BC6, just yesterday: “Direct Iranian attacks on American forces or facilities are extremely unlikely.”
Welp, I was wrong there!
But I still don’t think the limited (ten missiles - apparently all intercepted) strike on Qatar is likely to escalate. It’s more of a signal. We shall see.
As far as military and geopolitical analyses go, you are a rock star! Lately I find myself becoming very tired of simplistic opinion commentators. There are far too many of these, many only pandering to specific audiences. Thank you again, and here is my paid subscription as well.
I appreciate your comprehensive analysis. I have also been following Janice Stein at the Munk School. The most terrifying thing is the incompetence in the WH and the mental impairment of its leader. 🇨🇦
I don't pretend to understand the military side of things to your extent. Signaling willingness to attack fixed installations seems stupid when important technology can be moved with days and weeks of notice, let alone years of strategic planning.
Two matters I would like your perspective on:
1) Aside from Iran, I can't imagine that any of the leadership of the surrounding Sunni nations are genuinely upset about this. From gold jets to the Gaza riviera (water provided by Israel), their public statements calling for "restraint" and expressing "deep concern" look like diplomatic theater to me. How threatening is Iran to other Gulf states when it's being bombed with impunity by Israel and the U.S.? The Straight of Hormuz is a key consideration, but - after all this - is the U.S. really going to let the Iranians play ball there?
The toddler-in-chief may have stumbled into the perfect position from his limited perspective. There are no immediate consequences to attacking a militarily degraded Iran. He appears tough on Fox News, Gulf states get higher oil revenues while maintaining plausible deniability, and Iran's proxy network is still reeling. Gulf states' shift toward "business-first mindset" makes sense when the business case now favors Iranian weakness. Future repercussions of an increasingly destabilized world order can always be blamed on future leaders.
2) Your point about "lukewarm" international support captures the real strategic cost. To me, this is Netanyahu's win - getting Trump onside while isolating America from traditional allies. Trump gets to feel like he's showing strength while the adults on the world stage are politely smiling at the toddler's "strategy."
At what point does NATO start recognizing that American commitments aren't worth the wind? When NATO's Secretary General is calling Israel's actions 'unilateral' and allies are describing US involvement as 'escalation' and calling for 'restraint,' the alliance credibility you mention is already eroding. Does that distance start taking shape this week?
Have been generally a quiet reader of your analysis of the state of affairs in the Canadian military, which I very much appreciate. On this latest piece I have a few questions/concerns - all in the spirit of an intellectual debate between people who seek to be informed. And I do wholeheartedly agree about the challenges of writing on this topic for the exact reasons you state in your preamble. But here are my concerns:
1. you put the reasons for Israeli strikes together as "preemptive", without distinguishing the strikes on nuclear-related targets (which I would also classify as preemptive) and conventional missile launchers and stockpiles, which I would classify as responsive to the October 2024 ballistic missile strikes by Iran.
2. you make a distinction between Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon and the capacity to have one. I submit that this distinction is moot. It suggests that the latter is somehow less dangerous than the former from a regime that is openly advocates for the destruction of America, Israel, and others. I think it is equally dangerous.
3. your point on IAEA compliance is unclear to me. In the past IAEA certified Iran compliance (putting the argument on whether it was truly so aside for the moment), but the most recent assessment was that Iran is not in compliance, which you also acknowledge in your article.
4. as you note, important questions remains, such as: (a) how much weapons-grade (or near weapons-grade) material Iran was able to stash away - Andrew Fox has a piece on that recently; (b) what is the state of Iran's industrial capacity to continue to advance its nuclear programme and produce ballistic missiles, drones and other materiel; (c) ultimately, how much of a set back is this for Iran's capacity to continue to threaten the region.
1. Yes, I was referring only to the strikes on nuclear facilities. Arguably, the strikes on missile complexes were in support. The focus of the article was on the nuclear side.
