70% of Michigan 12th District, Detroit's western suburbs, including heavily Arab and other Muslim Dearborn. Real good test for Caplan thesis on assimilation.
Perhaps. I should be clearer that I'm speaking to the assimilation point. It was Muslim parents that took their gripe with woke education to the Supreme Court and won.
Do you really think Germany and Japan are the correct analogs here? There is only a 3-4 week air campaign stated so far. If anything it seems more like Libya
From VJ Day looking back 80 years was to Appomattox, and so the labor-intenstive, grinding-attrition nature of the conflict ending with orderly, gentlemanly surrender on the Missouri followed by occupation and politically-supervised "reconstruction" could be understood by analogy and metaphor to what had transpired several generations beforehand. My guess is that the period of applicable historical metaphors that would provide lessons for how best to conduct current armed conflict operations has shrunk a lot and will continue to shrink.
Yes, I immediately thought of the same country though I still haven't really thought through how apt it is. Maybe the question is whether it will be more like Libya or Iraq though again, I haven't really thought it through.
This is a painful thing to read. Sounds like a GWB Admin comment right after Saddam was toppled: no understanding of earlier history, and no understanding of the complexities to come.
I dunno, I think a lot of people are not considering the result from Japan enough, so I was happy to see it called out.
Unlike with Germany, the Allies in Japan were completely open about camping out in the losing country and being completely overbearing over the course of many years. We flew fighter plane battalions overhead just to rub it in and make it ultra clear which way this was all going to go.
If we think it's not okay to rape people at a music festival, but Iran goes on supporting Hamas anyway, then at some point there has to be assertiveness, or nothing will change.
Japan with WW2 gives us a model for how that change can ever happen. Post-war Japan kept its religion but had to give up on bombing all the infidels. In fact, religion blossomed in post-war Japan.
One can only wait to see how it proceeds from here- the die has been cast. I don't believe ground troops are in the cards here so the outcome will rest on whether or not the opposition in Iran is strong enough to throw the Islamists out of power (I am doubtful about this but hopeful, too).
We have created a catastrophe in Iran that will last for decades, create anarchy and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. We have no long term plan. Trump doesn't give a crap about the Iranian people as you well know. He has two motivations: do Netanyahu's bidding (Epstein kompromat) and leave scorched earth for whoever succeeds him if he can't fix the elections.
You may know more about WWII than I do, but I don't believe that we decapitated the Japanese regime at all. After all, the head honcho stayed in place.
Portraying John Lennon as a Vietnam war supporter is really offensive. He simply disliked anyone with a small mind (except Yoko.)
A theory that makes sense to me is that the neutralization of the Iranian regime is part of Trump's China strategy. The US is systematically taking out all of China's 'friends' and controls the supply of oil that China needs to threaten anything beyond Taiwan, which will discourage China from invading Taiwan in the first place. Cuba will be next. China can keep North Korea, but the US wants China to be like India and not undermine the US empire. Specifically, the US wants China to stop supporting Russia and put pressure on it instead. That leaves an isolated Putin and his nukes as the true risk to the world. Fortunately, Putin doesn't seem to be from the messianic class of tyrant. As long as Saudi Arabia turns on the oil taps and the US Navy can keep the Straits of Hormuz open, the Iranians can sort things out amongst themselves with the help of the West's intelligence agencies. The US empire is striking back.
All of the above works: Subject to the availability of supply from Russia, control of the Straits of Hormuz gives the US a veto over China's actions (as China's control of rare earth minerals seems to give China a veto over the US -- for now).
This perspective seems to me to be ignoring both constitutional and practical considerations in favor of culture warring.
First, constitutionally, it ought to be clear that the President has absolutely no authority to unilaterally initiate non-emergency military action like this without securing the approval of Congress. This isn't a legalistic quibble: the power to declare war, much like the power to tax and spend, was rightly deemed dangerous enough by the Framers that it could not be entrusted to a single person, and had to be firmly under legislative control. Libertarians used to understand this, and to object to the various ways in which presidents of both parties eroded this protection against tyranny in the post-WW2 era. Whether you agree or disagree with the particular judgment this particular president has made, you should be horrified that he is claiming the power to make it by unilateral decree.
Second, practically, we have now had three instances this century (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) in which the US went to war with a Middle Eastern country on the grounds that that country's evil regime presented a threat to national and/or world security and had to be overthrown. In all those cases, the regime really was evil, periodically belligerent, and terroristic. In all those cases, people who opposed the war were smeared as anti-American radical leftists in league with Islamist terrorists. And in all those cases, the war went much worse than the supporters predicted, and did much less to spread security, freedom, or democracy than they hoped, and the warnings of the opponents were largely vindicated. What makes supporters of this war think that this time will be different?
