The United States has struck three nuclear sites in Iran, joining the Israel-Iran war.

 

President Trump at the White House Lawn. AP.

The United States has struck three nuclear sites in Iran, joining the Israel-Iran conflict. AP. The strikes hit the nuclear sites at Isfahan, Natanz and the fortified site at Fordo. The decision comes after a diplomatic push that began even before the conflict began. Israel had had great success in damaging Iran's air defenses but was unable to strike the fortified site at Fordo, which is deep underground. Only the United States Air Force with B2 bombers and GB-57 penetrator "bunker buster" bombs could destroy the facility. Trump said that the sites were completely destroyed. It is unclear how Iran will react to the bombing. 

My Comment:

I am both surprised and not surprised that this is happened. Trump had said that he was giving Iran two weeks, but that absolutely did not happen. But I am also not surprised that Trump was willing to do this. Though Trump is dramatically less of a warmonger than many other Presidents have been, he is willing to use force when he thinks it is necessary. And it's not like he didn't warn us, Trump said as far back as 2011, long before he was President or even that interested in politics that Iran should never have a nuclear bomb, so it's not like this is out of character. 

As for me, I am... annoyed by this. I was on record as not really being sure if I supported strikes on Iran or not and I guess I am still there. Like I said, the stated reasons for strikes, Iran being close to a bomb, has not been proven to my satisfaction. I certainly don't trust our intel agencies and I trust Israel even less. 

I just don't think "Iran could get nukes" is a valid casus belli for this conflict. I didn't think that when Israel launched their attacks and I don't think so now. Much of the problem is that normal folks haven't really seen the evidence cited that Iran was close to getting a bomb. I would agree that them getting a bomb would be a real problem given their state support of terrorism and general antagonism to the west. But, where is the evidence?

With that being said, there are other reasons to do this regardless of the "Iran getting nukes" argument. Supposedly, Iran was involved with an assassination plot against President Trump directly, which would more than enough justify strikes. They also have launched attacks historically against US troops in Iraq and Syria and are responsible for the death for many of our soldiers. 

If that had been the case for these strikes, I would probably more supportive. But those arguments weren't really made by the White House. Indeed, we didn't really get a case as to why we should join the war, other than Iran getting a nuke would be dangerous for the region. That's not enough for me and the White House should make whatever evidence they based this decision on available to the general public. 

With that being said, though I am critical of the decision, I also don't know what I would have done in Trump's seat. My gut says I would have tried even more diplomacy but it's possible that Trump knew something that we don't. Like I said in a previous post, it's very possible that the Israelis would have used nukes on Fordo if we hadn't struck, and in that case I would absolutely support strikes just to stop that from happening. 

I'd also add, that even though I am skeptical of these strikes, I still support the majority of what Trump has done. He does make mistakes once in a while and it's very possible that the strikes on Iran are one of them. But you do have to take the good with the bad and I'd say that deporting illegal aliens makes up for all but the worst case scenarios for this conflict. And if this is the end of it, which it very much might be, then I don't really think this is even that much of a big deal. 

Historians will judge this strike largely on what happens next. And that is now up to Iran. What Iran can even do at this point is up in the air. They do not have much of a military left. The way I see it they have four possible options, all of which may not be feasible at this point. 

First, they could try to close the Strait of Hormuz. A lot of shipping goes through the strait and if the Houthis could also step up attacks in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, they could conceivably hurt shipping. The problems with that is that I just don't see them having the naval assets to do so. They weren't able to close the shipping lanes during the war with Iraq and I have seen little evidence that their abilities have improved, even when you ignore the damage done by the Israelis. Doing so would also anger just about everyone and could induce other countries in the Middle East or Europe to join the war. The Houthis show that's it's possible to disrupt shipping but they had to launch hundreds of attacks to even sink a few ships, and I don't see Iran doing much better. 

The second option would be to launch strikes against US forces in Iraq and Syria. Such a thing is possible, they have done so in the past, but doing so would be an escalation and I don't know if they even have the capability. I am guessing that the priority targets for their remaining missiles would remain Israel. If they do this, I would expect it to be a token attack, and one that will likely not result in casualties. They could also strike US allies in the region, like the Saudis and other Gulf States, but why draw them into the war? 

The third, and most dangerous option is activating "sleeper cells" in America and other countries. The fear is that those sleeper cells would commit terror attacks on targets both in the United States and abroad. The obvious question is why haven't those sleeper cells been activated? My guess is that if they were going to do so they would have done so by now. I am also skeptical at how many of those cells are in the United States in the first place, immigration from Iran has been curtailed for a long time. 

Finally, they could launch a cyber attack. US systems could be vulnerable and it would have the added possibility of plausible deniability. I am guessing this would be the most likely option and probably the one with the most variance in terms of success. I am far from an expert in this area so I will leave speculation to those more informed.

There is a chance that they decide to not do anything other than what they are doing. There is every indication that Trump doesn't want a long term war here and I think he just struck the nuclear sites so Israel would have a reason to actually end the war. Any sort of response from Iran would likely draw further strikes from the United States, and given their almost total lack of air defenses, that would make things even worse for them. 

I also wonder how this will play with the American people. It's up in the air right now, and I think we might see some unusual reactions from folks, with some Democrats praising the strikes and some Republicans condemning in. I won't speak for the left, but my feed is probably 50/50 in terms of support and condemnation for these strikes on X, though that's hardly a representative sample. I might just lay low for a bit on social media lest I get dogpiled by both sides for being in the middle. 

I'm not sure how the media will treat this either. The only time they ever praised Trump during his first term is when he bombed Syria after the supposed chemical attack there. I didn't support that attack either, but it was surreal watching them praise him after calling him Hitler for most of his term. I am guessing they will be somewhat supportive with some voices on the left and right being less so.