Recent Items

US Attacks Iran: Start of a Long War? Update: Iran Parliament Votes to Close Strait of Hormuz

Posted on by

We do not know much save the fact that the US attacked the three Iranian nuclear sites, at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. There was what amounted to a short warning via lots of chatter anticipating an imminent attack; I even e-mailed a colleague that it looked as if Trump was going to unleash the dogs of war at his 6:00 PM Situation Room meeting on Saturday.

As you see, Trump declared that all the strikes had been fully successful. He also said more was coming if Iran did not negotiate, as in surrender to US demands.

As indicated, we are deep in fog of war terrain. For instance:

It appears Iran was unable to impede the entry of US jets. Alternatively, in the light of Iran’s claims that it had removed nuclear assets from these sites ( the enriched uranium and perhaps the centrifuges), a much less likely but possible scenario is that Iran decided not to contest the entry since if their claims are correct, America would have wasted firepower on now-unimportant targets. Better to husband air defenses for more critical targets and to lull the Americans in a false sense of security. Note that, in a much-watch video below, Trita Parsi points out that Iran does not need large sites for its nuclear development program. It can distribute the activity across many locations.

Larry Johnson takes a different but somewhat optimistic view, that Trump has a pattern of making showy but deliberately not very damaging attacks. From his post:

To understand what happened today in Iran, you need to recall the last two times Trump claimed to have carried out massive strikes to derail alleged weapons of mass destruction. I am talking about Syria:

1. April 6–7, 2017 – Shayrat Airbase Tomahawk Strike

  • Date & Time: April 6, 2017 (evening ET); missile impact around April 7, 4:40 a.m. Syria time
  • What happened:
    • Trump directed the launch of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from U.S. destroyers targeting the Shayrat airbase—the launch site for the April 4 sarin attack on civilians in Khan Shaykhun.
    • This was Trump’s first military action directly against Assad’s forces, intended to punish chemical weapons use.

2. April 13–14, 2018 – Coalition Precision Strikes

  • Date: April 13, 2018 (U.S. time); strikes executed early April 14 Syria time
  • Details:
    • In collaboration with the U.K. and France, Trump ordered precision strikes—chiefly missiles—against three Syrian chemical weapons facilities, responding to the Douma chemical attack on April 7.
    • Strike reached sites near Damascus and Homs, with approximately 105 missiles used.

Now, here is what actually took place behind the scenes. How do I know? Can’t tell you that. The US alerted the Russians in advance to our intentions and plans. The warning was given with enough advance notice that Russian and Syrian assets were able to vacate those locations. All Trump did was launch an expensive fireworks show that cost millions of dollars and blew up some sand dunes.

Given that history, I suggest everyone pour themselves a big scotch or vodka and relax. Initial reports almost always are grossly exaggerated. Here is one possibility: Trump may be doing another Houthi spin… you know, declare that Iran has capitulated and then pull US forces out of harms way. Iran has been extremely patient to a lengthy list of US provocations

Scott Ritter has a new video up which we cannot embed, but it’s only six minutes. The key point is in the subhead: President Trump just sent the most sophisticated weapons in the US arsenal to bomb three empty sites in Iran. Why? He adds that this was not a serious attack and did not advance US security interests. It seems designed to limit Iran’s retaliatory assets because the US used only assets out of theater, as in not (supposedly) implicating US bases in the region. He argues that this was show intended to save Trump’s face.

However, Iran is not Syria. Indian media has been reporting on the increasing damage that Iran’s daily and sometimes more than once a day bombings are inflicting. Despite Trump’s bluster about the need for Iran to return to the capitulation, um, negotiating, table, this action does not stop Iranian strikes, which look to be reaching the point of serious damage. For instance:

And:

Israel has put itself in a PR conundrum by seeking regime change in Iran and depicting Iranian strikes as largely unsuccessful. But we know from the Washington Post as of 3 days ago that on then-current trajectories, Israel would run out of air defense missiles in 10 to 12 days. So Israel is already taking serious hits and is not far from being completely exposed to Iranian strikes. What then? The US is going to be under acute pressure to stop Israel’s pummeling.1

Now perhaps Israel will stand down in the wake of the US attack. Iran’s position has been they would stop shooting when Israel stopped shooting.

But failing that, despite Trump apparently hoping a showy strike would be sufficient to save his manhood, if Israel does not back down, the US will be forced to go up the escalatory ladder. I have said the probable next play would be to pummel Tehran. Israel brought Hezbollah to heel, not by defeating it militarily, but by inflicting so much punishment on the capital that Hezbollah, which is also a political actor in Lebanon, had to stand down. It may attempt a replay in Iran or alternatively hope that civilian deaths and infrastructure damage will produce its hoped-for public revolt.

Having said it would retaliate and hit US bases all over the Middle East if the US attacked, what does Iran do now? Iran has tended to be very cautious and under-react, and then a bit late. This war is getting too hot for that to be a great idea since the US cannot be seen to abandon Israel.

At a minimum, Iran intensifies its pounding of Israel. Perhaps it engages in an out-of-the-box move and hits the British airbase in Cyprus, which has been supporting strikes on Gaza. One YouTuber said the US base in Qatar had been evacuated, so perhaps that is the immediate tit for tat.

Since it seems vanishingly unlikely that the Trump will be unable to stand up to calls for escalation when Iran keeps pummeling Israel, where will Iran go if the US makes a strike intended to do serious damage? If Iran successfully parries that, perhaps not much. But otherwise, Iran’s best next move would seem to be to block the Strait of Hormuz. They can loudly announce that they’ll reopen it as soon as Israel and the US stop their attacks.

Finally, as Alexander Mercouris pointed out yesterday, this attack means Donald Trump’s presidency is over, at least in terms of getting much further with his domestic agenda. This war will become his tar baby.

This is a tragic mistake, but our dogged support of Israel and Netanyahu’s wiliness and personal survival focus got us here. As the movie version of Elizabeth said when rejecting the advice of ministers to attack Spain, “I do not like wars. They have uncertain outcomes.”

Or to again invoke a Sun Tsu dictum that yours truly has applied regularly to Trump: “All tactics and no strategy is the noise before the defeat.”

Update 10:30 AM EDT. From PressTV:

In a decisive response to the US aggression against Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities, the Iranian parliament has voted to close the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.

A senior Iranian lawmaker, Esmaeil Kowsari, said on Sunday that the Majlis (Iranian parliament) has agreed to close the key artery for global energy trade in response to the American aggression and the silence of the international community.

“The parliament has come to the conclusion that it should close the Hormuz Strait, but the final decision lies with the Supreme National Security Council,” Kowsari stated.

The Supreme Leader delegated his authority with respect to the conduct of the war to the top general of the IRGC. So it seems unlikely that Khameni would stop this action even if he were inclined to (as in he may limit his influence given his decision to stay out of military decisions).

So does the IRGC act on this decision? I assume they at least sit on the Supreme National Security Council. Do they have a majority of votes? Or did the Council already like the idea already but wanted the legislature to bless it as a matter of form?

As Reader Safety First pointed out the last time the Strait was briefly closed in the early 1980s, all it took was dumping a few mines out of the back of a motorboat. So this need not be a complicated or much planned operation, at least in the starting phase.

____

1 In case you are late to this story, the US, after seeming willing to accept a JCPOA 2.0, fell in with Israel hardliners, demanding that Iran abandon not just all nuclear enrichment but also effectively prostrate itself by also giving up its ballistic missile stocks and development. Iran has consistently said no to these demands, the latest at a bizarre meeting ginned up last week by European leaders with Iran’s foreign minister Araghchi. Team Trump attempted a peculiar last-ditch outreach. Per Axios in Scoop: Trump’s back channel to Iran failed after supreme leader went dark:

President Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan quietly sought to arrange a meeting between senior U.S. and Iranian officials in Istanbul this week amid Israel’s escalating war with Iran.

  • But the effort collapsed when Iran’s supreme leader — in hiding due to fears of assassination — couldn’t be reached to approve it, according to three U.S. officials and a source with direct knowledge of the matter.

This ploy goes firmly in “How dumb do Americans think other people are?” terrain. The leaked story that Trump vetoed an Israeli plan to assassinate Khamenei was meant as a threat, that but for the good graces of Hair Furore, Khamenei might well be dead. The mercurial Trump could easily change his mind as Iranian defiance continues.

And let us not forget that Israel has made a point of assassinating negotiators and top leaders who let their security procedures lapse during negotiations. It has been reported that Israel tracked Hamas chief negotiator Ismail Haniyeh to the guest house in Tehran where he was martyred. Similarly, it’s been reported that Israel was able to track communications after an negotiating session with Hezbollah to locate Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah to an apartment in Beirut (apparently with other top Hezbollah officials involved in the negotiations) and flattened the entire apartment block.

Recall also that the US assassinated Iranian general Solemani when he was in Iraq to conduct negotiations, and supposedly had a physically protected status via operating in that capacity.

So even if Israel were to uncharacteristically respect international norms and not assassinate him en route to and from Istanbul, they would track him upon his return with the hope not just of eliminating him but also other members of the leadership that he would brief on what happened.

Keep in mind also that Khamenei has handed over authority for operating the war to the top general of the IRGC, so the silence may also signal that Khamenei sees the time for talking as past.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Post Comments
332 comments

  1. Martin Oline

    Thank you for this post and all the links. Larry Johnson could be right and this is performative war for the Israelis. Interesting times indeed!
    I have read that Ansar Allah has joined the war tonight. Perhaps Iran will continue to concentrate on Israel and any possible strikes on U.S. bases and Saudi oil infrastructure will come from Yemen. At this time the Straits of Hormuz seem to be busy with tankers leaving the Red Sea. We will know so much more on Monday.

    Reply ↓
    2. vao

      Ansarallah striking in the rear will cause plenty of trouble. This is why the USA made such a decided effort earlier this year to subdue the Yemenis — this was a technically necessary prelude to attacking Iran successfully. The offensive against Yemen turned out to be much more difficult, costly, and dangerous than expected, and was aborted.

      This historical precedent makes some first comments about last night’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites going the rounds in the Internet a bit more credible:

      1) this was a demonstrative action which Iran had little reason to take risks opposing;

      2) or Iran had already secured everything valuable and just let the USA spend some valuable ordnance in vain;

      3) or the operation was actually carried out with submarine launched cruise missiles exclusively, against which Iran has not yet put defensive measures in place.

      I agree that Iran will avoid escalating against the USA for the time being, and concentrate its wrath against Israel — with a show of force there as a warning to Trump and the Pentagon. Likewise, Iran will avoid blocking the strait of Hormuz until the destruction of its energy infrastructure prevents it from exporting its hydrocarbons.

      Unfortunately, this new escalation by the USA means that the fighting will probably go to the finish, and Iran has few good cards to play. For all the talk about “Israel cannot win a war of attrition”, many forget that:

      1) Israel (and the USA) wage of a war of attrition against civilian targets, not military ones. While Hezbollah was systematically destroying Israeli radars, missile launchers, and observation posts on the frontier, Israeli was razing entire Lebanese villages, blowing up large buildings in Beirut, and goring the civilian arm of Hezbollah with the infamous pagers; Hezbollah lost. While Palestinians are blowing up Merkava tanks and sniping Israeli soldiers on an almost daily basis, Israel is blowing up Palestinian hospitals and killing, maiming, starving hundreds of women and children every day; Palestinians are slowly but surely losing. Let us recall that the USA started blowing up bridges, TV stations, and power plants when the Serbian military proved too tough and dangerous a nut to crack. Remember also that the war against Hezbollah lasted many months, and the one against Palestinians has been going for 21 months. Oh, and all the while, Israel managed to invade Syria, and trade blows with Yemen. Attrition? Israel is not short-breathed because it plays really dirty.

      2) The USA is now attacking Iran in coordination with Israel. Aircraft and warships from the USA, the UK, France, and Jordan have been helping shoot down missiles and drones lobbed by Iran and Yemen at Israel. Every day, airplanes from the USA, the UK, or Germany, laden with ordnance, land in Israel. AWACS aircraft from the USA, the UK, Germany, France are helping Israel fight the Palestinians and Iran. Turkey, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Jordan, continue supplying Israel with the energy and other materials it needs. Apart from Yemen, who is helping Iran?

      Whether Iran dares wage the same kind of war of attrition (against civilian targets), and can take on Israel, the USA, NATO, and Near-Eastern countries simultaneously appears to me quite doubtful. And if Iran figures out how to inflict unbearable pain on its foes, then the crazies in Jerusalem and Washington may be very tempted to retaliate with atomic bombs. I am afraid the conclusion will depend on some important players (Russia, China, Pakistan) who so far remain rather aloof.

      Reply ↓
      1. Yves Smith Post author

        More hopium. The US has been scraping the bottom of the barrel to find weapons for Ukraine, It has even had to employ arms provided by Turkiye that it captured when Syria fell.

        So how will the US get the needed arms? Will it magic them into existence?

        Reply ↓
        1. PlutoniumKun

          I’m not sure if you comment is aimed directly at vao, but its a mistake to think that the US cannot maintain a long term air assault on Iran. They are completely different stocks of weapons from those needed by Ukraine. The USAF has been preparing for attacks of this nature for decades and has huge reserves, none of which have been touched by Ukraine as they are completely different weapons in nature and design.

          Reply ↓
          1. hk

            Lack of suitable bases will be a problem: the obvious ones, in the Gulf and Turkiye are out. I don’t think the host govts can stand for them publicly, in addition to the obvious vulnerability. Whatever attacks that do happen will have to be from long range and that will complicate logistics and operating conditions. This likely means that you can’t keep going for too long even if you have the bombs.

            Reply ↓
            1. PlutoniumKun

              I don’t believe the Gulf is out – while none of the governments there will overtly help the US, none of them want Iran to come out stronger either. There is some evidence that the Saudi’s and Kuwaitis are turning a blind eye to Israeli overflights (maybe the Iraqi’s too, even if they have limited capacity to stop them), and if this is the case, they will certainly do what they can to not impede US actions if they think its to their strategic advantage. Having intel and refuelling capacity based in the Arabian peninsula would make logistics far easier for the US.

              There is a finely balanced calibration going on between Iran and the sunni states, which is independent of what Israel and the US does. The Gulf States wants Iran weakened, but do not want a war – they are perfectly aware of what Irans missiles can do (while Iran may be running out of its longer range stocks, it still has many thousands of c.500km missiles). Likewise, Iran can’t afford to have any of its neighbouring States going to war with it overtly – most of those states have pretty formidable militaries of their own (albeit with the usual qualifications about the quality of Arab militaries). So I believe that the calculations being made within the capitals in the Arabian peninsula (and maybe beyond) is to see how far they can aid Israel and the US for now, without crossing any Iranian red lines.

              Reply ↓
              1. ilsm

                PK

                There are few thing I do not know about fuel distribution in KSA.

                One is there a Kerosene cracking refinery in the kingdom, or Oman? If not jet fuel comes from the far east or Mediterranean.

                Two: is there a fuel pipeline out to Prince Sultan or do they have a fleet of trucks with guest worker drivers?

                Same for heavy bombs, either airlift them in or trucks.

                Water, food, medical supplies all delivered to distance.

                The “dance” between the Sunni and Shi’a is Sunni pretty much with Israel, the 110 million Shi’a in the ME are not blind!

                Logistics no one thinks about logistics. US is so rich!

                Reply ↓
                1. PlutoniumKun

                  So far as I’m aware, KSA has a full range of oil cracking facilities – they are absolutely vast, they cover a huge area. There is a criss-crossing range of pipelines in the country, although they’ve always kept the details very secret. My guess is that all their airfields have huge stocks of refined fuel for any combat. For decades, it’s been easy money there for military engineer of all sorts to spend a year in Saudi spending their money on multiple forms of shelter. They’ve been far more keen on that than providing basic services to the average Saudi citizen.

                  The Sunni kingdoms have been very effective at keeping their Shi’a minorities under control – it’s multilayered, a mix of brutality and bribery.

                  Reply ↓
                  1. ilsm

                    “Sunni kingdoms have been very effective at keeping their Shi’a minorities under control – it’s ”

                    True but the immense majority of Shi’s are in Iraq and Iran.

                    In Iraq the Shi’a militias with Quds ousted ISIS bc US was not interested in offing its children.

                    As to Prince Sultan Air Base, look at a map, a long run to Teheran. A Bulgarian writer poses there are 50 plus F-16, over 20 KC 135 and some C-130 to haul in parts for the fragile F-16’s.

                    US had been out of that location since the Afghanistan invasion.

                    Reply ↓
          2. vao

            The submarine-launched missiles have not been used in Ukraine, nor against Yemen, so there are enough of them to strike Iran repeatedly.

            The airplanes that are or will be used against Iran are F-35, F-22, B-2, possibly B-52. They carry other types of ordnance than the F-16 used in Ukraine and in Yemen. So again: the supplies are there to bomb Iran for quite some time.

            On the other hand, the USA might start getting short of missiles and anti-missiles aboard ships, because they expended plenty of them to down drones and missiles launched by Yemen.

            Again: at this point it is not that clear that Iran will be the party that can persevere the longest in a war of attrition.

            Reply ↓
            1. ISL

              I wonder if many of those missiles have been cannibalized for rare earths?

              In any case, A/D to protect US force projection (except subs) are in very short supply. That is where Russian and Chinese support can help push the US force back to where only lumbering B-2s and air-refueled fighter jets from standoff distances can deliver ordinance.

              Reply ↓
            2. Kouros

              The attrition between Iran and Israel? How much Israel can take if Haifa,Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem (only three cities) are deprived of electricity and water?

              Who will balk/rebel first, the Israelis or the Iranians?

              Deep down, in their bones, some are cowards by circumstances and entitled and know there is something wrong, and others are resigned but knowledgeable that they are in the right and as long as they can give they can also take…

              This is ultimately attrition. It is true that Israel has perfected methods of population control that can be immediately applied to the Israelis themselves… but so many have weapons there, don’t they?

              Reply ↓
      2. PlutoniumKun

        Excellent overview. We are now in very much uncharted territory, and much depends on Irans strategy. It’s hard to think of many precedents for a war of attrition where none of the main combatants share a land border or direct line of contact. Iran’s best strategy is probably to simply bunker down and focus on striking Israel. But it does not seem likely that they can maintain this for a long period – they have limited stocks of missiles of sufficient range. Strategically, it’s important for Iran not to give the US an excuse to go after overtly civilian infrastructure, such as electricity and oil/gas facilities – these are highly vulnerable. For now, it may be a reasonable bet that Trump will ‘declare victory and go home’, which would be very much in line with his m.o. But if it is the neocon crazies who are really driving this, then we are in for a very long haul of unconventional warfare and eventually all bets may be off, especially if Iran calculates (or miscalculates) that it has nothing to lose by going for a form of escalation that could encourage the sunni States to join in against them.

        Reply ↓
        1. skippy

          This is not the conflict of your ancestors mate. Iran has a 2X Mfg advantage in missiles and drones. You might reconciled your past opines on the Ukraine/Russian conflict and how that worked out.

          Reply ↓
          1. PlutoniumKun

            Last time I checked, the power was still on in Kiev and Odessa, and Russias oil refineries are still working, despite numerous attempts by both sides to destroy them. Oh, and the Kerch bridge is still standing.

            There are of course lots of ‘this time it’s different’ hypotheticals. But for now, thats all they are, hypotheticals.