2. I disagree. Many countries have the capacity to have nuclear weapons but have disavowed them. Iran has claimed all along that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons. Until recently, it was beyond doubt that it did not possess the capacity to do so. It likely did not at the time of the Israeli attacks.
3. The question on IAEA non-compliance is somewhat distracting. The issues were with tracking and storage, not because Iran was obviously on the road to a nuclear weapon. There’s a big difference. Israel launched strikes ostensibly to prevent a “breakout”. There was nothing in any IAEA assessment (or any other non-Israeli assessment for that matter) that suggested a breakout was eminent.
4. I fear that much of Iran’s capability remains. No one series of strikes, no matter how devastating, will account for it all and I do not trust US statements in this regard.
I don’t see any plan. Trump is in the midst of congratulating himself while Iran has launched a largely performative strike on Qatar.
I have no faith in Washington’s judgement or decision-making ability. It is possible that Trump will use the Qatar “demonstration” as an excuse for more strikes, but that’s very unclear at present. I strongly suspect he’s in constant contact with Netanyahu, who is telling him what he wants him to hear.
I’d place a large wager that Israel attacks a US base and makes it look like it was from Iran. This is the surest way to get Trump to massively over react.
What are we to make of Trump's DNI, known-Kremlin asset Tulsi Gabbard, going public with U.S. intelligence that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon? I'll assume this was either at Putin's request, and if so the Russians either condoned the U.S. attack and set the provisions that Iran be forewarned -- or else they were caught having to defuse a bloody mess with their anti-Ukraine (and anti-NATO) ally Iran after Putin's puppet went rogue on him. I'd think the UAE and Saudis would have to be pretty ticked off now too.
BC6, just yesterday: “Direct Iranian attacks on American forces or facilities are extremely unlikely.”
Welp, I was wrong there!
But I still don’t think the limited (ten missiles - apparently all intercepted) strike on Qatar is likely to escalate. It’s more of a signal. We shall see.
As far as military and geopolitical analyses go, you are a rock star! Lately I find myself becoming very tired of simplistic opinion commentators. There are far too many of these, many only pandering to specific audiences. Thank you again, and here is my paid subscription as well.
Everything you said!
I appreciate your comprehensive analysis. I have also been following Janice Stein at the Munk School. The most terrifying thing is the incompetence in the WH and the mental impairment of its leader. 🇨🇦
Seems to me a reasonable, rational and considered argument that aligns closely to my own analysis.
Here's my Subscription.
An interesting and insightful post.
I don't pretend to understand the military side of things to your extent. Signaling willingness to attack fixed installations seems stupid when important technology can be moved with days and weeks of notice, let alone years of strategic planning.
Two matters I would like your perspective on:
1) Aside from Iran, I can't imagine that any of the leadership of the surrounding Sunni nations are genuinely upset about this. From gold jets to the Gaza riviera (water provided by Israel), their public statements calling for "restraint" and expressing "deep concern" look like diplomatic theater to me. How threatening is Iran to other Gulf states when it's being bombed with impunity by Israel and the U.S.? The Straight of Hormuz is a key consideration, but - after all this - is the U.S. really going to let the Iranians play ball there?
The toddler-in-chief may have stumbled into the perfect position from his limited perspective. There are no immediate consequences to attacking a militarily degraded Iran. He appears tough on Fox News, Gulf states get higher oil revenues while maintaining plausible deniability, and Iran's proxy network is still reeling. Gulf states' shift toward "business-first mindset" makes sense when the business case now favors Iranian weakness. Future repercussions of an increasingly destabilized world order can always be blamed on future leaders.
2) Your point about "lukewarm" international support captures the real strategic cost. To me, this is Netanyahu's win - getting Trump onside while isolating America from traditional allies. Trump gets to feel like he's showing strength while the adults on the world stage are politely smiling at the toddler's "strategy."
At what point does NATO start recognizing that American commitments aren't worth the wind? When NATO's Secretary General is calling Israel's actions 'unilateral' and allies are describing US involvement as 'escalation' and calling for 'restraint,' the alliance credibility you mention is already eroding. Does that distance start taking shape this week?
