On the menu today: Yesterday, the president announced a cease-fire with Iran that would open the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has not ceased firing, and the Strait of Hormuz remains mostly closed, “with fewer vessels passing the Strait of Hormuz than during the fiercest days of fighting.” While the actual consequences of the cease-fire remain a contradictory mess, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth implausibly claims that a “new regime” is running Iran. The reports of how the president reached his decision to attack Iran are not reassuring. And, for those who might have missed it, we are running our spring webathon this month, so if you’re feeling generous, please click this donation link.
The Cease-Fire That Wasn’t
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Wednesday: “The new Iranian regime understood that a deal was far better than the fate that awaited them. This new regime just happened to look at what happened to their predecessors.”
The “predecessor” was Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The “new Iranian regime” is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The latter is the son of the former. Words have meanings, and a “regime” means a system of government, not just the particular guy in charge. Iran has the exact same system of government that it had before the war began. There is no “new regime” in Iran, and Hegseth isn’t fooling anyone by claiming that there is.
Shortly after midnight Wednesday morning, Trump declared the day would be “a big day for World Peace! Iran wants it to happen, they’ve had enough!” Less than 24 hours later, a little before midnight Wednesday evening, President Trump had to acknowledge that the Iranian regime wasn’t acting as if they had agreed to concede much of anything:
All U.S. Ships, Aircraft, and Military Personnel, with additional Ammunition, Weaponry, and anything else that is appropriate and necessary for the lethal prosecution and destruction of an already substantially degraded Enemy, will remain in place in, and around, Iran, until such time as the REAL AGREEMENT reached is fully complied with. If for any reason it is not, which is highly unlikely, then the “Shootin’ Starts,” bigger, and better, and stronger than anyone has ever seen before. It was agreed, a long time ago, and despite all of the fake rhetoric to the contrary – NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS and, the Strait of Hormuz WILL BE OPEN & SAFE. In the meantime our great Military is Loading Up and Resting, looking forward, actually, to its next Conquest.
In the middle of the day, Trump raged at certain American media outlets for reporting upon the ten-point plan that the Iranians said were their conditions for a cease-fire, the one that yesterday’s edition of this newsletter characterized as an “ayatollah’s wish list”:
The Failing New York Times and Fake News CNN each reported a totally FAKE TEN POINT PLAN on the Iran negotiations which was meant to discredit the people involved in the peace process. All ten points were a made up HOAX — EVIL LOSERS!!! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
When the Iranian regime declares publicly through its state-run media, “This is what we have agreed to,” it is news, whether the president of the United States likes it or not. Yes, the Iranian regime may well be lying; as yesterday’s newsletter laid out at length, they’ve been known to do that. This is why traditionally, in high-stakes diplomacy like this, both parties write down what they have actually agreed to — sometimes translated into more than one language! — and then let the world see the document.
Does the President Listen to His Briefings?
A week ago, the New York Times offered a surprisingly detailed account of the short deliberations around President Trump before he decided to go to war against the Iranian regime. Six reporters are credited with bylines.
We don’t know who leaked what, but I would note that the account makes Vice President JD Vance look prescient in recognizing the difficulties in toppling the regime and the scale of the effort required; Secretary of State Marco Rubio looks duplicitous in hiding the impending attack from House and Senate intelligence panel members; and the president appears unnervingly nonchalant about the difficulties of toppling the regime.
The account also indicates Trump lied to the public about what he was told about the war before he launched it:
In the same meeting, Mr. Trump’s top military adviser, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, told the president that a war could lead to significant American casualties. Days later, Mr. Trump told the public that his military adviser had been far more reassuring. He wrote on Truth Social that General Caine had said that any military action against Iran would be “something easily won.”
On February 23, five days before the operation commenced, Trump posted on Truth Social, “General Caine, like all of us, would like not to see War but, if a decision is made on going against Iran at a Military level, it is his opinion that it will be something easily won”:
During the meeting, General Caine discussed an array of options, among them that U.S. forces could carry out a limited strike as a way to push Iran in the negotiations, or a larger campaign with the goal of toppling the government. The latter option in particular, he said, carried high risk of American casualties, could destabilize the region and significantly deplete stocks of American munitions.
General Caine underscored that all of the options under consideration would be much more difficult than the successful capture of Mr. Maduro of Venezuela, an operation that the president viewed as a sign of potential U.S. success in Iran.
Now, you can doubt the reporting of the New York Times, but note that Trump granted an interview with the Times March 1.
