any president is America. Let Congress step up and not supinely let this president, or any president, make decisions like this on his or her own. I didn’t like it when Obama bombed in Libya or Clinton fired missiles into Afghanistan, not because the people we targeted didn’t have it coming, but because the executive isn’t supposed to engage in acts of war without Congress giving its assent. Then if anything goes wrong maybe Pelosi and Schumer would pause for a nanosecond or two before griping about it.

    Maybe I’m getting sentimental in my old age. We just had Memorial Day and I thought about the uncle I’m named after, who as a 19-year-old kid was killed in a stupid training crash when a couple of B-24s collided in Florida in 1943. But his death and the deaths of the other guys wasn’t completely pointless because WWII was a just war and the nation was fully behind it, and accidents happen. I don’t want current or future American soldiers or sailors dying in wars the country hasn’t gone into with eyes open. I don’t really care that much about any enemy but if we’re going to kill a bunch of Iranians, or anybody, then let’s do it because the country, through its elected representatives and not just the executive, has determined that it’s the right thing to do.

    RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa)

  140. It’d be easy if Trump had a coherent and easily understood position on the question. He doesn’t.

    Sorry, its Goldberg that doesn’t have a coherent policy on anything. Other than, Orange man bad, what is Golberg’s position? For the last three years, he’s been trying to position himself as some sort of Golden Mean, middle of the road, plague on both your houses, “Conservative” between Trump and hysterical Anti-American left. Usually, its “I like what he did, but Orange man is still bad.”

    Trump’s position is quite clear, and will win him votes. He doesn’t want war with Iran. He doesn’t want them to have Nukes. He wants sanctions to work. But if Iran pushes too far, he will push back.
    Common sense. And what is Goldberg’s Iran policy? He has none.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  141. trump said he didn’t want to retaliate if it killed 150 people, since we only lost a drone. Common sense to me.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  142. rcocean wrote (#143):

    trump said he didn’t want to retaliate if it killed 150 people, since we only lost a drone. Common sense to me.

    You mean the June 21 Trump. The June 20 Trump authorized preparations for the strike at a minimum, and I would wager a very, very large sum of money that he’d given approval: The military doesn’t set a time for a military strike on a whim.

    So which Trump was using common sense, and which Trump is an idiot, rcocean? It’s a binary choice.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  143. Ok, rcocean, what about Beldar’s question in 135? Would you let Iran destroy a frigate as long as no US personnel are hurt?

    DRJ (15874d)

  144. You mean the June 21 Trump. The June 20 Trump authorized preparations for the strike at a minimum, and I would wager a very, very large sum of money that he’d given approval: The military doesn’t set a time for a military strike on a whim.

    You’re lost me on this one. Trump said he agreed to a strike and ASSUMED it would be proportional – then found out it would cost 150 lives and cancelled. Did the Military change their death toll estimate? WE don’t know. Did the Military try to do a NO LIVES LOST response, and then decided it wasn’t possible? We don’t know.

    Bottom line. Trump is in a PERFECT position the next time Iran does something bad again. He restrained himself THIS TIME. But next time, he can say, hey, I TRIED to be reasonable but…

    rcocean (1a839e)

  145. Remember when Trump was going to BLOW UP THE WORLD over NK? That didn’t happen, did it? Remember when Trump was going to SELL OUT AMERICA when he met with NK or Putin? Yeah, that didn’t happen either.

    Excuse for not caring what Bill Kristol, Goldberg, Erickson, and Joe Scarborough say.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  146. (I ought have said guided missile destroyer. We have no more frigates in the U.S. Navy. The difference is immaterial to my hypothetical, though.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  147. Trump said he agreed to a strike and ASSUMED it would be proportional

    Where did this come from?

    DRJ (15874d)

  148. “How about if the Iranians sink an American missile frigate, but the entire crew & officer complement escapes alive?”
    Beldar (fa637a) — 6/21/2019 @ 5:26 pm

    How about if they destroy a box of MREs?

    This isn’t hard. Putting personnel in harm’s way is not in the same category as shooting down a drone.

    Munroe (306430)

  149. As Beldar noted above, shooting down a drone hurts our surveillance since we have limited assets. Probably a plane and pilot/crew will have to handle surveillance as our assets are depleted. Just putting them in the air increases the risk of harm. If you think this analysis us so easy, tell us the exact point you think the calculus changes. Or do you require an American death before Trump does anything?

    DRJ (15874d)

  150. “If you think this analysis us so easy, tell us the exact point you think the calculus changes. Or do you require an American death before Trump does anything?”
    DRJ (15874d) — 6/21/2019 @ 7:55 pm

    That cuts both ways, doesn’t it? A box of MREs isn’t enough? How about a truckload? Or, a warehouse full? At what point should the loss of inanimate objects provoke military retaliation with loss of life?

    As I clearly indicated, placing personnel in harm’s way is sufficient for such a response.

    Munroe (fe1e3d)

  151. Military personnel were in harm’s way. The Iranians claim they could have shot down a surveillance plane with 35 people but chose the drone instead. How long do you wait?

    DRJ (15874d)

  152. An Iranian SAM could shoot down a manned plane at any time. By your definition, just the fact that it can puts our personnel in harm’s way. Looks like we should’ve retaliated years ago just for this.

    Munroe (808123)

  153. How about if they’ve already been responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands of Americans, Munroe?

    This magnificent amnesia — history began on June 20, yesterday — is genuinely hilarious.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  154. “This magnificent amnesia — history began on June 20, yesterday — is genuinely hilarious.”
    Beldar (fa637a) — 6/21/2019 @ 8:45 pm

    No, seems that history began on January 20, 2017 — unless you can point to an instance where you called for a military strike years ago for this reason.