The political ramifications of this are worth weighing against the potential benefits. The optimistic scenario is what Glenn Reynolds outlined: the regime falls, a friendly successor government is formed, and it secures peace in the Middle East among Israel, the new Iran, and the Arab states. China suffers from its oil supply being choked off. At the same time, the demonstration of American power makes it rethink invading Taiwan, and its new anti-American axis is broken without Iran. Meanwhile, the domestic situation in the US calms down, setting the GOP up well for the midterms.
The pessimistic scenario is what Rod Dreher speculates could happen, where Western Europe gets dragged into the conflict, and those countries erupt into civil war due to a Muslim backlash or potential Iranian sleeper cells. Meanwhile, the price of oil surges, Iran devolves into a situation like Libya because the Trump administration and Netanyahu's government don't have a nation-building plan for when this is over, and there is a major backlash in the midterms and in 2028, which puts the left back in power. I am either too ignorant or too humble of my own knowledge to say which of those scenarios is the most likely to play out.
For what it is worth, this Substack article argues that the Iran operation is ultimately all about China: https://www.zinebriboua.com/p/the-iran-question-is-all-about-china. Among other aspects of the relationship between Iran and China, the author explains how China has been helping rebuild Iran's military capabilities. In my view, there is a fundamental inconsistency between supporting the US intervention in Iran and supporting 'free trade' with China.
Positive scenario has some high positive value, maybe $1 trillion.
Negative has some large negative value, maybe $-1 trillion.
Those who think it's 80% think the expected outcome is 800-200 billion, = 600 billion.
Those who think it's 60% negative expect 400-600 = -(200) billion.
All decision makers estimate, or guess, at the probabilities of good or bad outcome.
Most outcomes are also quite subjective, some might think the odds are 50-50 but the positive is $2 trillion vs only $-1 trillion.
Then there are also middle alternatives, like a small civil war with a weaker Iran, but more like Argentina after the Falklands than either Japan or Libya; no major backlashes, big reduction in ME terrorism, but not real peace.
For the decision to go in, valuing continued Mullah rule without attack would have to be taken in; most think it was terrible. Maybe $-500 billion if no attack had happened. That option is now already gone.
Good analysis, with just one small correction- Netanyahu isn’t looking for nation building plan. Whether you like the guy or don’t (I don’t), Israel is justly looking to overcome an existential threat from an evil Islamic power. If you saw the damage one ballistic missiles did when hitting a bomb shelter (9 people dead) or exploding in the street without hitting a building (which still resulted in an entire apartment building collapsing) you’d understand the threat of Iran having thousands of those against a tiny country like a Israel.
Hopefully Trump has no expectations about what succeeds the Ayatollah, including another Ayatollah. People have a funny definition of “stability” if that’s what they think has prevailed up until a couple days ago.
Probably have to do it all again in 30 years, if we are still something of a country. That’s not an argument against, necessarily.
Noah Smith posited that when you are a hegemon, which we are not now, it “restrains your actions”. Thus he can paint this action as a sign of our diminishment, as against what Trump obviously believes it to be: a necessary show of strength in a world that has grown accustomed to seeing America as weak. And maybe so, but then Smith’s formula would give you no way to determine if you were capable of action anymore, and would become indistinguishable from impotence, and ultimately, vulnerability.
Impotence sounds good to many commenters, I realize. Including some brand new ones …
I hope if they see it realized in their lifetimes, which seems likely, that it works out as well as hoped.
I think we saw a glimpse of how impotence, or perhaps I should see the perception of impotence, 'works out' during the Biden administration. For example, while it is true that the 'root causes' of the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia are complicated and historical, if you were to ask me why Putin chose to launch an invasion of Ukraine when he did, my gut tells me that the timing was dictated by the Biden administration's projection of weakness, or impotence, as you put it. As a former KGB agent, or perhaps simply as a Russian, Putin instinctively looks for signs and symptoms of weakness and impotence in potential rivals. The Biden administration projected weakness and impotence in many ways, including of course the obvious senility of Biden himself, coupled with things like the proliferation of trannies and tranny influencers and the promotion of women in the US military, the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the open borders policy. I think the election of Harris would have perpetuated and probably exacerbated the perception of weakness and impotence. On average, women are inherently weaker than men, both physically and because of their empathetic biases. For that reason, I am not in favor of the election of any woman to the Presidency of the USA. But Harris was a particularly weak and impotent specimen. I shudder to think what would have happened had the election gone the other way. But as you say, we will likely find out at some point.
I’ve thought, but haven’t had a chance to see, that it would be interesting if a woman executive in maybe a Hillary Clinton mold might not turn out to be extremely hawkish. Like if Hillary Clinton had been president when 9/11 happened, say. Sorry to use an example many commenters don’t care for, but I can’t think of anybody right now that comes to mind as a strong woman politician. Just an impression I have from knowing women.
But everything is very changed now and I don’t have any sense of what younger people are like.
