Supporters of bombing swear they don’t want ground troops but that they are committed to the end of the regime. One may have to give way to the other.
Earlier this week, Jim took a dim view of potential talks with the Iranians.
The Iranian regime demonstrated, clearly and frequently, that any agreement signed with them is worthless, because they will break their agreement at the first opportunity.
So why would or should the U.S. go back to the negotiating table, in pursuit of another cease-fire-that-isn’t-a-cease-fire? Why on earth would anyone think that this next round of negotiating would be any more fruitful or useful than the previous rounds?
Okay. And this morning my friend Matt Continetti writes in the Wall Street Journal, in a column titled “Iran’s Regime Is the Problem,” to reassert the near-theological certainty that the only way forward is ending Iran’s regime:
If he wants to win this war, Mr. Trump must deliver crippling blows to Iran’s government. That means rejecting proportionality and ordering Centcom to resume pursuing its target list as of April 7. It means expanding targets to include highways, bridges, factories and other infrastructure that sustains the IRGC war machine—not one a day, but all at once. It means making Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, the IRGC commander, and other regime bigwigs continually look over their shoulders. And it means impairing the Islamic Republic’s ability to spew propaganda—shutting off state TV, permanently.
Opening the Strait of Hormuz, eliminating the Iranian nuclear program and debilitating the IRGC’s missile production lines can’t be done diplomatically. President Trump started the war convinced that victory requires resolve, commitment and the application of necessary means to achieve a given end. What’s happened since April proves as much. Time to act like it
Okay, so . . . lots more bombing? Then what?
The American people are overwhelmingly against this war, and polls show majorities want the president to end it even if he doesn’t achieve his goals.
I’m told over and over again that Iran hawks don’t want to commit ground troops. They just want “the means necessary to achieve a given end.” But what if, once again, the Iranian regime doesn’t respond to bombing by giving up or imploding?
It seems like neoconservatives have forgotten their own lessons from history. In the late 1990s, frustrated with the persistence of Saddam’s regime in Iraq, the school’s leading thinkers would say things like “the mystique of air power is gone.” They urged President Clinton to use the “full complement” of diplomatic and military options.
Now, they swear they don’t want troops but that they are committed to the end of the regime. Well, one may have to give way to the other. Which is it? Why can’t men answer this? Why should I take any of this commentary more seriously than a free kick on an open goal?
How Iran would stabilize itself afterward and the potential refugee flows after regime collapse don’t even intrude on anyone’s thinking, apparently.
There seems to be a gamble now that the Iranian regime will topple somewhere between a large-scale bombardment and the insertion of troops. Or is the bet that President Trump is just proud and so easily manipulated that he’ll get stuck in, and do the job, while helpfully committing hari-kari on himself and Vance?