A free, secular, pro-western Iran is good for the whole world. It would also end much of the turmoil that keeps American forces perpetually in the Middle East.
Outstanding analysis. Thank you. I do not see this as "declaring war" on our part. Will someone please rein in those people in Congress who do not understand how President Trump does his job!?!?
As I scroll through Substack Notes today, I've noticed something of a shift among those who've opposed the attack on what I consider principled grounds: that is, making actual arguments about the national interest and so on, as opposed to the mindless, meretricious "Trump is an evil warmonger!" "Trump is working for Israel!" and the like.
But I've also noticed a shift as the day has gone on.
We seem to be seeing Clarke's Laws of Change in action even as we speak.
Before today, the line was "We can't possibly pull it off."
Now I'm starting to see some hedging, with the new line being "Well, OK, we did accomplish something, but it will take too long, cost too much, and put too many in harm's way."
I wonder how long it will take for those folks to reach Clarke's third stage: "Hey...I said it was a good idea all along!" :-)
I don't know. They screamed about how Trump had betrayed them when he blew up Iran's nuclear sites, that he was "working for Israel", that Iran is not and never has been a threat to the U.S. (??!!), and that this would be WORLD WAR III.
And then it was over as quickly as it began and it was like they forgot about all that.
Then they screamed about how Trump had betrayed them when he arrested Maduro -- they didn't seem to mind Biden putting a $25 million bounty on Maduro's head, or when the grand jury indicted Maduro and his evil wife -- that he was "working for Israel" (in Venezuela???), and maybe that this wouldn't be WORLD WAR III, but maybe it would, and in any case it was completely unconstitutional...somehow.
And then it was over as quickly as it began and it was like they forgot about all that.
So my guess is this will succeed wildly, as Trump's initiatives tend to do, and they will pretend they never said or predicted anything, but will learn absolutely nothing. And the process will start again.
Oh, I never suggested they wouldn't restart the cycle. That wasn't Clarke's point either. Clarke's Stages of Acceptance [1] are situation-specific. Which is exactly what you are also predicting.
My only point was, the cycle is so fast that now it's taking place within the first 24 hours after the event.
So I don't think we're in disagreement here: I just expressed myself poorly.
[1] Formally: Stage 1, "It can't be done"; Stage 2, "It will cost too much"; Stage 3, "I said it was a good idea all along."
I agree that at this point we are very unlikely to hear an explicit verbalization of Stage 3 from the folks who stoke the outrage machine. But in a few years when the events themselves are safely in the rear-view, that's what they'll say.
Outstanding analysis. Thank you. I do not see this as "declaring war" on our part. Will someone please rein in those people in Congress who do not understand how President Trump does his job!?!?
Indeed. First, they declared war on us 47 years ago. And second, Trump is in full compliance with the War Powers Act.
Well-said. Another outstanding analysis, sir! :-)
As I scroll through Substack Notes today, I've noticed something of a shift among those who've opposed the attack on what I consider principled grounds: that is, making actual arguments about the national interest and so on, as opposed to the mindless, meretricious "Trump is an evil warmonger!" "Trump is working for Israel!" and the like.
But I've also noticed a shift as the day has gone on.
We seem to be seeing Clarke's Laws of Change in action even as we speak.
Before today, the line was "We can't possibly pull it off."
Now I'm starting to see some hedging, with the new line being "Well, OK, we did accomplish something, but it will take too long, cost too much, and put too many in harm's way."
I wonder how long it will take for those folks to reach Clarke's third stage: "Hey...I said it was a good idea all along!" :-)
I don't know. They screamed about how Trump had betrayed them when he blew up Iran's nuclear sites, that he was "working for Israel", that Iran is not and never has been a threat to the U.S. (??!!), and that this would be WORLD WAR III.
And then it was over as quickly as it began and it was like they forgot about all that.
Then they screamed about how Trump had betrayed them when he arrested Maduro -- they didn't seem to mind Biden putting a $25 million bounty on Maduro's head, or when the grand jury indicted Maduro and his evil wife -- that he was "working for Israel" (in Venezuela???), and maybe that this wouldn't be WORLD WAR III, but maybe it would, and in any case it was completely unconstitutional...somehow.
And then it was over as quickly as it began and it was like they forgot about all that.
So my guess is this will succeed wildly, as Trump's initiatives tend to do, and they will pretend they never said or predicted anything, but will learn absolutely nothing. And the process will start again.
Oh, I never suggested they wouldn't restart the cycle. That wasn't Clarke's point either. Clarke's Stages of Acceptance [1] are situation-specific. Which is exactly what you are also predicting.
My only point was, the cycle is so fast that now it's taking place within the first 24 hours after the event.
So I don't think we're in disagreement here: I just expressed myself poorly.
[1] Formally: Stage 1, "It can't be done"; Stage 2, "It will cost too much"; Stage 3, "I said it was a good idea all along."
I agree that at this point we are very unlikely to hear an explicit verbalization of Stage 3 from the folks who stoke the outrage machine. But in a few years when the events themselves are safely in the rear-view, that's what they'll say.
I intended no disagreement at all, just disgust at these people -- on both sides -- who reflexively attack anything this president does.
Amen to that, my brother in Christ. Amen to that.
But as we both know, it's been that way since at least Reagan, or maybe Nixon.
We are better than they are. And they know it.
That's the part they find maddening.
As I always say to people who throw shade at me: *I know who I am*. Your insults thus have no purchase.
Reagan had that quality. As does Trump. Neither of them really care when other think less of them.
Which I find admirable.