[POST] Questions and Answers #8
An Ask Me Anything post
This is a reader-supported publication. I give it all away for free but could really use your support if you want me to keep doing this.
And we’re off …
John J. Brown
With the Iran situation, should we have offered to protect them with our nuclear umbrella?
My reasoning is during the Cold War, Iran provided the bases for our surveillance flights and basing for strategic weapons.
Maybe that combined with economic support, would have been enough to have them back away from pursuing a nuclear weapon?
With a different regime in a different reality, that could have been a possibility (like our nuclear sharing with Turkey via NATO), but there’s no way the Islamic Republic could count on the US to protect it from … really, only Israeli nukes matter here (who else would attack Iran?). This just isn’t possible when Tehran is publicly committed to Israel’s destruction as a state. The Islamic Republic also bases the bulk of its domestic legitimacy on opposing the US on all fronts, so that alone negates your scenario. Being anti-US is just too big a part of Tehran’s identity to allow for any such guarantees.
It’s that Iranian commitment to Israel’s destruction that ex post facto justifies Israel’s long-ago reach for the bomb (the original logic being that Israel was surrounded by enemy states all seeking its destruction but now that situation is pretty much narrowed down to Iran and its proxy militias).
So, we today can cite the following Israeli logic:
Iran and proxies seek Israel’s destruction.
Israel is thus justified in having nukes to protect itself.
If Iran gets nukes, then Israel loses — pardon the pun — its trump card.
Therefore, Israel (and US) cannot live with Iran having the bomb.
Therefore, Israel and the US will seek regime-change before allowing that to happen (assuming one can never truly bomb away a nuclear program — short of nuking it yourselves — not inconceivable from Israel’s perspective regarding an isolated site like Fordow, but it’s only 20 miles from Qom, Iran’s 7th biggest city).
I suppose the nightmare scenario is Israel pushing US to use bunker-buster lest they drop a nuke instead, but that seems beyond all plausibility.
Tom knocks on wood.
The Israeli logic on Palestine is similarly stark:
The two-state solution will never work so long as Iran out there backing anti-Israeli militias.
So, only route to peace at home (via accommodation of Palestinians or ethnic cleansing and annexing of both Strip and Bank) is to dethrone current Iranian regime.
Put those two logics together and toss in the natural rivalry for regional leadership between the Saudis and Iranians, and Israel really wants regime change in Iran, citing the “existential threat” an Iranian bomb would pose and believing (rightly, I think), that, once the regime is gone, then the Abraham Accords with the PG monarchies can finally secure a regional peace that Israel can live with and even thrive within.
So, no matter how you look at it, from Israel’s perspective, the Iranian regime has to go for Israel to be safe. Since the US backs Israel, we get sucked into this dynamic whether we want to or not — like Trump right now.
Pulling the lens back some to the wider region: you topple the Iranian regime and SW Asia suddenly looks a whole lot more stable — assuming the follow-on economic engagement is generous and is allowed to flow from all directions (e.g., not trying to muscle China out).
If you think CRINK is a real threat, then you want to take advantage whenever the weakest links in that chain are vulnerable.
Iran is vulnerable right now.
LANGMAACK THOMAS
You have previously said that Iran could get a nuclear bomb and it would stabilize the Middle East. (or at least that's my recollection of it).
Do you still think that?
Also, do you think taking out Iran's nuclear capability as well as their military capability is wise?
Will it lead to a more stable ME or larger conflict?
As a rule, a one-sided nuclear standoff is considered dangerous and unstable. For decades now, Israel has had a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East, and that worries others while driving Iran’s reach for the bomb (in addition to Tehran’s persistent fears of US regime-toppling efforts).
Iran, quite logically, after seeing Saddam toppled to their left (on a map) and the Taliban temporarily dethroned on their right by US military interventions during the Global War on Terrorism, believes it needs nukes to hold off the inevitable US attempt to do the same with them — not a crazy notion at all.
In theory and based on historical experience, a nuclear standoff between Iran and Israel should be more stable than just Israel having the bomb. That’s theoretically valid just on the basis of nuclear strategy (mutual deterrence).
It’s just that, in this instance, there is widespread international fear that Iran-v-Israel on nukes is just too crazy to contemplate (too much room for irrational behavior).