I'm no fan of Hillary, but I don't think she is senile and at least intellectually she is far superior to Harris. However, she was Secretary of State under Obama, and although it might not be fair to blame her, foreign policy during that period also projected impotence: we bribed Iran to accept an agreement that didn't solve the nuclear proliferation problem; Putin annexed Crimea (which may or may not have had something to do with our meddling in Ukraine depending on whose narrative you believe); then there were the fiascos in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan.
I'll say one thing in Biden's favor -- he was right to withdraw from Afghanistan, regardless of the way it was done, and unlike Trump, he had the courage, or perhaps the foolishness, to pull the trigger in his first term. The worst aspects of the withdrawal (the death of military personnel as a result of a terrorist attack, the decision to leave behind valuable equipment) might have been avoidable had the withdrawal been better managed, but the consequences, particularly the return to power of the Taliban, would have been a disaster no matter what. Trump owes a debt of gratitude to Biden for taking the hit, although he would never acknowledge that. It was Obama who made the decision to expand our military presence in Afghanistan, after campaigning on the premise that the Iraq war was a mistake. That never made any sense, and in my view was a cynical ploy to keep the MIC happy. But admittedly my judgement on Obama is clouded.
I don't know if it would have made any difference, but I will point out that Hillary was no longer SecState when Russia attacked Crimea (2014) and Obama made the deal with Iran (2015).
I agree. I think Hillary is/was strong in some respects, but really bad in other respects. Better than an enfeebled Biden, though. I do think it's possible to have a good woman president, just not any of the ones currently on offer (Harris, AOC, etc.). Someone like Margaret Thatcher...
Margaret Thatcher could rise from the grave and I would still be reluctant to vote for her, but I don't think it is necessarily an accident that women like Thatcher and Gold Meir rose to power in their respective countries, and established reputations as tough PMs, prior to the advent of feminism, or at least before feminist ideology became entrenched. The post-feminist wave of female politicians seems to me particularly unimpressive, including on the Republican/conservative side (eg. Haley). Maybe having to overcome sexism, as opposed to being indoctrinated to believe that women are equal or superior to men, breeds stronger women. The current Japanese PM may be a throwback to Thatcher in that regard.
"The latest blow to Starmer was a stunning loss Friday in a parliamentary vote in Manchester, in which his Labour Party slid to a weak third, hemorrhaging votes on both the right and left.
Starmer was already politically hobbled by the arrest this week of Peter Mandelson, the prime minister’s hand-picked ambassador to the United States. But even before that, voters were souring on Starmer, who was the first left-of-center head of government in the U.K. after nearly 15 years of conservative rule.
In a weekly national tracking poll from before Mandelson’s arrest, the Labour Party had less support than the nationalist Reform UK party, with Reform UK at 28% and Labour at 22%. The Conservative Party, which had provided the five prime ministers that preceded Starmer, was a close third, with 20% support. Labour had a comfortable lead over the two right-of-center parties as recently as December."
"Labour, which took the Greater Manchester seat with more than 50% of the vote in 2024, was pushed into third place behind Reform UK - a result which will increase the pressure on Sir Keir Starmer's leadership."
It appears to me Labour was the party most assiduously courting the radical Muslim vote, and they couldn't keep it even before the UK became one of the only Islamic countries refusing to cooperate with the US in striking Iran. Herr Starmer is a weak horse and nobody is going to bet on him.
These Muslim votes are by no means guaranteed to go to the left. Because, actually, the left does face some strong competition for the Muslim vote. From the farther left.
I hear a lot of complaints that there is no plan. As if Liberation was not a plan. If you accept that the majority of people in Iran hate the theocratic regime (they do -- see Persepolis, 2022 riots), then it follows liberation is the best plan, and better than a prescription. Biden and Obama missed the opprotunity to simply HELP the Iranians overthrow their authoritarians.
Ironically, don't these same critics argue that the U.S. plan in Iraq wasn't a good model? Alas, there is no pleasing some people, but I am very happy to see an evil dictator fall. The Ayatollah was worse than Hitler toward his own people and a constant nuclear threat to America.
"the Democrats will face difficulties." Let us fervently hope & pray they do, especially the difficulty of losing all their elections. They boil with rage at anyone who has the unmitigated gall to defend themselves.
I Guess illegally attacking another sovereign country means nothing. "No Kings" takes on an even more urgent meaning. "A Republic if you can keep it" indeed.
This is an important question, but I don’t see the current conflict in Iran as “illegal,” at least not in any significant way as measured by current American norms, attitudes, and morals. Was this conflict initiated in an unconstitutional way? Perhaps it was, but we need to distinguish between law and legislation according to Hayek’s writings. To improve the situation, I think we need to discuss how technology has reduced the costs of such conflicts, and how those lowered costs impact the American people and their interest level in discussing constitutional matters that fall below their level of interest.
For example, the posted speed limit is 55mph, yet everyone knows the actual speed limit is 11 over.
So it is with this conflict. Congress must approve war, but this conflict apparently doesn’t reach the threshold of war so the American people don’t find it unconstitutional. Hence, it doesn’t violate the law. It only violates written legislation.
