Peace Or No Peace?

Posted: June 25, 2025 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

In many situations, two things can be true at the same time. Looking at the events unfolding over the last two weeks in the Middle East demonstrates how this premise applies.

Last Saturday, the United States bombed three locations in Iran that were known to be associated with Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The ability to strike with lethality and accuracy anywhere in the world was aptly demonstrated by the attacks on Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan in Iran. 125 military aircraft were involved including refueling tankers, escort fighters and seven B-2 stealth bombers that dropped fourteen GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP) or “bunker busters” on targets. At the same time, U.S. Navy submarines launched about thirty precision guided Tomahawk missiles at Isfahan. No aircraft were lost. No Americans were killed or wounded. By every standard, there is no doubt that the American military pulled off a wildly successful surprise attack on their assigned targets. We should all be proud of their skill, persistence, fortitude and valor. It was a tactical success in every way. However, was the mission accomplished? Were the Iranian nuclear facilities destroyed and their nuclear weapons program halted or at least delayed for many years?

We do not know.

The president announced within hours of the attack that the Iranian facilities were “obliterated.” There is no way he could know that. Many in his cabinet use the same or similar words to continue to describe the success of the mission. They revile anyone that questions their conclusion by calling them un-American and disrespectful to the courageous airmen and sailors that conducted the attack. As is usually the case with this administration, they are more concerned with the drama and self-congratulations than they are with the facts, with which they often only have a passing familiarity.

General Dan Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) is more cautious, professional and deliberate in his descriptions. Until a complete account of the Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) can be made, we simply do not know the extent of the damage or even whether the targets of the bombing — enriched uranium and the centrifuges used to make it — were at the sites that we attacked. The attack was successful — bombs on target and everyone came home — but we do not know if the mission was successful — no more Iranian nuclear program. The only way to be absolutely sure is to inspect the sites on the ground. That is not going to happen. The bombing certainly crushed any hope of a short term resumption of discussions to allow inspectors, such as from the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) into the area. U.S. inspectors will not be able to go there, either. Of course there are numerous other ways to feel fairly confident of the results. Spies on the ground (it appears that the Israelis had numerous people in key places prior to their own attacks), intercepts of Iranian military and government communications discussing the damage that was caused and assessing their own ability to respond to the attack and other elements of intelligence trade craft that can give a fairly robust picture of what happened. That can take days or weeks before the Intelligence Community (IC) can say with confidence that they have a comfortable assessment.

With that in mind, the revelation yesterday on CNN, and soon widely reported elsewhere, that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the intelligence agency for the Pentagon, assesses that the Iranian nuclear program was only set back about three to six months rather than years or being “obliterated”. That report caused quite the uproar. For those reading the fine print, the DIA assessment was a preliminary report of “low confidence.” Such reports are often issued soon after an operation to give decisionmakers an outline of what may be needed in the near term should follow up actions be necessary.

There have been rumors/reports that the Iranians moved significant quantities of enriched uranium and centrifuges before the attack. It is thought to be enough to keep their program going. Similarly, although the Israelis killed several top Iranian nuclear scientists in their sleep, they cannot kill everyone and they cannot kill the knowledge of methods and practices that they have learned with their program thus far. Do not discount the possibility that the Iranians are also getting technical assistance, and perhaps even material, from their friends in North Korea and Russia.

Stopping Iran from having a nuclear program is not as easy as launching one bombing attack, no matter how audacious or successful that one attack may be. Wishing it so, shouting it so, demanding that the “scum” in the media stop asking how does the administration know, doesn’t make it go away. Saying that “nothing” can survive fourteen 30,000 pound bombs does not mean it happened. (May I remind everyone that the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) shares a headquarters with the North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) in Cheyenne Mountain near Colorado Springs Colorado. Completed in 1967, the command and control facility can withstand a nuclear attack. Surely the technology and know-how to build such a complex could be accomplished by other nations sometime in the ensuing 58 years.)