            Reply ↓
            1. Skippy

              The point is Russia has the goods and Mfg way above the West … Kill Chains will be the big ticket on going …. prostrations aside …

              Reply ↓
        2. vao

          “It’s hard to think of many precedents for a war of attrition where none of the main combatants share a land border or direct line of contact.”

          I had never thought about that.

          Truly, the last years will go down in history as an epoch of fundamental changes (should we say disruption?) in warfare: Azerbaijan vs. Armenia; Russia vs. Ukraine; Iran & Yemen vs. Israel & USA.

          Reply ↓
          1. skippy

            Historically all wrong vao … just Jap vs US alone is contra to the proposition. PK is having a really bad time of late due to their economic/ideological baggage.

            Reply ↓
              1. PlutoniumKun

                So was China (essentially, a proxy war for the US), not to mention all the other bits of Asia owned by various western empires. It was very much a face to face land war up to the point the US, the usual laggards, joined in.

                But of course, it was not, for either side, a war of strategic attrition (tactical attrition being a different ball game). The Japanese were perfectly well aware they could not win a war of attrition with the US, and the US was aware that Japan could not be brought to surrender by way of naval defeat either. The primary strategic doctrine on both sides was naval, for obvious reasons, with the US being aware that to end the war, it had to occupy Japan, and the Japanese hope being that they could shut the US out of the Pacific beyond Hawaii by some magical mystery means only they understood.

                Reply ↓
        3. The Rev Kev

          ‘they have limited stocks of missiles of sufficient range’

          I somehow doubt it. They have judged the ideal number of missiles to hit Israel with which would probably be below their production capacity. Enough to cause accumulating damage but without it being so bad in one hit that the Israelis go crazy. Sleepless maybe but not crazy. Putin is keeping a large proportion of his forces free in case NATO does something spectacularly stupid and I would suggest that the Iranians are doing the same for the US

          Reply ↓
          1. juno mas

            In fact, Sleeplessness makes people go crazy.

            It is the American people that need to end this war. (Fat chance?)

            Reply ↓
        4. Thuto

          “…they have limited stocks of missiles of sufficient range.”

          PK, I enjoy your comments on a broad range of issues, but I think on this one you may be leading with your priors. Where’s the evidence to support your claim that Iran has limited range of long range missiles? (The level of stocks of missiles of any range would be highly classified information in many countries, and Iran is no exception). Has Iran at any point shared the exact start date of long range missile production and estimated daily/montly production output such that your claim could at least be based on back-of-the- envelope maths? Iranian commentators have said they don’t know the level of stockpiles (even western commentators and the Israelis themselves are giving wildly divergent estimates of Iran’s true missile stockpiles, which of course means even they do not know). Not to belabour the point but I find your whole argument to be built on what’s at best a “known unknown” and therefore shaky.

          Reply ↓
          1. PlutoniumKun

            Thanks Thuto. First off, I have no ‘priors’ here apart from being a long time military and aerospace nerd and having long had an interest in the region for many reasons. My politics are simple – I was marching for Palestine as a teenager in the 1980’s, I was actively involved in pro-Palestinian organisations for longer than that, and any remaining piece of sympathy I’ve had for the Israeli people has shredded with the mass acceptance in that country of the genocide. I hate war and destruction, and I don’t wish any ill will on any Israeli civilian (several are friends), but at this stage I would not shed a tear if Iran wiped that country off the map.

            However, I have no interest in simply jumping on hopium bandwagons just because it makes people feel better.

            Nobody, apart from Iranian insiders, knows the true numbers and capabilities of Irans missile forces. However, there is sufficient open source material to come to the following broad conclusions:

            1. Up to around a decade ago, Iran was focused on its ‘near’ enemies – i.e. its immediate neighbours and those across the Gulf. For both technical and tactical reasons nearly all its missiles were of around 500km range. The strategic assumption is that its primary weapon against Israel was its proxy, Hizbollah, and their huge missile arsenal. It had a smaller program of much longer range missiles which seemed to be mostly as a negotiating tactic and as a launch back-up for a potential turn to nukes. In other words, if it decided to develop a bomb, it needed a platform. This is the Sejil missile (and possibly other variants). This is a very powerful missile, but there are no indications that they’ve built large numbers of them.

            2. As the strategic situation changed, there was a renewed interest in longer range missile, both to cover all of KSA, plus Israel. They’ve built ranges of missiles, most notably the Emad and Ghadr-1. These are missile families, with a variety of capabilities depending on the guidance systems. Some are quite crude, with CEP’s of 100 metres or more, other seem to have very accurate, with terminal guidance allowing them to attack very precise targets. They also have hypersonic glide vehicles, which are a lot less useful than many think, but thats another topic. These missiles are for the most part very expensive to build, and the most advanced ones have only been in operation for a few years, so there has simply not been the time to develop large stockpiles (although there is a theoretical possibility that they may have matched more advanced guidance systems with older cheaper launch missiles).

            3. They have also invested heavily in drones and cruise missiles, although in reality Israel is simply too far away for them to be a real threat, now that we know that the ‘intervening’ countries are not very happy with these flying over their airspace.

            So this leads me to a number of conclusions. One is that while Iran has the capacity to strike Israel, it simply does not have the required stocks to do serious damage. 1000+km missiles were never its priority, and the effective ones they’ve developed are relatively recent designs, and very expensive to build.

            We have mountains of data from previous wars of how much ordnance is required to be dropped from the air to bring a city, country, or military, to its knees. The answer is – thousands upon thousands of tonnes – it doesn’t matter if its dropped from aircraft, delivered via hypersonic, drones or cruise missiles, or even if its very accurate or not. you still need far more than its likely Iran possesses.

            It is of course possible that I’m entirely wrong, and Iran has a secret stockpile of, say, 20,000 Shahabs with extended range, and 5,000 or so missiles with full terminal guidance allowing them to pick out precise targets in among a rain of the Shahabs. I’d be delighted if that proved to be true. But if it was, I see no reason why they aren’t using them now. To hit US bases in the Gulf requires the much shorter range Shahad 1 and 2, of which we know they have huge numbers, so there is no reason to hold back more than (for example), they might need to hit Diego Garcia. Although frankly, if they could do that, the time to do it was yesterday, to catch the B-2’s as they land.

            The other issue is that the rate of Iranian launches has been dropping day by day since this started. If they have major stocks, there is no tactical or strategic reason that I can think of as to why they would do that – they still have plenty of stocks of the shorter range and specialist anti ship missiles they would need to keep the US at bay, none of these are any use against Israel as their range is too short. It strongly indicates that they are struggling to keep up with the need to respond.

            I’m very happy to engage with anyone with a real knowledge of Irans capabilities, or with solid strategic reasons why they are are tailing off their responses, but so far, all I get are links to various Middle Eastern news sources, or podcasters with no expertise in either military aerospace or a deep knowledge of the region. I’d also be absolutely delighted if I was wrong. I am on record here as having been an outlier when everyone was sure Hizbollah would turn Lebanon into an Israeli nightmare, and that Syria was going to maintain its challenge to Israel, but unfortunately I was proven right in my scepticism. Underestimating Israel is a very dangerous game. I’m not happy with that, but it seems to me bizarre that people on this site are so wedded to sources that have proven to be wrong about the region so consistently.

            It’s a fools game to predict an outcome to something like this, but my guess is that this will dribble to a halt. Israel will run out of interceptors, Iran will run out of long range missiles, both will declare themselves satisfied with the outcome and Trump will decide to nominate himself for a Nobel prize and turn everyone’s attention to something else. The Arab states will breathe a sigh of relief, and be happy to see both Israel and Iran weakened. Or it could of course end up as WWIII. As usual, its the ordinary people of the region who will be left to pick up the pieces.

            Reply ↓
            1. Thuto

              Thanks for your response. I’m obviously way younger than you and though it’s a little embarrassing to admit this, I only broke out of the western propaganda echo chamber in 2014 when the Economist’s relentless smearing of Putin nudged me towards alternative sources of geopolitical information. As such I have a shorter tenure of observing and delving into the intricacies of geopolitics and its ever present menace, war. Having said that, I also notice that in the past, things changed in a more or less incremental fashion whereas today’s changes are rapid, disruptive and transformative in a way that can render commentary that relies on backward looking analyses to make forward predictions highly suspect, especially vis a vis highly dynamic situations with many moving parts.

              I say this because one such arena where such rapid changes are happening is warfare. Countries can now engage in asymmetrical and hybrid means to hurt each other that go beyond conventional ways. I for one do not underestimate Israel, not least because of their brutality, impunity and complete absence of red lines (though this strategy only further isolates Israel and entrenches its status as a global pariah) but I think it’s equally misguided to underestimate Iran and its capabilities, especially when such capabilities can be unloaded in a desperate last act to repel an existential threat.

              Re: Hezbolla comparison. I think it’s marginally informative without being instructive given Iran’s capacity to inflict serious damage, not just on Israel but the entire region as well, is orders of magnitude above that of Hezbolla. If Iran “goes down”, it’s not going down alone

              Reply ↓
              1. PlutoniumKun

                I didn’t think you were that young!

                As you say, there are very rapid changes worldwide, and it’s very hard to keep up. My own views on the region have changed more than once (not my ideology, just my view on which way the sands are shifting). I have perhaps become a little jaded and cynical at seeing how the world has gone – I’ve in some ways returned to what I was as a teenager – something of an anarchist, assuming that all power structures and large institutional structures (including nations) tend to rottenness and corruption, no matter how well meaning the original architects may have been. Which is why I’ve lost most of my remaining optimism about solutions, despite retaining some hope. I no longer even feel the outrage I used to feel about Palestine – just sadness at how the most pessimistic views I had 30 years ago have largely come true.

                Reply ↓
                2. Jonathan Holland Becnel

                  Hang in there, big dawg!

                  I remember reading your comments almost a decade ago and being like holy amazeballs this NCr knows his shit!

                  It’s only through the passage of time that I can understand this stuff and see the actors perform on the world stage LIVE and in 4K as Javier Bardem recently remarked!

                  Would love to set up an Interview with you via my outfit – classunity.org!

                  Reply ↓
            2. Joseph Adam-Smith

              A response to your comment about fewer missiles fired. The reading that I have done, on this current conflict is that:

              , Iran has been firing its cheap drones in large numbers to use up Israel’s defence missiles. Then, “within 11minutes” they follow up with their better missiles. The 11minutes is because Iron Dome launchers needs that time to reload. Israel HAS to respond to the first wave because even small charges, on the cheap drones, can cause damage.

              Because Israel is running out of AD missiles, Iran can now fire fewer and more sporadic missiles. Fewer missiles, which are still getting through, are keeping Israelis on edge…..

              I am getting most of my thinking from Larry Johnson and Simplicius. Plus my military experience. Which is a wee bit out of date, now….

              Reply ↓
      3. Yves Smith Post author

        See the tweet at the end of comments, The Iranian government has voted to block the Strait of Hormuz. Confirmed on PressTV:

        In a decisive response to the US aggression against Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities, the Iranian parliament has voted to close the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.

        A senior Iranian lawmaker, Esmaeil Kowsari, said on Sunday that the Majlis (Iranian parliament) has agreed to close the key artery for global energy trade in response to the American aggression and the silence of the international community.

        https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/06/22/750031/iranian-parliament-moves-close-strait-hormuz-after-us-aggression-lawmaker

        Reply ↓
    3. Wildsilver

      Israeli hardliners have loudly proclaimed that Iran is building nuclear bombs ever since the half way mark of the Iran Iraq war 1980-88,
      No amount of evidence to the contrary could ring fence their perennial claim and ensure sanity prevailed.
      However, with one calculated swoop, POTUS Trump removed that ‘talking point’ from their arsenal when he ordered the ‘destruction’ the three facilities named.
      Whether that happened or not is a moot point as, tellingly, there was no talk of destroying the three nuclear power stations currently under construction.
      It seems that Israel is gradually being deserted by it’s long term benefactors.
      The multipolar world order is taking shape and unlikely ‘bedfellows’ are wanting their slice of that pie now.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0hKKrYsQ6M

      Reply ↓
      1. Don

        This is the first time that I have even remotely considered the possibility that Trump might not be so stupid as he seems.

        What if — what if, the plan is to do only what has been done (which maybe was mostly theatre, and may not have achieved much of anything — the pentagon may well have told Donald that the big bomb wouldn’t do much but make a lot of noise), and leave at that? And tell the Iranians through back channels that this would be the end of US (direct? indirect?) involvement in this war, providing that Iran does not strike back at direct USA assets, and that the USA would just let Iran and Israel go at it until it is done.

        I know, perhaps this is wishful thinking, just a hopeful fantasy, that, counter to all appearances, Trump is actually not dumber than a bag of hammers. (He did after all somehow manage to get elected POTUS — twice.)

        And, how brilliantly might this fantasy scenario work out; throw Israel/Bibi under the bus and force Israel kicking and screaming to become a less rabid, less pariah-cal (sp?) easier-to-defend/stomach/sell ME proxy. Does the US really want/need/tolerate such batshit crazy ally?

        What could the beyond-the-pale Zionists, including billionaire donors, say or do? Some may actually be pleased — it must be wearing to defend this level of evil. The MAGA base would be over the moon, Trump would get the Nobel and retire in peaceful glory from politics. Protégé Vance would be the next Prez, and the Dems would be done like dinner for a generation, if not forever.

        Reply ↓
  2. raspberry jam

    I think the video of the Haifa water system is just a mains break after the strike on Friday of a derelict building in Haifa downtown (nobody was in the building but people on the street who didn’t make it to the shelter in time were injured, some seriously). The city water system is definitely still on according to a colleague who lives there and just performatively turned on the sink for me on video to demonstrate.

    The refinery has definitely been hit. But the port facilities are still functional I think, you can see the cranes in the strike video from an hour-ish ago.

    I don’t think Israel is going to back down ‘permanently’. I think there may be a lull of a few to several months with a reduced rate of attacks/tit for tat, Israel attacking launchers and removing leadership, Iran retaliating on Haifa and Tel Aviv. I think it will resume with intensity within 6-9 months max. At that point the US will unlikely have any good escalation options.

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      This is hopium. Mayors in Israel are saying in large numbers that the attacks on Israel have to stop, the damage is too high. This is per Indian media with supporting videos of the statements. I have competing duties today but I will see if I can find time to embed a clip or two.

      Reply ↓
      1. raspberry jam

        I’ve seen the clips of the Haifa mayor stating such after the Friday strike. Here is where he says the damage is too much and they need peace (1:34 in)

        “Strategic Points Hit” Iranian Missiles Strike Port City Of Haifa, Israel Navy Base The Target?

        I do not hope Israel keeps it up. I don’t want to see people I work with and talk to daily get hurt and that is going to happen if they don’t stand down. But the people I talk to don’t make these decisions, it’s Netanyahu, and in his speech after Trump he lavished on the praise to Trump and the ‘unshakeable alliance’ between US and Israel. To me this just sounds like laying the groundwork for demanding more.

        Watch: Netanyahu Thanks Trump After U.S. Bombs Iran’s Nuclear Sites | WSJ News

        Reply ↓
      2. Ludus57

        Thanks, Yves
        There are too many bad faith actors in the mainstream media at times like this, and valuable sources of straightforward and accurate commentary like NC are therefore indispensable.
        Plus you help to keep us sane.
        Many thanks again.

        Reply ↓
      3. Helmut Höft

        Hopium *rofl* Never heard of it before, I guess hope plus opium equals hopium, right? The problem with many people: they hate reality and love hopium!

        Reply ↓
        1. duckies

          “Hopium” and “copium” are the two most common words used on Twitter-X, the third one being “Grok”.

          Reply ↓
          1. ISL

            From Urban Dictionary:
            Hopium: The metaphorical substance that causes people to believe in a false hope. It is often paired up with copium. Opposed to copium, which represents the rationalization of the current situation, hopium represents the belief that the situation will someday improve.

            wikipedia adds that it is a composite of hope and opium.

            The first similar composite word I can recall hearing was unobtainium in the original Avatar movie.

            Reply ↓
            1. RA

              The term has been in usage for a while.
              From Wiki…
              Since the late 1950s, aerospace engineers have used the term “unobtainium”

              Reply ↓
              1. Retired Carpenter

                “unobtainium“: what I encounter all the time trying to repair my old US-manufactured equipment. Here is what you get when you request a part:
                “->The part is no longer sold by the manufacturer.
                ->The manufacturer does not stock any substitute parts to replace this one and therefore, unfortunately, we cannot obtain or recommend a substitution for this part.
                ->We cannot obtain the part through any other means.”
                “unobtainium” !

                Reply ↓
              2. jsn

                Unobtainium was in the 60s and continues to be the preferred construction and finish material for all first year architecture students.

                Reply ↓
      4. Howard

        There is a great deal of Hopium going around. The Israeli stock market rose 4% today to an all time high. Investors certainly believe that Iran can’t destroy Israel’s economy.

        Reply ↓
    2. Yves Smith Post author

      I have not yet found the clips about mayors sounding alarms due to new reporting drowning that out. But even the UK’s Times was showing damage yesterday:

      And fresh from Sky:

      The fact that the military censors are not barring these videos = Israel building a case for continuing the war.

      And why should Iran back down unless Israel stops attacking entirely, which is Iran’s entirely reasonable demand? Even then like Ukraine, a pause only serves to allow Israel to rearm, but I do not think Iran is risk-oriented enough to press its advantage if Israel meets its immediate demands.

      I have heard Larry Wilkerson describe in vitriolic terms how arrogant and stupid Israel military officials are. So between them and Netanyahu, you are not dealing with rational actors.

      In other word, Israel belligerence and undue faith in US power (and the US being joined to Israel at the hip) IMHO makes even a near-term deescalation seem unlikely.

      Reply ↓
      1. raspberry jam

        We’re in agreement on all points, Yves, except I don’t think it’s going to immediately escalate, I think it is going to be drawn out over several months with some lulls, and it’s highly dependent on Netanyahu’s grip on power.

        Reply ↓
      2. PlutoniumKun

        With respect, an immediate reaction of shock and horror to being directly hit is entirely to be expected. Contemporary media reports from Zeppelin attacks on London in WWI, right through every initial aerial attack in the Spanish Civil War, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Lebanon, Iraq, etc., always report an initial horror and despair at what (in historical context) will be seen as relatively little damage. But people are resilient and remarkably adaptable. This is why strategic air attacks on cities or infrastructure, whether directed or indiscriminate, rarely make much of a difference to the outcome of a war (although they can lead to very strategically bad responses, such as the Imperial Japanese high command’s panicky response to the Doolittle Raids).

        The Israeli’s love to dish it out, but are not so happy to be on the receiving end – this is to be expected, its human nature. But there is no particular reason that they won’t simply adapt – no country has proven better at turning a victim mentality to its advantage better than Israel. If anything, it seems to be strengthening Netanyahu’s domestic political control – the few dissenting voices within Israel are rapidly going quiet.

        Obviously, there are potential wild cards everywhere – most obviously the Israeli economy. But even this is no guarantee – war changes peoples mentality, both for the best (resilience and camaraderie) and for the worst (loss of empathy for the ‘other’). While Israel is running out of interceptors, Iran has a limited capacity to strike at such long distances – there is already plenty of evidence (the daily drop in launches) that it is close to the end of its stock of 1000km range missiles. The Israelis know this. It would be very surprising if the civilian population was not prepared to stick this out until some new equilibrium is reached.

        Reply ↓
        1. Polar Socialist

          And yet the analyses I’ve seen about the drop in the quantity of Iranian missiles have been pointing out it’s been all about Israeli defenses deteriorating to the extent that Iran is using smaller and different strike packages everyday to a) keep up the pressure b) test the remaining air-defenses, c) leave plenty of room for escalation while d) retain a huge reserve for when the US joins the fray.