Spin it as you like. Invading a sovereign country on the president's orders alone is clearly unconstitutional. It is indeed ironic that Republicans have now abandoned Republican constitutional order.
The phrase "invading a sovereign country" implies war, but "dropping and firing projectiles on a sovereign country" may not meet most Americans' definition of war.
I probably care about the Constitution more than 99% of Americans. My goal here is to understand and improve the situation, so we can live better lives. Let's consider the bigger picture:
Since World War II, Congress has not formally declared war, yet the U.S. has fought major conflicts—including the Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, War in Afghanistan, Iraq War, the Libya intervention, and the U.S. intervention in Syria.
Some were backed by congressional authorizations (Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq), while others proceeded with little or no specific congressional approval (Korea, Libya, Syria).
1. Korean War (1950–1953)
* No declaration of war
* No specific congressional authorization
2. Vietnam War (major U.S. involvement 1964–1973)
* No declaration of war
* Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964), which functioned as broad authorization
3. Persian Gulf War (1991)
* No declaration of war
* Congress passed an AUMF authorizing force against Iraq
Given this extraordinarily successful record, My point still stands. In fact, makes it even more important that Congress provide the necessary authorisation.
I hope that at least after the event there is a new understanding on both sides that this cannot be the way forward. I have no confidence that anything Congress does will limit Trump, at least until after November and probably not even then. the courts move so slowly and appear - like the Warren court - to be making it up as they go.
The question is really whether both sides can take a step back and - as the SC has repeatedly asked - reassert the authority of Congress. I suspect not. A new and much better drafted War Powers Act would be a good start.
"Invade" has a very specific meaning to most people -- boots on the ground. Your bias does you no good, for someone who claims that quibbling over "illegal" is spinning.
I take back the word invade. However, I don't think anyone believes that you have to Invade somewhere to be in a war. Dropping bombs on a country is actually an act of war.
that's not my point. I don't have any principled objection to declaring war on Iran. I think it might be dumb, but as you say there are plenty of reasons to do so.
I do object to Trump trampling on the Constitution and abrogating powers to the president that are explicitly allocated to the Congress. Like the founders, I don't want any single person making the decision to go to war. and unless we are living in Putin's world, this is not a policing action. it is war.
All true. And I have raised no argument against a war for resume change or any other reason. However, it's not just up to Trump to go to war. The constitution is very clear on this. There is no imminent that, there is no emergency to justify action without congressional approval.
Actually there was an immediate threat, if Israel attacked the Iranians would retaliate against the US. Israel was going to attack. Trump’s attack hugely reduced Iran’s ability to kill Americans.
Iran attacking Israel justified Israeli self defence.
“The anti-Israel main dish served by the Democratic Party will be accompanied by a large helping of anti-Americanism. The latter will not be popular in the electorate at large. Many Democrats will want to tamp down on anti-Americanism. The question is whether the patriots will succeed, or whether instead they will be self-marginalizing—the equivalent of #neverTrump Republicans. Either way, the Democrats will face difficulties.”
I agree entirely with this thesis, as it is current and recent past reality that shows no signs of doing anything but intensifying.
“The question is whether the patriots will succeed, or whether instead they will be self-marginalizing” - but this question answers itself, given that “patriotism” hasn’t been a positive word in the Dem Party for a long time, and is now an explicitly negative word in that party.
Rashida Tlaib tweeted: “Both the U.S. and genocidal Israel doesn't care about the laws. This is who they are.”
To a sitting US congresswoman the US is a “they”.
Who votes for people like her?
70% of Michigan 12th District, Detroit's western suburbs, including heavily Arab and other Muslim Dearborn. Real good test for Caplan thesis on assimilation.
These are the same voters that gave the right a victory against LGBTQI pedagogy, otoh
No, I doubt it is the same voters.
67% of those Michigan 12th voters voted for Kamala, only 29% of that district voted for Trump.
Perhaps. I should be clearer that I'm speaking to the assimilation point. It was Muslim parents that took their gripe with woke education to the Supreme Court and won.
Do you really think Germany and Japan are the correct analogs here? There is only a 3-4 week air campaign stated so far. If anything it seems more like Libya
From VJ Day looking back 80 years was to Appomattox, and so the labor-intenstive, grinding-attrition nature of the conflict ending with orderly, gentlemanly surrender on the Missouri followed by occupation and politically-supervised "reconstruction" could be understood by analogy and metaphor to what had transpired several generations beforehand. My guess is that the period of applicable historical metaphors that would provide lessons for how best to conduct current armed conflict operations has shrunk a lot and will continue to shrink.
Yes, I immediately thought of the same country though I still haven't really thought through how apt it is. Maybe the question is whether it will be more like Libya or Iraq though again, I haven't really thought it through.
Think Yugoslavia breakup, Serbs, Croats, Kosovo (Albanian Muslim).
Is there a civil war?
Maybe "Velvet" like Czechoslovakia, or death to dictator like Romania.