To me, a great big “tell” happened yesterday. The House and Senate were to receive briefings on the Iranian program and Saturday’s attack. When the news broke about the DIA assessment, the briefings were cancelled. One can only surmise that the administration knew that their brief would not hold up under questioning since the audience would be aware of the CNN report.

There are numerous additional questions surrounding the entire state of affairs. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard testified under oath before Congress that the Iranians did not have the capability to build a nuclear weapon (people also forget that it is not enough to have a nuclear capability — a country must be able to weaponize the material and, often forgotten in the discussions, have a means to deliver it against an adversary. Not an easy task.) Trump said she was “wrong.” Multiple times in the last few days he has made it clear that he does not believe in, or listen to, anyone that tells him something he does not want to hear, regardless of the sources or methods used. This is unbelievably dangerous. Vice President J.D. Vance on Sunday said that the president and his advisers “trust their instincts.” Holy cow. We entrust our security and safety to instincts rather than analysis and facts? I feel better already.

I also have every expectation that political appointees in the IC will start requiring intelligence reports to conform to Trump’s preconceptions or politically expedient explanations. They have already done so while rationalizing the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to round up immigrants. I am sure people will be fired at the DIA after the leak of their report yesterday.

There are, of course, issues surrounding this attack and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (also called the War Powers Act). Many members of Congress are calling Trump’s decisions un-Constitutional because only Congress can declare war. The Resolution calls for the president to brief Congress within 48 hours of military action if he acts on his own. This administration is ignoring the law. (Again.) Traditionally, the administration briefs the Gang of Eight prior to undertaking operations such as the attack on Iran. They did not brief them. (The Gang of Eight are the leaders in the House and Senate of both political parties along with the Chair and Ranking Member of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees).

In reality, wars are only resolved through negotiations. We will see if the U.S., Israel and Iran can figure out a satisfactory settlement. I am skeptical. A cease-fire is a very tenuous thing. There is a long way to go before anything is settled. Israel still sees Iran as an existential threat and besides wanting to end Iran’s nuclear program they would also like to see the religious zealots ruling Iran disappear — regime change. Iran still has its government and is still determined to erase Israel from existence.

The Iranians responded to the U.S. attack by launching missiles against the U.S. air base near Doha Qatar. It was really just a sound and light show — the Qataris, U.S. and U.K. (at a minimum) were given a heads up and they shot down the incoming missiles with no deaths or injuries. Do not expect that face saving demonstration to be the end of it from the Iranian perspective. The Trump administration thinks in terms of news cycles and then it is on to the next shiny object. The Iranians (Persians) have a long and proud history and consider themselves to be the root of civilization in the region (Arabs are poor nomads with no culture, according to the Iranians). They will be taking the long view and have the patience to wait out their enemies. The only wild card is the internal politics of both Israel and Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu keeps himself in power (and possibly out of jail) by keeping the wars going in Gaza and elsewhere. Will he honor the cease-fire once the U.S. resupplies his military? (At the expense of Ukraine. We only have so much in our stockpiles.) Will the people of Iran leave their government in place or will they rise up and try to install a new generation of leaders? It is still a very volatile situation and will be for quite awhile.

So many questions right now. So few answers.

War In Iran

Posted: June 18, 2025 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

For almost a week, Israel and Iran have exchanged bombs, missiles and drones causing damage and casualties, military and civilian, on both sides. Israel initiated the conflict when it attacked Iranian nuclear facilities and took out most of the leadership in the Iranian military and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as well as many of the leading scientists working in their nuclear program. According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli intelligence agencies believe that the Iranian nuclear program was on the brink of producing one to fifteen nuclear weapons. Since Iranian leaders vow to erase Israel from the face of the earth, the Prime Minister viewed these developments as an existential threat and attacked. (Some politico-military analysts are debating whether it was a “preemptive” strike — meaning an Iranian attack was imminent — or whether it was a “preventive” strike — meaning there was no immediate danger but the Israelis wanted to make sure there was no chance of Iran developing a nuclear weapon. For most of us, that matters little, but under international law, it has significance.)

