Wag The Dog

Posted: February 25, 2026 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

On 19 February 2026, a banner displaying the face of Trump and a slogan appeared over the entrance to the Department of Justice (DOJ) building in Washington D.C. It appears that he is emulating his good friend Kim Jong Un. “Big Brother is watching you.” (Picture from Brendan Smialowski for Getty Images)

The president that campaigned on putting America first and criticized his predecessors for their military involvement around the world is preparing to use the military for the second time against Iran. So far, in the first year of his second term he has used military force in seven countries and threatened it in two more. The House of Representatives and the Senate have yet to approve any of his military actions despite the fact that Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war. The War Powers Act of 1973 requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits their involvement to 60 days unless approved for longer by Congress. Trump refuses to meet even that bare minimum.

Trump thought he could bully the Iranians by massing the most combat power in the region since 2003 during the Second Gulf War. The Iranians have other ideas. Trump wants total elimination of their ability to stockpile “nuclear fuel” and they say it is for domestic power generation. Obama had a deal limiting the Iranians’ ability to process uranium which included on site inspections. Trump tore up that agreement in 2018 and is now asking for essentially the same thing as was previously settled. As always, he creates a problem, returns to the status quo ante, and then claims that he solved a crisis. Why would the Iranians or any other country trust anything that he promises?

Indeed, the U.K. (in particular Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean), the UAE, and Saudi Arabia refuse to allow the U.S. to launch attacks from their countries against Iran. Others, such as Qatar, Egypt and other Middle East countries are extremely hesitant to allow it. Some are refusing to allow US military aircraft to fly over their territory which makes for some very long flights to reach targets in Iran.

This will not be Venezuela. Iranian air defenses are in disarray following last year’s attack on their nuclear facilities, but they still have a strong military capability.

The first step in military planning is to determine the desired end state. What do we want to see happen? How do we know we won and can go home? Everything else flows from that. So far the Trump regime has been unable to articulate their specific goals in attacking Iran. In recent weeks they have been all over the map as to what they intend to accomplish. Last night’s State Of The Union address to Congress would have been the logical opportunity to explain to the American public why we are going to send our sons and daughters, husbands and wives into harms way. He barely mentioned Iran and then in only very vague terms.

Therefore the mission is not clear to me and without a clear mission, it is difficult to plan. Is it to knock out all nuclear capabilities? Supposedly, we already did that. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s primary international negotiator for everything (Calling Marco Rubio! Anyone seen the Secretary of State actually doing anything having to do with diplomacy?) said last week that “they’re probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material. And that’s really dangerous. So they can’t have that.” Where that analysis came from, no one knows. Trump himself continues to say that last year’s bombing attack on Iran by the U.S. and Israel “totally obliterated” all of their capabilities. Additionally, it is known that the Iranians currently have no weapons program to build a delivery system for a nuclear weapon even if they wanted to make one.

Is the mission to knock out the Iranians ballistic missile capability? Their missiles certainly pose a threat to our friends and allies in the region. However, it would be next to impossible to destroy all of their missile capability in one attack. It could only be done through a sustained campaign. The missiles are stationed all around the country and some are mobile. During the course of our campaign the Iranians could use them to retaliate against U.S. bases in the region or to attack infrastructure valuable to our friends in the area. Last summer they launched missiles against our base in Qatar in retaliation, however they provided advanced warning and precautions were taken to limit their impact. There is no guarantee the Iranians would only go for a face saving measure the second time around.

Is the mission regime change? Trump continually talks about knocking out Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Sometimes he talks about destroying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the roughly 175,000 member branch of their Armed Forces that protect the regime and that is the real power supporting the Ayatollah in the country. To attempt that would result in a very long campaign, the kind of “forever war” that Trump swore he would never instigate. As we learned the hard way in Iraq and elsewhere, the people may want a change in leadership, but they do not want it replaced by the U.S. We are not “liberators” in their eyes, we are invaders.

How will we accomplish any of those potential missions? With an air campaign only? Sending troops into the country? Iran is a very large land mass with rugged terrain. It has a large and diverse population. Any ground attacks would be very costly in lives and treasure. Whatever the reasons or methods — and the president should explain why it is suddenly necessary to do something we have not seriously contemplated for decades — there is always the danger of planes getting shot down, or having mechanical issues or a dozen other things that could go wrong resulting in the death or capture of Americans. “Just because” is not good enough.