          There are estimates that the current Iranian production rate is 10 missiles and 250 drones per day. That’s more than they have used lately per day.

          Reply ↓
          1. PlutoniumKun

            The overwhelming majority of Iran’s stockpile, and its construction capacity, is based on short and medium range missiles. The 1000+km plus range missiles are a subset (a fairly recently developed one) of its overall capacities. It was always Irans core strategic belief that it could use Hizbollah’s stocks as its own, but of course we’ve seen that didn’t work out too well. The development of a range of missiles that can strike Israel directly from the Iranian heartland is a relatively recent breakthrough for Iran, and they’ve not had the time required to build up large stockpiles.

            Obviously, I’ve no idea what Irans tactical doctrine says about the use of its long range missiles, but standard air doctrine is that you ratchet the pressure upwards, not downwards in order to stress the enemies defences to breaking point. Ratcheting downwards makes no sense either in tactical or strategic terms, unless you are playing some sort of judo ken move to make your enemy think you’ve run out. You can come to any number of fancy hypotheticals to persuade yourself that Iran is just waiting to deliver a killer strike, but the available evidence is pointing towards a degradation of its ability to strike at the range required to really hurt Israel directly.

            It’s pure cope to think that Iran has some sort of massive stock of long range missile just waiting for the right moment to be released. Sure, they are manufacturing more, but you cannot produce missiles of that size and sophistication at scale at short notice. Sure, it can produce plenty of Shahid’s (the shorter range ones), and thousands of drones, and it no doubt has many thousands still in stock, but Israel can shrug those off in the same way it was able to survive Hizbollah attacks. The missiles that can do real damage are very sophisticated, very expensive, and require time and effort to build.

            Reply ↓
            1. Polar Socialist

              As you obviously have a very deep insight on the Iranian core strategy, I can only offer an counter-argument that everywhere else but in the Western military thinking you only use the minimum force required to achieve your goals, especially if you are expecting a stronger enemy to join the battle.

              As far as I can tell, the short term goal for Iran is to force Israel to stop the war, and the long term goal is a regime change in Israel. Neither of which require releasing massive salvos at the right moment. Shaheds can’t make real damage to property, but they can keep Israeli economy in limbo for months or years, as Israel has no strategic depth.

              Do you think Ukraine is begging for money just because they are corrupted as [family blog] or because every night swarms of Gerans force people to shelters and hit industrial targets and energy networks so they have very little of economy left? And Ukraine is about 30 times bigger than Israel with 5 times the population.

              Reply ↓
              1. OIFVet

                I was about to comment on how sustained lower intensity pressure on a population that until recently felt invulnerable at home to the consequences of its country’s actions is what I would do if I wanted to effect conditions favorable to the country ditching its leadership. That’s particularly likely to be effective upon more affluent societies which have forgotten how to live without the trappings of affluence – endurance is also a function of the psychology of “what we’ve lost and why.” Spectacularly violent but short bursts of violence a la “Shock and Awe” wouldn’t do that.

                Reply ↓
              2. PlutoniumKun

                As I made very clear in my post, I have absolutely zero idea what Irans tactics are strategy might be, beyond the usual speculation from the usual sources and the application of standard game theory.

                Interpreting a succession of lighter and lighter attacks every evening as ‘ah, those clever people are just saving up a surprise!’ is one possible interpretation. Although it makes very little sense in the context of its main missile stocks (the sub-1000km range missiles) being almost entirely unused and so available for a different stage of conflict), nor does it make much sense in the context of not wanting to give your opponents hope that they can out-attrit you.

                The simplest explanation is not always right, but in the absence of other evidence, it is a reasonable heuristic to apply.

                Reply ↓
                1. skippy

                  Game theory …. noted …

                  You might want to have a look at that model of introspection in some old NC posts mate.

                  Reply ↓
                  1. cfraenkel

                    And yet, here you are countering reasoned arguments (maybe good, maybe not), with a string of ad-hominems.

                    I know which of the two handles I’ll be skipping over….

                    Reply ↓
                2. Anonted

                  Iran slowed when the USN approached, no? They may be conserving. If anything, a show of respect, for the lives of their own. They do like their bridges.

                  They also have much precedent, in pulling punches.

                  Also, like with 10/7, the message has already been broadcast that Israel is not impregnable, and that is a coup in itself. ‘A place where the Jews can survive.’ won’t look so good on the brochures. When Birthright Camp includes mandatory weapons training, one appreciates the tenets of Brooklyn and Palm Beach… or *gulp* changes them.

                  Reply ↓
            2. NN Cassandra

              I don’t know, but If I were dragged into war of attrition, I would first expend the old missiles that are no longer in production and probably nearing expiration date, and then keep firing the newer ones roughly at the rate I can manufacture them, so I will never run out of them.

              Reply ↓
              1. Yves Smith Post author

                There has been plenty of expert commentary to the effect that a significant # of the early Iran barrages were missiles that were old and might as well be decoys. If they actually did damage, great, but their use was to deplete Israel air defenses.

                I also saw a vid from Electronic Intifada that went through Iran’s known missile types and stressed how they were designed to be refurbishable and upgradable.

                Reply ↓
                1. PlutoniumKun

                  This is not a good take. Irans long range missiles (1000km plus) are its newest models. The models capable of hitting Israel – the Emad, Ghadr, and various ‘stretched’ Shahab versions are relatively recent developments, and are without exception, expensive to build and so likely to be used sparingly. The older long range missiles – such as the Sejil – were very large and relatively crude liquid fueled rockets that would not have been made in large numbers. No reliable source that I am aware of consider that Iran has significant ‘old’ stocks of missiles of this range, although it’s possible that they have extended the range of older Shahabs by reducing payload. What Iran has used are relatively cheap and cheerful Shahad-3 adaptions to overwhelm Israel’s defences while its newer missiles do the damage. But the latter, as I’ve stated, are all of very recent design and construction. We don’t know how many were destroyed in Israels initial strike, but it’s safe to assume they were a key target.

                  The overwhelming number of Iranian missiles – older and newer, are around 500km or lower range – Iran has always focused its conventional forces on its enemies across the Gulf. The assumption was most likely that Hizbollah’s missiles would be the primary retaliatory force against Israel (indeed, this is what everyone was talking about up to last year, how things change). The necessity for a very large retaliatory force against Israel that could be based in Iran proper is a relatively recent necessity.

                  Much of the available information on Irans missile force is of course highly opaque for all sorts of reasons, and subject to exaggeration or dismissal depending on ones ideological needs, but the broad outline of its basic capabilities is quite clear. Iran can hit Israel, and hit hard – very hard. But the notion that it has some vast reserve of high tech weaponry (or even low tech weaponry) that is just waiting for the moment to flatten Israel is in the realms of fantasy.

                  Let’s not forget that so many of the sources that are now hyping up Irans capabilities are the same ones that were predicting an Israeli apocalypse at the hands of Hizbollah in the Lebanon, and a revived Syria challenging Israels dominance. Sometimes stopped clocks can be right, but sometimes a clear pattern emerges.

                  Reply ↓
                  1. Polar Socialist

                    Irans long range missiles (1000km plus) are its newest models.

                    According to Wikipedia (my apologies) in the Iranian medium range ballistic missiles (15 types over 1000 km range) the trend seems to be the other way around: all missiles before 2017 (7) were 2000 km or more in range, while only one of the newer (8) missiles is. The rest are in 1200-1400 km range.

                    Iranian cruise missiles (7 types) are all rather new, but even they do seem to follow a similar trend: first ones are 2000 km range, while the newest are 1000 to 1500 km.

                    The overwhelming number of Iranian missiles – older and newer, are around 500km or lower range – Iran has always focused its conventional forces on its enemies across the Gulf

                    The same source above gives the impression that Iran has 15 types of short range missiles and 17 types of medium range missiles. That of course doesn’t say anything about quantities, merely indicates where the interests are. After all, none of Iran’s “enemies across the Gulf” are any kind of military powers with a capability to threat Iran by themselves.

                    Reply ↓
                    1. PlutoniumKun

                      Getting to grips with the ranges and capacities of Irans missiles is very confusing, not least because there are multiple variants of core designs, often using different names.. My understanding is that they followed two distinct lines of development:

                      The first was parallel to their interest in a nuclear option – large multi stage rockets based on North Korean (and maybe some via Ukraine) which were strategic in nature and basically a ‘just in case’ option if they decided to go nuclear. These are for the most part very large and they would not have many of them. But of course it can’t be ruled out

                      The second arose from the Iran-Iraq war, and the relative success of the Scuds against Iraq. They started development of multiple Scud variants of various sizes – but as a single stage rocket the most they could push them was up to around 5-800km range. More recently they have developed two stage variants with much longer range and are far in advance of the original Scuds. This has been a gradual development, partly for technical reasons, but also because the were intended as a defence against their ‘near’ potential enemy – i.e. Iraq and US bases in the Gulf.

                      Most guesstimates I’ve seen about numbers estimates around 20,000, but with a huge variation either way. But when you look at the costs and timing of developments, it’s very clear that the overwhelming majority of them are of the short to medium range types, with the more modern ones with Marv or mirv warheads in a minority (but it can’t be ruled out of course that older stock are being refitted with more advanced guided warheads). Precise numbers are of course anyones guess.

            3. Don

              Are you certain that in the midst of a Israeli/Iran war, which is a rather significant strain on Israeli military resources (see also Gaza, Yemen, Syria), that Hezbollah’s arsenal can be ruled out?

              Reply ↓
              1. vao

                Hezbollah lost quite a lot people because of the devious “paging” operations and the decapitation attacks by Israel. Regarding the internal politics of Lebanon, it is on the back foot.

                But the crucial military aspect is that Israel not only occupies bits of Lebanon, but that it conquered the mountains in Syria, including Mount Hermon, which overlook Lebanon on its Eastern flank. The first thing the Israelis did was to install observation posts, radars, and sensors on the Syrian mountains; now Hezbollah cannot mobilize, move around, or prepare its weaponry without the Israelis noticing.

                Reply ↓
    3. redleg

      One uncontrolled watermain break at the wrong place can drain an entire municipal water storage system. It doesn’t even have to be a huge pipe.
      There no context for the video, so determining how bad that break is re. the system can’t really be determined.
      To my experienced eye, that looks like a 20 or 30 cm main under low pressure. It the pressure low because it’s been valved off? due to fire supppression water use? more breaks elsewhere? all of these? scheduled maintenance at the desal plant or booster station?
      Can’t say.

      Reply ↓
    4. Kouros

      I do think that there will be more pressure and success in Iran to stem the flow of infiltrations and assassinations. And people will start loosing their phones…

      Reply ↓
  4. Random

    This attack looks very strange and I have no clue what it’s supposed to accomplish.
    We’ll have to wait for confirmation of the damage, but with the very limited amount of bombs used it doesn’t seem likely that there would be any results.
    Does it impact Iran’s enrichment capabilities? We’ll have to see but probably not.
    Does it degrade Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities? No.
    Does it damage Iran’s internal political stability? Maybe, but only if they don’t retaliate.

    Either this is some confused attempt to “escalate to de-escalate” by pretending that Iran’s nuclear program was destroyed or US leadership is terminally incompetent.

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      As I said in another thread, the only thing that matters is whether Israel stops attacking Iran. If Israel does that, Iran will stop shooting back. If not, this strike changed nothing save the US is now officially a combatant. Perhaps the assumption was that Iran would find that terrifying. If so, bad call.

      Reply ↓
    2. hk

      The attack gives Trump opportunity to publicly state that we did everything that Israel sought to do vis a vis Iran and quietly tell Israel to stop attacking. But Israel’s obvious response to this will be: oh, yeah? stop us if you can. Well, we can stop Israel if we really “mean” it, but how about those pro Israel congresscritters? Can Trump and his allies stare them down, too? That means Trump will have to drop his current act, one should think, and show that he really is an enemy of, at least, the present Israeli govt. Can he do that? Maybe, just maybe, the American people have seen enough of the madness emanating from Israel and turn on those guys, but I don’t know.

      Reply ↓
      1. hk

        The funny thing is that Iranian missiles are the biggest leverage Trump has vis a vis Israel. But if I were Trump, I’d want to increase the pressure incrementally…except he has no obvious control over Iran’s missile launches and we can’t tell how loud Trump is telling Israel to beat it. Trump probably can’t make that public–too many friends of Israel in high places–even if he is actually doing that.

        Reply ↓
        1. PlutoniumKun

          Its obviously early days, and I’m breaking my own personal rule of commenting when there is too much fog of war to say anything sensible, but in the circumstances, its hard to avoid it.

          Looking at what information is available, the strike by the US is quite curious – and it fits into something we’d expect from Trump. It seems designed to grab attention without inflicting too much damage (contrast, for example, the first day of the US air assault on Iraq). It may well have made the underground networks unusable for a few weeks by blasting all the entrances without significantly damaging the production facilities (assuming the Iranians haven’t already removed everything possible, which logistically I doubt very much).

          So this may be intended to rescue Netanyahu from the mess he has made. It takes the focus away from the missile exchanges which neither Israel nor Iran can win. It may create a space where both sides can back down and Trump can declare himself a peacemaker. Of course, it may also trigger a set of retaliations which spin out of control. Given the number of people within Tel Aviv and Washington who genuinely believe that an upcoming apocalypse is actually quite a cool thing, I don’t have too much faith in their good judgement.

          Reply ↓
          1. OIFVet

            This rationalization begs the question why should we be rescuing an indicted war criminal? There’s a legitimate argument to be made that rescuing Bibi is in itself aiding and abetting future crimes against humanity. And that’s after we have aided and abetted his ongoing crimes against humanity.

            Reply ↓
            2. cfraenkel

              why should we be rescuing an indicted war criminal?
              Well, the “we” doing the rescuing are the latest in a long line of unindicted war criminals, so…

              Reply ↓
            3. jsn

              In economics post I frequently make the point that the US “democracy” has been converted by SCOTS rulings from Buckley vs Valeo to Citizens United into a political market where policy is for sale to the highest bidder.

              Israeli purchase into this evolving market has been precocious and prolific. We are ipso facto governed by those who can and have been be bought which in turn gives policy priority to those on the purchasing side, where aid to Israel has been a self licking ice cream cone since before I was born.

              A cult of Mammon has bonded an Old Testament cult of redemption through violence. Humanity is a category error in this calculus, not yours, I agree with you, but theirs, Mammon and Old Testament God who chooses sides have become glove and hand in our erstwhile democracy. Population 90% opposed, politicians 99% for, that’s Western Democracy in a nutshell.

              Reply ↓
      2. DJG, Reality Czar

        hk:

        Unfortunately, no. The American people think that the Russian Federation can be dismantled — in a day — because it is filled with orcs. The American people is aghast, aghast I tell you, to discover the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank. (Although many USonians are earnestly debating if “only” 40,000 slaughtered Palestinians is “really” genocide or just a traffic stop by police that got out hand, à l’americaine.)

        Recall:
        Your abuelita Hillary, obliterating the Iranians.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtiJqng9jy8

        Recall:
        Kamala “I’m Speaking” Harris, looking for enemies.
        https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/8/kamala-harris-says-iran-is-greatest-adversary-of-us

        Because U.S. politics is a team sport of, who knows?, the L.A. Dodgers versus the Chicago Bulls, people will sort themselves into various swamps of immorality so as not to have to face the facts.

        Reply ↓
    3. nyleta

      The one thing learnt so far is that Vance is a Trump minime and is not to be looked to for rational action. His part in deceptions has shown this. Don’t read too much into B2 not being dealt with, even Russia with Mig 31 armed with modernised KS 172 would have trouble with not enough satellite cover.

      They would have went in 50,000 ft with plenty of time for evasive action from missiles even if seen.

      Reply ↓
      1. Pearl Rangefinder

        I’m skeptical on the B2’s even being used at all. The B2 is a scarce and literally irreplaceable air asset that the US can’t build anymore:

        The United States Air Force has nineteen B-2s in service as of 2024; one was destroyed in a 2008 crash and another one damaged in a crash in 2022 was retired from service likely on account of the cost and duration of a potential repair.

        It’s also subsonic, and quite unlikely to be very manouverable (especially when loaded up with bombs and fuel). If any ground based missiles did get a target lock on it it would be toast, much like the F117’s were over Yugoslavia/Serbia. Recall that the Serbs shot one F117 down and probably damaged a second one, and that was done with vintage 1960s era Soviet missile systems (the S125, first deployed in 1961). Obviously the B2 is more advanced, but it does make one wonder.

        Would the Pentagon risk flying over so much Iranian airspace (remember you got to get to the target AND fly back), to use bunker busters that we aren’t even 100% sure would work on the target? I have yet to see any visual confirmation of even Israeli planes (other than drones) flying over Iran. The F35 is at least replaceable if any do get shot down, so theoretically it is more ‘expendable’.

        The press conference with Hegseth this morning and the rah rah marketing over this strike, IDK it all seems ‘off’ to me.

        Reply ↓
        1. Felix_47

          I thought that the B2 looked like a pack of cigarettes on radar so the radar could not lock onto it. If that is the case how does one stop it? Do the Russians or Chinese have something that can take a B2 down??

          Reply ↓
          1. Polar Socialist

            It’s… complicated. To a fire-control radar on a fighter the B-2 is likely quite “low-observability” from a front sector cone, but for, say, a VHS band radar like Ghadir or 67N6E Gamma DE (Russian radar in Iranian service) which uses wavelengths of several meters and bounces them from the ionosphere they are very much visible.

            Now, them radars are not accurate enough to be used for fire control, since the length of the radio wave does not give accurate enough location info – give or take more than a several hundred meters in three dimensions depending on the distance. Basically, the radar operator can assert that the target is in a certain cubic mile of air space, but no more.

            Reply ↓
        2. The Rev Kev

          The F-35 may be replaceable but it takes 18 to 24 months to build one. That’s a long time if there is a war going on and they are being used up.

          Reply ↓
  5. mgr

    I understand that Israel depends on eight desalinization plants for its existence. Is that true?

    If so, could Iran demonstrate, by taking out one, and then bargain leaving the remaining desalinization plants intact against Israel turning Netanyahu and his regime over to the ICC? Give them a few days time limit and then hit the next and so on, until compliance or no more drinking water for Israel?

    Also included could be the IDF exiting Gaza, all attacks on Iran from Israel or the US or from within, as well as any other moves against Iran. Of course, a nuclear attack on Iran would mean taking them all out at once. Perhaps this is the kind of deterrent that Israel and the US would understand and unless there is some climb down it seems almost inevitable that Israel, with its back to the wall, would at some point go that route.

    It would be important, I would think, that Iran make its demands perfectly clear and non-negotiable.

    Technically, I do not know how hard it is to take out a desalinization plant, but a hundred hypersonic missiles at a time..? Is that kind of launch possible? If so, we know they cannot be stopped.

    Although extreme, it avoids targeting civilians and gets to the root of the problem which is Zionist Israel and its aspirations for hegemony in the ME that are driving this whole conflict, in Gaza and beyond. In fact, it is the Israel decapitation strategy in reverse.

    All speculation. Obviously, I have no understanding of these things but from a high level it seemed like a possibility and hopefully it is more humane than a protracted war of attrition that will over time kill many people and destroy many lives on both sides, and perhaps escalate completely out of control.

    Sorry if this is just an extremely stupid idea. If so, my fault. I would so much like this madness to end.