There is a long history behind the current conflict. For many years, Israel, the United States, and indeed the world worried about the religious zealots in Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Presidents of both parties have vowed that they would prevent it from happening. Additionally, Iran was the main supporter of terrorism in the world. (They are still a supporter of terrorism, but their proxies in Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis have been greatly diminished and Syria is no longer in Iran’s sphere of influence, limiting their reach, but not their ability to strike.) In 2015, President Obama negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran along with support from China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Germany (known as the P5+1). In brief, the JCPOA limited Iran’s nuclear weapon program as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump withdrew from the plan in 2018, re-imposing sanctions and Iran has been ramping up its nuclear efforts since then. Trump was negotiating a “new” agreement with Iran that looks very much like the one that he withdrew from in 2018. Prime Minister Netanyahu denounced the JCPOA from the beginning and lobbied the current administration not to strike any agreements with Iran.

Israel continues to insist that the Iranian nuclear weapon capability was imminent. U.S. and U,K. intelligence sources, according to open press reports, assess that Iran is still not able to produce a weapon. Interestingly, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabard testified before Congress in March that our intelligence agencies assessed that Iran was not capable of building a nuclear weapon. Yesterday, when asked about that assessment, Trump publicly contradicted his DNI, saying “I don’t care what she said” and avowing that he believed Mr. Netanyahu. (As a side note, if I were the DNI my resignation would be on the president’s desk about five minutes later. But we all know how this administration works. She is still in office.)

It is hard to know exactly what brought us to this point as both the Trump and Netanyahu administrations are not very forthcoming nor particularly truthful, and of course, military operations should remain classified until executed — unless you are Pete Hegseth — so it is only in retrospect that things look clearer. That said, from where I sit, it appears Prime Minister Netanyahu boxed Trump in before he could produce a “deal” with Iran. Emboldened by their successes in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, Mr. Netanyahu saw that he had an opportunity to attack, had the forces to execute it, and wanted the world to be confronted with a fait accompli. There was no turning back. To date, the Israelis have inflicted significantly more damage on the Iranians than the other way around.

As yet, the U.S. is not involved. As yet. At least publicly.

There are some hard choices ahead for a president that campaigned by saying that he would keep us out of new wars in the Middle East. “America First” is interpreted by many MAGA voters as meaning no foreign wars in support of other nation’s interests. It is doubtful that Israel can continue to pursue its objectives without U.S. support. There are several reasons for that. Israel uses primarily U.S. weapons systems, aircraft, anti-ballistic missile defense systems, ammunition and other equipment. They do not have an unlimited supply. Giving more support to their efforts could get the U.S. involved whether by design or by accident. It also further diminishes our support to Ukraine as supplies are directed away from the Ukrainians and to the Israelis. Which is something that really does not bother Vladimir Putin even though Russia supports Iran — tough choices. Sorry Ayatollah.

Always looming on the horizon is direct U.S. military action against Iran. While prepared, no military planner that I know about relishes that idea. The reality is that Israel cannot completely destroy the Iranian nuclear program without destroying the main Iranian nuclear facility in Fordo, a small community near Qom. The facility is built in to a mountain and is considered extremely difficult to destroy. Current Israeli Air Force and missile capabilities cannot seriously damage it, unless they use one or more of their own nuclear weapons. That is an entirely different discussion. It is conceivable that Israeli special forces could attack it on the ground, but that is highly risky and is probably not on the table right now, especially because there is another option. The U.S. Air Force could deliver a “bunker buster” bomb — properly known as the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). It is a 30,000 pound GPS guided bomb launched from a B-2 Stealth Bomber that is believed to be able to penetrate at least 200 feet against concrete, rock or earth before it explodes. Multiple MOPs can be used to go even deeper, if necessary. The only aircraft capable of delivering the bomb is the U.S. B-2. We cannot just supply Israel with it. There are 19 B-2s in the inventory and they are based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. They have demonstrated their world-wide ability to strike during previous conflicts having flown 34 hour combat missions from Missouri to Libya and back in 2017 using in flight refueling, for one example.