As it stands now, our aims are not clear and we should never commit military force when we do not know what we want them to do. Reports from several reputable news organizations indicate that senior military officers in the Pentagon are reluctant to use force against Iran. They understand that it will be no easy task. In retaliation Iran will create mischief (terrorism and missile attacks) in the region. They will try to close the Strait of Hormuz through which twenty percent of the world’s oil flows on ships. (Oil is a fungible commodity with a world-wide market so the impact on the price of oil will be felt everywhere.)

There are other human and practical costs. One of the carriers on its way to the region is the USS Gerald R Ford (CVN-78) — the other one now on station is the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) – which has been deployed for eight months already, much longer than the traditional six month deployment. The Ford is the same carrier that was pulled away from the Mediterranean Sea last fall to go to the Caribbean Sea, and now it is back to where it started without going home. It is a practical matter that people can only be stretched so far — not to mention the impact on their families — and maintenance on ship systems and aircraft can only be postponed for a limited time before things start to break. Additionally, our military is running low on certain types of ammunition. Missiles cannot be built in a day, a week, or a month. Think in terms of years to rebuild the stockpiles. Some we have given to Ukraine and Israel. A lot is expended to shoot down drones and ballistic missiles, especially in the Red Sea, that are constantly being fired by the Houthis in Yemen, which are themselves proxies for Iran. Surface to air missiles on the ships and those utilized by Army forces throughout the region such as Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) and Patriot ballistic missile defense systems are in short supply. Similarly, we have a finite number of Tomahawk surface to surface missiles.

There may be another reason that Trump is threatening Iran. Despite his best efforts, he cannot make questions concerning the Epstein files go away. The net is getting ever wider and coming closer to him each day. The Epstein Files are not going away. They are like his shadow. They follow him everywhere and he cannot get away from them. When the king’s brother gets arrested, along with the British Ambassador to the U.S. he knows more fallout is coming. He is getting desperate to distract and turn our attention elsewhere. Iran anyone?

A Real Crisis

Posted: August 8, 2017 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

With the president on vacation — or “working vacation” as he prefers — and many of us likewise enjoying some time off and therefore not paying much attention to world events, it is possible to overlook the quickly unfolding events surrounding North Korea.  It appears that what was possible “five to ten years” from now may have already happened, or is about to happen.

North Korea has or is very close to having Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) with a range to reach the U.S. mainland, carrying nuclear weapons.

Kim Jong Un with nuclear weapons.  That should give us all pause.

Given that North Korea is the toughest place on earth to penetrate for accurate information, no one really knows what they do or do not have.  However, at the end of July they tested an ICBM that credible experts say has the potential to reach at least to Chicago.  This afternoon, the Washington Post has a breaking story that reports that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessed in late July that the North Koreans have the ability to miniaturize nuclear weapons to fit on an ICBM.  This is no small technical accomplishment and one that only earlier this summer analysts did not think was within their capability.  Giving more weight to the assessment, the Japanese Ministry of Defense concluded that there is evidence to suggest that North Korea has indeed achieved miniaturization.  It is still unclear whether they have reached the ability to keep the re-entry vehicle (the bomb) from burning up upon re-entry, but they will achieve that feat as well in due order.

To add to our degree of safety, according to the report, the North Koreans may also have as many as 60 nuclear weapons.  Other analysts think the number is much lower, somewhere around 20 to 25.  A comforting thought.

This past weekend a step in the right direction occurred when the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) voted unanimously to significantly increase the world-wide sanctions on North Korea.  This is a noteworthy event as both Russia and China voted for the measure.  Most times they veto almost anything proposed by the U.S. involving North Korea.  It remains to be seen whether they enforce those sanctions, but it is a positive step.

History indicates however, that Kim Jong Un cares little for sanctions, no matter how debilitating they may be to his nation’s population.  In the past, he allowed his population to starve by the thousands under previous sanctions.  He just doesn’t care.

All this is not to say that we in the U.S., or anywhere else in the world, is in immediate danger.  It does say that the equation changed.  As I have written in this space before, such as on 27 May this year, I do not believe that there is anything currently on the table that will cause Kim to give up his nuclear arsenal.  In his mind, those weapons are the key to his survival.  Period.  He gives them up, the regime will be destroyed.  As I’ve written, all he has to do is look at Saddam Hussein and Moahmar Qadhafi, both of whom gave up their Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programs and ended up dead.