The same thing has long been said about Pakistan and India — and been wrong to-date, but people tend to discount that — to me — rather clear record.
Plus, if you add in the oil issue, the whole stand-off argument feels too risky, especially since, once Iran gets the bomb, the Saudis either get one from the US or from Pakistan (outstanding offer), so then we’re in a three-way.
Does the world want to suffer that learning curve among that trio? No, it does not — even as history says they would traverse that curve successfully with time. The Middle East, after all, is the home of the suicide bomber, so, as a rule, there is broad consensus in the US security establishment that Iran with a bomb is intolerable.
So, yes, in theory and experience, while Iran getting the bomb and symmetrizing the nuclear threat with Israel makes sense, there is basically no great power appetite for that scenario.
On that score, I’m not just talking about the West. I don’t think Russia or India or China want Iran to have the bomb either, which is why their responses to the current Israeli attacks is quite muted (blah blah blah! but no serious actions).
So, yeah, I say, go for the nuclear capacity in addition to reducing Iran’s military infrastructure and overall capability (Israel’s already made that decision). So long as it’s out there, Israel will feel threatened and Iran will hold some sort of strategic veto over the Abraham Accords, which the Saudis want to secure themselves against the Iranians but Israel can’t live with so long as Iran has the nuclear option just around the corner.
The old Obama deal basically allowed Iran to be near-nuclear — like a Japan. But Israel refuses to contemplate that ambiguity as a permanent fixture.
So, given all those dynamics: the minimum here is a severe degradation of Iran’s nuclear capacity and the max is regime change — if you really want this stubborn problem to go away.
I don’t see wider conflict over taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities (assuming it can be done). Regime-toppling is another matter in terms of regional instability and yet, who is taking on Israel and the US to save the Iranian regime? Nobody.
That’s the opportunity I see here: CRINK is a US invention. By and large it’s a big nothing when poked at its weakest link, which right now is Iran.
So, if you really fear CRINK, then take out the “I” now while you can. Again, minimally, that’s get the nuke program at close to all costs. Maximally, it’s encouraging domestic-led regime change following.
Iran will always look un-topple-able right up to the moment it goes down — just like Syria under Assad.
Jacob
If Alberta were to separate from Canada, how do you envision the consequences unfolding, particularly regarding its potential relationship with the United States (i.e.., would Alberta seek to become a 51st state, pursue a close alliance while maintaining sovereignty, or another course entirely)? https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/canada-alberta-secession-referendum-mark-carney-4b1f45ec?st=y3hMRN
Alberta’s secession would require a referendum calling for it, followed by constitutional negotiations with the federal government and other provinces — per Canada’s Clarity Act. The Canadian Parliament also has the authority to judge whether the referendum question and result are clear enough to justify negotiations, and one imagines that bar would be set very high.
But, say, it proceeds: then we’re into constitutional amendments, which are about as hard to pull off in Canada as they are in the US.
Alberta recently passed a law (Bill 54) making it easier to trigger that referendum, energizing break-away groups. But even if it got the vote right, Canada’s federal government could go out of its way to block the process, like it long did with Quebec.
For now, Alberta polls show that only about one-third want to get out. What they really want is more favorable terms from Ottawa on their oil and gas output. Canada fixes that and the issue goes away, presumably.
So, overall, a low probability.
If it were to happen, would Alberta seek alignment with the US? Very likely, because going-it-along would be hard and expensive.
But the bigger snag remains: getting out of Canada is a hard path to pull off.
Having said all that, my bigger point regarding Canada remains: in a world of mass migration toward the North, Canada is like half a percent of world population living on about 8 percent of its landmass. To me, that’s not tenable over the long run, meaning Canada will be forced to absorb large-scale migrations. Can it do it on its own? Maybe. But alignment with the US would make more sense, particularly if Canada finds its Arctic encroached upon by an aggressive Russia or China or combination thereof.
As presently constructed, Canada is not built to be a superpower even as climate change is sort of forcing that reality upon it across the course of this century. So, in my mind, it inevitably needs to integrate in some direction, with the choices being: North toward Russia, west toward China/Asia, east to Europe, and/or south toward the US. If I rank those four choices, I see the US as being the best fit for a lot of reasons.