It is a cliche to say that we go to war with the president we have — good, bad or indifferent. Trump has a big decision to make, although it seems hard to believe that he totally understands what is going on. For example, his social media post yesterday directed at Iran said only “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” Which raises many serious questions about his state of mind. For the record, there are extremely few historical examples of “unconditional surrender” with the last one being Japan at the end of World War II.

There is a case to be made for the U.S. to bomb Iran. From where Iran sits, they now see that they are in dire need of a credible deterrent. Without a nuclear capability they have been exposed as defenseless. Should the bombing stop short of a significant impact on their nuclear program, they have every incentive to accelerate the program and procure one as quickly as possible. One could argue that now is the time to finish the job. Kick them while they are down, so to speak, so that no one has to come back later to finish what could have been done now.

The danger inherent in such U.S. involvement is extreme. Not in the short run, the U.S. could take casualties in any operation but given the current state of Iran’s air defenses, the risk would be assessed as acceptable. The real danger is long term. How does Iran retaliate against us — for they will retaliate in some form or another. What are our strategic goals? Simply to destroy or significantly delay the nuclear program? Trump has been speculating on social media about regime change — assassinating the Ayatollah and other Iranian leaders. Iran is a country of over 90 million people, many of whom resent the regime that has been in place since 1979. However, that does not mean that they want the U.S. or Israel to eliminate their government. Who takes charge? Under President George W. Bush the U.S. thought that bringing down Saddam would be easy and result in a free and democratic Iraq. While most Iraqis were glad to see Saddam gone, they were just as unhappy to see U.S. forces do it and remain in their country. We know what happened there. What to do in Iran?

This is where it gets tricky. It is one thing to bomb Iran, it is another to deal with the aftermath. It seems that Mr. Netanyahu knows how to play to Trump’s biases and ego. He has him nearly ready to provide support to the Israeli mission to destroy Iran. But what does that really mean and what is the long term commitment? Take a look at Gaza. Mr. Netanyahu’s objective there was to eliminate Hamas. That conflict has turned into what appears to be a long term goal to destroy everything in Gaza. Apparently the only way to eliminate Hamas is to eliminate every Palestinian that lives there — either kill them or move them. That campaign has gone on much longer than what was militarily necessary. What are the plans for Iran?

Wars are easy to start but hard to end. We need look only at our own history. I do not trust our president or his senior advisers to think through the totality of their actions. Looking tough seems to be their only goal. That is not good enough. There are sound strategic, geo-political and military arguments to use our forces to decimate Iran’s nuclear program. It is the “what’s next” question that I have not seen anyone in the administration thinking about. How does this all end?

It’s Starting

Posted: June 10, 2025 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“I tasted a little tear gas — tasted like fascism.”

An unidentified protester in Los Angeles in a street interview on CBS on 8 June 2025.

Starting last Friday, protests in Los Angeles have continued in response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions to apprehend undocumented immigrants. The protests started small, but have grown in reaction to the federal government’s response to the unrest. It seems that Trump (aka TACO — Trump Always Chickens Out, a name given to him in an article about tariffs in the Financial Times) seized upon this development to embrace his attempts to try and show how tough he is. His poll numbers and national support are dropping sharply in all areas except immigration. Therefore, he wants to make immigration his central focus in order to drown out all the criticism of all of the other parts of his agenda that are failing.

While it is true that playing to his base is one of his main motivators, it is not all that he is doing, nor is it the most important. We as a nation are on the brink of losing our democracy to an autocratic regime that has no patience for criticism and is willing to take extreme measures to achieve their goals.

It is extremely ironic, not to mention hypocritical, that a man that is a convicted felon, adjudicated sexual offender and well known draft dodger (“bone spurs”) who pardoned over 1500 people that brutally attacked law enforcement officers in an insurrection designed to keep him in power after he lost an election, is now screaming about law and order and pushing for the harshest punishments for anyone that even bumps into a law enforcement official. The leaders of the Trump regime are immune to feelings of hypocrisy and shame.