Caine has a long and distinguished record in the U.S. Air Force; he patrolled D.C. airspace on 9/11. He has more than 150 combat hours in an F-16 over Iraq and more than 2,800 hours in an F-16. He spent three years as associate director for Military Affairs at the Central Intelligence Agency. It is very difficult to believe that he would ever tell the president that a war against Iran would be “easily won” or be dismissive of the risks involved.
Events are occurring so fast that it was easy to miss, or forget, that President Trump’s response to the news that the Iranians had fired upon oil tankers in the Persian Gulf was, “These ships should go through the Strait of Hormuz and show some guts, there’s nothing to be afraid of.” Brian Kilmeade reported on Trump saying that on March 9. By that point, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations Center, at least nine ships had been struck by Iranian missiles or drones; after that date, at least 24 ships or port facilities had been struck by missiles or drones. There was indeed something for those crews and their captains to be afraid of, and President Trump just refused to admit it.
There is ample evidence that when President Trump hears something he doesn’t want to hear, he simply ignores it or dismisses it. This is a reckless and dangerous way to go through life — or to lead a country.
Republicans Live with the Consequences of the Decisions of an Unpopular President
Tuesday, most of the world’s attention was on the president’s impending threat that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” and then the announced cease-fire. But that day Wisconsin held an election for one of its state supreme court seats. Incumbent justice Rebecca Bradley chose to not seek another ten-year term. While the justices are technically nonpartisan, they are widely perceived as liberal or conservative. Before this week’s election, liberals had a 4-3 majority, and Bradley, appointed by former GOP Governor Scott Walker, was seen as a conservative.
Tuesday’s race pitted liberal Wisconsin Court of Appeals judge Chris Taylor against fellow Court of Appeals judge, conservative Maria Lazar.
Now, for Republicans, Wisconsin is a purple state at best. Yes, Trump won it twice, but the margin was 0.77 percentage points in 2016 and 0.86 percentage points in 2024. (Note the decimal points.) GOP Senator Ron Johnson won reelection by one percentage point in 2022; Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin won by .85 percentage points in 2024.
Everyone knows the national political environment is bad for Republicans right now, which fits the historical pattern for the president’s party in a midterm election year, and turnout is lower when there’s an election in April instead of November. But for Republicans, the hope was that Lazar could at least keep it close.
With 99 percent of the votes counted, liberal Chris Taylor won 60.1 percent of the vote, and Lazar won 39.8 percent.
You may recall that about a year ago, Wisconsin held another state supreme court election. The Republican-preferred judge lost that one, too, in a 55 percent to 45 percent margin.
In other words, a year ago, Republicans were cringing at losing an unusually timed statewide election in a usually tight key swing state by ten percentage points. Now, they’re losing the same kind of contest by 20 points.
You keep hearing polling indicating that the image of the Democratic Party is in the toilet. That may well be the case, but that didn’t matter one bit on Tuesday.
A Fox News headline declares, “Midterm alarm bells: Democrats face steep favorability deficit despite election gains.” Eh, if Democrats are showing up to the polls, and Republicans aren’t, that favorability deficit doesn’t really matter that much, now does it? It’s a cliché to say, “The only poll that matters is the one on Election Day,” but . . . it’s true!
The media can overstate the importance of a Florida state house special election in the district that includes Mar-a-Lago. Special elections can generate weird results because turnout is so much lower than normal. But the pattern in special elections over the past year and a half and the 2025 off-year elections has been pretty clear: Democrats are attentive and fired up and showing up, Republicans are tuning out and not showing up, and to the extent independents are showing up, they’re voting for the Democratic candidates.
Will Republicans have an easier time getting their base to show up on Election Day in November? Yes. Will that prevent Democrats from winning big across the country? That remains to be seen, but it’s not looking good for the GOP right now.
The president of the United States has quite limited influence over the outcome of a state supreme court election. But he has some influence over the national political environment.
Donald Trump is quite unpopular. A whole lot of people don’t want to hear that, but that is the case. Right now in the RealClearPolitics average, 56.2 percent disapprove of the job he is doing, 41.3 percent approve of the job he is doing. Some surveys have Trump’s approval rating in the upper 30s.
Henry Olsen is a particularly sharp guy when it comes to election analysis, and he said on the RCP podcast this week, “The House is gone, unless Trump undergoes a political resurrection where he’s back up to around 46 percent job approval in November. If he gets north of 45 percent in your average, I’ll start looking at the House as a possibility of being held again. So, what we’re really looking at is, will Republicans hold the Senate? If the president stays where he is on your average — when I left, it was hanging around 41, I don’t know what polls you’ve added today — yeah, that puts the Senate at risk.”
In 66 days, President Trump will turn 80 years old.
ADDENDUM: Don’t worry, California. Eric Swalwell is coming to save you.