    If they have been killing and maiming our personnel, and I agree that they have by proxy, this has been going on for years — before Trump was president. Why is shooting down a drone suddenly the tipping point?

    Munroe (29eead)

  155. Bottom line. Trump is in a PERFECT position the next time Iran does something bad again. He restrained himself THIS TIME. But next time, he can say, hey, I TRIED to be reasonable but…

    “If you cross this line I draw in the sand I will … draw another line further back!”

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  156. Trump said he agreed to a strike and ASSUMED it would be proportional

    Where did this come from?

    Hint: It started with “Trump said”, so who cares? We already know a lie is involved.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  157. @145. Depends on where it’s disabled; say inside their territorial waters. You can pose hypotheticals forever. And then there’s always the unexpected; accidents when somebody down the line doesn’t get the word. Remember, NK grabbed the USS Pueblo claiming they were in territorial waters, held the crew for a time but kept the ship; it’s still on display; in 2001, the Chinese kept the Aries ‘intelligence’ plane forced down after colliding w/one of their fighters; U2s are on display in Russia and Cuba after the shootdowns; lost Rudolph traded for Powers. The Gulf of Tonkin ‘game’ cost us 58,000 lives and billions in treasure. So many examples of these cat and mouse games. The players have to leave the other guy an out or all hell will break loose. Diplomacy: overt, covert or back channel, is the wiser path.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  158. @141. Thing is, too many believe the ‘history’ of all this starts in 1979 when it really begins w/Ike, the Brits and the CIA coup back in ’53 installing the Shah. Iran has a long memory when it comes to that, their chief resource- oil and gas- and the wound has never really healed.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  159. @ Munroe, I’ve been writing — here and elsewhere, going back to the Bush-43 Administration — that we should quarantine Iran, i.e., impose a naval blockade and indict as much land-border commercial traffic as possible. You literally do not know what you’re talking about when you talk about me.

    And read what I wrote above (#14) regarding Iran’s effective repudiation of the what’s left of the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

    I look at history in context. Destroying an intelligence asset worth hundreds of millions of dollars is a perfectly appropriate tipping point, but my scales were tipped, as I say, years and years ago.

    You should stick to slavery and Holocaust jokes.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  160. In 1988, Iran’s mining of the Persian Gulf resulted in an American warship, the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts, striking a mine and sustaining heavy damage; but no American casualties were sustained and she was towed to Dubai, and she was deployed again in 1989 after repairs.

    Reagan nevertheless initiated Operation Praying Mantis, a series of targeted military strikes that sunk an Iranian frigate (with 45 fatalities), along with an Iranian gunboat (11 killed) and three speedboats. We also damaged another Iranian frigate, destroyed two oil platforms, and shot down an Iranian F-4 fighter. Total Iranian casualties were estimated to approach 100. Our Navy sustained two casualties from the crash of a Sea Cobra helicopter, but it showed no signs of combat damage and its loss was probably an operational accident.

    Was Operation Praying Mantis “disproportionate,” given not just the damage to the Roberts but Iran’s aggressive conduct since 1979? And are we to ignore the very pronounced and salutary effect it had on Iran’s aggression for a time? I submit to you that even with the benefit of hindsight — including the tragic accidental shoot-down of an Iranian passenger jet by the USS Vincennes shortly afterwards — Reagan was clearly acting appropriately to protect the United States and its allies.

    I’ve no doubt that the current mullahs now regard Trump as an even bigger pushover than Jimmy Carter had been. Think of that: Trump is worse than Jimmy Carter.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  161. “Reagan was clearly acting appropriately to protect the United States and its allies.”
    Beldar (fa637a) — 6/21/2019 @ 9:48 pm

    Yeah, appropriate— five years after the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983 which killed 241 of our personnel, “an Iranian operation from top to bottom.”

    Munroe (98b4e2)

  162. @ Munroe: There are plenty of others, but here’s an example in 2007 of me calling for an economic blockade of Iran, taking out their oil refinery with cruise missiles, “[a]ttriting their air force and navy in sharp, swift stages,” achieving air superiority over all of Iran and its coastlines, and sabotage and other covert ops.

    I have a very low tolerance for lazy people making false accusations about me, Munroe. I find that even less funny than slavery jokes.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  163. @133. ‘Given it’s reported cost, I doubt there are many.’

    Per Wikipedia, as of 2014, the U.S. inventory of operational RQ-4 Global Hawk UAVs numbered 33 and were dispersed in various configurations for operations with the services. Per the same source, in addition to the RQ-4 UAV ‘drones,’ the U.S. operates:

    7,362 RQ-11 Ravens; 990 AVWasp IIIs; 1,137 AV-RQ20 Pumas; 306 RQ-16 T-Hawks; 246 Predators & Grey Eagles; 126 MQ-9 Reapers; 491 RQ Shadows.

    And these are just the systems there is public info on in 2014; excluding any specialized black ops projects and, of course, space assets.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  164. @151. See #165. ‘Assets’ the U.S. ain’t short of for surveillance purposes.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  165. China as pointed out, along with the Europe would be most effectrf by a closure of the straights

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/06/on-the-question-of-trump-vs-iran.php

    Narciso (e49d7b)

  166. Again with the ajax, disco, if Carter had been less feckless, impossible, the revolution could have precluded by the summer of 1978 at the latest.

    Narciso (e49d7b)

  167. @167. Facts are stubborn things, narciso; so are Iranians with long memories. And the Gumbo minded.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  168. yes, they have bombed community centers in Buenos aires, murdered dissidents in Vienna and berlin, under the supervision of the ayatollah’s current standins, so what aren’t they capable of:

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/war-begins-how-iran-shot-down-us-rq-4n-surveillance-drone-63717

    narciso (d1f714)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1906 secs.