Let there be no doubt. Violence, looting, destruction of property are all crimes and people should be held accountable for any form of criminal activity, whatever “heroic” actions they may think that they are taking. However, the vast majority of the protesters are acting peacefully, if forcefully, to express their dissatisfaction and fears for their safety and the safety of their family, friends and neighbors. California is the fifth largest economy in the world — all by itself. Los Angeles is the biggest city in the state. It has a diverse, well integrated economy that relies on immigrants in every aspect of social and economic activity. It is a majority-minority city — meaning white people comprise less than half of the population. Estimates put the number of undocumented immigrants in the greater Los Angeles area as being about a million people. ICE and other Trump regime members claim that they are only going after hardened criminals. Yet another lie. Finding and arresting hardened criminals is difficult, time consuming and expensive. When Trump’s deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller (a white nativist) tells the ICE and other federal law enforcement officials that they must arrest 3,000 people a day or else they are fired (the bottom ten percent of field offices each month), those officials are going to go for the easy pickings. Day workers outside of Home Depot. Construction sites. People coming in for their immigration hearings or other appointments in accordance with our laws and their asylum or citizenship requests. As I and many others pointed out before Trump took office, many people now in the administration were saying that anyone that is here illegally is breaking the law and therefore is a criminal. We should not be surprised. They told us what they were going to do but no one believed them. That is what is happening in Los Angeles. ICE raided the parking lot of a Home Depot scooping up day workers and then raided the garment district. That is how the protests started.

According to NBC news, and other sources, Mr. Miller already directed 5,000 federal law enforcement officers to augment ICE and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts to round up immigrants. This includes FBI agents, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agents, Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) personnel, U.S. Marshalls and many other agencies. First, none of those officers have been trained to apprehend immigrants. Second, their reassignment creates huge gaps in our ability to conduct anti-gang investigations, break up drug cartels, provide counter-intelligence and generally keep our country safe and secure. Instead we are arresting moms and high school kids and other long term, law abiding, tax paying members of our society. Their only focus is on immigration and looking “tough.”

Which brings us back to what I am afraid is really going on. The protests in Los Angeles and the sporadic violence that broke out was ably and effectively controlled and monitored by the LAPD and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office. They are trained, equipped and expert in handling protests bigger than what was happening in the beginning. They did not need outside help, and if they did, there were thousands of other area law enforcement officers available to help them under mutual aid agreements that most counties and cities have with jurisdictions in their areas.

Instead, the president mobilized two thousand National Guard troops. The desired result was achieved. Instead of calming things down — which any right minded leader would have as their objective — it exacerbated the situation and tensions increased. In my view, Trump was hoping for exactly what happened. Things got worse. When they got worse, his lackey in the Pentagon decided to send in a battalion from the U.S. Marine Corps base in Twenty-nine Palms California (about 700 Marines). Why do that? First, local law enforcement officials said that they could handle it. Second, 2,000 National Guard troops were there. Third, the California National Guard has about 18,000 members. If those on the ground needed help why not mobilize more National Guard personnel? He did it for many reasons — political, precedent, court tests and because Trump thinks that the U.S. military is his personal armed force. (He loves to play with “his” toys. There is a massive display of military power on tap for Saturday 14 June. It is the Army’s 250th birthday (happy birthday soldier!) and coincidentally Trumps 79th birthday. Washington DC is already closing down and Reagan National Airport will be closed during the parade. Totally disruptive. I will only note that the Navy (October) and Marine Corps (November) are also celebrating their 250th birthdays this year. No parades are scheduled.)

Here is why I think Trump and his henchmen and women are purposely escalating this situation. It is a dress rehearsal for bigger and better (in their minds) use of the military under the Insurrection Act of 1807, essentially martial law. Immigration enforcement is a political winner for this administration. It is also a fig leaf for trampling on the Constitution. It is no coincidence that Trump’s foray into this test case took place in California, a deeply blue state with a powerful governor that Trump happens to hate. If he can get away with it there, then he can go after other blue states that anger him (watch out Maine.)