Likewise I do not subscribe to the theory that Kim is “crazy” or a “madman” or any other such characterizations of him.  That is not the danger.  The danger is that he is young, relatively unsophisticated and with little practical experience in world affairs.  The possibility of a miscalculation is high.  Unfortunately, it is even higher as President Trump talks about North Korea in belligerent terms. This afternoon at his golf course in Bedminster New Jersey, the president said that “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States.  They will be met with fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen.”  While deterrence is based on making a clear and credible threat of retaliation, and certainly we need to be clear about the fact that we will retaliate, this type of language increases the possibility of Kim miscalculating the threat from the U.S.  It also is not clear as to what exactly the president means by that.  However, again, Kim is all about survival, he does not have a death wish.  The danger comes in him believing a presidential statement or Tweet and calculating that the U.S. and/or our allies are about to attack and therefore he decides to strike first.  Cool heads must prevail and look to the long-term to solve this problem.

There is one other little discussed element of this problem.  The North Koreans are all about being anti-American.  A quick look at their history, and especially their terrible losses in the Korean War, help to explain their position.  They may find it convenient to use a proxy, such as a terrorist group or other bad actor, to use one of these weapons.  They could sell a weapon or the knowledge of how to build one in order to achieve two goals, hard currency and an attack on the United States.

When the dust settles, the U.S. basically has three options.  Conduct a preemptive military strike, negotiate a freeze on further development of North Korean nuclear weapons and missiles or accept the fact that they already have them.  All three should be pursued in their own way, but we need to be realistic as to their impact on the situation and understand that there may be no one answer.

Despite the president’s rhetoric, and rightly saying that all options remain on the table, the likelihood of the U.S. precipitating military action is small.  Or it should be.  As I wrote in May, the costs of a military conflagration on the Korean peninsula, that will surely spread to Japan and elsewhere in the Pacific, are just too high.  Not that it could not happen, just that it is very unlikely in a rationale calculus.  The one exception I might put out there is an attack to decapitate the North Korean leadership — Kim Jung Un and his cronies — but that is a very risky undertaking.  If we miss, Kim will unleash his forces.  Even if we succeed, there is no guarantee his successors will not retaliate.  Complicating the issue is neither Russia or China desire regime change in North Korea and greatly fear its collapse.  They will have a vote — real or in projected reaction — on how things play out.  It is nearly impossible to expect a U.S. military preemptive attack to take out the missiles and weapons.  They are in hardened locations and are nearly impossible to reach, even if we are sure where they are, which we are not.

The second option is to negotiate.  The Russians and Chinese are trying to facilitate those negotiations even as we sit here today.  Their proposal is to have the U.S. and South Korea pledge to never again hold military exercises on or near the Korean peninsula in exchange for the North Koreans freezing their nuclear and missile programs.  This is a non-starter on two levels.  The U.S. will not (or should not) abandon its allies.  Secondly, over several decades, the North Koreans have never seriously sat down at the table for negotiations.  Negotiations were held in the past, but it quickly became apparent that the North Koreans had no intention of acquiescing to anything.  If Kim believes his survival means keeping his programs then there is no reason to believe he will negotiate them away.

The third option, accept the new development as we did when the Soviet Union and later China developed nuclear weapons, is not “giving up.”  We have a credible deterrent in both nuclear and conventional weapons that can do great harm to Kim and his regime.  He knows this.  Additionally, the U.S. has Ballistic Missile Defense Systems (BMD) in California and Alaska that have been successfully tested.  They were built with a regime like North Korea in mind.  Additionally the U.S. Navy and U.S. Army have BMD systems.  There are additional diplomatic and economic measures that can be taken to continue to contain the North Korean threat.  It is not a hopeless cause and a North Korean attack is not inevitable in any respect.

Unfortunately, the world just became more dangerous.  As a result, the U.S. and our allies must negotiate this new terrain very carefully.  We should not take the threat lightly and it does change how we deal in the Pacific Theater.  At the same time, never make a threat that will not be carried out.  It results in a loss of credibility, which impacts deterrence, and may end up causing the very act that one is trying to deter.

Our national security team has its work cut out for it.  Let’s hope they make the right choices.