    Reply ↓
    1. PlutoniumKun

      Desalination plans of the type used in Israel are generally modular and extend over a wide physical area. They are not particularly vulnerable to attack – or put another way, you could expend a vast amount of ordnance against a desalination plant, do a lot of damage, but still not prevent sufficient fresh water being produced. The Israelis have been aware of their vulnerability to air strike since the years of its foundation and have (to varying degrees), built a requirement for resilience into their infrastructure.

      Much the same applies to oil refineries. You can strike them, and create spectacular fireworks, but actually knocking them completely out of action requires either a very lucky (or well aimed) strike at one of the few key vulnerable nodes. In WWII the allies devoted enormous resources to bombing German and Japanese refineries (mostly in Romania and what is now Indonesia) without successfully destroying them (albeit they did very significantly reduce output). Natural gas networks (production, pumping and refining facilities) are far more vulnerable.

      There are a lot of misconceptions out there about how easy it is to destroy a countries infrastructure, mostly I think due to people watching too many movies where one bomb brings the bad guys to their knees. Some so-called military experts online are also guilty of perpetuating these myths. Most infrastructure, whether water, power, or transport, involves lots and lots and lots of steel and concrete, and generally have multiple layers of resilience built in – both deliberately and as a consequence of decades of overlapping construction. Even very accurate and very large aerial bombs have a surprisingly poor record of doing more than superficial damage. And missiles carry a lot less explosive than even a small bomber and are a lot less accurate (if the bomber uses direct line of sight laser guidance, which is the only guaranteed method of directing a large bomb with sufficient precision to, for example, knock out the structural core of a bridge).

      This isn’t to say you can’t do enormous damage with a well aimed bomb. In my own city, I could tell you one precise location where even a modest bomb could reduce water supply by around 80%, and another smallish building that could cripple the fibre-optic network if something bad happened there. I know of three key transformers that if struck simultaneously could cause a black out lasting weeks if hit with a big enough bomb. But my city wasn’t designed to withstand a military strike, and the knowledge of those locations isn’t widely circulated for obvious reasons (vandalism, not military).

      Reply ↓
      1. skippy

        Cluster munitions ….

        You really don’t seem to have an idea of the potential munitions that could be used and how it would effect various systems. Israel is a a bucket of fish mate.

        Reply ↓
        1. The Rev Kev

          I saw a day or two ago an Iranian ballistic missile hit which used cluster munitions so they do have them. My take on that was Iran telling Israel ‘Guess what we can do?’

          Reply ↓
        2. Polar Socialist

          Yeah, don’t tell him that one strike on Haifa refinery has rendered it unusable at least for months. As somebody said yesterday, these are not your father’s missiles Iran is using.

          Also, it’s not enough to desalinate water, it has to be distributed – that means pipelines and pumping stations, those traditional Israeli targets when ever they bomb Lebanon.

          Reply ↓
          1. PlutoniumKun

            I’m not a petro-engineer, but I’ve been involved in one way or another in that sector on and off for 3 decades and I know many highly experienced engineers – some in my family. I have access through work to many journals and oil/gas sources – it’s not my core work, but I follow the insider gossip. I’ve been searching for a proper analysis of the Haifa damage since its occurred but I’ve found nothing beyond what’s in the media and can be turned up by a google search. For obvious reasons, the Israelis are not telling, but If you have access to a reliable damage assessment beyond that, I’d be very interested to read it, and I personally hope the refinery is completely destroyed.

            But so far, all we know is that the Iranians had at least 2 successful strikes and it created a spectacular fire display. This could mean that either by luck or very good analysis/strike design the Iranians have completely crippled it. Or it could be that, like with the Ukrainian strikes on various Russian refineries, its created a bit of a mess, and for safety reasons it will take time to get things back to normal, but otherwise its not a mortal blow. From my experience of refinery fires (I’ve had to crawl through plenty of ‘after’ reports in my past working life), it’s most likely the latter. Time will tell.

            As for water – so now we’ve gone from ‘we can destroy the salination plants’ to ‘we can destroy the distribution network’. Well, of course thats possible – but very, very difficult. Water infrastructure is mostly underground and will have, as a matter of course, multiple layers of resilience built in. Yes, there may be vulnerable nodes, and maybe the Iranians have gained access to internal mapping and resources to allow them to identify weak points. But then again, the Israeli’s might likely have better access to Iranian sources. Although for a variety of reasons Irans water supply, while highly stressed, is not particularly vulnerable (its mostly based on localised wells), they still would not want to give Israel/US an excuse to hit their dam infrastructure (not necessarily the dams themselves, but ancillary power/water links).

            Plus there is the small matter that striking Israeli infrastructure is also hitting Palestinian infrastructure, and you can be sure that the Israeli’s would love nothing more than an excuse to cut off water and power to the West Bank and other peripheral Arab-majority settlements. Every reaction has a counter reaction.

            Reply ↓
            1. The Rev Kev

              What if the Iranians release a lot of sub-munitions into say a desalination plant? I don’t think that many workers would be happy working in a facility where there might be these bombs lurking. It might take days to clear them all out.

              Reply ↓
              1. dandyandy

                Maybe Iran could pepper all areas which they want to make unattractive to living personnel, with “petal” mini mines. Ukrainian Army used to fire these “petals” into towns and villages of Donbas, no other purpose but to maim the civilians

                Reply ↓
              2. PlutoniumKun

                Most salination plants, like sewage and water treatment plans, are to a significant extent unmanned, with the control engineers sitting in an office somewhere in the nearest town. A strike on one would most likely only kill cleaners and low level maintenance guys, who in Israel are largely disposable migrant workers.

                Reply ↓
                1. The Rev Kev

                  If some of them bomblets damaged parts of those plants, then somebody is going to have to go down to where the damage is to repair it – and watch your step. Won’t find me putting my hand for that assignment.

                  Reply ↓
                2. chris

                  I know that is the way things are run in the US, because budgets for engineering staff serving municipal functions like water treatment are tight. Much of that work has been outsourced to companies who may provide workers to tend several water treatment facilities simultaneously. Therefore, the systems are designed to allow that kind of function. However… these are not typically places in a desert. They are also not places with high levels of terrorist risk. I’d be surprised if the Israelis felt they could manage their critical water infrastructure the same way.

                  Also, with a nod to our hosts, we’ve already seen various internet oriented government agencies introduce bad actors into chats. We’ve already seen commenter flame threads with Noughtzi imagery or statements in order to make hosts take down a page. Do we really want to discuss ways to damage Israeli infrastructure on NC? I realize I am full into self censorship and paranoia mode. I just don’t want a conversation based on little actual evidence to give the PropOrNot crowd another reason to flag NC. Even if the conversation is topical and the events going on are being shrouded by so many.

                  Reply ↓
              3. TJH

                Reverse osmosis membrane plants the weak point is the pumps. Take them out and the spares.
                Refineries the weak point would be the first unit operation, the fractionation column. Without that the rest of the refinery is useless.

                Reply ↓
            2. hazelbee

              I shared links on this six days ago – on the Haifa oil refinery.

              https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/06/links-6-16-2025.html

              Shares in the company were suspended on the tel aviv stock exchange. and the company issued a statement. Alfred venison commenter found the statement from Bazan.

              If you read it – the damage took out the power plant supplying steam and electricity to the refinery. they are trying to bring that back online.
              i dont know how long to bring something back online like that.
              but systems that rely on any type of central command infrastructure are perhaps vulnerable to impacts to that control?

              Reply ↓
        3. PlutoniumKun

          Cluster munitions are ‘lots of little bombs’. Both Ukraine and Russia have huge stocks of cluster munitions, but so far as I’m aware, have not used them to any degree against each others infrastructure, presumably because they have better alternatives. Most cluster munitions are intended solely for anti-personell use or light armour. You need far more explosive power or kinetic energy to do damage to anything that built of mass concrete and steel.

          There are of course many highly specialised munitions developed by most sides for use against various forms of infrastructure, ranging from metalled chaff to various forms of incendiaries and penetrators. But cluster munitions means scattering your explosive/kinetic power over far too wide an area to do anything but cosmetic damage to serious infrastructure.

          Reply ↓
          1. skippy

            Cosmetic …

            Obviously you have no first hand experiences to draw conclusions from, worst you still don’t grok scope of target area and how if Iran wanted it could take it all out in one night.

            Its a new world mate … again your priors on the Ukraine is on the record …

            Reply ↓
            1. isl

              I am with you, skippy, Iran has had decades to figure out how to specifically neutralize Israel, and water and refined products and electric systems are key. Fuel-air ordinance comes to mind immediately as well as cluster munitions.

              Also, rebuilding a refinery needs a lot of rare earths, and a new missile can just revisit once a month with many large components needing a working port. And its the highly-educated well-paid Israelis with dual passports that have been fleeing Israel for the last two years, i.e., the technical staff.

              And my swag (ok, I know something here) is that today’s refinery is much more complicated (like my car) than our grandad’s (oldster car) refinery.

              Reply ↓
      2. NN Cassandra

        The key vulnerability is electricity, without it everything else breaks down, including desalination and water pumping. And power plants with their turbines are relatively easy to destroy.

        Reply ↓
      3. upstater

        High voltage substations, if not hardened (e.g. Sweden), are highly vulnerable. Transformers are filled with thousands of gallons of oil; one hit can destroy the adjacent equipment. A great use of armor piercing cluster munitions. Repair or replacement is time consuming. We have seen in Ukraine these high voltage nodes get hammered and resulting blackouts. Ukraine, of course benefits from the heavy industry USSR legacy with loads of spares and under utilized capacity. Perhaps Israel invested heavily in grid physical security; we shall see.

        Reply ↓
      4. redleg

        Leave the plants alone and take out the pumping stations. Those things are immobile, big, and difficult to replace/repair. All the potable water in the world is useless if it can’t get to where it’s needed.

        Reply ↓
    2. Yves Smith Post author

      IMHO the big near-term inhibitor is that this would be considered to be civilian infrastructure, and hence an illegitimate target. However, Iran did say after the last Israel attack before June 13 start of war, that civilian infrastructure was now on the menu.

      Reply ↓
      1. mgr

        Thank you. It occurred to me that if the Iran clearly expressed the intent of forcing Israel to turn the Netanyahu regime over to the ICC, that this would garner a lot of support from the world’s public, also perhaps in the US. Perhaps even the Israeli public, many of whom already despise Netanyahu, would prefer that to the loss of critical infrastructure in Israel.

        Also, to your point, is it not true that Israel has already crossed that line, not to mention the US strikes on the Iran’s nuclear sites?

        Again, I am not an expert on any of this, but I did think the framing, which focused on removing Netanyahu and holding him accountable for his actions in Gaza, in a (semi) legal context, would be a different and possibly powerful narrative change. That, for me, would be the central point. Of course, how to achieve that leverage? That’s why hpersonic missiles and the desalinization plants came to mind.

        Perhaps the US strikes will be a face saving way of winding this down. We can hope. But will the central problem of Israel’s lust for hegemony, not to mention the horror in Gaza, continue?

        In any case, just a thought. Thank you everyone for your replies.

        Reply ↓
    3. Clever Dog

      Intentional destruction of Israel’s desalination plants, which supply the water on which the civilian population depends, would be a war crime.

      Yes, Israel would do that and has already done it in Gaza. And the US did the same in Iraq. But Russia, in contrast, has done nothing of the sort in Ukraine.

      The US and Israel are criminal states but not all states are like that. Some make the distinction between military and civilian targets.

      Reply ↓
      2. redleg

        In an existential fight, war crime determination doesn’t matter.
        Iran as a state is facing an existential threat and the leadership will be placed on (performative) trial for war crimes by the US whether they committed any or not. Don’t expect US, UK, Isr, etc. officials to face reprecussions for anything.

        Reply ↓
  6. Alan Sutton

    Thank you Yves.

    I have been desperate for news all day when I woke up here and heard the news.

    It doesn’t seem like Trump even achieved what he wanted but he will rant that he has.

    Meanwhile, Tel Aviv and Haifa and other places, from the little I have seen are being slowly bombed to smithereens.

    Not looking good for an Israel.

    Noticeably, no attacks on US bases, ships or other assets. Iran may be letting the Yanks off lightly but concentrating on Israel?

    From what I have read here recently Iran could end Israel pretty quickly if they take out 7 or 8 desalination plants but they seem reluctant.

    Are they actually just nicer? I would do it.

    Also interesting that Netanyahou has closed the airports. It’s real Gotteramdung now it looks like.

    Reply ↓
    1. Samuel Conner

      > Iran may be letting the Yanks off lightly but concentrating on Israel?

      Recall the prior two Iranian retaliatory strikes in response to Israeli assassinations (the Damascus embassy strike and assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran); these were not prompt retaliations. This pattern may give the regime some room for maneuver in terms of preserving honor. My guess is that against the larger, more dangerous adversary of US, they will tread cautiously, but I imagine that there will eventually be a painful riposte.

      The ground might be shifting. It has been suggested that RF and PRC are waiting to see whether the regime can persevere; if it does, they may start to send serious military assistance. US and Europe have already established the precedent that this is “normal” in conflict between a client/ally/”friend” state and the patron state’s strategic adversary. US may howl, but the hypocrisy is plain for the world to see.

      Reply ↓
  7. Irrational

    Regarding your footnote #1, the way the European meeting is presented in Frankfurter Allgemeine (fully supportive of Ukraine, fully supportive of Israel”) is “they rejected our generous offer, so they had it coming.
    Case in point: Jürgen Hardt, the parliamentary leader of the Christian Democrats, currently the senior partner in government, said:
    „Nach der Weigerung des Iran, auf das Verhandlungsangebot der Europäer einzugehen, war die Konsequenz eines US-amerikanischen Schlags gegen die Atomanlagen absehbar”,
    Loosely translated:
    ” After the refusal of Iran to engage with the European offer of negotiations, the consequences in form of a strike on the nuclear facilities was foreseeable.”
    Thus European MSM participate in the manufacturing of consent.

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      Yes, I thought I wrote that. Lordie. I thought about adding that we made the Iraqis very unhappy by whacking one of their generals in the same attack.

      Reply ↓
      1. juno mas

        With all these ‘whackings’ being perpetrated by the US, You’d think someone would target Obama (or a Lt. General) as (s)he trots about.

        Reply ↓
  9. Howard

    What makes this phase so dangerous is the loss of trust that the Iranian leadership has with the USA. This trust has to be reestablished in order to dial down hostilities. The only way is by Trump enforcing a strict unilateral ceasefire by Israel for a certain designated time period and not the Israeli version of a ceasefire, where they continue to attack. Hopium?

    Reply ↓
    1. hk

      I am actually quite confident that Trump is quietly telling Netanyahu exactly that. The problem is that this has to be done publicly, for the world to see US put Israel in the dog house, to even begin the process of restoring any credibility for US–and that might not be enough, probably. But if that happens, the politician who does that will pay a huge price. So an impossible situation.

      Reply ↓
    3. restive

      Actually I was under the impression that using negotiations to lure leaders out into the open so Mossad can track them when they return home, has become standard procedure for us. I heard that this was how we got Solemani as well as leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah. I am sorry that I can’t remember at the moment where I read that. If this is true, then saying that the U.S. has destroyed it’s credibility as a negotiating partner is a very large understatement.

      Reply ↓
    1. ChrisRUEcon

      > I don’t think the Zionist will be satisfied with this.

      And therein lies the crux of all this …

      Has Trump – as asserted via various bloviated appearances/social-media-posts – done the job here to his satisfaction? And further, what does that mean for any future “assistance” to Israel if BiBi continues to push it? One interesting component is political fallout from this – Trump is watching the replies to his posts, I’m sure. He surely must he seeing and hearing the likes of Bannon screeching from the sidelines as well. Does he effectively pull a Pontius Pilate here and hang BiBi out to dry under a barrage of Iranian hypersonic strikes? I think this coming week is going to be an “interesting” one for BiBi … 🍿

      Reply ↓
    2. Don

      I posted a comment earlier (a little sheepishly) suggesting that Trump may have a brilliant plan (I know, I know!) but it seems less fantastical in the context of what is now being put forward.

      Reply ↓
  11. The Rev Kev

    This attack is a bit like the blind men and the elephant. OK, first blind man says that it was all theater. Two of the sites were abandoned and the third long expecting an attack. They spent high-cost munitions attacking nothing. It might deserve the label ‘No Iranians were harmed in the making of this production.’ Second blind man says that it’s all about Trump. He is trying to limit any reaction against US units in the region by using out of theater assets aka the B-2s and the subs. If the Iranians take it out on the Israelis, who cares he says? Third blind man reckons that it solves the problem for Trump how he boxed himself in. He ‘did something’ and maybe the media will say that he is now acting ‘Presidential.’ It gets the Neocons and Bibi off his back for a while at least and buys himself some time. Fourth blind man says that it is a bluff. He wants Iran to denuclearize and disarm itslef but which they would be crazy to do. How many Iranians think that it would be a good idea to get rid of their missiles. Fifth blind man reckons that it puts the screws on Israel. They are still being pounded and their anti-missile missiles are still being depleted. Maybe in a fortnight they are out. Bibi might demand that the US strip the Indo-Pacific of all of those missiles to be sent to Israel but the Pentagon will stomp their foot down hard on this idea. For Israel, the clock is ticking. Sixth blind man thinks that Bibi’s convinced that the US will now finally enter the war in a big way which solves his domestic political problems. If his legacy is a Greater Israel out of this war, then nobody will ever touch him. Yeah, about that…

    Reply ↓
    1. Skip Intro

      I’m nurturing a scenario whereby Trump and Iran agreed to the hit, allowing the bombers through, and sealing off Fordow. It would eliminate the risk to the bombers. Now the neocons dance in the streets and sing hosannas, but their most cherished cover story of stopping Iran’s nuke program has now been removed, without any regime change.
      Trump explicitly warned against retaliation against US assets, so Israel will find itself back in the attrition war, with no reason to call daddy. It raises the likelihood of a false flag tremendously.

      Reply ↓
      1. juno mas

        This whole B2 ‘extravaganza’ may be ‘hokum’.They supposedly flew from Wightman AFB (Missouri) to Iran (with refuelings) and back. Anyone see them take off and return? No trace in the sky? No radar observations from Russian or Chinese intelligence satellites? Are they that stealthy?

        Reply ↓
        1. Skip Intro

          Don’t forget the element of surprise! With no idea when in the next 2 weeks the strike on a known target with known bombers would come, Iran would have to be watching all night, every night! Talk about boring.
          Some say the most stealthy bomber is the bomber that is never there. What could be more appropriate to destroy a threat that was never there?

          The important thing is not that the potential for WMDs was destroyed, but that the pretext for war and regime change was destroyed. Presumably a new, improved, super-duper, triple-secret lab will be ‘discovered’ shortly.

          Reply ↓
        2. johnnyme

          The Associated Press is reporting their return to base:

          The stealth bombers that dropped massive bunker-buster bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities have begun returning to a U.S. base in Missouri.

          An Associated Press journalist watched on a clear but windy Sunday afternoon as at least seven of the B-2 Spirit bombers came in for landing at Whiteman Air Force Base.

          A first group of four of the stealth aircraft did a loop around the base before approaching a runway from the north. A final group of three arrived within 10 minutes.