This is a painful thing to read. Sounds like a GWB Admin comment right after Saddam was toppled: no understanding of earlier history, and no understanding of the complexities to come.
I dunno, I think a lot of people are not considering the result from Japan enough, so I was happy to see it called out.
Unlike with Germany, the Allies in Japan were completely open about camping out in the losing country and being completely overbearing over the course of many years. We flew fighter plane battalions overhead just to rub it in and make it ultra clear which way this was all going to go.
If we think it's not okay to rape people at a music festival, but Iran goes on supporting Hamas anyway, then at some point there has to be assertiveness, or nothing will change.
Japan with WW2 gives us a model for how that change can ever happen. Post-war Japan kept its religion but had to give up on bombing all the infidels. In fact, religion blossomed in post-war Japan.
The title is a bit bland.
One can only wait to see how it proceeds from here- the die has been cast. I don't believe ground troops are in the cards here so the outcome will rest on whether or not the opposition in Iran is strong enough to throw the Islamists out of power (I am doubtful about this but hopeful, too).
For this exact reason, it isn't likely to be the "decisive battle."
Pay now or pay later….Iran at a low power point now or later with nuclear capabilities reaching our shores.
Good post. Thank you Arnold.
We have created a catastrophe in Iran that will last for decades, create anarchy and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. We have no long term plan. Trump doesn't give a crap about the Iranian people as you well know. He has two motivations: do Netanyahu's bidding (Epstein kompromat) and leave scorched earth for whoever succeeds him if he can't fix the elections.
You may know more about WWII than I do, but I don't believe that we decapitated the Japanese regime at all. After all, the head honcho stayed in place.
Portraying John Lennon as a Vietnam war supporter is really offensive. He simply disliked anyone with a small mind (except Yoko.)
A theory that makes sense to me is that the neutralization of the Iranian regime is part of Trump's China strategy. The US is systematically taking out all of China's 'friends' and controls the supply of oil that China needs to threaten anything beyond Taiwan, which will discourage China from invading Taiwan in the first place. Cuba will be next. China can keep North Korea, but the US wants China to be like India and not undermine the US empire. Specifically, the US wants China to stop supporting Russia and put pressure on it instead. That leaves an isolated Putin and his nukes as the true risk to the world. Fortunately, Putin doesn't seem to be from the messianic class of tyrant. As long as Saudi Arabia turns on the oil taps and the US Navy can keep the Straits of Hormuz open, the Iranians can sort things out amongst themselves with the help of the West's intelligence agencies. The US empire is striking back.
I may be off on my geography, but it seems to me that closing the Strait of Hormuz is worse for China than just about anyone else.
China can buy on the world market, from the Russians. But America's friends and clients in the Gulf can't make any money. Surely it is worse for them.
Similarly, it is bad for India which is now prevented from buying Russian oil.
China buys 23% of its oil from China. It can’t replace it with oil from Russia diminishing capacity.
All of the above works: Subject to the availability of supply from Russia, control of the Straits of Hormuz gives the US a veto over China's actions (as China's control of rare earth minerals seems to give China a veto over the US -- for now).
This perspective seems to me to be ignoring both constitutional and practical considerations in favor of culture warring.
First, constitutionally, it ought to be clear that the President has absolutely no authority to unilaterally initiate non-emergency military action like this without securing the approval of Congress. This isn't a legalistic quibble: the power to declare war, much like the power to tax and spend, was rightly deemed dangerous enough by the Framers that it could not be entrusted to a single person, and had to be firmly under legislative control. Libertarians used to understand this, and to object to the various ways in which presidents of both parties eroded this protection against tyranny in the post-WW2 era. Whether you agree or disagree with the particular judgment this particular president has made, you should be horrified that he is claiming the power to make it by unilateral decree.
Second, practically, we have now had three instances this century (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) in which the US went to war with a Middle Eastern country on the grounds that that country's evil regime presented a threat to national and/or world security and had to be overthrown. In all those cases, the regime really was evil, periodically belligerent, and terroristic. In all those cases, people who opposed the war were smeared as anti-American radical leftists in league with Islamist terrorists. And in all those cases, the war went much worse than the supporters predicted, and did much less to spread security, freedom, or democracy than they hoped, and the warnings of the opponents were largely vindicated. What makes supporters of this war think that this time will be different?
The political ramifications of this are worth weighing against the potential benefits. The optimistic scenario is what Glenn Reynolds outlined: the regime falls, a friendly successor government is formed, and it secures peace in the Middle East among Israel, the new Iran, and the Arab states. China suffers from its oil supply being choked off. At the same time, the demonstration of American power makes it rethink invading Taiwan, and its new anti-American axis is broken without Iran. Meanwhile, the domestic situation in the US calms down, setting the GOP up well for the midterms.