California Governor Gavin Newsom did not request that the National Guard be activated and sent to Los Angeles. The president did so on his own, the first time since 1965 that a president has done so. (In that instance President Lyndon Baines Johnson activated the Alabama Guard to protect peaceful civil rights protesters being harassed and beaten by Alabama law enforcement officers. What a turn around today.) Of course in those 60 years the National Guard has been called out in a variety of circumstances, but always only upon request from the state’s governor.

I am not a Constitutional expert nor any kind of attorney, so I will not get into all of the U.S. codes covering the use of the military domestically. In brief, it is legal for the president to call up the National Guard and to deploy the Marines. However, under the law, they are only to be used for force protection (guarding buildings and the like) and support services (logistics, communications, transportation, and so on). Under a U.S. law known as the Posse Comitatus Act, federal military personnel cannot be used for civilian law enforcement purposes. (Ironically, if the governor had mobilized the Guard, they could be used in that way, but since now that they are federal military forces, they cannot.) I will vouch for the fact that the Marines being sent in have had absolutely no training in crowd dispersal, riot control or any other element of dealing with protesters, unless one or two were previously law enforcement officials. Probably the first time they had ever held a baton and shield in crowd control formation like the pictures show, was yesterday. What could go wrong? This is not the Marine’s mission. They are only there to show how “tough” the Trump regime can be. Some might say cruel, but then we know that when it comes to this administration, fear and cruelty is the point. One prays that an anxious young Marine or excited young protester doesn’t do anything stupid. It could all go down hill fast. Some of us remember what happened at Kent State University in Ohio when National Guard troops opened fire on unarmed war protesters in 1970.

Language is important, precision is important, especially when it comes to the law. Trump and his cohorts are aggressively using the word “insurrection” in their barrage of comments about the evil people of Los Angeles. They are not insurrectionists, of course. No one is trying to overthrow the government. However, there are several reasons for that. One, perhaps the least important, is an attempt to change the narrative and re-write history concerning the attack on the Capitol building on 6 January 2021. Those were insurrectionists, but Trump and the MAGA crowd want you to think otherwise which is why they continue to call them “patriots” — as if Trump even knows what that word means.

Second, the provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act allow for the military to be used in law enforcement under the provisions of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Remember that Trump wanted to invoke that law during the protests following the murder of George Floyd in 2020. He wanted to direct the military to shoot protesters in the legs. The then Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (CJCS) refused to implement his requests and true to his TACO form, he backed down. Thankfully. Who is there now telling him that what he has in mind is wrong? No one. SECDEF Pete (DUI Hire) Hegseth certainly will not. DHS Secretary Kristi (ICE Barbie) Noem certainly will not. Attorney General Pam (Police State Barbie) Bondi certainly will not. I don’t know about the current CJCS but I am worried that we have heard nothing from any source as to any mitigating recommendations senior uniformed officials are making. Crickets so far. Trump’s senior civilian officials seem to be competing amongst themselves to see who can impress the boss the most with their cruel and demeaning behavior.

Immigration is a legitimate issue. The system has been broken for a long time. In 2024 there was a legitimate bi-partisan effort in Congress to try and untangle the mess in a fair, but practical way. Trump killed it during his campaign because he thought that it was his best issue to win re-election. It appears he was right. Now he can use it as a handy tool anytime anything else goes wrong in his administration. Think of all the things that he was going to change/solve/fix in his first 24 hours/month/100 days. None of them happened. But with actions such as he is taking in California, and pretty much around the country, he can say he is doing what the electorate wanted by cracking down on undocumented immigrants. He has a winning political issue and the enablers in his administration, the Project 2025 crowd, have a willing enforcer to Make America White Again.

Only about ten percent of his term has gone by. Stand by for what is coming. This is just the start.