          Reply ↓
  12. Tom67

    @Yves I wholly concur with Yves. Israel is much more vulnerable than Iran. Don´t forget Israelians are a people many generations away from living without electricity and running water. They won´t know how to cope. Iranians were still majority peasant only 50 years ago and still have a strong connection to their relatives in the countryside. Also Iran is simply huge and Israel is tiny. Where ever Iran sends a rocket it will hit somebody.
    Also militarily Israel is much more vulnerable than Iran. Let’s say Iran manages to destroy the E-grid, the desalination plants and the war plane runways. Suddenly their capabilities would be much more on a level with Hisbollah and Hamas. And we know that Israel couldn´t defeat neither on the ground even when she had vast technological superiority. Whereas Iran – should Israel manage to destroy the E-grid – has no nasty neighbours poised to invade if she is vulnerable.
    What do I think will happen? Trum had to do Netanyahu’s bidding because of the donor class and the deep state. But he’s surely also smart enough to avoid all out war with Iran. That would be the end of him politically. So the big “hit” on the Iranian nuclear facilities was for show only. Now he can call it quits and leave Israel to her devices. Netanyahu can´t very well contradict Trump and say nothing was hit at all. He surely knows as well as I do that Israel with lose the war if Iran doesn´t stop. But Iran won´t stop and the US already “destroyed” the Iran nuclear program. Why should the US get in? Israel would have to publicly admit that Iran has the upper hand missile wise. Not gonna happen for a while.
    Trump will let Israel and the obnoxious Netanyahu stew until they are ready for a compromise that they won´t like at all. It all reminds me very much of the situation of the crusaders before their crushing defeat at the battle of Hattin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin

    Reply ↓
    1. Offtrail

      “Iran is simply huge and Israel is tiny”. This is true. Iran is the size of Alaska, and Israel is the size of Vermont. However, there are still plenty of empty lots in Israel where missiles can fall, and Iran’s missiles don’t seem to be that precise.

      Reply ↓
  13. TiPi

    I question the use of “pummeling” and “pounding” as accurate descriptors of the disciplined and restricted Iranian response so far, which seems to have intended to slowly degrade Israeli air defences and create a sense of insecurity within the Israeli population by demonstrating Israel’s vulnerability.

    The obvious measured response by Iran would be to take out critical civilian Israeli infrastructure, but on an attritional basis, so that a halt by Israel could be responded to by an Iranian cease fire. That would avoid rapid escalation. I do not think there can be further serious negotiations regarding Iranian’s nuclear intentions, except in the medium term.

    There are the eight (?) desalination plants, plus dependence on other essential groundwater resource capacity, oil and gas energy facilities, and communications centres. Israel is tiny geographically and has very limited ability to disperse its civilian infrastructure.

    Water resources are already under huge pressure across the entire Levant from climate change. Israel’s biggest weakness is not militarily but it certainly is hydrologically. Reverse osmosis is a highly energy intensive and hence expensive means of extracting potable water.

    As for wider impacts, there will be further international pushback against the illegal US attacks, and loss of US soft power, rapidly being eroded by 47. The unintended beneficiaries will probably be China, maybe Japan, and possibly even Putin’s Russia.

    The permanent loss of trust in Pax Americana is increased by every US action that holds the presupposition of inalienable US impunity. It cannot now be restored by 47’s successor.
    The continuing weakness of European diplomacy as evinced by the immediate pathetic international response from UK and European leaders to the bombings, shows a continuing inability to influence current American authoritarianism. Michael Hudson’s analysis was spot on.
    EU leaders actually do realise this and will focus even more on their eastern margins. There may well be increased militarism in both Germany and Poland as an indirect response. Starmer is merely a Zionist poodle despite his protestations and insignificant.

    How will internal US politics deal with 47s increasing adventurism, at the same time as ICE are acting as a key institution for internal repression, and respond to the intended US slide towards totalitarianism from executive authoritarianism (as postulated by Arendt) that the Heritage Foundation and white ultra-nationalism demands?

    The problem is twofold – in the ingrained militarism of Zionism – as Toby Dodge of LSE outlined –
    “There is a dominant trend in Israel going back to the formation of the state that has suggested to politicians that violence will deliver a solution to what are political problems.”

    Second, there is the chaotic disposition of the 47 regime, the continuing ineptitude in US Middle Eastern action, and its seemingly limited capacity to be restrained both by wider public opinion and US law. 47 has just opened up further opportunities for internal US pushback against his increasing despotism, breach of constitutional separation of powers, and exposed the schism between neocons and MAGA isolationists.

    Right wing rats fighting in their sack would be a hopeful development, as it will sap the regime’s energy. If the law of unintended consequences involves a prolonged and time consuming blowback against Trump, especially from his own side, there may even be positives emerging from 47s stupidity. But I doubt it.

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      If you are on the receiving end in Israel, which never in its history has been subjected to this level of damage, with many civilians having to run to shelters daily, I do not see how you can cavil about the use of terms like “pummeling” and “pounding”. That and worse is how it feels to many of them. Look at the number trying to flee.

      Reply ↓
      1. Tipi

        My objection is not trivial. I stand by my critique.

        It is the Palestinians who have been ‘pummeled’ and ‘pounded’ in Gaza, and across the Levant.

        The quantitative difference in intensity and volume of the ordnance that Israel has experienced over the last few days, that has penetrated the Iron Dome, is as nothing by comparison with the Gazans, and the displacement of Israeli civilians pales into insignificance by comparison with over a million Palestinians seemingly permanently on the move within Gaza, plus random IDF actions in the southern suburbs of Beirut.

        In the UK media the relative reporting of damage and destruction to Palestinian lives has been a fraction of that commented on for Israelis, and this disproportionality even quantified as 33/1, (though I suspect that press analysis was partisan).

        That there is such an institutional bias from our media intentionally distorts our perceptions of the relative sufferings of both innocent Israelis and innocent Palestinians, and that then feeds into the justifications we get repeatedly from the respective parties’ propaganda machines.
        The Palestinians are dehumanised by this, just as far right Zionists have made clear in their sub-human denunciations of the Arabs.

        I think there is thus an elevated duty of care to use equivalent language and expression in comparing the suffering of civilians in this appalling war from the quality commentariat, hence my comment, as I expect a higher standard from your writings than the generally low norms in UK media, regardless of your US base and lens.

        Reply ↓
        1. Yves Smith Post author

          I am sorry, Gaza is a genocide and is flat out extermination as opposed to a war. “Pounding” and “pummeling” are too mild. They airbrush out the calculated extermination and the sadism, such as the tortures, and sound like routine, if hard-hitting, military operations.

          We have had only one other in modern history (well, there is Rwanda0, and that was done mainly via gas chambers and shooting at close range, not by bombing.

          “Pounding” and “pummeling” are percussive and evoke bombing campaigns. In keeping, John Helmer compared the Iran strategy to rope-a-dope, another pounding metaphor.

          The Western press has regularly used similar terms with our air strikes in the Middle East, and in its occasional accounts in Ukraine that admit that Russian air strikes hurt.

          Reply ↓
          1. Don

            So, pounding and pummeling is too mild to describe what Israel is doing to Gaza, but just right for describing what Iran is doing to Israel?

            I agree that pounding and pummeling is far too mild to describe Israel’s Gaza genocide, but to describe what Iran is doing to Israel it is far too strong — regardless of how Israelis perceive it: 55,000 deaths in Gaza vs. a couple of dozen Israelis.

            Perhaps Israeli’s perceptions could be characterized as a “first world problem”. I look forward to the attitude adjustment when they actually experience pounding and pummeling.

            Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      Russia would want that to be how Iran takes it. What mattes is what Iran makes of it.

      The issue is Iran will keep striking Israel until Israel cuts it out. This attack did nothing to change that dynamic. Iran hit Israel hard in retaliation. That action indicates that Iran deems this attack to be at least tantamount to an attack by Israel.

      Reply ↓
      1. flora

        This attack at this time did short circuit the drive in the US Congress to require a Congressional vote to go to war. I imagine most of Congress is happy not to have to make a recorded vote on the matter.

        Reply ↓
          1. mrsyk

            “Brunch is saved!” Congress rolling over has been baked in. Wouldn’t want to spoil the post 9/11 bipartisan “precedent” ducking responsibility on authorizing war.

            Stop the war.

            Reply ↓
        3. ChrisFromGA

          Good analysis, Flora. It will be telling to observe in the following days if the likes of Linsday Graham and Mike Pompeo shut their filthy pie-holes, or keep on crying for war.

          Reply ↓
        5. The Rev Kev

          They could vote by acclaim like they did with the CARES Act so that there is no record of who voted for it.

          Reply ↓
          1. flora

            Protecting US big bidness donors by acclaim isn’t usually a political problem. See O’s bank bailouts.

            Protecting the war hawks identities by acclaim at this particular time would have a different effect. imo.

            Reply ↓
        6. David in Friday Harbor

          Yesterday evening I immediately wrote a strongly worded message to my Democrat congress-critter demanding impeachment for the high crime of expending public funds in violation of the War Powers Clause. There are a couple of big Navy bases in the district so I’m not expecting him to take action other than to lie down, roll over, and pee himself…

          Meanwhile, platitudes emanate from the paper tigers in Beijing.

          Reply ↓
          1. Trees&Trunks

            Our own special little idiot from Sweden, Carl Bildt, says “The US attack on Iran is a clear violation of international law” and “I do not want to hear any comment that the US has the right to defend itself”.

            He is a informer to the USA https://www.sverigesradio.se/artikel/5474704 and always on the side of the globalists and has never seen a US-led war he doesn’t like. I take his comment as an indication of impeachments against Trump coming up soon.

            https://tidningensyre-se.translate.goog/2025/22-juni-2025/carl-bildt-ett-uppenbart-brott-mot-internationell-ratt/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

            Reply ↓
      2. Trees&Trunks

        Sure. Just posted it because it is interesting to see what different sides say about the bombings.

        Dmitry Medvedev’s take on the bombings

        What did the Americans achieve with their overnight strike on three locations in Iran?

        1. The critical infrastructure of the nuclear cycle appears to have suffered little or no damage.
        2. Enrichment of nuclear materials, and now we can directly say – and future production of nuclear weapons – will continue.
        3. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their nuclear warheads.
        4. Israel is under attack, explosions are rumbling, people are panicking.
        5. The US is drawn into a new conflict with the prospect of a ground operation.
        6. Iran’s political regime is preserved, with a high probability that it has become stronger.
        7. The people consolidate around the spiritual leadership, and even those who did not sympathise with it.
        8. Trump, who came in as a peacemaker president, has started a new war for the US.
        9. The vast majority of the world is against the actions of Israel and the US.
        10. With such successes, Trump will never win the Nobel Peace Prize, even though the nomination is corrupt. A good start, congratulations, Mr President!

        Reply ↓
        1. mega

          Number 10. is what’s the most important in the Orange World. He became president because Obama ridiculed him. He wants that Prize because Obama got one, and he will keep bombing country after country until he gets it.

          Reply ↓
        2. Don

          “Oh baby, it’s a big old goofy world.”

          Obama was awarded the Nobel prize for — nothing.

          Trump could win it for what also may be — nothing.

          Reply ↓
      3. Samuel Conner

        > until Israel cuts it out.

        I have been wondering whether Iran’s position might actually be becoming strong enough that it can demand that Israel also take its boot off the neck of Gaza, West Bank and Lebanon. “Stop attacking our friends, too.”

        IOW — regime change in Israel.

        Reply ↓
        1. ChrisRUEcon

          I think BiBi shifts to a hotter seat with every Iranian missile that finds a target. We shall see.

          Reply ↓
    2. edwin

      Dmitry Medvedev has a series of posts on X

      What have the Americans accomplished with their nightime strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran?
      1. Critical infrastructure of the nuclear fuel cycle appears to have been unaffected of stustained only minor damage.
      2. The enrichment of nuclear materal – and now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons – will continue.
      3. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.
      Through 10 points.

      Perhaps the off ramp is giving Iran a bunch of nukes.

      Reply ↓
          1. AG

            Turkiye is the most important and powerful member of European NATO and ally to the US. As volatile as they may appear. For them other rules apply from US´s POV than Iran. So the stretch is of smaller scale in case of Turkiye.

            I also seriously doubt Israel would ever really attack Turkiye in a way Turkiye´s existence were at stake.

            As the seriousness of such a move might go, even the US eventually did not deliver nukes to Ukraine. Even if it was not due to lack of trying or building. But they didn´t push there into certain dangerous territory after RU had blocked whatever those covert operations were.

            Would Iran´s sit. now change would someone deliver nukes? They didn´t even accept extended RU assistance. Not to speak of WMDs. Nukes make only sense if you know the other side will use them. So far we can be sure only US and Israel would be capable.

            Reply ↓
            2. Young

              I also seriously doubt Israel would ever really attack Turkiye….

              IMHO, if US-Israel finishes of Iran, they will immediately launch Türkiye project. After all, Israel wants to retain “our only ally in the ME” title, while the US would like to give a taste of democracy to the Turkish citizens.

              I think there is even a resoultion in the Congress (H.R. 1890?) to reclassify Türkiye as a Middle East country so either Israel or USAF can bomb whenever they feel like it.

              Reply ↓
          2. John k

            Pakistani and turkey are both around 90% Sunni. I would have thought North Korea would be a more likely supplier for Iran, though maybe China /Russia might disapprove.

            Reply ↓
            1. Yves Smith Post author

              You must have missed it. Netanyahu put Pakistan on the menu after Iran. Pakistan has motive to buck up Iran out of self preservation.

              This is not Shia and Sunni. The street all across the Middle East is united against Israel. The problem is the leadership which is bought and paid for by the US. Erdogan regular makes fiery speeches against Israel yet quietly supports them.

              Reply ↓
              1. mrsyk

                Some tea leaves. From Thursday, germane, Trump hosts Pakistani army chief, disagrees with India over India-Pakistan war mediation, Reuters. This is framed in India/Pakistani relationship, but who can’t help but speculate there’s another reason for meeting personally with Pakistan’s top military person. Here’s a quote,
                Pakistan’s military said in a statement that the two discussed trade, economic development, and cryptocurrency during the two-hour meeting and also exchanged views on tensions between Israel and Iran.
                That looks to me like carrot and stick.

                Reply ↓
  15. edwin

    “All tactics and no strategy is the noise before the defeat.”

    The US has under Biden been launching missiles at Russia. For a long time the US has been wanting to pivot to China. Taiwan is it’s unsinkable air craft carrier and it is leaving it exposed. It seems unable to focus and select, though a good time is being had in Iran right now. Russia was so boring.

    The world’s strongest military seems to be pivoting from war to war and is unable to figure out what it is doing. Biden believes that they can do three wars at the same time because they are the United States. He may not be wrong, but win them? Trump sneers and says “Hold my beer.”

    The view that Trump may become the third time lucky with impeachment does seem like a possible exit ramp to this. Yves’ prediction is becoming more likely I think.

    I remember a newspaper article from Cambridge (Ontario) about kids playing chicken with a train. Things didn’t go so well. (In the back of my mind I have Aurelien telling me to calm down and take a deep breath.) Those kids had no intention of dying. Damn I long for the good old days of MAD.

    Maybe we an update on Sun Tsu in the nuclear age. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/mediaviewer/rm2074708737/?ref_=ttmi_mi_72 All tactics and no strategy is the noise before nuclear war.

    Reply ↓
    1. John Wright

      Taiwan is an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” that the USA is willing to bomb to destroy Taiwan’s semiconductor plants to prevent China from getting them in a takeover.

      So Taiwan could be subject to a simultaneous attack from both China and USA, with China interested in avoiding infrastructure destruction and the USA pushing destruction on their Taiwanese ally.

      Thus Taiwan is subject to an attack from the USA if things go poorly in the USA’s view.

      Israel does not have the same vulnerability to USA’s ordnance that I can see.

      Reply ↓
  16. Patrick Donnelly

    D J Trump walked into a trap: Congress is said to be in favour … but there was no declaration or authorisation of War!

    Reply ↓
    2. Samuel Conner

      One might be able to argue that a limited strike justified by “urgent necessity” without Congressional authorization provides the President with more room to maneuver away from further escalation than Congressional authorization for general discretionary military engagement, and much more room for maneuver than an outright declaration of war.

      As little as I like the President, what was done may be the least bad political option for an overt intervention.

      Or, paradoxically, in the President’s mind, he may still be pursuing a MAGA/America First agenda, but under severe political constraints.

      Reply ↓
    3. Kouros

      Some argue that is not necessarily a trap:

      https://www.thomasfazi.com/p/ukraine-and-iran-two-fronts-of-a

      Excerpts:

      If the United States escalates its military campaign against Iran, it risks not only igniting a broader regional war but raising the stakes in the ongoing de facto world war. Indeed, as Tariq Ali noted, Trump’s threats against Iran should be seen as part of a wider plan against China:

      The main purpose for destabilising Iran is to get concessions from them. And the concessions are not simply on nuclear reactors. I think there’s a more serious plan to which is to make it impossible for Iran as a sovereign state to negotiate and sell oil and gas directly to China.

      The US would like to be the power that determines to whom energy is sold and under what conditions. It’s part of their big plan to surround and lay siege to China… they are concerned and worried about the development of China as a major economic power and they want to control it. So in my opinion, the threats against Iran are more to do with that than anything else.

      In such a scenario, Russia and China would likely respond — not necessarily with direct military intervention, but by flooding Iran with weapons, intelligence and possibly extending a nuclear umbrella as a deterrent. Indeed, China is already backing Iran. As one X user noted:

      Iran’s recent missile strikes have become notably more precise, largely due to China granting it access to the advanced BeiDou satellite navigation system. If Pakistan is visibly supporting Iran, it’s unlikely to be acting alone. China supplies most of Pakistan’s military hardware, and its logistical and technical backing is essential to any sustained Pakistani operation.

      Reply ↓
    1. mega

      It’s possible, but we will have to wait till the fog of war settles down to see what actually happened, just like with the attack on Russian strategic bombers.

      Reply ↓
    1. The Rev Kev

      OK, looks like that I am going to be that guy. With the news that Trump may have thrown the US into a completely unnecessary war, Sanders had a chance to shine here. And he did – briefly – at the beginning and the end. But the bulk of his speech was pure domestic politics which he could have given in his sleep. My guess is that he did not want to go into it as he sides with Israel and the crowd’s reaction at the beginning showed him that he had to tread carefully. So he punted the whole thing aside and talked domestic issues instead which was safer. And now people will wonder what would have happened if this had been a President Harris that ordered that attack.

      Reply ↓
      2. mrsyk

        At least Bernie’s willing to sacrifice brunch.
        And the crowd cried out “No more war!”. Bernie, “I agree.”. and
        “the only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress.”

        Reply ↓
        1. JohnnyGL

          So, the appropriate reaction from Congress to a President starting an illegal, unprovoked war is…….wait for it…impeachment!!!!

          The calls should be coming, even if we know Congress will NEVER do it.

          Reply ↓
      3. ChrisFromGA

        I dunno, I listened to the whole thing (Thanks, Yves) and Bernie is pretty much spot on. Domestic politics are fair game here, because this is yet another episode where cheap foreign policy victories are sought to distract the American people from the miserable conditions they are living in, compared to the 1970s/80s/90s (unaffordable healthcare, private equity raping companies, AI enshittification, etc.)

        I’m grateful that we at least still have Bernie, as flawed as he is. Where is anyone else in the Democratic Party? Has anyone heard from Hakeem Jeffries? We need to start a search party, or maybe print up one of those “missing” ads and put it on milk cartons.

        Reply ↓
        1. mrsyk

          This disturbing thought just occurred to me. Trump is going to ask congress for approval, gets it and gains legit Wartime Powers to advance his domestic authoritarian agenda.
          I hate this timeline.