Have been generally a quiet reader of your analysis of the state of affairs in the Canadian military, which I very much appreciate. On this latest piece I have a few questions/concerns - all in the spirit of an intellectual debate between people who seek to be informed. And I do wholeheartedly agree about the challenges of writing on this topic for the exact reasons you state in your preamble. But here are my concerns:
1. you put the reasons for Israeli strikes together as "preemptive", without distinguishing the strikes on nuclear-related targets (which I would also classify as preemptive) and conventional missile launchers and stockpiles, which I would classify as responsive to the October 2024 ballistic missile strikes by Iran.
2. you make a distinction between Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon and the capacity to have one. I submit that this distinction is moot. It suggests that the latter is somehow less dangerous than the former from a regime that is openly advocates for the destruction of America, Israel, and others. I think it is equally dangerous.
3. your point on IAEA compliance is unclear to me. In the past IAEA certified Iran compliance (putting the argument on whether it was truly so aside for the moment), but the most recent assessment was that Iran is not in compliance, which you also acknowledge in your article.
4. as you note, important questions remains, such as: (a) how much weapons-grade (or near weapons-grade) material Iran was able to stash away - Andrew Fox has a piece on that recently; (b) what is the state of Iran's industrial capacity to continue to advance its nuclear programme and produce ballistic missiles, drones and other materiel; (c) ultimately, how much of a set back is this for Iran's capacity to continue to threaten the region.
Thanks for your writing.
1. Yes, I was referring only to the strikes on nuclear facilities. Arguably, the strikes on missile complexes were in support. The focus of the article was on the nuclear side.
2. I disagree. Many countries have the capacity to have nuclear weapons but have disavowed them. Iran has claimed all along that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons. Until recently, it was beyond doubt that it did not possess the capacity to do so. It likely did not at the time of the Israeli attacks.
3. The question on IAEA non-compliance is somewhat distracting. The issues were with tracking and storage, not because Iran was obviously on the road to a nuclear weapon. There’s a big difference. Israel launched strikes ostensibly to prevent a “breakout”. There was nothing in any IAEA assessment (or any other non-Israeli assessment for that matter) that suggested a breakout was eminent.
4. I fear that much of Iran’s capability remains. No one series of strikes, no matter how devastating, will account for it all and I do not trust US statements in this regard.
Thanks for the comment!
Thank you for this exploration. Question - is there any indication, whatsoever, as to any plan, whatsoever, going forward?
Or are events ongoing likely to resemble a angry toddler repeatedly getting stung as he's whacking a hornets nest?
I don’t see any plan. Trump is in the midst of congratulating himself while Iran has launched a largely performative strike on Qatar.
I have no faith in Washington’s judgement or decision-making ability. It is possible that Trump will use the Qatar “demonstration” as an excuse for more strikes, but that’s very unclear at present. I strongly suspect he’s in constant contact with Netanyahu, who is telling him what he wants him to hear.
I think I’m still 90% accurate, but we shall see.
The most clear-eyed, level-headed, unbiased piece I've ever seen on the Middle East.
I’d place a large wager that Israel attacks a US base and makes it look like it was from Iran. This is the surest way to get Trump to massively over react.
What are we to make of Trump's DNI, known-Kremlin asset Tulsi Gabbard, going public with U.S. intelligence that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon? I'll assume this was either at Putin's request, and if so the Russians either condoned the U.S. attack and set the provisions that Iran be forewarned -- or else they were caught having to defuse a bloody mess with their anti-Ukraine (and anti-NATO) ally Iran after Putin's puppet went rogue on him. I'd think the UAE and Saudis would have to be pretty ticked off now too.
I hope you find some time to read what I have written. Your analysis is very good.
I have no doubt that the felon is doing all he’s doing to be able to gain more “emergency powers.” Keep resisting the takeover America,!