The pessimistic scenario is what Rod Dreher speculates could happen, where Western Europe gets dragged into the conflict, and those countries erupt into civil war due to a Muslim backlash or potential Iranian sleeper cells. Meanwhile, the price of oil surges, Iran devolves into a situation like Libya because the Trump administration and Netanyahu's government don't have a nation-building plan for when this is over, and there is a major backlash in the midterms and in 2028, which puts the left back in power. I am either too ignorant or too humble of my own knowledge to say which of those scenarios is the most likely to play out.
For what it is worth, this Substack article argues that the Iran operation is ultimately all about China: https://www.zinebriboua.com/p/the-iran-question-is-all-about-china. Among other aspects of the relationship between Iran and China, the author explains how China has been helping rebuild Iran's military capabilities. In my view, there is a fundamental inconsistency between supporting the US intervention in Iran and supporting 'free trade' with China.
Excellent decision analysis problem lay out.
Positive scenario has some high positive value, maybe $1 trillion.
Negative has some large negative value, maybe $-1 trillion.
Those who think it's 80% think the expected outcome is 800-200 billion, = 600 billion.
Those who think it's 60% negative expect 400-600 = -(200) billion.
All decision makers estimate, or guess, at the probabilities of good or bad outcome.
Most outcomes are also quite subjective, some might think the odds are 50-50 but the positive is $2 trillion vs only $-1 trillion.
Then there are also middle alternatives, like a small civil war with a weaker Iran, but more like Argentina after the Falklands than either Japan or Libya; no major backlashes, big reduction in ME terrorism, but not real peace.
For the decision to go in, valuing continued Mullah rule without attack would have to be taken in; most think it was terrible. Maybe $-500 billion if no attack had happened. That option is now already gone.
Good analysis, with just one small correction- Netanyahu isn’t looking for nation building plan. Whether you like the guy or don’t (I don’t), Israel is justly looking to overcome an existential threat from an evil Islamic power. If you saw the damage one ballistic missiles did when hitting a bomb shelter (9 people dead) or exploding in the street without hitting a building (which still resulted in an entire apartment building collapsing) you’d understand the threat of Iran having thousands of those against a tiny country like a Israel.
Hopefully Trump has no expectations about what succeeds the Ayatollah, including another Ayatollah. People have a funny definition of “stability” if that’s what they think has prevailed up until a couple days ago.
Probably have to do it all again in 30 years, if we are still something of a country. That’s not an argument against, necessarily.
Noah Smith posited that when you are a hegemon, which we are not now, it “restrains your actions”. Thus he can paint this action as a sign of our diminishment, as against what Trump obviously believes it to be: a necessary show of strength in a world that has grown accustomed to seeing America as weak. And maybe so, but then Smith’s formula would give you no way to determine if you were capable of action anymore, and would become indistinguishable from impotence, and ultimately, vulnerability.
Impotence sounds good to many commenters, I realize. Including some brand new ones …
I hope if they see it realized in their lifetimes, which seems likely, that it works out as well as hoped.
How are we not a hegemon now??
Is this your view, or Noah’s?
There is no longer a single hegemon, is the idea, surely.
I think we saw a glimpse of how impotence, or perhaps I should see the perception of impotence, 'works out' during the Biden administration. For example, while it is true that the 'root causes' of the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia are complicated and historical, if you were to ask me why Putin chose to launch an invasion of Ukraine when he did, my gut tells me that the timing was dictated by the Biden administration's projection of weakness, or impotence, as you put it. As a former KGB agent, or perhaps simply as a Russian, Putin instinctively looks for signs and symptoms of weakness and impotence in potential rivals. The Biden administration projected weakness and impotence in many ways, including of course the obvious senility of Biden himself, coupled with things like the proliferation of trannies and tranny influencers and the promotion of women in the US military, the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the open borders policy. I think the election of Harris would have perpetuated and probably exacerbated the perception of weakness and impotence. On average, women are inherently weaker than men, both physically and because of their empathetic biases. For that reason, I am not in favor of the election of any woman to the Presidency of the USA. But Harris was a particularly weak and impotent specimen. I shudder to think what would have happened had the election gone the other way. But as you say, we will likely find out at some point.
I’ve thought, but haven’t had a chance to see, that it would be interesting if a woman executive in maybe a Hillary Clinton mold might not turn out to be extremely hawkish. Like if Hillary Clinton had been president when 9/11 happened, say. Sorry to use an example many commenters don’t care for, but I can’t think of anybody right now that comes to mind as a strong woman politician. Just an impression I have from knowing women.
But everything is very changed now and I don’t have any sense of what younger people are like.
In the respect you speak, I suspect Hillary would have been better than Biden.
I'm no fan of Hillary, but I don't think she is senile and at least intellectually she is far superior to Harris. However, she was Secretary of State under Obama, and although it might not be fair to blame her, foreign policy during that period also projected impotence: we bribed Iran to accept an agreement that didn't solve the nuclear proliferation problem; Putin annexed Crimea (which may or may not have had something to do with our meddling in Ukraine depending on whose narrative you believe); then there were the fiascos in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan.
Yes Obama/Hillary foreign policy projected relative impotence, I agree.
But it still *towered* above Biden foreign policy and what it projected.
I'll say one thing in Biden's favor -- he was right to withdraw from Afghanistan, regardless of the way it was done, and unlike Trump, he had the courage, or perhaps the foolishness, to pull the trigger in his first term. The worst aspects of the withdrawal (the death of military personnel as a result of a terrorist attack, the decision to leave behind valuable equipment) might have been avoidable had the withdrawal been better managed, but the consequences, particularly the return to power of the Taliban, would have been a disaster no matter what. Trump owes a debt of gratitude to Biden for taking the hit, although he would never acknowledge that. It was Obama who made the decision to expand our military presence in Afghanistan, after campaigning on the premise that the Iraq war was a mistake. That never made any sense, and in my view was a cynical ploy to keep the MIC happy. But admittedly my judgement on Obama is clouded.
Sorry, I hadn’t read this comment before I made the other above.
I don't know if it would have made any difference, but I will point out that Hillary was no longer SecState when Russia attacked Crimea (2014) and Obama made the deal with Iran (2015).
Thanks, I was too lazy to look that up. She was replaced by John Kerry, i.e. 'Lurch.' Hillary definitely beats him, in any capacity.
I agree. I think Hillary is/was strong in some respects, but really bad in other respects. Better than an enfeebled Biden, though. I do think it's possible to have a good woman president, just not any of the ones currently on offer (Harris, AOC, etc.). Someone like Margaret Thatcher...
Margaret Thatcher could rise from the grave and I would still be reluctant to vote for her, but I don't think it is necessarily an accident that women like Thatcher and Gold Meir rose to power in their respective countries, and established reputations as tough PMs, prior to the advent of feminism, or at least before feminist ideology became entrenched. The post-feminist wave of female politicians seems to me particularly unimpressive, including on the Republican/conservative side (eg. Haley). Maybe having to overcome sexism, as opposed to being indoctrinated to believe that women are equal or superior to men, breeds stronger women. The current Japanese PM may be a throwback to Thatcher in that regard.
"Maybe having to overcome sexism, as opposed to being indoctrinated to believe that women are equal or superior to men, breeds stronger women."
That seems like a good point. I don't really know anything about the Japanese PM, but in my very superficial knowledge she seems promising.
I doubt it. I think she would have been busy indulging her paranoia.
Gorton and Denton was a single by-election.
"The latest blow to Starmer was a stunning loss Friday in a parliamentary vote in Manchester, in which his Labour Party slid to a weak third, hemorrhaging votes on both the right and left.
Starmer was already politically hobbled by the arrest this week of Peter Mandelson, the prime minister’s hand-picked ambassador to the United States. But even before that, voters were souring on Starmer, who was the first left-of-center head of government in the U.K. after nearly 15 years of conservative rule.
In a weekly national tracking poll from before Mandelson’s arrest, the Labour Party had less support than the nationalist Reform UK party, with Reform UK at 28% and Labour at 22%. The Conservative Party, which had provided the five prime ministers that preceded Starmer, was a close third, with 20% support. Labour had a comfortable lead over the two right-of-center parties as recently as December."
https://justthenews.com/world/starmer-poll-plummet
"Labour, which took the Greater Manchester seat with more than 50% of the vote in 2024, was pushed into third place behind Reform UK - a result which will increase the pressure on Sir Keir Starmer's leadership."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr453rvy6kvo
It appears to me Labour was the party most assiduously courting the radical Muslim vote, and they couldn't keep it even before the UK became one of the only Islamic countries refusing to cooperate with the US in striking Iran. Herr Starmer is a weak horse and nobody is going to bet on him.
These Muslim votes are by no means guaranteed to go to the left. Because, actually, the left does face some strong competition for the Muslim vote. From the farther left.
Well said, Arnold.
I hear a lot of complaints that there is no plan. As if Liberation was not a plan. If you accept that the majority of people in Iran hate the theocratic regime (they do -- see Persepolis, 2022 riots), then it follows liberation is the best plan, and better than a prescription. Biden and Obama missed the opprotunity to simply HELP the Iranians overthrow their authoritarians.
Ironically, don't these same critics argue that the U.S. plan in Iraq wasn't a good model? Alas, there is no pleasing some people, but I am very happy to see an evil dictator fall. The Ayatollah was worse than Hitler toward his own people and a constant nuclear threat to America.
"the Democrats will face difficulties." Let us fervently hope & pray they do, especially the difficulty of losing all their elections. They boil with rage at anyone who has the unmitigated gall to defend themselves.
I Guess illegally attacking another sovereign country means nothing. "No Kings" takes on an even more urgent meaning. "A Republic if you can keep it" indeed.