          Reply ↓
      4. Jackman

        What’s the evidence that he sides with Israel? He’s literally the only one in the Senate who regularly calls out Israel for war crimes and tries to end their weapons funding.
        One can see Sanders flaws–and there are many–while also acknowledging his virtues, and right now he’s one of the only ones out there saying things that others won’t while still rousing huge numbers of people and giving them a sense of what solidarity might mean.

        Reply ↓
        1. urdsama

          If memory serves, Sanders had to almost be dragged kicking and screaming to finally call the situation in Gaza a genocide.

          He has been very soft on Israel and its actions…

          Reply ↓
        2. The Rev Kev

          I’ve seen a coupla videos of Sanders in small town hall style meeting and the crowds – mostly young – are not having his waffling about Israel and not calling out genocide. Actually he got seriously rude about it which did not win him any fans there. In terms of politics in America in the 2020s the guy is a dinosaur.

          Reply ↓
      5. converger

        Sanders does not side with Israel. Anyone in the Jewish community from Sanders’ generation is going to be deeply conflicted about how catastrophically the Israeli experiment has metastisized into a genocidal monster. But Sanders has always been pretty clear that the Israel of today is on the wrong side of history.

        That said, it’s true that Sanders missed a huge opportunity to pivot to the core relationship between Trump’s domestic authoritarian agenda and the march towards war. You can see Sanders considering whether or not to go there just before he makes the announcement, and deciding to just plow ahead with the script. AOC might have pulled that off. A younger Sanders might have pulled that off. Under the circumstances, I’m willing to give Sanders a pass on that one.

        What’s important about this clip is the reason that Yves posted it: the crowd that Sanders is speaking to instinctively understands that core relationship. It’s going to be an interesting next few weeks on the streets of American cities.

        Reply ↓
        1. urdsama

          I’m not willing to give him a pass.

          Twice Sanders allowed to DNC to stab him in the back and his only response was then to support their candidate. He all but said vote for the lessor of two evils.

          I blame him in no small part for why the US is where it is today.

          Reply ↓
      6. restive

        Thanks Rev K, you articulated my own unease.

        Also want to join the chorus of those thanking Yves for this post.

        Reply ↓
  19. schmoe

    With no way to stop airstrikes, I think we are going to see an attempt at regime change via airstrikes. More specifically, can you trigger regime change if every power plant, oil and gas facility, and all other civilian infrastructure is destroyed? Israel and the US will likely go the Gaza route (other than ordinance restrictions will not allow flattening of the entire country, and will instead try to make ordinary life untenable for the citizenry). See Syria and Libya. I do not see what will stop this, other than if China and Russia provide humanitarian aid to prevent a total societal collapse.

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      What causes regime change in Syria was not air strikes. It was the economic damage of the sanctions, which led Assad to grossly underpay his military, which made it easy for Israel and US operatives to bribe them to stand down when Turkiye opened its attack.

      In Libya, per Wikipedia, NATO piled on to an Arab-Spring triggered civil war, where the rebels took control of part of Libya. The NATO operation was not just an air campaign but also included a naval blockage. So again, this is not analogous to an air-only campaign. In fact, the US tried that in Libya in 1986 and did not dislodge Gaddafi.

      Confirming this assessment, at 35:10, Alexander Mercouris briefly recaps a discussion with John Mearsheimer, in which Mearsheimer said a bombing-only campaign had never produced a regime collapse. It also takes on-the-ground operations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s17Xa8gjX0U

      Reply ↓
      1. schmoe

        I agree with that and my Libya analogy was a bit off, but my point is that just as life became so bad for ordinary Syrians that we were able to bribe their army to trigger a regime change, we are going to make life just as bad (or worse) for Iranians such that Iran devolves into internal chaos and (in the neocons’ dreams) triggers internal ethnic fissures that cause a civil war.
        I am not saying it will succeed, but I unfortunately see massive death and misery as the most probable outcome.

        Reply ↓
        1. Yves Smith Post author

          Being attacked unifies the public behind the government. Syria’s military was so underpaid for many years that it effectively had none. Different fact set.

          And modern Syria was a fake country, a colonial confection with lots of ethnicities. The reason Bashar al Assad’s brutal rule was seen as acceptable in some circles was that it probably did require an authoritarian to keep Syria together. By contrast. the Persians have a storied history going back thousands of years.

          And Shias are far more able to take pain that Westerners and even other Muslims. Alastair Crooke has repeatedly told the story that during the Caliphate, Shia were told they could no longer worship at their mosques, and if they defied the edict, they would have a finger cut off. They kept going, losing all their fingers, then then hands, then their toes, then their feet.

          Reply ↓
          1. Rost

            All Shia Muslims? As a group? So Sunni caliphates were filled with large populations of fingerless and limbless Shia? Seems essentializing.

            You’ll find committed true believers willing to risk suffering for The Cause in any group. It doesn’t make that level of commitment the norm. If everyone was willing to become a martyr, there wouldn’t be a constant need to tell stories extolling the supposed virtues of martyrdom.

            Reply ↓
        2. ChrisFromGA

          You’re conveniently forgetting that it took 14 years of sanctions and skull-duggery (using Israel) to get rid of Assad.

          Iran is much larger, has more allies, isn’t surrounded by enemies as Syria became, and the US doesn’t have 14 years … perhaps by the year 2112.

          Reply ↓
      2. Michaelmas

        Mearsheimer said a bombing-only campaign had never produced a regime collapse. It also takes on-the-ground operations.

        Even with extensive in-country operations, in North Korea during 1950–1953 the U.S. dropped approximately 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, and destroyed an estimated 85% of buildings and did not win.

        While in Vietnam during 1965–1973, again with extensive in-country operations, the U.S. dropped over 7.5 million tons of bombs across Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia—more than all bombs dropped by all sides in WW2 combined — and again did not win.

        Whereas today Iran has technological and manufacturing advantages, geopolitical alliances and intellectual capital that those countries then didn’t possess, and is two and a half times the size of Ukraine. Simultaneously, the US is not the mid-20th century powerhouse that nevertheless lost those wars, but a deindustrialized, increasingly failed state that’s vulnerable to China’s control of rare earths resources and whose principle export has become its debt, while Israel is smaller in area than Greater London and is in turn dependent on the US.

        Over the next few years, regime change may arguably be likelier in the US than Iran.

        Reply ↓
        1. schmoe

          I am not sure if Vietnam is a good analogy to the current situation.

          Vietnam always had well-functioning air defenses that considerably limited our ability to alter the course of the war, and we had very primitive abilities to conduct strikes on pinpoint targets. In addition, Vietnam’s abundant foliage is vastly different than Iran’s environment. Vietnam also had consistent support from a superpower.

          While Iran has manufacturing capabilities, they could be destroyed in a matter of days.

          Reply ↓
          1. Yves Smith Post author

            Please don’t Make Shit Up. Iran’s missile manufacture is all underground in deeply bunkered sites. Even the much less technologically advanced Hamas was building its rockets underground.

            Reply ↓
          2. NakedEmperor

            Vietnam didn’t defeat the US militarily. Instead, it simply wore out the US. The North Vietnamese were willing to suffer millions of casualties in order to ultimately prevail. It also had the advantage of fighting on its home turf, an advantage Iran also has. General Giap described the war as a “Peoples War” in that the entire population was mobilized to defeat the Americans. Iran may well need to do the same.

            Reply ↓
    2. Thuto

      At the point when Iran feels existentially threatened, it will unload all it has to deal Israel and the Gulf States the same end state. If civilian and commercial infrastructure is destroyed across the region, there’ll be a regime change fest with governments falling everywhere. The notion that this can be limited to surgically taking down only the Iranian government isn’t credible. If the global economy is engulfed in the whole mess, which it likely will, even Trump and his EU poodles may not come out unscathed.

      Reply ↓
    3. NakedEmperor

      There are ways to stop airstrikes. At some point, bases in the region and beyond that are being used to launch airstrikes will need to be attacked, by Iran and others. If the US and Israel begin widespread bombing of Iran both nations military assets will need to be targeted. If that means striking NATO bases so be it. It is not in the interests of Russia and China for Iran to fall. If and when the time comes that Iran is in extremis both nations must come to Iran’s aid militarily. If they fail to do so they will suffer the consequences.

      Reply ↓
  20. HH

    The U.S. is increasingly engaged in brandishing its weapons, a primitive practice of tribal warfare. Israel notionally wants to fight for decisive victory, but its society has become addicted to war. Thus, the Mideast has become a kind of theater of violence disconnected from rational outcomes. The only hope for stability is the intervention of monied interests, who don’t want their assets and revenue streams damaged. Until then, the gratuitous warfare will continue.

    Reply ↓
  21. Safety First

    Dmitri Medvedev statement (which, apparently, is also up on Twitter in English, but I’m seeing it on Russian Telegram channels), my own ersatz translation.

    —–

    What have the Americans accomplished with their night strike on three sites in Iran?

    1. Critical nuclear infrastructure, it seems, is either undamaged or has suffered minor damage.

    2. Nuclear enrichment, and, we can now be frank, future production of nuclear weapons, will be continued.

    3. A number of countries are ready to provide Iran with nuclear weapons directly.

    4. Israel is under attack, explosions are going off, people are in panic.

    5. USA is embroiled in a new conflict, staring at a possible ground operation.

    6. Iran’s political regime is preserved, and it is highly probable it has now strengthened.

    7. The people are consolidating around the spiritual leadership, even those, who had no previous sympathies for it.

    8. Trump, who came in as a peacemaker president, has started a new war for the US.

    9. An absolute majority of nations is against the actions of Israel and the US.

    10. With successes such as these, Trump won’t see a Nobel Peace Prize, despite the corrupted nature of that award. Good start, congratulations, Mr. President!

    —–

    For his part, Arakchi, Iran’s foreign minister, has been making pro-Russian noises on Iranian television (per Pars Today).

    “We have always consulted one another and coordinated our positions. Russia is one of the countries involved in the previous nuclear deal, and remains one of the sides engaged in talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran…

    …In the past two-three months, during negotiations with the USA, we regularly consulted with our Russian friends and informed them regarding progress made. Tomorrow I also have an important meeting and serious consultations with President Putin, and our bilateral relations continue to develop…

    …Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, plays an important role in international proceses. We know that Russia, together with China, is striving to prepare a Security Council resolution aimed at preventing hostile action against Iran…”

    —–

    Key part of the IRGC press release post-bombings:

    “…As well, today’s aggression of the terrorist American regime has afforded the Iranian Islamic Republic, within its legal right for self-defense, the opportunity to exercise options far beyond the imaginations and calculations of the mistaken aggressors. The seizers of this land must await answers that they will regret.”

    [A nod at Israel, rather than the US??]

    —–

    As for the strike itself, to quote someone on Al Jazeera English yesterday, 30 Tomahawks into a mountainside does not destroy an underground nuclear site. This was some sort of a (stupid) showy gesture, and I wonder whether Iran will, instead of going all out, perform a similarly empty gesture against the US – waiting to see if it escalates – while continuing to pound Israel, as it apparently has this morning. [Claiming, of all things, to have hit an Israeli biological weapons lab!!!]

    On the other hand, the IRGC is already making noises regarding the Strait of Hormuz. So we shall see.

    The real thing to monitor, if anyone wishes to, is Caspian Sea barge traffic. It’s that, or the single China-Iran rail link, that will be the likely avenue for any Chinese-Pakistani-Russian support, IF it ever comes. Aside from intel sharing, of course, hardly need a barge for that.

    Reply ↓
    1. dandyandy

      The China-Iran rail link seems to have been completed and is being put into production.
      From engineering and technical point of view, it is a massive improvement on the current ocean-link. It is well shorter in miles and much faster in miles per hour.
      From security point of view it should be much safer as well – no more “unindentified” assault vessels boarding random transport ships in “international waters” protected by laws of “freedom of navigation”.
      From privacy point of view, it is a gem – I wonder how anyone will be able to tell what is in each of the cargo containers on the trains.
      We can’t have that. These People from outside the Garden taking liberties.
      I am taking bets; how soon before we start to hear about intermittent “rail sabotage” news.
      Sorry I meant to say “restless locals” and “aggrieved goat herders” protesting about their “human rights”.

      Reply ↓
      1. NakedEmperor

        The West blew up the Nordstream pipeline. What would stop the West from attacking the China-Iran rail line? Any number of jihadi groups can be employed to do the deed and so maintain plausible deniability.

        Reply ↓
    2. Yves Smith Post author

      Actually I neglected a key point, that Medvedev would not volunteer #3 with w/o actual knowledge.

      As indicated, Pakistan would seem probable (some officials have made noises along these lines) and would be easy for Russia to sound out their intentions.

      The other obvious candidate is North Korea.

      Reply ↓
      1. disillusionized

        I wonder if the quid pro quo in this instance would be long range missile technology, I believe that’s something that Pakistan lacks.

        Reply ↓
      2. ChrisRUEcon

        > Medvedev would not volunteer #3 with w/o actual knowledge.

        Indeed, this 👆…

        He’s usually a man of measured words, not a bloviator like Trump. So that item bears gravitas.

        Reply ↓
  22. Irrational

    Some Telegram posts indicate Bushehr airport has been attacked.
    Anadolu briefly ran it on their banner, but now it’s gone, so it may be made up.

    Reply ↓
  23. mrsyk

    Correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t a “full payload of BOMBS” (from Trump’s victory tweet) = two?

    All eyes on Pakistan.

    Reply ↓
    1. flora

      I wonder if this strike was done in the way it was done to send a message to Iran’s neighbors. There a famous saying in French that I can’t remember now. Something about making an example to encourage the others to get their thinking/actions straight.

      Reply ↓
  24. TomDority

    Maybe don’t post this
    Could Bibi have threatened the nuclear option to force Trump to action, which would give Trump the excuse of having acted without Congress as an emergency measure… of course no matter which way this goes … trump has options to look good.

    Reply ↓
  25. mrsyk

    Bibi has 150K US citizen hostages. (That number is up for debate, but it’s what I’ve read.)

    Trump doesn’t need congressional approval because precedent.

    US neocons need no encouragement to bomb Iran.

    Reply ↓
  26. ISL

    Hard to envision US lumbering B-2s attacking Iran without supporting planes, which all need A/D suppression (doctrine), which would have created far wider damage.

    This strongly argues for submarine-launched intermediate-range or warship-launched long-range missiles, for which Trump has form.

    Russia (and China) orbital ISR would be observing closely (at a minimum to gather intel on performance) and a timely warning likely was passed to Iran (Iran does not have geostationary satellites or a constellation* to maintain continuous on-site ISR), allowing remaining personnel to evacuate. A US warning would be disbelieved based on US (proudly-professed) perfidy.

    *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khayyam_satellite

    Read the wiki entry and you can see that Iran has accepted direct technological help from Russia, so perhaps some misdirection on the part of Iran and Russia in this sphere?

    Reply ↓
    1. cfraenkel

      FYI – the Khayyam is an imaging satellite, which is not useful for detecting launches. For that, you need persistent IR coverage to see the heat from the rocket exhaust.

      Reply ↓
  27. Yves Smith Post author

    Hoo boy:

    Putin also got Trump to guarantee that the Israel would not strike the Bushehr facility, since about 200 Russians are working there. If Israel attacked despite that, what does Russia do?

    This is just like what Ukraine attempted to achieve with its attacks on the Zaporzhizhia nuclear plant….except those strikes were ineffective, while these may not have been.

    Reply ↓
    1. The Rev Kev

      If it was a strike on that facility, then it could be (adjusts tin foil hat) an attempt to get the Russians involved in this war so that that would compel the US to get more involved. Grossi was warning about the lunacy of attacking that place-

      ‘In a worst-case scenario, a strike on Bushehr, which contains “thousands of kilogrammes of nuclear material”, would require evacuation orders to be issued for areas within several hundred kilometres of the plant, including population centres in other Gulf countries, he said.’

      https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/20/iaeas-grossi-warns-of-nuclear-disaster-if-israel-hits-irans-bushehr-plant

      The Negev Nuclear Research Center is now fair game. And if there were Russians killed in that attack, the Russians may start doing some heavy helping in spite of Iranian reluctance.

      Reply ↓
      1. Acacia

        Iran has been hitting the Negev area with missiles this past week, perhaps to tease the Zionists with the possibility of a direct attack on the complex itself. They have probably moved a lot of things out of there, just as the Iranians did, but still…

        Reply ↓
      1. The Rev Kev

        The purpose of that may be to rattle Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states so that they give Israel and the US no help at all.

        Reply ↓
    2. Acacia

      Oil looks like this:

      https://www.tradingview.com/x/jogZ3yEw/

      There was a breakout but then the price stabilized. As Yves has noted recently, analysts at venues like oilprice were shrugging off the attacks between Israel and Iran. If the price reaches $85, things might begin to look different.

      We see what happens in the AM, especially in light of some comments from the IRGC about the Strait of Hormuz.

      Reply ↓
      1. Yves Smith Post author

        As we and Trees&Trunks indicated, the Iranian parliament has approved the closure. But it has to go before the Supreme National Security Council.. One has to think the IRGC has a lot of sway, if not the majority of votes. I would think Khameni would not want to be as important to a decision as he has been, given that he has handed all military decisions over to the IRGC

        And the parliament vote may merely be a matter of form.

        But even with that, investors are doggedly clinging to the old normal.

        Reply ↓
      2. mrsyk

        “Make Fracking Profitable Again!”, lol, we win again.
        I really need to figure out that time-travel thingy.

        Reply ↓
  29. Carolinian

    Moon has an interesting link suggesting that the Iranians were pre notified and that the attack was more theater than anything else.

    https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/06/tic-toc-no-8-on-the-war-on-iran.html

    While I can’t get his link to work, a look at the html body suggests his copy/paste is the whole content. Of course the Iranians must have known in any case that the attack was coming and say they already removed the nuclear material.

    If this was indeed a timid symbolic attack that suggests that the Iranians can carry on bombing Israel with no US retaliation other than from Trump’s never inactive mouth. But we shall see.

    Of course outside of Fox Newsland the “threat” to Israel was always the missiles rather than the mythical Iranian bomb. Netanyahu thinks he has triumphed by getting Trump involved but he seems to be just as delusional as our president.

    It’s still early and I haven’t found any verification that Trump bombed Fordow at all.

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      As we indicated in the post and in Links yesterday, Iran said it had removed its enriched uranium from all 3 sites.

      The US had been publicly threatening to hit those sites, to the degree that many thought it was a feint.

      Sorry, an attack on a sovereign nation is an attack on a sovereign nation. The US would not be OK with, say, North Korea hitting the decommissioned Naval Air Station in Brunswick, Maine. I don’t see how you can treat this as somehow acceptable.

      Reply ↓
        1. flora

          Thanks for the Alastair link. My reaction on reading the quote from Israeli centre-right commentator Ben Caspit is to remember this Nick Fuentes twtr-X post from 2 years ago after Oct 7.

          This is Nick Fuentes almost 2 years ago, the day after oct. 7th, predicting everything that is happening today.

          When you can predict the future with this level of accuracy, it tells you that his understanding and model of politics is true.

          https://x.com/Red5djedi/status/1935084324413374566?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

          Reply ↓
    2. Samuel Conner

      Bernhard ends that post with the thought that expulsion of IAEA personnel is now on the table.

      I have been mulling the thought that Iran could make a strong argument, along the lines of Putin’s insistence on “unity of security” (no nation is secure unless all are secure) in a new security framework for Eurasia, that, now that the prior conceit that Israel can act with impunity has been exploded, it is time for Israel to enter the community of “normal” nations.