Franco Booth
Iran is on everyone’s mind. Air war only? Regime change? Ground invasion?
This is where strategists like you shine. So shine on you crazy diamond.
Building off my answers above:
So far this war is all air, with no signs of anybody invading anybody (they don’t even share a border and the Axis of Resistance has been neutralized for foreseeable future). So long as the munitions hold out, this will remain a missile/drone/bombing fight that mostly favors Israel by a wide margin.
The deaths to-date are minimal but are likely to go up as this drags on, but I see — at a minimum — this dragging on until stockpiles are depleted and then we’re back to square one on international negotiations over whatever’s left of Iran’s program.
How this could expand: Israel has laid off Iran’s navy for now, and Iran could essentially sabotage the Hormuz Strait with mines and other strikes. That would bring the US in on naval terms and likely not go well for Iran. And, yes, if they thought that would force Israel to back off, then Tehran would have already pulled that trigger.
A more aggressive version of Iran elevating the fight is attacking Saudi oil infrastructure. But, again, that only guarantees a far more complete US entry that is highly unlikely to meet any international pushback (which great powers want to see an energy crisis right now — other than tied-down Moscow?).
So, air war until exhaustion, no ground invasion by anybody, with strong potential for US bunker-busting Fordow, along with good chance that it is partial victory at best (with Trump painting it as huge triumph, of course).
Wild card here is Israel going for Iran’s jugular (who knows what else they got up their sleeves?).
For now, the tail (Israel) is wagging the dog (US), and that is, by definition, a wild ride.
But, if you believe, like I do, that regime-change in Iran would solve a host of issues in the Middle East, then you have to like how this is unfolding to-date: severe Israeli beat-down and virtually no international pushback from great powers. It just goes to show you how unloved the Iranian regime is (along with how busy Moscow is right now).
Thoughts on Israel’s reaction to Iran and potential US involvement in the takedown of the nuclear capability and likely removal of the leadership
How is this similar or different from actions in Iraq?
Building on the above replies:
Israel believes correctly that, so long as Iranian regime stands, they will never be safe. Netanyahu wants to end the Palestinian issue in the hardest and most cruel way, and has the domestic support for this pathway after 7 October. But Iran is the major obstacle there as well.
So, Netanyahu is going for broke and winning every showdown to-date, including this ongoing one with Iran.
I think the US says yes to the bunker-busting strikes. It’ll make Trump look tough and it may well be decisive in forcing Iran to come to its senses and negotiate its regime’s survival the best it can under the current balance of power in the region.
But no, the US is not invading anyone. If the Iranian regime falls, it will not trigger any US occupation. So, no Iraq II — just not happening.
Trump will do his best to get the biggest payoff at the absolutely lowest military cost, and Israel, being so aggressive right now, is simultaneously forcing that issue and presenting that opportunity, so, again I say, why not ride it out?
But we have to remain realistic: there is no armed insurgency in Iran waiting in the wings. Israel isn’t sending troops, nor is anybody else. Whatever happens in Iran post-this-fight will be determined by the domestic balance of power, which still favors the regime … until it doesn’t.
Serious wild card: How willing is Iran to directly attack US forces locally or back here in the States via cyber means? In both instances, that likely brings on a far more intense US military response, so, not exactly an off-ramp per se.
The other wild card here is — again — whatever Israel still has up its sleeve.
Killing the Ayatollah would be a big move on Israel’s part, and given Trump’s words to-date, it would automatically implicate the US.
But I like the idea right now, and, if I were Netanyahu working Trump, I would make it happen today. It would be an excellent show of force and really put this whole CRINK quartet back on its heels to see one of its members be so summarily devastated.
I like the idea of reminding the world that its democracies are entirely capable of kicking the asses of authoritarian regimes.
Enough of this bullshit about autocracies on the rise and democracies in decline. That perceived reality can be changed in a heartbeat.
Iran-the-example has fallen into our lap, thanks to Israel.
Time to get our money’s worth.
”
To your last question on Iranian regime change. Would you send in snipers and try to kill only the top leaders, blow up a palace and everyone in it, leave an automated machine gun on the side of the road? Let the Mossad surprise us? I guess my preference would be to tell Netanyahu to go for it and offer any assistance for however they want to do it.