This is an important question, but I don’t see the current conflict in Iran as “illegal,” at least not in any significant way as measured by current American norms, attitudes, and morals. Was this conflict initiated in an unconstitutional way? Perhaps it was, but we need to distinguish between law and legislation according to Hayek’s writings. To improve the situation, I think we need to discuss how technology has reduced the costs of such conflicts, and how those lowered costs impact the American people and their interest level in discussing constitutional matters that fall below their level of interest.
For example, the posted speed limit is 55mph, yet everyone knows the actual speed limit is 11 over.
So it is with this conflict. Congress must approve war, but this conflict apparently doesn’t reach the threshold of war so the American people don’t find it unconstitutional. Hence, it doesn’t violate the law. It only violates written legislation.
Spin it as you like. Invading a sovereign country on the president's orders alone is clearly unconstitutional. It is indeed ironic that Republicans have now abandoned Republican constitutional order.
The phrase "invading a sovereign country" implies war, but "dropping and firing projectiles on a sovereign country" may not meet most Americans' definition of war.
I probably care about the Constitution more than 99% of Americans. My goal here is to understand and improve the situation, so we can live better lives. Let's consider the bigger picture:
Since World War II, Congress has not formally declared war, yet the U.S. has fought major conflicts—including the Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, War in Afghanistan, Iraq War, the Libya intervention, and the U.S. intervention in Syria.
Some were backed by congressional authorizations (Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq), while others proceeded with little or no specific congressional approval (Korea, Libya, Syria).
1. Korean War (1950–1953)
* No declaration of war
* No specific congressional authorization
2. Vietnam War (major U.S. involvement 1964–1973)
* No declaration of war
* Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964), which functioned as broad authorization
3. Persian Gulf War (1991)
* No declaration of war
* Congress passed an AUMF authorizing force against Iraq
* Narrow but explicit authorization
4. War in Afghanistan
* No declaration of war
* Congress passed the 2001 AUMF after 9/11
5. Iraq War
* No declaration of war
* Congress passed the 2002 AUMF
6. Libya intervention
* No declaration of war
* No specific congressional authorization
7. U.S. intervention in Syria
* No declaration of war
Thanks for good list. Missing the ‘73 War Powers Act where Congress gave most initial power to the President.
Gang of 8 leaders, 7 were notified within a few hrs, <48. Now 60-90 days under President until Congressional authorisation needed.
It’s tedious to discuss Unconstitutional with those unwilling to be educated on the current legal power of war distribution.
I do wish Trump would ask for and receive a Congressional Declaration of War. But he won’t.”
Thank you Tom. I will read up on this.
Given this extraordinarily successful record, My point still stands. In fact, makes it even more important that Congress provide the necessary authorisation.
See War Powers Act.
Not going to disagree. Debate and authorization are very important. What now?
I hope that at least after the event there is a new understanding on both sides that this cannot be the way forward. I have no confidence that anything Congress does will limit Trump, at least until after November and probably not even then. the courts move so slowly and appear - like the Warren court - to be making it up as they go.
The question is really whether both sides can take a step back and - as the SC has repeatedly asked - reassert the authority of Congress. I suspect not. A new and much better drafted War Powers Act would be a good start.
"Invade" has a very specific meaning to most people -- boots on the ground. Your bias does you no good, for someone who claims that quibbling over "illegal" is spinning.
I take back the word invade. However, I don't think anyone believes that you have to Invade somewhere to be in a war. Dropping bombs on a country is actually an act of war.
Has any of Iran’s terrorism since 1979 been an act of war? Or do you consider suicide bombers and killers crossing borders to not count?
that's not my point. I don't have any principled objection to declaring war on Iran. I think it might be dumb, but as you say there are plenty of reasons to do so.
I do object to Trump trampling on the Constitution and abrogating powers to the president that are explicitly allocated to the Congress. Like the founders, I don't want any single person making the decision to go to war. and unless we are living in Putin's world, this is not a policing action. it is war.
Iran has been attacking us for 46 years. We are finally getting around to mounting a self-defense.
All true. And I have raised no argument against a war for resume change or any other reason. However, it's not just up to Trump to go to war. The constitution is very clear on this. There is no imminent that, there is no emergency to justify action without congressional approval.
Actually there was an immediate threat, if Israel attacked the Iranians would retaliate against the US. Israel was going to attack. Trump’s attack hugely reduced Iran’s ability to kill Americans.
Iran attacking Israel justified Israeli self defence.
“The anti-Israel main dish served by the Democratic Party will be accompanied by a large helping of anti-Americanism. The latter will not be popular in the electorate at large. Many Democrats will want to tamp down on anti-Americanism. The question is whether the patriots will succeed, or whether instead they will be self-marginalizing—the equivalent of #neverTrump Republicans. Either way, the Democrats will face difficulties.”
I agree entirely with this thesis, as it is current and recent past reality that shows no signs of doing anything but intensifying.
“The question is whether the patriots will succeed, or whether instead they will be self-marginalizing” - but this question answers itself, given that “patriotism” hasn’t been a positive word in the Dem Party for a long time, and is now an explicitly negative word in that party.