      Iran could conditionally withdraw from the NPT and pledge to re-enter on terms identical to the terms on which Israel enters it.

      This would draw attention away from Western rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program and focus it on the little-mentioned issue of Israel’s.

      This is probably just hopium/copium, but I find it helpful for my internal stability to believe, or at least to envisage the possibility, that there are accessible paths into the future that do not end civilization.

      Reply ↓
      1. ChrisFromGA

        Iran could play a card here – if indeed the damage is mostly cosmetic, with just a few entry/exit tunnes collapsed, they could invite the IAEA in to inspect Fordow. Hire a few guys with a bobcat to clear out the rubble, and march the IAEA in to verify that there is no uranium, and further, that the facility deep underground is intact.

        That would call Trump’s bluff and throw egg on his face.

        Reply ↓
        1. johnnyme

          Iran likely filled in tunnels at nuclear sites ahead of U.S. strikes

          An analysis of satellite photos by a nuclear nonproliferation group based in Washington shows Iran likely filled in tunnels at its nuclear site at Isfahan ahead of U.S. strikes this week.

          The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security published satellite images taken by Airbus it assessed showed trucks dumping soil into tunnels at the site on Friday.

          The U.S. attack likely targeted the tunnel entries, the group said.

          “At least three of the four tunnel entrances are collapsed,” it said. “The status of the fourth one is unclear.”

          Iran also is believed to have filled in tunnels at its underground Fordo enrichment facility before the American strike. That may have been to protect the sites from the strikes.

          Reply ↓
  30. John Merryman

    Another choke point is the Suez Canal. What are the odds Iran has a few missiles in shipping containers already in various other countries.
    It does seem the Middle East, like Europe and the US, have large populations not too happy with their current regimes. The biological analogy I would use, is a scab over a festering wound. The harder, more brittle and disconnected it gets, the faster the negative feedback loops spin out.
    Not to mention it makes a great opportunity for Russia to increase pressure on Ukraine. When Ukraine does collapse, a lot of pissed off, well armed Nazis are going to spread out across Europe, as significant parts of the underworld. Imagine what drones will do to armored Mercedes and tactical vehicles.
    It’s all connected.

    Reply ↓
    1. ChrisFromGA

      How dare those Iranians follow constitutional and legal norms, and have a legislative body deliberate before taking action!

      Don’t they know that we’re now in the era of kings?

      Reply ↓
      1. Polar Socialist

        Indeed, all these parliamentary shenanigans just proves that they are but authoritarians and dictators!

        Reply ↓
  32. AG

    re: Iran various

    1) A first assessment by Seyed Marandi on Glenn Diesen´s Substack:
    It´s about two hours old. He appears to be articulating some of his assessments in that moment with Diesen.

    Marandi confirms that rather little damage was done.
    He also accuses IAEA of complicity in illegally providing Iran´s enemies with vital intel.
    Due to the fact that IAEA is of course dominated by the West, including Japan and South Korea..
    Eventually Iran might leave the NPT and the West will hurt itself severely.
    He expects Iran to retaliate against US targets which he sees as easier targets than Israel.
    He then speaks of “tens of thousands of missiles” which Iran has, then of “tens of thousands of drones” and then”hundreds of thousands of missiles and drones.”. So he obviously is still processing events.

    At TC: 25:00 he eventually differentiates that in case of all-out war this could mean the end of the Arab regimes in the region and the end of US control. Knowing this danger Trump attacked a target that already had been attacked, making it rather symbolic. But Iran is prepared for all-out war.

    He warns of US´s destruction of UN Charter becoming a blowback pointing at the theoretical possibility of Yemen taking back territory from the Saudis, or Iraq taking Kuweit. With the US not being able to prevent this, since “this is not the 1990s any more.”

    However Marandi does not know how Iran will react and how they intend to react forcefully yet without triggering a bigger war if that were their next step.

    35 min.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkHE1-WrIEg

    fwiw: wikispooks on Marandi
    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Mohammad_Marandi

    2) Jacques Baud with Glenn Diesen about 4 hours ago:
    55 min.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D26_5bxSAaA

    3) For comparison to what happened in this year see this excerpt from Larry Wilkerson talking to Chris Hedges in Nov. 2024:

    15 min.
    https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/we-would-lose-war-with-iran-w-col

    4) Hedges in this brief ad hoc comment from today claims that the Europeans are alienated by the US/Israel conduct.
    “European allies, whom Israel and Trump have alienated with these air assaults, are in no mood to cooperate with Washington.”
    https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/chris-hedges-war-with-iran

    From what I can observe from the outside in Germany there are zero signs for this as far as the establishment is concerned. So I am not sure who he is talking about or his sources.
    I did mention yesterday that according to Craig Murray MI6 is opposed to a war but those factions were silenced. (2003 redux?)
    Sarah Wagenknecht and her party are attacking the German government for its support of Israel and the US.

    5) AS`AD AbuKHALIL: How Iran Allowed Israel to Attack
    When the history of this period is written, Tehran’s 2015 nuclear agreement with the U.S. administration of a lame-duck president will be depicted as a trap.
    June 20th
    https://consortiumnews.com/2025/06/20/asad-abukhalil-how-iran-allowed-israel-to-attack/

    p.s. This week I witnessed the harsh reality once more when talking to leftwing old style German artists who drew comparison between what Netanyahu does with what Putin does….

    So we are a very very very very….long way from German society to grasp even the basics of certain aspects. They do get BRICS but the minutes of the relationship and significance of military affairs, economics and alleged diplomacy and of how things have to be looked into in detail and how deeply entrenched in its own incompetent PR Europe at large is escape them to a considerable extent.

    The maximum of criticism on Israel/US you well get in German broad public is Michael Lüders, from BSW, a renown Islamic scholar around here. But his positions are mostly still dovish.
    (Compare e.g. to Craig Murray who – I think – openly welcomes Iran attacking Israel – I will try to find the phrase in one of his posts).

    Lüders´s last public statement was on German state TV, ZDF, which is important, but that was 4 days ago. I am looking for updated comments.

    Reply ↓
  33. AG

    The last paragraphs from Craig Murray´s latest blog post:
    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2025/06/war-with-iran/

    “(…)
    You may recall that I recently published two posts focusing on remarkable fake terrorism plot narratives being heavily promoted by the UK security services in the mainstream media. Both revolved around alleged actions against Iran International, an extraordinary Saudi- and CIA-funded fake media organisation that promotes the return of the Pahlavi Shah in alliance with Israel and Iranian Sunnis.

    From the Assange campaign, I have contacts on the libertarian side of MAGA that might surprise you, some actually in the Administration. I am told that the endgame being proposed in Washington by Israel and Saudi Arabia is Iranian regime change with the return of the Shah and a Sunni Prime Minister.

    Remember there was no war with Iran yet, at the time I wrote those two articles about the remarkable happenings involving the security services and Iran International. This from my first article:

    The connections all now click perfectly into place.

    The UK has dived deep into the depths of immorality in which Zionism thrives. The consequences will be appalling.
    (…)”

    Reply ↓
  34. duckies

    This just in. Trump made bold attack on this comment section. Hopefully, emergency response team will be dispatched to close the gaping tag.

    Reply ↓
    1. mrsyk

      Thank you. Most of us won’t be surprised over only minor damage.
      Vance not looking happy at that 10:00 announcement. He looks downright pissed off, and I’m leaning away “it’s scripted”, events moving too fast. Interesting.
      I’m getting a feeling that Israel may be in a very tight spot regarding their iron dome, tighter even than “one to two weeks”. Will this dictate the pace?
      Keep an eye on Pakistan.

      Reply ↓
  36. Jokerstein

    Marine Traffic currently shows virtually no inbound tankers outside Hormuz at present, so the closure appears to have happened, or at least be starting. There are some outbound tankers who may have been granted permission to get the hell out of Dodge.

    Reply ↓
      1. Jokerstein

        Red vessels are tankers (oil and LNG mainly). Arrows point in direction of travel. Hover to get speed and destination.

        Reply ↓
        2. Jokerstein

          Dots are anchored vessels (the majority by far). At present just two inbound tankers near the Strait.

          Reply ↓
    3. ChrisFromGA

      As a practical matter, Iran does not have to do much besides threaten to shut the strait.

      Insurance rates are already soaring per Seeking Alpha. All it would take to effectively shut it down would be one or two container ships or tankers hit with ballistic missiles, an easy task given Iranian capability proven in Tel Aviv.

      Insurance rates go to Lloyd’s of London levels. Game over.

      The notion that there would be some big naval battle like the movies is misguided. I doubt the IS navy would be able to do much given the experience in Yemen. They’d be too busy protecting their own ships.

      Reply ↓
  37. farmboy

    America-China Watcher
    @PandemicTruther
    ·
    19h
    China is already backing Iran in a big way

    China Just Gave Iran a Lifeline—Without BeiDou, Iran Might Have Surrendered

    Beneath a smoke-filled night sky, an Iranian missile streaked across the darkness and slammed directly into the Israeli Ministry of Defense’s command center.
    https://x.com/i/status/1936519848298942540

    Reply ↓
    1. Samuel Conner

      I suspect that this is an attempt to bait Iran into escalation of its own tit-for-tat strikes, in the hope of drawing US into more comprehensive overt intervention.

      My first reaction to news of the narrowly-focused US strikes was that “Netanyahu was surely hoping for something much bigger”, in view of the large array of other US assets (uninvolved in this strike) that are in theatre.

      Reply ↓
  39. Victor Sciamarelli

    While thinking about Trump, the movie Elizabeth or Sun Tsu didn’t occur to me, instead, it was a line delivered by De Niro in the movie Casino, IIRC, “Either he’s in on it or he’s too dumb to see what’s going on, either way he can’t work here.”
    “Trump declared that all the strikes had been fully successful.” Successful or not, should Iran say anything? Why embarrass Trump? Let him believe he was successful and stick with your war strategy.
    With Trump declaring mission accomplished, Netanyahu has almost no reason for continuing the war or justifying it because Iran, thanks to Trump, doesn’t have the ability to make a nuclear bomb. Let Netanyahu humiliate Trump by telling him he failed.
    Though Israel began this unprovoked illegal war, Trump wants Iran back at the negotiation table but he didn’t mention Israel should join too, nor did he express his demands on Israel like he does on Iran.

    Reply ↓
    1. Jason Boxman

      But Israel has been clear of late that Iran must no longer possess a ballistic missile force, so we’re just getting started here; Why would Israel stand down now?

      Reply ↓
    2. Samuel Conner

      I wonder whether there is deliberate ambiguity in the threat in DJT’s brief address that there will be further strikes if Iran does not “make peace” (which may be code for “capitulate”) — it’s not explicitly affirmed that the further strikes would be by US military.

      Perhaps this is kicking the can back to Israel — “you can go on fighting with them if you want, but we’ve solved the problem that you claimed was your reason for starting the war. Now it’s up to you to end it on whatever terms you can agree with them”.

      Reply ↓
      1. Victor Sciamarelli

        @Boxman and Conner – I think Trump is incapable of understanding how Iranians react to his threats to capitulate. In 1907, for example, there was the 1907 Anglo-Russian agreement, the great powers balancing each other, where they carved up Iran into three zones: British, Russian, and neutral zones.
        Iran was neutral in WW2 but that was ignored by foreign powers. The British had a one sided oil deal in Iran and when Prime Minister Mosaddegh nationalized Iranian oil the US and UK got rid of him. Foreigners installed dictator Reza Pahlavi and his son ruled until the 1979 revolution. Since then the US and the West view Iran as the enemy.
        Though Supreme leader Khamenei is not my ideal leader, he is at least an Iranian who cares about Iran and Iranians.
        Whenever, Trump speaks he likely thinks he’s tough and direct but, in fact, he merely sounds like the kind of foreign leader Iranians have learned to despise for more than a century. The Iranians are not going to capitulate. And Trump will cause damage to the US as well.

        Reply ↓
  40. farmboy

    NEW: Gen Dan ‘Razin’ Caine gives detailed breakdown of Operation Midnight Hammer, says over 125 U.S. military aircraft were involved.

    – Large B2 strike package left the continental U.S. on midnight Friday.

    – Part of the package went east, the other went west as a decoy.

    – The main strike package was comprised of 7 B2 bombers which flew for 18 hours into the target area.

    – 14 Bunker Buster bombs were dropped.

    – 75 precision guided weapons were used during the operation.

    – “More than 125 US aircraft participated in this mission, including B2 stealth bombers, multiple flights of fourth and fifth gen fighters, dozens of air refueling tankers, a guided missile submarine, and a full array of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as hundreds of maintenance and operational professionals.” https://x.com/i/status/1936780563958096176

    Reply ↓
  42. John Merryman

    It does seem Iran’s most effective response will be to withdraw from any and all nuclear agreements. Since that is the obvious response to Trump saying it’s all about the nuclear, not regime change.
    For one thing, they serve it no purpose. For another, it shines a light on Israel having never complied with any such protocols.
    The main function will be to undermine the entire Western “rules based order,” from the UN on down, as being a lackey of the banking/military elites running this whole sh!tshow.
    Then doing everything possible to push a BRICS based multipolarity. Nodes and networks.
    It’s been my contention, that from a hundreds years time, looking back, the greatest accomplishment of this Western dictat will be to force the rest of the world to work together in ways they never would have otherwise, without the pressures being applied by the West.

    Reply ↓
  43. urdsama

    Apologies if someone raised this issue and I missed it, but Armchair Warlord suspects bombers were not even used. In light of previous issues with deploying bombers that could be easily attacked due to the conditions they would be under to bomb any of the facilities, he suspect the US used submarine based Tomahawk missiles. I’ve also seen some other analysis along the same lines. It would explain why there appears to be almost no real damage to any of the attacked sites.

    https://x.com/ArmchairW/status/1936629818914755029

    Reply ↓
    1. Acacia

      Sabereen News also reporting that no enemy aircraft entered Iranian airspace.

      Dunno what to make of this.

      Reply ↓
  45. AG

    from comments at Craig Murray´s blog:

    – “China Just Gave Iran a Lifeline—Without BeiDou, Iran Might Have Surrendered

    Beneath a smoke-filled night sky, an Iranian missile streaked across the darkness and slammed directly into the Israeli Ministry of Defense’s command center. The explosion instantly cut surveillance feeds. Shockwaves rippled through nearby neighborhoods, shaking buildings across several kilometers.

    Meanwhile, in a Tehran command room, Iranian technicians monitored a BeiDou navigation terminal as the coordinates updated in real time. The missile hit with surgical precision. On-screen, the hit-probability curve spiked—marking a turning point: Iran had entered the age of precision warfare.”

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1936519848298942540.html
    June 22, 2025 at 16:18

    -Exterior damage to the nuclear facilities in Iran.

    “New Satellite Images show 6 munition entry holes/craters on the top of a ridge right above the underground complex at Fordow.

    Large craters caused by the US strikes can be seen on the ridge above the underground complex.”

    https://nitter.poast.org/GlobeWarReport/status/1936757531684241507#m
    June 22, 2025 at 15:54

    -Apparently, the cost of the bunker buster is $20mn each. All that for an empty facility, American cock waving !
    June 22, 2025 at 16:55

    -According to conservative estimates, the DAILY cost of Israel’s military operations against Iran is over $200 million. DAILY. So the dozen GBU-57 bombs dropped by the USAF last night are nothing more than the nice bottle of wine you bring your friends when they ask you for dinner.
    June 22, 2025 at 17:22

    Reply ↓
  46. t

    Troubling anecdotal note. The people in my life who support Trump have even said his name since the beginning of May. And I have been keeping track and a bit cheered up by that, at least.

    Today, the I-prayed-for-you-in-church messages include pro Trump statements.

    Reply ↓
  47. Lefty Godot

    None of the world’s political and military organizations seem willing to challenge US exceptionalism, where “we get to bomb anyone we want while you have to be peaceful and not retaliate”. SCO goes missing as the US bombs a member state, and the implication is “we” can pick off “their” countries one by one at our leisure. Is everyone waiting for someone else to give the bully a bloody nose? That isn’t going to work. Iran had better have, among their other missiles, more than a few lined up with the exact coordinates of RAF Akrotiri (and one extra with the coordinates of whatever the current location of Mr. and Mrs. Abdullah happens to be). The world seems not to have taken to heart Ben Franklin’s admonition, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.” And Putin’s divided loyalty between his fellow BRICS/SCO members and the Russian Jewish settlers in Israel is one of the biggest stumbling blocks. I doubt it will save him and key members of his government from being assassinated in the near future just as many of Iran’s leaders were. Once the psychopaths see that the world tolerates tactics like these and does nothing to punish them, their use will become more common.

    Reply ↓
    1. NakedEmperor

      Countries like Russia, China and Iran live in the distant past. Their civilizations date back thousands of years so they think they can be patient and wait out these turbulent times. What they seem to fail to consider is the game changing nature of nuclear weapons. China can easily lose its 5 thousand year old civilization if it stands idly by as the terrorists of the West strangle it and blackmail it with nuclear threats. The same applies to Russia and Iran. Turning the other cheek will not work when dealing with bullies intent on crushing you.

      Reply ↓
      1. jsn

        But when said bullies are effectively killing themselves from within through shear cupidity and incompetence, the temporal relationships reverse.

        Trump is destroying the US. It will play out in the coming six months with inflation, unemployment, homelessness, disease and hunger, it’s already happening but glossed over by the official media.

        As Yves says, no sudden moves around crazy people, and Napoleon, never interrupt your opponent when he’s making a mistake.

        Reply ↓
        1. NakedEmperor

          Perhaps so, but a deranged person waving a gun around needs to be put down. Waiting for said person to shoot themselves in the foot is not a wise course of action.

          Reply ↓
  48. Rost

    Amid everything else, it should be noted that attacking a known nuclear site is completely illegal.

    Fortunately the Iranians, one way or another, knew or suspected the attack was coming and apparently moved everything dangerous to other sites. But for the first few hours most of the news updates I saw were various monitoring bodies issuing assurances that there was no sign of radiological danger.

    Maybe this will be an offensive take to some, but something I think about in regards to this is how the primary attribute of a soldier is that they simply shut up and do what they’re ordered to do. Whoever actually executed these attacks, whether pilots or a weapons operator sitting at a station launching missiles, knew they were doing. They knew it was illegal in multiple ways, knew it was potentially fantastically dangerous, and did it anyway. This is what soldiers do. The ones who dissent seem to be vanishingly rare. Don’t for a second think that the average US soldier wouldn’t, if ever ordered to, gun down US citizens in a heartbeat.

    I never thank soldiers for their service, because they haven’t provided one.

    Reply ↓
    1. NakedEmperor

      Well, you could thank a US Marine for shooting you, and then follow it with “may I have another?”.

      Reply ↓
    3. Norge

      “Don’t for a second think that the average US soldier wouldn’t, if ever ordered to, gun down US citizens in a heartbeat.”

      Kent State

      Reply ↓
  49. Tom Stone

    I wonder how many private jets are heading to New Zealand today…
    The stupidity of US leadership amounts to insanity, and Trump’s complete lack of trustworthiness is putting all life on Earth at risk.
    Will SOMEONE tell Trump that a nuclear exchange means no more golf, forever.

    Reply ↓
    1. NakedEmperor

      Rumor has it that Mark Zuckerberg is digging his Hawaiian bunker a bit deeper. After all, it’s not only the US that has bunker buster bombs.

