The world's mainstream media--and I read them with interest due to factors apart from the Iran war--The Economist, Financial Times, Bloomberg, the New York Times have been characterizing the war as a losing proposition for both the US and Israel. Their narrative is finding adherents as I write this.
The MAGA--The MAGA were not provided with a forceful narrative as to why this war was a necessary war. Why this war was not a "forever" war. In other words, no one even attempted to sell the war to the MAGA infantry.
And now the wild card:
1. The Iranian people--assuming that 85% of the population are either against the regime or at minimum, apathetic--are not given the "agency" role they have richly earned. They came to the streets in late December and were massacred en masse. They are being silent, which is not equal to "being silenced". When your enemy is fighting and getting hammered, you would not wish to interfere in that process. You "bide" your time.
The Extent of the active support of the Islamic Republic:
And now a final word with the people who read Mehdi's substack. Mehdi has gotten a good perspective on the situation. I would like to add a new one, one which is not widely understood and in the process, not discussed.
Anecdotally, one hears that 15% of Iran's population support the Islamic Republic (90,000,000 * 0.15 = 13,500,000) and assuming 0.5% of that figure (13,500,000 * 0.005 = 67,500) is what could be characterized as the "hard core" (this number includes the active revolutionary guard, basij and other armed groups), the US, Israel and subsequently, the armed anti-Islamic Republic can deliver enough damage to render a fraction of the 67,500 immobilized, thus rendering the remaining out of the theater of kinetic activities. Of course, these "cultist" will move to the shadows and engage in terrorism but this can be managed.
What I am arguing is that the path to victory is not uncertain but quite curvy and at times not paved. (asphalt versus dirt road). But Iran, once liberated, will be the biggest seminal event in modern human history, equal to, if not greater, than the collapse of the Berlin Wall? Why? Because with the Berlin Wall, we had the collapse of Communism. With the fall of the Islamic Republic, we will usher the fall of Islamic militancy, which has been gnawing at the world for nearly half a century.
Thank you for taking the time to share the objectives of the mainstream media. Very helpful. I’ve scanned their headlines and your comment is in line with those headlines. It only makes sense that the mainstream media would have such a view - because Trump. Unless you have read careful and deliberate assessments from this group that supports their position, I’ll just assume that I’m right. And I say this knowing that the coalition (US, Israel, etc…) have their hands full with many challenges still to come.
On the Republican Party support (I don’t want to address this as MAGA because that’s a portion of the party) for the war. About 10% is the “woke right” led by Tucker and his group that are against the war and advancing stunning conspiracy theories that are unsubstantiated. The other 90% of the party supports POTUS and sees this action as necessary to eliminate a very dangerous theocratic regime that has been at war with the US for 47 years.
I personally believe that Trump has no choice but to achieve his objectives (eliminate nuclear threat, eliminate missile threat, eliminate the proxy network) whether by force or by negotiation. The reason is because Iran is a proxy for China & Russia and any other outcome would be catastrophic. Taking control Kharg island would be a huge achievement and would allow the US to dictate energy policy globally.
Sorry. What you describe as the "woke right" --can't agree. "Tucker and his group"--not sure who else you mean, but, I do know that Tucker is asking some fair questions and expressing legitimate concerns shared by many. Labeling others who don't agree exactly with you is far more "woke"-- I thought we left that nonsense behind us with the last administration. It merely appears sadly to have taken a different form.
So here is where I’ve landed as result of listening to the questions.
I respect anyone’s right to seek reduced US spending on foreign conflicts.
I myself would like to see a reduction too.
But I’ve not seen any credible suggestions or long form discussions to reduce spending other than the money set aside for Israeli purchase of US weapons systems, which is about $4 billion a year.
Did you know that the US spends roughly $71 billion per year for 170,000 US troops stationed overseas ?
Not once have I heard anyone suggest bringing them home.
That would save a ton.
The problem that I have with Tucker Carlson and his group (Megyn Kelly, Glenn Greenwald, Dave Smith) is that they have piled the lies and conspiracy theories on so high so as to demonize Israel, that it lacks credibility and ignores the initial foreign policy objective: to reduce the cost of foreign entanglements.
Any intelligent person knows that a credible foreign policy discussion would be far broader and more meaningful than demonizing one small country.
It would contain an assessment of our enemies.
It would contain an assessment of our allies.
It would address our technical capabilities to develop weapons.
It would address our industrial capabilities to support the military.
It would address our intelligence capabilities and those of our enemies.
First, let me respond to your last comment re: being used. It has become abundantly clear since before Covid and definitely after, that we have all been manipulated to some degree or another by media on both sides.
I am making a judicious effort to listen to arguments on both sides re: this war with Iran. I learned of this Substack article from Mark Halperin on his 2 Way news platform. Mark makes a concerted efforted to offer viewpoints and discussion from both sides of the issues. Yesterday he interviewed the venerable Brit Hume on his perspective of the war, which was definitely a supportive stance.
You wrote: "Did you know that the US spends roughly $71 billion per year for 170,000 US troops stationed overseas ?
Not once have I heard anyone suggest bringing them home."
Although I didn't know the numbers (thank you for that) I am well aware of our troops stationed around the world and have varying thoughts about this. To stay on track with this thread, I do recall President Trump making an offhand remark about bringing our troops home from Europe---one of his threat jests, shall we say. It was a while back and obviously he wasn't serious but with regard to NATO, he made his point.
My biggest question pertains to the Big campaign promises made by President Trump and his team, to avoid more wars, particularly in the middle east.
Without Any assistance from the talking heads of whom you disapprove (I do listen to some of Megyn Kelly's podcasts pertaining to politics and this war)
a "red flag" popped up for me last year prior to the bombing of the nuclear facilities in Iran. It was the president himself and his manner of dismissing his own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard's recent declaration (March of 2025) to a senate committee (Intelligence hearing for the annual threat assessment of the U.S. intel community) that Iran's nuclear development was not an imminent threat to the U.S.
Of course this in no way denies the serious problems with Iran, their support of terrorism, etc. But the president's manner towards his DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, with some sarcastic comments, struck a wrong chord in my gut. Then the 12 day war happened and you know the story we All were told--and it was only partly truthful.
This trend of red flags continued for me through the summer of 2025 with the president's 180 degree turnaround on the Epstein files, among other things.
I do not scapegoat Israel for the concerns I personally have, but I do agree with some that it is fair to question their power and influence in US politics, policy, media, etc.
In summary, I am beyond relieved that our son is no longer serving in the US military. He was stationed in Qatar when the unbelievable but too-sadly-true debacle of our withdrawl from Afghanistan happened.
He feels betrayed by President Trump at this time. He is not a politically savvy guy nor interested in politics.
He does not listen to Tucker, Megyn Kelly or the others you mentioned. He avoids the media news in general and is focused like so many Americans, on working, providing for his family and living life.
Why do you think he feels betrayed ? One reason undoubtedly is that he is concerned for good friends still serving in our military.
Do we just dismiss the inconvenient promises made to the American people?
I still have hope that our military will succeed in this operation and that it will ultimately be for the good of Americans, Israelis, the Iranian people, the Qataris, Saudis, Yemenis, Emirates, etc. And that it will Not be another years long slog through hell for our men and women serving in the U.S. military.
All good thoughts Michelle. I do understand why many feel betrayed by Trump in the current conflict. I respect their frustration and anger, especially those in uniform.
My own diligence with regard to the geopolitical landscape prior to Trump’s election had me suspecting that Trump would act against Iran, if elected. In fact, my reasons for voting for Trump were as follows: (1) close the southern border, (2) eliminate Iranian nukes, and (3) end the war between Ukraine and Russia. So I was not surprised by the actions of Midnight Hammer nor Epic Fury.
I’m confident that because of the impact Epic Fury has had on the Middle East, that the war between the Ukraine and Russia will be resolved soon. The pressure on Europe, Ukraine’s backer, is just too great at this point.
I’ve tended to stay clear of the Epstein matter because it does not affect the geopolitical map. I know that the financial crimes that were perpetrated by the various banks involved were resolved by massive fines. And I’m hoping that the victims have their cases properly adjudicated.
I’d like to suggest a Substack site for you to consider reading. It is written by a Florida attorney named Jeff Childers, and is titled Coffee & Covid. It is by far the best analysis that I’ve read on Substack. It is free for six days a week, with a paywall on Sunday. It is very expensive, so I just read the six free days, but am considering subscribing because it is so good. His reporting on the war with Iran has been excellent, because he connects the dots of the geopolitical map in a manner that is helpful in keeping all of the news, counter news and propaganda in proper context. Please see the attached link:
I appreciate you engaging with me on these concerns and I respect and appreciate your reasons for voting for our president.
May you be correct in your assertion that this "war with Iran" will work to end the war in Ukraine. It is without doubt part of the hopes of team America and may it succeed.
Your recommendation of Jeff Childers brought a chuckle. I have the same subscription as you and read his columns regularly. He strikes me as a thoughtful and brilliant analyst of current political events and my husband and I appreciate so much of his work. He will always have my appreciation and respect in his efforts to call out the fraudsters during and after the pandemic.
The media dilettantes label anything they don’t like or understand as a lack of something. It’s a lot less work and they get as many clicks as they would from producing real journalism. Add to this that WH sources are so tight-lipped, and the MSM is left adrift. A dismal profession.
The coercive sequence framing is the most analytically coherent account of the Trump strategy we've seen — and it's largely correct on the logic. Where it deserves challenge is on the assumption that the sequence remains controllable.
The article treats the pause-pressure-negotiation cycle as a managed ratchet, with Washington in the driving seat. Our read of the current phase suggests three dynamics that complicate that picture. First, Iran's formal proposal to institutionalise a permanent Hormuz toll regime isn't a negotiating position — it's a structural conversion of temporary leverage into permanent architecture. Even if the Islamic Republic accepts strategic retreat on nuclear terms, the corridor regime it's building now requires novel multilateral legal architecture to reverse. That's not a ratchet Washington controls.
Second, the three-party authorisation problem the article underweights. Netanyahu's operational tempo in Lebanon is running on a parallel timeline to the diplomatic track, and Israel has stronger incentives for the talks to continue than to conclude — every extension is operational time. Coercive diplomacy assumes the coercing party controls the escalation dial. With three principals, that assumption breaks.
Third, the Gulf state reversal the article identifies as evidence the strategy is working is also the seed of a second escalation vector Washington doesn't control. The UAE assembling its own coalition of the willing operates independently of April 6. If Abu Dhabi secures European naval commitments before Washington has a diplomatic framework, the coercive sequence gets a fourth actor with its own timeline.
The strategic logic here is sound. The controllability assumption is where we'd push back.
DJT owes the author 'bigly' for wrapping a seriously flawed adventure in a veil of logic. At the risk of being proven wrong by future events, I would suggest that the author reassess his hypothesis in the broader context of Trump's general modus operandi. His abuse of the judicial system, significantly countered by the courts; his insane trade policy, throwing domestic and world trade policy into chaos that has subsided due to court action, but is not resolved; his immigration policy which has been so poorly executed that now even staunch supports are questioning both the logic and the results; his Venezuela adventure, the cost and results of which are still widely unknown, except that the Manhattan federal detention center now has a new celebrity resident; and, lest I forget, he has entered this war after diligently insulting the various allies and alliances that he will need to resolve this satisfactorily.
DJT and the Iranian regime (whoever they may be at the moment) have one thing in common. Neither care how much destruction they inflict on their own people in pursuit of their grandiose ambitions.
Excellent analysis, but it goes beyond this. What is the cost to the US of this war compared to other regions? The US is brimming with energy resources and is a net exporter. China is heavily dependent upon not only oil, but helium used in technology and production capacity. Europe is dependent upon the middle east for oil and LNG and with the Strait closed, Europe is even more dependent upon the US for LNG. The continued closure of the Strait actually gives Trump more power in negotiating terms for trade deals and everything else.
The only pressure on Trump is the political pressure from a population that does not support more miiltary interventions. The strange thing about Americans is that they want to spend more on the military, yet they dont ever want to use it. What is the purpose of all that firepower if you dont use it?
Quite frankly, the longer this continues the better for resetting the world order in favor of the US.
The problem with this analysis is that it fails to take into account what is actually happening in the war zone. The Iranians are establishing facts on the ground that neither the US nor Israel have the military capacity to reverse.
Iran has total control over what ships can pass the strait of Hormuz. Iran's own exports of oil have significantly increased in volume and massively increased in price giving the Iranian government a flood of foreign money they could only have dreamt of before the war started. Countries around the world are breaking down Iran's doors trying to do deals to get their ships out of the gulf. Deals have already been done with India, Pakistan, China and others. Each ship that is allowed through the Strait pays a multimillion-dollar fee to Iran in Chinese currency that Iran can use to buy things that they need from China such as chemicals for rocket fuel and electronics.
Can the US force open the strait? The short answer is an absolute no. The Iranian side of Hormuz is roughly 200km of rocky coast, cliffs and mountains. For decades the Iranians have been building bunkers and tunnels filled with heavy artillery, rockets, anti-ship missiles, drones, fast attack speedboats, mines and water drones. There are also manned midget submarines that can attack ships with torpedoes. There is no way whatsoever the US military could locate and destroy all these weapon systems to make the strait safe for shipping.
It doesn't matter how many old men or schoolgirls the US and Israel blow up I simply can't see the situation changing. Why on earth would the Iranians give up their control over the Strait of Hormuz? The world is simply going to have to get used to the fact Iran controls who can go in and out of the Persian Gulf. If you want oil, fertiliser, helium, sulphur or any other bulk product from the Gulf you will have to do a deal with Iran.
What insane propaganda is this? The JCPOA which totally restricted Iranian enrichment was torn up by Donnie douchebag himself which then allowed Iran to continue enrichment as the US had violated the agreement and reintroduced sanctions. The chutzpah needed to suggest that diplomacy had failed to contain Iran nuclear enrichment is next level!
Warmongers will always find an excuse for war but the JCPOA certainly did address the nuclear threat adequately given that every country has the right to pursue civilian nuclear power.
People that wanted to attack Iran because they sponsor "terrorism" ought to have had the decency to just admit that they want to attack Iran for terrorism alone instead of first deliberately undermining the nuclear enrichment controls and then using their own sabotage as an excuse to then wage war.
You are free to attack them for terrorism alone without lying about the JCPOA's nuclear curbs. That is a very simple point to understand but propagandists choose not to understand it.
Do you think Iran would stick to the JCPOA’s terms if American attacked them for terrorism? Would America attack for terrorism but still keep the JCPOA that allowed Iran to fund the terrorism? Did Trump end the JCPOA with the 4D chess plan to attack Iran 10 plus years later? Should America have attacked for terrorism but continue to let Iran do nuclear enrichment? The irony of you calling people propagandist.
>Do you think Iran would stick to the JCPOA’s terms if American attacked them for terrorism?
That would be up to them, everyone has agency but again that is beside the point. If they violated the JCPOA for reasons unrelated to the JCPOA they would be at fault in that counterfactual timeline but in our timeline the US-Israeli warmongers are 100% to blame.
Sounds like you don’t know what neocon means. Your premise that I or any American’s priority is to fix Iran is the problem. Is it a loathsome regime, yep. Doesn’t mean I need to care about it or fund a war against it. Are there countries that are anathema to the US, yes, but that doesn’t mean we go to war against them. Your assertion re 85% of Iranians is just pulled out of thin air and is certainly a neocon notion that brought us disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Put aside what “sounds” like neocon nonsense, please. So let’s concentrate on the nature of the cultist regime in Tehran. How would you describe it? How would you describe the thousands killed over a couple of days in January? Was that also nonsense—neocon or non-neocon?
This war against the regime is NOT a neocon war. No doubt both the US and Israel have their own objectives but at this juncture their objective aligns with what the 85%-ers in Iran wish and hope for: The utter collapse and destruction of a regime that has metastasized itself into the body politic of Iran since 1979.
Know that with the collapse of the regime —at enormous cost to Iran and her infrastructure—a people of 90mm will be able to rebuild and rebuild devoid of any Islamic ideology.
Is this fight of enormous cost to Iran and her long-suffering men and women? Yes. Can there be a return to the status quo ante bellum? No.
So let’s finish the job and remove the cult from power.
Am I being naive? 50%-50%. But I know one thing—Iran rejoining the US camp will do far better than remaining “as is” and “as shown”.
I read the article, and while it presents a coherent narrative, it rests on assumptions that may not hold under closer scrutiny.
To start, I agree with the core premise — if the regime becomes sufficiently fragmented, such that no coordinated leadership remains and factions stop functioning as a unified system, then the strategy could work. In that scenario, pressure accumulates, decision-making breaks down, and some form of resolution becomes possible. But that outcome depends entirely on whether fragmentation actually weakens the system.
The analysis overlooks a critical alternative: what if fragmentation is not failure, but design? A useful analogy is how the internet operates in the United States. You can take down infrastructure across an entire region, yet the network continues to function because it is distributed by design. If Iran has adopted a similar “mosaic” defense model — where units operate semi-independently but within a shared doctrine — then leadership losses do not necessarily degrade capability. In fact, they may trigger fallback modes that the system was built to handle. The fact that operations still appear coordinated even after significant leadership losses suggests that this possibility cannot be dismissed.
Once you consider that, scale becomes the next major issue — and it is severely underappreciated. Iran is not a compact, easily monitored battlespace. A more intuitive US comparison would be attempting to exert control over something the size of the western half of the country, with difficult terrain, dispersed infrastructure, and long coastlines. This is fundamentally different from environments like the Gaza Strip, where surveillance and control are far more feasible. At this scale, complete suppression becomes unrealistic, especially when combined with geography and proximity to the Strait of Hormuz.
This leads to a deeper asymmetry that the article does not fully address. The United States must maintain near-perfect control to secure outcomes, particularly in critical chokepoints like Hormuz. Iran does not need that level of success. It only needs occasional breakthroughs. Even a low-probability event — one successful strike out of many attempts — can have outsized global consequences by disrupting shipping, increasing insurance costs, and triggering market reactions. That dynamic makes the system inherently difficult to stabilize.
Finally, there is an asymmetry in risk tolerance that is often underestimated. The United States operates under significant political and economic constraints; even moderate disruption generates immediate pressure. In contrast, Iran’s internal structure allows it to absorb and, in some cases, operate through higher levels of instability. More importantly, escalation changes the nature of engagement itself. In lower-intensity settings, negotiation remains possible. But as conflict intensifies and losses mount, positions harden and the space for compromise shrinks. At some point, pressure stops producing concessions and instead reinforces resistance.
Taken together, these factors suggest that the analysis may be built on an incomplete model of the system. If Iran behaves like a centralized structure, the strategy might work as described. But if it functions as a distributed network operating across large-scale geography, then pressure does not converge in a predictable way. Instead, it diffuses — prolonging the conflict and making outcomes far less certain than the article implies.
Finally, the biggest risk is that diplomacy has effectively been lost, and the takeaway becomes that the only way to avoid being bullied again is to build a nuclear bomb in hiding as quickly as possible. Even the Gulf states may now start to question whether the US will defend them when it truly matters, which could have implications for the broader petro-dollar system. Overall, this points to a very bleak long-term outcome.
The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the fact that the system must be centralized in order to deal with internal uprisings. The only reason the regime can maintain power over a populace that disapproves of them is a coordinated system of repression that can overwhelm any local disruptions to control. The "mosaic" system may be somewhat functional in wartime but will completely fail when peace inevitably arrives.
The power vacuum decapitation strikes have created, which can nominally be dealt with in theory by legally identifying successors, will create internal rivalries that will probably hamper any Iranian recovery even if it survives this war. To use an American example just imagine what would have happened if Trump had been assassinated in Butler Pennsylvania, do you really thin MAGA could have effectively carried on with JD Vance? It takes time to build the legitimacy necessary to coordinate a national scale organization like the IRGC.
What this analysis lacks is admitting that a stone age society deprived of wealth creation will have a heck of a time mounting any future mega lethality. This is true whatever the machinations of politics rhink.
Interesting. For a model to be correct, it must fit all scenarios. The Carter presidency forced the Shah to step down. Quietly working in the background, Carter allowed the Theocracy, ably assisted by Yasser Arafat's PLO, to assume power. After being elected after a strong anti-Iran campaign in which he criticised Carter for being too soft on the Ayatollah, Ronald Reagan was caught out in 1986 for having supplied $billions of arms to Iran since 1981. The explanation that he offered was that this was to try and secure the release of hostages being held by Hezbollah. The weakness of this explanation, swallowed by a gullible American public, is that the first hostages were only captured in 1982. This affair became known as the Iran - Contra scandal. Moving through the years, every presidency has in some way, either directly with Iran, such as Obama, or simply by working against Israel, Clinton, with the Oslo accords, a case in point. Coming to Trump, he stopped Israel from taking out the Ayatollah at the end of the 12 day war. They were probably hours away from finishing the job. Bombing their nuclear facilities was most likely a show after Israel threatened to send ground troops in to do the job if Trump wouldn't help them. To Trump's current position? That is indeed unclear, but you can be sure that after everything dies down, Israel will be worse off. Possibly have Turkey replacing Iran as the power behind attacking Israel or something similar. That remains to be seen. Your article does offer a good explanation of current interactions, but it doesn't explain the previous instances mentioned, nor why Israel is never allowed to finish a war.
Mehdi, excellent analysis. Some of us are seeing the elements of The Art of the Deal being executed; i.e., “walkway from the table if the other side is not ready to make your deal”. It is amazing that Matt Taibbi and his new crew still don’t see it.
What I don't fail to see is that Iran holds all the cards, Turkey and Iran are now the local, regional powers and Israel comes out much diminished, frankly on the way of disappearance.
Again, a sober analysis.
However, we have two challenges:
The world's mainstream media--and I read them with interest due to factors apart from the Iran war--The Economist, Financial Times, Bloomberg, the New York Times have been characterizing the war as a losing proposition for both the US and Israel. Their narrative is finding adherents as I write this.
The MAGA--The MAGA were not provided with a forceful narrative as to why this war was a necessary war. Why this war was not a "forever" war. In other words, no one even attempted to sell the war to the MAGA infantry.
And now the wild card:
1. The Iranian people--assuming that 85% of the population are either against the regime or at minimum, apathetic--are not given the "agency" role they have richly earned. They came to the streets in late December and were massacred en masse. They are being silent, which is not equal to "being silenced". When your enemy is fighting and getting hammered, you would not wish to interfere in that process. You "bide" your time.
The Extent of the active support of the Islamic Republic:
And now a final word with the people who read Mehdi's substack. Mehdi has gotten a good perspective on the situation. I would like to add a new one, one which is not widely understood and in the process, not discussed.
Anecdotally, one hears that 15% of Iran's population support the Islamic Republic (90,000,000 * 0.15 = 13,500,000) and assuming 0.5% of that figure (13,500,000 * 0.005 = 67,500) is what could be characterized as the "hard core" (this number includes the active revolutionary guard, basij and other armed groups), the US, Israel and subsequently, the armed anti-Islamic Republic can deliver enough damage to render a fraction of the 67,500 immobilized, thus rendering the remaining out of the theater of kinetic activities. Of course, these "cultist" will move to the shadows and engage in terrorism but this can be managed.
What I am arguing is that the path to victory is not uncertain but quite curvy and at times not paved. (asphalt versus dirt road). But Iran, once liberated, will be the biggest seminal event in modern human history, equal to, if not greater, than the collapse of the Berlin Wall? Why? Because with the Berlin Wall, we had the collapse of Communism. With the fall of the Islamic Republic, we will usher the fall of Islamic militancy, which has been gnawing at the world for nearly half a century.
Thank you for taking the time to share the objectives of the mainstream media. Very helpful. I’ve scanned their headlines and your comment is in line with those headlines. It only makes sense that the mainstream media would have such a view - because Trump. Unless you have read careful and deliberate assessments from this group that supports their position, I’ll just assume that I’m right. And I say this knowing that the coalition (US, Israel, etc…) have their hands full with many challenges still to come.
On the Republican Party support (I don’t want to address this as MAGA because that’s a portion of the party) for the war. About 10% is the “woke right” led by Tucker and his group that are against the war and advancing stunning conspiracy theories that are unsubstantiated. The other 90% of the party supports POTUS and sees this action as necessary to eliminate a very dangerous theocratic regime that has been at war with the US for 47 years.
I personally believe that Trump has no choice but to achieve his objectives (eliminate nuclear threat, eliminate missile threat, eliminate the proxy network) whether by force or by negotiation. The reason is because Iran is a proxy for China & Russia and any other outcome would be catastrophic. Taking control Kharg island would be a huge achievement and would allow the US to dictate energy policy globally.
Sorry. What you describe as the "woke right" --can't agree. "Tucker and his group"--not sure who else you mean, but, I do know that Tucker is asking some fair questions and expressing legitimate concerns shared by many. Labeling others who don't agree exactly with you is far more "woke"-- I thought we left that nonsense behind us with the last administration. It merely appears sadly to have taken a different form.
I understand.
Just asking questions.
I hope you find the answers to your questions.
So here is where I’ve landed as result of listening to the questions.
I respect anyone’s right to seek reduced US spending on foreign conflicts.
I myself would like to see a reduction too.
But I’ve not seen any credible suggestions or long form discussions to reduce spending other than the money set aside for Israeli purchase of US weapons systems, which is about $4 billion a year.
Did you know that the US spends roughly $71 billion per year for 170,000 US troops stationed overseas ?
Not once have I heard anyone suggest bringing them home.
That would save a ton.
The problem that I have with Tucker Carlson and his group (Megyn Kelly, Glenn Greenwald, Dave Smith) is that they have piled the lies and conspiracy theories on so high so as to demonize Israel, that it lacks credibility and ignores the initial foreign policy objective: to reduce the cost of foreign entanglements.
Any intelligent person knows that a credible foreign policy discussion would be far broader and more meaningful than demonizing one small country.
It would contain an assessment of our enemies.
It would contain an assessment of our allies.
It would address our technical capabilities to develop weapons.
It would address our industrial capabilities to support the military.
It would address our intelligence capabilities and those of our enemies.
It would address a geographical concerns.
Tucker has addressed none of this.
I hope you find the answers to your questions.
And if you don’t, you’ll know that you were used.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply, Brian.
First, let me respond to your last comment re: being used. It has become abundantly clear since before Covid and definitely after, that we have all been manipulated to some degree or another by media on both sides.
I am making a judicious effort to listen to arguments on both sides re: this war with Iran. I learned of this Substack article from Mark Halperin on his 2 Way news platform. Mark makes a concerted efforted to offer viewpoints and discussion from both sides of the issues. Yesterday he interviewed the venerable Brit Hume on his perspective of the war, which was definitely a supportive stance.
You wrote: "Did you know that the US spends roughly $71 billion per year for 170,000 US troops stationed overseas ?
Not once have I heard anyone suggest bringing them home."
Although I didn't know the numbers (thank you for that) I am well aware of our troops stationed around the world and have varying thoughts about this. To stay on track with this thread, I do recall President Trump making an offhand remark about bringing our troops home from Europe---one of his threat jests, shall we say. It was a while back and obviously he wasn't serious but with regard to NATO, he made his point.
My biggest question pertains to the Big campaign promises made by President Trump and his team, to avoid more wars, particularly in the middle east.
Without Any assistance from the talking heads of whom you disapprove (I do listen to some of Megyn Kelly's podcasts pertaining to politics and this war)
a "red flag" popped up for me last year prior to the bombing of the nuclear facilities in Iran. It was the president himself and his manner of dismissing his own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard's recent declaration (March of 2025) to a senate committee (Intelligence hearing for the annual threat assessment of the U.S. intel community) that Iran's nuclear development was not an imminent threat to the U.S.
Of course this in no way denies the serious problems with Iran, their support of terrorism, etc. But the president's manner towards his DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, with some sarcastic comments, struck a wrong chord in my gut. Then the 12 day war happened and you know the story we All were told--and it was only partly truthful.
This trend of red flags continued for me through the summer of 2025 with the president's 180 degree turnaround on the Epstein files, among other things.
I do not scapegoat Israel for the concerns I personally have, but I do agree with some that it is fair to question their power and influence in US politics, policy, media, etc.
In summary, I am beyond relieved that our son is no longer serving in the US military. He was stationed in Qatar when the unbelievable but too-sadly-true debacle of our withdrawl from Afghanistan happened.
He feels betrayed by President Trump at this time. He is not a politically savvy guy nor interested in politics.
He does not listen to Tucker, Megyn Kelly or the others you mentioned. He avoids the media news in general and is focused like so many Americans, on working, providing for his family and living life.
Why do you think he feels betrayed ? One reason undoubtedly is that he is concerned for good friends still serving in our military.
Do we just dismiss the inconvenient promises made to the American people?
I still have hope that our military will succeed in this operation and that it will ultimately be for the good of Americans, Israelis, the Iranian people, the Qataris, Saudis, Yemenis, Emirates, etc. And that it will Not be another years long slog through hell for our men and women serving in the U.S. military.
All good thoughts Michelle. I do understand why many feel betrayed by Trump in the current conflict. I respect their frustration and anger, especially those in uniform.
My own diligence with regard to the geopolitical landscape prior to Trump’s election had me suspecting that Trump would act against Iran, if elected. In fact, my reasons for voting for Trump were as follows: (1) close the southern border, (2) eliminate Iranian nukes, and (3) end the war between Ukraine and Russia. So I was not surprised by the actions of Midnight Hammer nor Epic Fury.
I’m confident that because of the impact Epic Fury has had on the Middle East, that the war between the Ukraine and Russia will be resolved soon. The pressure on Europe, Ukraine’s backer, is just too great at this point.
I’ve tended to stay clear of the Epstein matter because it does not affect the geopolitical map. I know that the financial crimes that were perpetrated by the various banks involved were resolved by massive fines. And I’m hoping that the victims have their cases properly adjudicated.
I’d like to suggest a Substack site for you to consider reading. It is written by a Florida attorney named Jeff Childers, and is titled Coffee & Covid. It is by far the best analysis that I’ve read on Substack. It is free for six days a week, with a paywall on Sunday. It is very expensive, so I just read the six free days, but am considering subscribing because it is so good. His reporting on the war with Iran has been excellent, because he connects the dots of the geopolitical map in a manner that is helpful in keeping all of the news, counter news and propaganda in proper context. Please see the attached link:
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/nato-origami-saturday-march-21-2026
I appreciate you engaging with me on these concerns and I respect and appreciate your reasons for voting for our president.
May you be correct in your assertion that this "war with Iran" will work to end the war in Ukraine. It is without doubt part of the hopes of team America and may it succeed.
Your recommendation of Jeff Childers brought a chuckle. I have the same subscription as you and read his columns regularly. He strikes me as a thoughtful and brilliant analyst of current political events and my husband and I appreciate so much of his work. He will always have my appreciation and respect in his efforts to call out the fraudsters during and after the pandemic.
Thanks again and best wishes to you.
Wow - what a great job having a respectful debate. Thank you both.
A poll I saw, within last day, or so, showed some 90% support from MAGA. Try not to believe all you read, without some filtering.
If all countries had a Second Amendment, 15% of the population woul dnot get them very far.
The media dilettantes label anything they don’t like or understand as a lack of something. It’s a lot less work and they get as many clicks as they would from producing real journalism. Add to this that WH sources are so tight-lipped, and the MSM is left adrift. A dismal profession.
The coercive sequence framing is the most analytically coherent account of the Trump strategy we've seen — and it's largely correct on the logic. Where it deserves challenge is on the assumption that the sequence remains controllable.
The article treats the pause-pressure-negotiation cycle as a managed ratchet, with Washington in the driving seat. Our read of the current phase suggests three dynamics that complicate that picture. First, Iran's formal proposal to institutionalise a permanent Hormuz toll regime isn't a negotiating position — it's a structural conversion of temporary leverage into permanent architecture. Even if the Islamic Republic accepts strategic retreat on nuclear terms, the corridor regime it's building now requires novel multilateral legal architecture to reverse. That's not a ratchet Washington controls.
Second, the three-party authorisation problem the article underweights. Netanyahu's operational tempo in Lebanon is running on a parallel timeline to the diplomatic track, and Israel has stronger incentives for the talks to continue than to conclude — every extension is operational time. Coercive diplomacy assumes the coercing party controls the escalation dial. With three principals, that assumption breaks.
Third, the Gulf state reversal the article identifies as evidence the strategy is working is also the seed of a second escalation vector Washington doesn't control. The UAE assembling its own coalition of the willing operates independently of April 6. If Abu Dhabi secures European naval commitments before Washington has a diplomatic framework, the coercive sequence gets a fourth actor with its own timeline.
The strategic logic here is sound. The controllability assumption is where we'd push back.
— Phaseglass Global Intelligence
Shining a bright light on the simple truth. Thank you!
DJT owes the author 'bigly' for wrapping a seriously flawed adventure in a veil of logic. At the risk of being proven wrong by future events, I would suggest that the author reassess his hypothesis in the broader context of Trump's general modus operandi. His abuse of the judicial system, significantly countered by the courts; his insane trade policy, throwing domestic and world trade policy into chaos that has subsided due to court action, but is not resolved; his immigration policy which has been so poorly executed that now even staunch supports are questioning both the logic and the results; his Venezuela adventure, the cost and results of which are still widely unknown, except that the Manhattan federal detention center now has a new celebrity resident; and, lest I forget, he has entered this war after diligently insulting the various allies and alliances that he will need to resolve this satisfactorily.
DJT and the Iranian regime (whoever they may be at the moment) have one thing in common. Neither care how much destruction they inflict on their own people in pursuit of their grandiose ambitions.
Excellent analysis, but it goes beyond this. What is the cost to the US of this war compared to other regions? The US is brimming with energy resources and is a net exporter. China is heavily dependent upon not only oil, but helium used in technology and production capacity. Europe is dependent upon the middle east for oil and LNG and with the Strait closed, Europe is even more dependent upon the US for LNG. The continued closure of the Strait actually gives Trump more power in negotiating terms for trade deals and everything else.
The only pressure on Trump is the political pressure from a population that does not support more miiltary interventions. The strange thing about Americans is that they want to spend more on the military, yet they dont ever want to use it. What is the purpose of all that firepower if you dont use it?
Quite frankly, the longer this continues the better for resetting the world order in favor of the US.
The problem with this analysis is that it fails to take into account what is actually happening in the war zone. The Iranians are establishing facts on the ground that neither the US nor Israel have the military capacity to reverse.
Iran has total control over what ships can pass the strait of Hormuz. Iran's own exports of oil have significantly increased in volume and massively increased in price giving the Iranian government a flood of foreign money they could only have dreamt of before the war started. Countries around the world are breaking down Iran's doors trying to do deals to get their ships out of the gulf. Deals have already been done with India, Pakistan, China and others. Each ship that is allowed through the Strait pays a multimillion-dollar fee to Iran in Chinese currency that Iran can use to buy things that they need from China such as chemicals for rocket fuel and electronics.
Can the US force open the strait? The short answer is an absolute no. The Iranian side of Hormuz is roughly 200km of rocky coast, cliffs and mountains. For decades the Iranians have been building bunkers and tunnels filled with heavy artillery, rockets, anti-ship missiles, drones, fast attack speedboats, mines and water drones. There are also manned midget submarines that can attack ships with torpedoes. There is no way whatsoever the US military could locate and destroy all these weapon systems to make the strait safe for shipping.
It doesn't matter how many old men or schoolgirls the US and Israel blow up I simply can't see the situation changing. Why on earth would the Iranians give up their control over the Strait of Hormuz? The world is simply going to have to get used to the fact Iran controls who can go in and out of the Persian Gulf. If you want oil, fertiliser, helium, sulphur or any other bulk product from the Gulf you will have to do a deal with Iran.
That's the problem of listening to the legacy media. They have no common sense as is described well in this article.
Say what you will about the strategy, sure, but there is obviously a strategy here and all prior strategies for nearly half a century didn't work.
Most everyone can see that if they are honest. Here it is in a nutshell: Iran, relent or be sent back to the stone age.
It may be brutal, but it is obvious and, at least in the short term, will work.
What insane propaganda is this? The JCPOA which totally restricted Iranian enrichment was torn up by Donnie douchebag himself which then allowed Iran to continue enrichment as the US had violated the agreement and reintroduced sanctions. The chutzpah needed to suggest that diplomacy had failed to contain Iran nuclear enrichment is next level!
The JCPOA that allowed Iran to greatly increase its funding of terrorism? We have to pick between terrorism and nuclear enrichment?
Nuclear threat >> Non-nuclear terrorism. So yes.
Warmongers will always find an excuse for war but the JCPOA certainly did address the nuclear threat adequately given that every country has the right to pursue civilian nuclear power.
People that wanted to attack Iran because they sponsor "terrorism" ought to have had the decency to just admit that they want to attack Iran for terrorism alone instead of first deliberately undermining the nuclear enrichment controls and then using their own sabotage as an excuse to then wage war.
It is not either or. I guess we should have just let them continue to fund terrorism so we can have more Oct. 6th like incidents.
https://x.com/TerrorismPolice/status/1843666933176250460
You are free to attack them for terrorism alone without lying about the JCPOA's nuclear curbs. That is a very simple point to understand but propagandists choose not to understand it.
Do you think Iran would stick to the JCPOA’s terms if American attacked them for terrorism? Would America attack for terrorism but still keep the JCPOA that allowed Iran to fund the terrorism? Did Trump end the JCPOA with the 4D chess plan to attack Iran 10 plus years later? Should America have attacked for terrorism but continue to let Iran do nuclear enrichment? The irony of you calling people propagandist.
>Do you think Iran would stick to the JCPOA’s terms if American attacked them for terrorism?
That would be up to them, everyone has agency but again that is beside the point. If they violated the JCPOA for reasons unrelated to the JCPOA they would be at fault in that counterfactual timeline but in our timeline the US-Israeli warmongers are 100% to blame.
Sorry, most of this sounds like rehashed neocon nonsense and self assuredness.
Sounds like you don’t know what neocon means. Your premise that I or any American’s priority is to fix Iran is the problem. Is it a loathsome regime, yep. Doesn’t mean I need to care about it or fund a war against it. Are there countries that are anathema to the US, yes, but that doesn’t mean we go to war against them. Your assertion re 85% of Iranians is just pulled out of thin air and is certainly a neocon notion that brought us disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Put aside what “sounds” like neocon nonsense, please. So let’s concentrate on the nature of the cultist regime in Tehran. How would you describe it? How would you describe the thousands killed over a couple of days in January? Was that also nonsense—neocon or non-neocon?
This war against the regime is NOT a neocon war. No doubt both the US and Israel have their own objectives but at this juncture their objective aligns with what the 85%-ers in Iran wish and hope for: The utter collapse and destruction of a regime that has metastasized itself into the body politic of Iran since 1979.
Know that with the collapse of the regime —at enormous cost to Iran and her infrastructure—a people of 90mm will be able to rebuild and rebuild devoid of any Islamic ideology.
Is this fight of enormous cost to Iran and her long-suffering men and women? Yes. Can there be a return to the status quo ante bellum? No.
So let’s finish the job and remove the cult from power.
Am I being naive? 50%-50%. But I know one thing—Iran rejoining the US camp will do far better than remaining “as is” and “as shown”.
It seems Iran has turned the tables and is actually the one running this strategy
I read the article, and while it presents a coherent narrative, it rests on assumptions that may not hold under closer scrutiny.
To start, I agree with the core premise — if the regime becomes sufficiently fragmented, such that no coordinated leadership remains and factions stop functioning as a unified system, then the strategy could work. In that scenario, pressure accumulates, decision-making breaks down, and some form of resolution becomes possible. But that outcome depends entirely on whether fragmentation actually weakens the system.
The analysis overlooks a critical alternative: what if fragmentation is not failure, but design? A useful analogy is how the internet operates in the United States. You can take down infrastructure across an entire region, yet the network continues to function because it is distributed by design. If Iran has adopted a similar “mosaic” defense model — where units operate semi-independently but within a shared doctrine — then leadership losses do not necessarily degrade capability. In fact, they may trigger fallback modes that the system was built to handle. The fact that operations still appear coordinated even after significant leadership losses suggests that this possibility cannot be dismissed.
Once you consider that, scale becomes the next major issue — and it is severely underappreciated. Iran is not a compact, easily monitored battlespace. A more intuitive US comparison would be attempting to exert control over something the size of the western half of the country, with difficult terrain, dispersed infrastructure, and long coastlines. This is fundamentally different from environments like the Gaza Strip, where surveillance and control are far more feasible. At this scale, complete suppression becomes unrealistic, especially when combined with geography and proximity to the Strait of Hormuz.
This leads to a deeper asymmetry that the article does not fully address. The United States must maintain near-perfect control to secure outcomes, particularly in critical chokepoints like Hormuz. Iran does not need that level of success. It only needs occasional breakthroughs. Even a low-probability event — one successful strike out of many attempts — can have outsized global consequences by disrupting shipping, increasing insurance costs, and triggering market reactions. That dynamic makes the system inherently difficult to stabilize.
Finally, there is an asymmetry in risk tolerance that is often underestimated. The United States operates under significant political and economic constraints; even moderate disruption generates immediate pressure. In contrast, Iran’s internal structure allows it to absorb and, in some cases, operate through higher levels of instability. More importantly, escalation changes the nature of engagement itself. In lower-intensity settings, negotiation remains possible. But as conflict intensifies and losses mount, positions harden and the space for compromise shrinks. At some point, pressure stops producing concessions and instead reinforces resistance.
Taken together, these factors suggest that the analysis may be built on an incomplete model of the system. If Iran behaves like a centralized structure, the strategy might work as described. But if it functions as a distributed network operating across large-scale geography, then pressure does not converge in a predictable way. Instead, it diffuses — prolonging the conflict and making outcomes far less certain than the article implies.
Finally, the biggest risk is that diplomacy has effectively been lost, and the takeaway becomes that the only way to avoid being bullied again is to build a nuclear bomb in hiding as quickly as possible. Even the Gulf states may now start to question whether the US will defend them when it truly matters, which could have implications for the broader petro-dollar system. Overall, this points to a very bleak long-term outcome.
The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the fact that the system must be centralized in order to deal with internal uprisings. The only reason the regime can maintain power over a populace that disapproves of them is a coordinated system of repression that can overwhelm any local disruptions to control. The "mosaic" system may be somewhat functional in wartime but will completely fail when peace inevitably arrives.
The power vacuum decapitation strikes have created, which can nominally be dealt with in theory by legally identifying successors, will create internal rivalries that will probably hamper any Iranian recovery even if it survives this war. To use an American example just imagine what would have happened if Trump had been assassinated in Butler Pennsylvania, do you really thin MAGA could have effectively carried on with JD Vance? It takes time to build the legitimacy necessary to coordinate a national scale organization like the IRGC.
What this analysis lacks is admitting that a stone age society deprived of wealth creation will have a heck of a time mounting any future mega lethality. This is true whatever the machinations of politics rhink.
Interesting. For a model to be correct, it must fit all scenarios. The Carter presidency forced the Shah to step down. Quietly working in the background, Carter allowed the Theocracy, ably assisted by Yasser Arafat's PLO, to assume power. After being elected after a strong anti-Iran campaign in which he criticised Carter for being too soft on the Ayatollah, Ronald Reagan was caught out in 1986 for having supplied $billions of arms to Iran since 1981. The explanation that he offered was that this was to try and secure the release of hostages being held by Hezbollah. The weakness of this explanation, swallowed by a gullible American public, is that the first hostages were only captured in 1982. This affair became known as the Iran - Contra scandal. Moving through the years, every presidency has in some way, either directly with Iran, such as Obama, or simply by working against Israel, Clinton, with the Oslo accords, a case in point. Coming to Trump, he stopped Israel from taking out the Ayatollah at the end of the 12 day war. They were probably hours away from finishing the job. Bombing their nuclear facilities was most likely a show after Israel threatened to send ground troops in to do the job if Trump wouldn't help them. To Trump's current position? That is indeed unclear, but you can be sure that after everything dies down, Israel will be worse off. Possibly have Turkey replacing Iran as the power behind attacking Israel or something similar. That remains to be seen. Your article does offer a good explanation of current interactions, but it doesn't explain the previous instances mentioned, nor why Israel is never allowed to finish a war.
https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/iran-contra-still-a-mystery-part-7-did-jimmy-carter-install-khomeini?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
What? Run this through AI, any AI...
Mehdi, excellent analysis. Some of us are seeing the elements of The Art of the Deal being executed; i.e., “walkway from the table if the other side is not ready to make your deal”. It is amazing that Matt Taibbi and his new crew still don’t see it.
What I don't fail to see is that Iran holds all the cards, Turkey and Iran are now the local, regional powers and Israel comes out much diminished, frankly on the way of disappearance.