When Incompetence Goes to War

Bombing was the easy part

Credit: Getty Images

Watching Donald Trump deliver the news of an American attack on Iran Saturday night, I wondered how many viewers had the same reaction I did: How can the United States be going to war — and that’s exactly what it is — with advisers whose collective experience managing international conflict is see-through thin?

There was Trump, a draft dodger who has long derided the military, surrounded by his war cabinet of second-rate choices, who owe their professional and political souls to him. Will any of them ever question Trump’s decisions? We know the answer to that.

Trump did not have solid evidence Iran was building a nuclear bomb. Nearing the time when they might be able to build one is the best that can be said. Similar, although not identical, to the situation when George W. Bush didn’t have hard evidence that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction. Bad intel back then led to a war that lasted eight years and killed nearly 5,000 Americans and reportedly 200,000 Iraqis. No WMDs were ever found.

Lessons learned? Hardly. Bombing Iran was easy enough. Did anyone at the White House think about what would happen on Day 2?

Forty-eight hours after the United States launched bunker-busting bombs and dozens of cruise missiles at Iran, the Iranian regime retaliated. Iran launched missiles at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East. The Defense Department said there were no injuries because Qatari air defenses were able to intercept the Iranian attack. Also, the Iranians gave advance warning to minimize casualties.

No one should be surprised by this escalation. And no one should think this is the end of hostilities. Forty thousand U.S. troops are stationed in the region.

It is a consequence of going to war, which is exactly what Donald Trump did when he called for strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites. Even if Vice President JD Vance says otherwise. “We’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program,” he said on “Meet the Press” Sunday. The Iranian people likely quibble with Vance’s semantics.

Iran has other retaliatory options from which to choose.

In an internal FBI email obtained by The New York Times, American officials warn that Iran and its allies have “historically targeted U.S. interests in response to geopolitical events, and they are likely to increase their efforts in the near term.”

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow strip of water between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, is one of the world’s most important strategic choke points. And Iran controls the north side of it. The 20 million barrels of oil produced daily in the region — a fifth of global output — must travel through the strait.

Some influential Iranians are calling for Hormuz to be closed, including Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor-in-chief of a popular hard-line Iranian newspaper, who has the ear of the supreme leader.

“It is now our turn to act without delay. As a first step, we must launch a missile strike on the US naval fleet in Bahrain and simultaneously close the Strait of Hormuz to American, British, German, and French ships,” Shariatmadari wrote in his newspaper.

Mohammad Ali Shabani, an expert on Iran, told CNN that Iran’s control of global shipping lanes gives the government the “capacity to cause a shock in oil markets, drive up oil prices, drive inflation, [and] collapse Trump’s economic agenda.”

If Hormuz is closed, oil prices will skyrocket. But perhaps the ayatollah will put his pocketbook before payback. China is the No. 1 buyer of Iranian oil. The money Iran earns from Chinese oil sales accounts for 50% of government spending, according to The Times. It has allowed the Iranian regime to fund terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

By the way, need we remind ourselves that China, not Iran, is the most potent foreign threat to American security? Also that Iran, along with China and Russia, has the ability to launch destructive cyber attacks.

But now back to the strikes themselves. Trump claimed victory, saying the U.S. bombings “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program. No evidence has been given, and a bomb damage assessment has yet to be released. This administration is not known for truth-telling, so a wait-and-see approach is justified.

Using satellite imagery, the Israeli military’s initial assessment is that Fordo, the main nuclear site, where the U.S. dropped at least six bunker busters, was damaged but not destroyed. Israeli intelligence believes Iran moved equipment and uranium from the site prior to the bombing.

All this means that Saturday’s attack was not a one-and-done as the president would have us believe. Add to that Trump’s changing tune on regime change. Initially he said the goal of the bombing was “destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity.”

Vance, Pete Hegseth, and Marco Rubio were reading from the same script as they made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows. The administration’s view “has been very clear that we don’t want a regime change,” Vance said.

Perhaps the president didn’t get a copy of the talking points. Not four hours later, Trump took to social media. “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!” he posted.

No one thinks the Iranian government is made up of good guys. It has an abysmal human rights record and is the poster child for state-sponsored terrorism. These leaders have a long record of hating America and all for which we stand. They have been known to subvert our Arab allies in the region. But regime change seldom if ever works out the way the changers intend. See: Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

But calling for regime change versus seeking to destroy a country’s nuclear capabilities — no matter how spurious the intelligence — are very different goals with very different long-term prospects.

It’s been widely reported that the U.S. defense secretary was not included in planning the Iran mission. Perhaps Hegseth’s Signalgate scandal has finally caught up with him. At least he was by Trump’s side as the president delivered his version of the war news.

Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has been put on ice by Trump for testifying to Congress — in March — that the intelligence community did not believe Iran was close to building a nuclear weapon.

So Trump needs advisers who will guide him by telling him the truth, rather than what he wants to hear; because they are beholden to him for jobs they aren’t qualified for, they never will. Trump learned from his first administration: Don’t hire the smart people, elevate the sycophants.

A few closing notes from your reporter, who has spent a fair portion of his life covering wars:

• Truth IS the first casualty of war.

• The first things you hear often are untrue, and so are many of the things you hear later.

• Wars are by their very nature chaotic and unpredictable. What you most expect frequently does not happen; what you least expect often does.

• Up close and personal, wars are almost unbelievably savage. The television screen and the printed word do not come close to conveying their harsh realities.

Steady is free, but to support my team’s efforts to protect our democracy through the power of independent journalism, we’d appreciate it if you would consider joining as a paid subscriber. It keeps Steady sustainable and accessible for all. If you are not able to upgrade, we understand.

No matter how you subscribe, I thank you for reading.

Stay Steady,
Dan