      Reply ↓
  50. hamstak

    Scott Ritter ate his Wheaties in abundance this morning (and should probably switch to the decaf):

    https://consortiumnews.com/2025/06/22/watch-cn-live-us-bombs-iran-what-next/

    He places 100% responsibility for the U.S. attack on Iran for having increased their uranium enrichment to 60%, and furthermore states that the attack was justified under “imminent threat” provisions of Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. He claims that enrichment to 90% would be possible within three days, that Iran could then have five warheads within weeks, and that they already have the delivery capacity (missile, ceramic warhead casing, and so forth).

    My questions to Mr. Ritter would be:

    1) Assuming his assertions are correct. how does this qualify as an imminent threat to the US? They don’t have ICBMs.
    2) Is the “Caroline clause as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court” germane to international law?
    3) If the Iranians had not increased enrichment to “breakout threshold”, would the US have opened negotiations, and then negotiated in good faith?

    He has lost a bit of credibility with me this morning; I quit watching after about 30 minutes because he was tiring me out.

    Reply ↓
    1. Aurelien

      Article 51 says nothing at all about an “imminent threat.” It just says that of course a country which s attacked has the right to fight back while waiting for the cavalry to arrive from the UN.

      Reply ↓
    2. urdsama

      Agreed, I have long looked to him for insight on situations like this, but I feel his fear of a possible nuclear war has damaged his analysis.

      I mean, I can understand his fear and am somewhat sympathetic to his bias (if my theory is correct), but when you take the position that nation-states should essentially “shut up and take it” to avoid larger wars, he loses most of his value (if not all) as an analyst.

      Reply ↓
    3. NakedEmperor

      Ritter’s logic escapes me. Israel already possesses a sizeable (and wholly illegal) nuclear arsenal. The Israelis actions over decades are the clearest evidence one would need to conclude that Israel poses an imminent threat to all of its neighbors and well beyond. With this in mind, Iran has every justification to launch preemptive strikes on Israel, including with nuclear weapons if they can obtain them. Of course, nobody should want that. Iran has not done so and so there is no justification whatsoever for Israel and the United States launching preemptive strikes on Iran. These actions are wholly illegal. Alas, we live in a lawless world where legalities are ignored.

      Reply ↓
    4. mrsyk

      I haven’t watched the above link, it’s very long, but Ritter seems perfectly sane today on Napolitano’s show, link provided by flora below.
      He is very clear that the action last night is not justified

      This is offered only as an observation.

      Reply ↓
  51. hamstak

    Please inform Mr. Ritter, as he is the one who stated it. Start with the question posed by Ray McGovern at 32:25 in the interview I posted above.

    “To cite pre-emptive self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, using the Caroline Clause as interpreted by the Supreme Court, all we have to demonstrate is an imminent threat to our national security.” (32:43)

    Reply ↓
  54. OIFVet

    JD Vance: “I empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East. I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents.”

    Hillbillies explaining US foreign policy is both enlightening and frightening.

    Reply ↓
    1. thoughtfulperson

      Yeah “back then we had dumb Presidents” now we have… hmmm do we even have actual *acting* Presidents as opposed to a mere actor figurehead?

      Reply ↓
    2. John Wright

      25 years brings us to 2000, which moves Bush Jr into the “dumb president” category.

      Good to see a Republican coming down on a fellow Republican.

      Reply ↓
    1. Jason Boxman

      Don’t know if I can share this link, but because I have pay-per GB on my phone and don’t pay for YouTube, I can’t listen to any of these on my phone out walking. Astonishingly, you can convert these to MP3s for free and then copy it onto your phone.

      No affiliation with the site, just been a happy user of their free service for a month now.

      Reply ↓
  57. Antagonist

    unleash the dogs of war

    Thanks to Yves for illuminating things and doing so with such stylish written words. From the relevant “The Dogs of War” on Pink Floyd’s A Momentary Lapse of Reason (AMLOR):

    Dogs of war and men of hate
    With no cause, we don’t discriminate
    Discovery is to be disowned
    Our currency is flesh and bone
    Hell opened up and put on sale
    Gather ’round and haggle
    For hard cash, we will lie and deceive
    Even our masters don’t know the web we weave

    One world, it’s a battleground
    One world, and we will smash it down
    One world … One world

    Those lyrics are as relevant as ever. Men of hate (Jewish supremacists) kill without discrimination. Hell opening up (Zionism’s undue focus on eschatological things) and putting things that really should not be sold on sale (oil, mineral rights for oil, ordnance, human life, opportunities for rent extraction, public policy—thanks to jsn above for the reminder) benefits nobody except for a tiny cabal of masters. Those masters (powerful and wealthy oligarchs, e.g. Ms. Adelson) likely don’t know or even care about the web of lies and deception weaved by CIA/MI6/Mossad.

    “The Dogs of War” was made during the later Pink Floyd era led by David Gilmour, following Roger Waters’s acrimonious split. Waters is more famous for his opposition to British and American military endeavors, but we should give credit to Gilmour and the songwriter on AMLOR for creating a great anti-war song. Please give a listen to the version of “The Dogs of War” on Pink Floyd’s live album, The Delicate Sound of Thunder. Dick Parry, presumably, does an incredible saxophone solo at 4:45. The emotion of that saxophone solo reflects perfectly the sorrow and offense the rest of the song has for warmongers. Can anybody recommend similar rock ‘n roll that features the saxophone? Dick Parry should have done more fusion rock with his saxophone playing. The Rolling Stones did a great job highlighting Bobby Keys and his saxophone playing, but the emphasis is always on Mick Jagger.

    After listening to Pink Floyd for numerous years, I have concluded that I very much like the David Gilmour led Pink Floyd and Gilmour’s solo career. I do actually listen to Gilmour’s solo albums yet I seldom listen to Waters’s solo work. Dark Side of the Moon is perhaps the greatest album in history (and I certainly don’t dispute this), but my ratio of Pink Floyd listening is likely equally biased for the Waters-led era and Gilmour-led era, as opposed to other Pink Floyd fans who are heavily biased to the Waters-led era (or maybe even the Syd Barret era).

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      No, the reference is to Shakespeare, from a speech by Marc Anthony in Julius Caesar:

      O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
      That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
      Thou art the ruins of the noblest man
      That ever livèd in the tide of times.
      Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood!
      Over thy wounds now do I prophesy—
      Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips
      To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue—
      A curse shall light upon the limbs of men.
      Domestic fury and fierce civil strife
      Shall cumber all the parts of Italy.
      Blood and destruction shall be so in use,
      And dreadful objects so familiar,
      That mothers shall but smile when they behold
      Their infants quartered with the hands of war,
      All pity choked with custom of fell deeds,
      And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge,
      With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
      Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
      Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war,
      That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
      With carrion men, groaning for burial.

      Reply ↓
      1. hk

        While Shakespeare probably knew nothing of this, Genghis Khan called his four best generals “Dogs of War”: Jebe, Subotai, Jelme, and Kublai (not his grandson who became the Great Khan later, but an older general of same name in time of Genghis Khan). (This is from the Secret History of Mongols, the semi official history of the beginnings of the Mongol Empire).

        Reply ↓
  58. Alice X

    Much valuable information hereabouts, Trita Parsi is always insightful and measured, just for an outstanding example.

    Lest anyone forgets (forgetting is the ZE’s plan, after all) there is a genocide going on and the Gazans are starving.

    My distress for their suffering only exists in a personally safe parallel existence, if I had been in their place I would have succumbed long ago.

    Israel is a Western construct and the West knows no shame.

    Reply ↓
  59. bertl

    Let’s say the Iran blocks the Strait of Homuz and maintains the attacks on the settler colony and both Russia and China decide the Iran régime is secure and in for the long haul.

    And lets say the Russian, Chinese and North Koreans have a globe handy illustrating all known US military and intelligence bases and supply dumps/logistcs centres dotted here and there around the world.

    And let’s say their consensus is that the US is grossly overstretched and they ascertain that these external bases bases, including those floating or airborne, are the soft underbelly of American power as they have been with every empire.

    And let’s say they make it clear that they intend to take them out in groups without using nuclear weapons – unless provoked by the rambling rants of the yellow thug in the White House – starting with the largest bases first and gradually working their way down, relying on a combination of airpower, and missiles to destroy men, metériel and comms, whilst offering peace talks if the US agrees first to surrender every overseas base to the Eurasian nuclear alliance for temporary safekeeping until alternative arrangements more productive to the maintenance of peace can be made with the host countries before handing them back to the hosts. The real toss up will be whether or not the US attempts a series of first strikes, which will take longer to deliver than the retaliatory strikes. Either way, we all go up together.

    The problem for the US, at least as I see it, will be the choice between merely losing the basis of its supposed military dominance of the regions or the world or losing America, and right now the US is at its weakest.

    Reply ↓
  60. Tom Stone

    Trump and the thugs have alienated two pillars of their support, Hispanics via ICE terror tactics and MAGA conservatives by starting this war.
    I believe this War increases the odds of Trump declaring Martial Law as well, probably on July 4th…in order to safeguard our Freedoms by ensuring they don’t wear out from over use.

    Reply ↓
    1. Acacia

      And maybe he’ll tell us that we don’t need July 4th as a holiday, or it’ll be moved to the following Sunday.

      Reply ↓
  61. Lefty Godot

    How long do you think this would go on if Netanyahu were to suddenly get the ultimate termination notice? Is there really enough support in the rest of the Israeli PTB to keep it going with no off-ramp? Despite all the racism and religious fanaticism, is this really mostly about keeping Bibi out of jail? Not only for the consequences internal to Israel, but for the total discrediting of all the institutions set up by the West to implement the “rules-based international order” (thinking the IAEA in particular now)? Is this all worth it just to delay one man’s legal reckoning?

    Reply ↓
  62. AG

    According to Martyanov CBS had reported that the US had informed Iran of an attack in advance.

    The same story here, but without CBS. But is it the same original source though (an unnamed Iranian official)?

    https://archive.is/D5q7A
    original:
    https://amwaj.media/en/media-monitor/exclusive-iran-given-advance-notice-as-us-insisted-attack-on-nuclear-sites-is-one

    p.s. Iranian parliament now approves of strategic partnership agreement with RU which it had rejected just one month ago.

    Reply ↓
      1. The Rev Kev

        He says regime change as in Make Iran Great Again but what he actually means is partition like in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria.

        Reply ↓
  63. AG

    TASS reports, Iranian diplomat arrived in Moscow for talks with Putin on Sunday:

    PREVIEW: Top Iranian diplomat to meet with Putin, hold several talks
    As Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova confirmed to TASS, the top Iranian diplomat arrived in Moscow on Sunday night “to hold several talks”
    June 23
    https://tass.com/world/1978887

    Reply ↓
  64. Jason Boxman

    Not an honest actor. Why would Iran negotiate with Trump?

    President Donald Trump had been leaning heavily toward taking US military action in Iran for several days when he issued a directive to his senior aides: Tell the press he would make a decision on whether to act within two weeks, as a way to obscure his true thinking.

    The president had been frustrated by coverage that suggested he had made a final decision on striking Iranian nuclear sites and he thought a two-week timeline could throw off the Iranians and conceal his plans, according to several sources familiar with what happened.

    (bold mine)

    And now he’s back to musing about regime change. America is not agreement capable.

    https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-conflict-06-22-25-intl-hnk

    Reply ↓
  65. Vandemonian

    There seems to be a problem with the “Recent Items” list at the top of each page. This post, for example, showed up in my RSS feed, but doesn’t appear in Recent Items (for me, at least – Firefox on an iPad).

    Reply ↓
    1. hk

      I found that to be occasionally the problem when switching devices–items show up on pc, but not on the phone for while etc. Doesn’t seem to be OS dependent–happens between my phone and tablet, too–both running Android. There was another member of NC community who seemed to have a very good understanding of why stuff like this happens (something to do with slightly diff info on diff servers or something), but can’t remember who that was…

      Reply ↓
  66. Acacia

    Before the attack on Iran, it was reported that B-52s had been moved to Diego Garcia, with a map showing the flight path to Iran, to which somebody here in the commentariat mentioned they are big, slow, and bunch of them were shot down by the North Vietnamese.

    Curious about the deets, I found this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War#Total_losses

    31 B-52s lost, 17 in combat. And the US military lost 8,540 aircraft, total — those are some sobering numbers. The figures for helicopters are even worse:

    There were about 11,846 U.S helicopters that served in the Vietnam War. The U.S records show 5,607 helicopter losses.

    I.e., nearly 50% of all helicos were lost.

    So, yeah, good luck in any serious engagement with Iran. Lol

    Interlude: Philip Glass imagines the creation of the B-29, Wunderwaffe of a bygone age (The Fog of War OST):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeBGX6F5Mso&t=1314s

    Reply ↓
  67. haberstr

    I agree with Garland Nixon (find him on YouTube etc.) that the US attack was forewarned and meant to be minimally effective, designed to provoke an Iran response that kills US soldiers or more likely as the introduction to a false flag. Iran won’t fall for the bait, won’t block Hormuz (why alienate the Global South and East Asia?) and will just keep flattening Israel. Unless there’s an effective false flag and US launches all out war, there will be a deal that is very good for Iran, very bad for Israel, and maybe even good for Gaza and the rest of the occupied territories.

    Reply ↓
  68. communistmole

    On CNN, they had an interview with Karim Sadjadpour, from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    He said, Iran overreached on October 7 and we now entering a post-Iran-area in the ME.

    When he was asked about the parallel to Irak, he said if we can’t account for the highly enriched uranium Iran has (he had a nice Freudian slip there, when he compared the US-airstrikes with robbing an empty bank), there’s a real danger that it will advance to a nuclear weapon.

    So of course everybody wants to avoid boots on the ground, but what’s about the uranium?

    Reply ↓
    1. Acacia

      As usual, it’s somehow OK if Israel has nukes and opts for “nuclear ambiguity”, but not OK for Iran to have nukes or be in any way ambiguous w.r.t. the IAEA.

      It’s like an international version of “lawfare for thee, but not for me”.

      Reply ↓
      1. The Rev Kev

        Nah, it’s all a part of the International Rules Based Order as in-

        ‘It’s OK when we do it.’

        Reply ↓
        1. communistmole

          It seemed more important to me that an implicit justification for an invasion à la Iraq is already being presented here.

          Reply ↓
  69. Acacia

    DPRK strongly condemns US attack on Iran:

    The US strike against Iran is dangerous and a violation of Iranian sovereignty.

    https://t.me/SabrenNews22/160284

    I like how the photo shows supreme leader Kim Jong Un with military brass, standing around what looks like a mini nuke.

    Nudge nudge. Wink wink. ;)

    Reply ↓
  70. Acacia

    Two Supertankers U-Turn in Strait of Hormuz After US Strikes
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-22/two-supertankers-u-turn-in-strait-of-hormuz-after-us-strikes (Paywalled)

    Summary: The two supertankers, the Coswisdom Lake and the South Loyalty, each capable of carrying about two million barrels of crude oil, changed their course today in the Strait of Hormuz after the US airstrikes on Iran and the increased risk of a military response that could endanger commercial vessels in the region.

    Reply ↓
  71. MaryLand

    Brian Berletic on Glen Diesen’s podcast says the plan for attacking Iran is an old neocon one that has been public for years. He says according to the plan anything Iran does now will be used as an excuse to attack Iran further. It’s about breaking up the belt and road initiative of China.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EAsh881PnRQ

    Reply ↓
  72. Kouros

    Me: But Iran has not in fact violated any international laws. It is the US that has violated international laws time and time again. The norms you mention is just what the US wants to be/do at a particular time, but are nowhere codified.

    ChatGPT said:
    You’re absolutely right to challenge the assumptions behind terms like “international norms” — and you’re voicing a view that is widely shared among international legal scholars, many countries, and civil society groups. Let’s unpack your points carefully and fairly:

    🔹 1. Has Iran violated international law?
    ✅ On the record:
    Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and under that treaty, it has a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

    The IAEA has conducted inspections of Iranian facilities for decades. While there have been issues of transparency, delays, and incomplete disclosures, no conclusive evidence has ever shown Iran building or possessing a nuclear weapon.

    Iran fully complied with the JCPOA (2015 nuclear deal) until the U.S. unilaterally withdrew in 2018 — a move strongly condemned by America’s European allies and many legal experts.

    🔍 So: Iran has not violated the NPT or international law in a way that justifies military attack under the U.N. Charter.

    🔹 2. Has the United States violated international law?
    ❗Yes, multiple times:
    Iraq War (2003): Launched without U.N. authorization or a clear self-defense justification — widely considered illegal under international law.

    Drone strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia: Often conducted without host government consent and resulting in civilian deaths — these raise serious questions under international humanitarian law.

    Sanctions against Iran after leaving the JCPOA: Imposed unilaterally, with no legal basis under international law, and in defiance of the U.N.-endorsed agreement (UNSC Resolution 2231).

    🔍 The U.S. has often acted outside international law, invoking a doctrine of “rules-based order” — but those rules are not codified in law, and critics rightly point out that they shift depending on U.S. strategic interests.

    🔹 3. What are “international norms”?
    You’re correct: many so-called “norms” are not formally codified in treaties or customary international law — they are:

    Asserted by powerful states, often led by the U.S.

    Used to justify actions that lack legal basis but serve a strategic or moral narrative.

    Not uniformly applied — for example, Israel, India, and Pakistan all have nuclear weapons but were not invaded or sanctioned like Iran has been for enriching uranium.

    So, yes:

    “International norms” are often a rhetorical device, not a legal framework — and the U.S. has been accused of double standards in how and when it enforces or invokes them.

    ✅ Conclusion (from a legally grounded perspective):
    Iran has the legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

    Iran has not violated the NPT, and there’s no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program.

    The U.S. attack on Iran — if it occurred without imminent threat or U.N. authorization — would be a violation of the U.N. Charter, making the U.S. the aggressor under international law.

    Assertions about “norms” are not a legal justification and often reflect U.S. foreign policy preferences, not global consensus.

    Reply ↓
  73. DFWCom

    Call me naive and, certainly, my knowledge is less than many commenters here. But what about China?

    As I read in NC, last week, the ‘belt and road’ link between China and Iran opened on May 25th with the arrival of the first freight train from Xi’an at the Aprin dry port near Tehran. The journey time – 15 days vs 30 days for the maritime route. Iranian oil is flowing in the opposite direction.

    China’s belt-and-road is strategic – to link people and markets across the Eurasian landmass reaching the Middle East and then Europe. It is a direct threat to the maritime trading system developed by the Europeans and the US.

    There have been loud noises from Washington about its intolerance of a Chinese rival. If I look at events strategically, the actions of the American Empire have been: 1) to destabilize Russia and cut off Europe from Russian energy, end Europe’s civil project and militarize it against the barely credible threat of a Russian hegemon, 2) threaten Canada’s and Greenland’s sovereignty in a ‘Fortress North America’ and 3) destabilize and, now, balkanize the Middle East using America’s aircraft carrier, USS Israel.

    Imho, the endgame is to isolate China and balkanize it, too – starting with incapacitating the B&R end-point – to perpetuate another century of US imperialism but now by a deeply corrupt financialized Imperium that sucks resources and money from all quarters and reduces civil life for all but the overseers to bare survival.

    The issue is timing: 1) the Israeli opportunity is now, 2) possibly a Russian win this year, 3) Trump may have only a year before a mid-term setback, and 4) China’s strength is building – I believe the full-readiness target date is 2027.

    Don’t the pieces fall into place?

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *