Options in Iran

[A]nalysts, lawmakers, and former administration officials all are busily insisting that President Donald Trump’s (R) options for helping the Iranian people are limited. What’s limited, though, is their thinking on the matter.

A limited strike against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s main security force, is unlikely to decide the outcome of the popular uprising….

And

There are nonmilitary options to put pressure on the theocratic leadership, including cyberattacks on military and civilian institutions….

And

A raid like the one that targeted Maduro in his Caracas residence would be far-fetched in Iran, a much larger country with defenses built to protect Khamenei, including a Revolutionary Guard unit known as Vali-ye Amr, which counts several thousand forces.

These are being posited to occur in isolation from each other, though, and that would be unproductive. All of these and more (see below) would need to be done together and in coordination with each other. Nor is there any need to “raid” Tehran to capture Khamenei and his immediate deputies. American and Israeli intelligence are fully capable of tracking these folks’ whereabouts, and there’s no need to attempt capture. Having located them, it would be necessary only to direct the appropriate ordnance onto them in those locations. This is, after all, what both the Israelis and Americans have done with other terrorist leaders, whether Hamas, Hezbollah, Daesh, or Iranian.

There’s also the matter of sanctions, though these would need to be addressed only after the fact.

The US could also offer to remove sanctions that have crushed the Iranian economy, if moderate military and political leaders remove Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his circle of clerics from the government and promise elections for a secular state.

Sanction removal already is on the table as part of their imposition, on the condition that the Iranian government materially and sustainably alter its behavior. That alteration would require the actual removal of Khamenei, et al. Iranian government promises, in any event, are worthless, and actual, provably fair elections would need to be held before sanctions relief could be contemplated.

Peyman Jafari, a supposed expert on Iranian social movements at William & Mary University cautioned that an attack could rally millions in defense of the Islamic Republic.

The foolishness this sort of thing has been empirically demonstrated within the last few months by the Israeli and American attacks on Iran, which resulted in…no one rallying to the government’s defense.

This is one area where John Bolton is on the right track:

Trump would need to hit the Revolutionary Guard’s bases, its volunteer militia known as the Basij, its nuclear and ballistic weapons programs, and its navy, “and that is just to get started.”

Trump has naval and air forces getting positioned in and around the Arabian Gulf, from which broad, simultaneous, and sustainable actions can be taken—not in constant successive waves, ideally, but on a shoot-look-shoot basis, where the shoot is each wave of attacks. It’s necessary only to act.

Trump’s Board of Peace

President Donald Trump (R) is looking to stand up a Board of Peace that would seek to broker peace deals between belligerents and between soon-to-be belligerents. In many respects, this BoP would supplant the UN, which is famous for its failure to create peace and infamous for its failure to maintain any peace in which its peacekeeping forces are involved.

Some nations, like putative allies France and UK are reluctant to join it. Enemy nations like Russia and the People’s Republic of China also are reluctant to join.

UK and France…worried about joining an organization subject to Trump’s whims that could give equal status to authoritarians such as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

A Board of Peace, whether or not led by Trump, may or may not be a good idea, but the plaint that the BoP would give folks like Putin an equal status is just silly. He, and the PRC’s President Xi Jinping, already have equal status in the UN via their positions as permanent members of the Security Council and their veto authority in that body.

Different Purposes

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors missed on this one. Their editorial’s headline and subheadline lay out the editors’ case.

NATO Is the Board of Peace
Trump’s new coalition couldn’t do better than the Atlantic alliance.

Their editorial goes on in that vein, and that’s the editors’ miss.

NATO looked good for a while, maintaining the bluff that the alliance members, acting collectively, could respond to a Soviet Union- (read Russia-) led Warsaw Pact invasion, and by that capability deter such an invasion. The alliance’s apparent deterrent capability did, in fact, deter the Warsaw Pact. Or successive Russian leaders of the Pact recognized how weak its military establishment was, in fact, offering no guarantee of victory in an invasion even in the absence of NATO. That’s speculation regarding a history that didn’t occur.

However, with the demise of the Soviet Union, an unfettered even a little bit Russia has shown no reluctance to expand by force, as Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and his open threats against NATO members that used to part of Russia’s Soviet empire has shown. NATO, far from an operational alliance, has been exposed an aspirational alliance only.

For all that, NATO as an avowed defensive alliance was even operationally only a reactive one, intended to win a war already in progress that it had failed prevent. Deter, then fight.

Trump’s Board of Peace is an entirely different kettle of fish, with an entirely different imperative. The proposed Board of Peace does not have as its DOC either deterrence or fighting. The Board is intended to broker peace between conflicting nations on the brink of war or during their war.

However well or poorly NATO functioned and however well or poorly the Board of Peace will function once it’s stood up, the two are not comparable. The allegation that the Board would do no better than NATO is a non sequitur.

That’s Not All UNRWA Provided

Israel is razing significant fractions of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency facility in Jerusalem. Of course the Left is in an uproar over this. UNWRA spokesperson Jonathan Fowler:

United Nations premises are inviolable[.]

The agency is touted as being the main agency tasked with providing assistance to Palestinian refugees.

However, UNRWA has provided as much, or more, assistance to terrorists operating in and from Gaza as it is reputed to have provided Palesinians. And don’t forget the UNRWA employees who were active participants in Hamas’ butchery in Israel on 7 October 2023.

UNRWA forfeited its so-called UN inviolability with that perfidious behavior. Israel is well rid of it within its borders, and the world would be well rid of it were it razed altogether.

An Overstated Case

A couple of Wall Street Journal news writers have laid out the concerns in the Supreme Court’s consideration of whether President Donald Trump (R) can fire Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve Bank governor.

It will test whether the court’s conservative majority, which has spent years eroding the independence of regulatory agencies, is willing to make an exception for the institution that controls interest rates, inflation, and the stability of the global financial system.

One out of three isn’t all that terribly bad, but the first and third items are of critical importance.

[E]roding the independence of regulatory agencies…. What independence? They were created as instruments of the Executive Branch. As such, under our Constitution, they cannot be independent, for all that Congress averred it so. That would be a violation of our Constitution’s carefully constructed separation of powers. Those agencies are entirely under the authority of the President as the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch. Far from years of eroding the independence, the Court has been glacially slow in recognizing the agencies’ lack of independence.

The stability of the global financial system? Really?

It’s certainly true that the US, with our enormous economy and the size of our market for the global economy, even in today’s tariff regime, exerts outsize influence on the global economy.

However, it exerts influence only, not control.

The impact of our central bank on the global economy is as much—at least—the outcome of other nations’ government decisions as it is that of our own decisions. They don’t get to hide behind us or our central bank in their decision-making, nor do they get to blame us or our central bank for the poor outcomes of their decision-making. The stability of the global financial system is an affair of collective responsibility, not one of unilaterality.