What If...

It Works?

This is not going to be some long, drawn-out thing.

—JD Vance

The harm the U.S. will suffer will definitely be irreparable if they enter this conflict militarily.

—Ayatollah Khamenei

Hopes and Fears. J.D. Vance walked into the standard American stupidity trap, the same one that George W. Bush walked into when he proclaimed “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. Wars tend, always, to be worse than expected. Except, maybe, this one.

And the Ayatollah gives a splendid demonstration of the standard Iranian stupidity trap: overbloviating enmity. He’s been going around spouting “Death to America” and to the “Zionist entity” without much ability to deliver same for decades. One wonders about the strategy here. Few in Iran actually believe him. I was present at a Quds Day march in Tehran in 2001, protesting Israel’s existence (Al Quds is Jerusalem). There were more people strolling down the sidewalk, shopping, than marching in the street, protesting. American and Israeli flags were burned for the benefit of the cameras—not real flags, cheesy paper replicas. It was a farce. This regime has been a brutal farce for a long time, making a string of the most idiotic strategic decisions in history, abdicating the chance to fulfill a great country’s real destiny: to be a regional power, with a booming economy and a liberated, creative, educated populace.

There is a great temptation in America to fear the worst in an instance such as this. The worst usually happens in the Middle East. Our regional ignorance has been astonishing, time after time. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut lays out all the potential problems in his substack, soberly, responsibly…but one has to wonder this time: wrongly?

Iran is not Iraq. It is a real country, not three satrapies cobbled together by Winston Churchill and Gertrude Bell. It has a large middle class—did you see those highways jammed with cars as people fled Tehran? It looked like Los Angeles. (The Persians sometimes conflate the two cities, with a smile: Tehrangeles.) The Iranian population is well educated. There is a lot to lose…and the regime has a history of reacting that way, when the loss of sovereignty is threatened. As Bret Stephens writes in the Times today:

As in 1988, when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini chose to end the Iran-Iraq war for the sake of regime survival — he said it was like “drinking from a chalice of poison” — my guess is that the current supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, will stand down and seek a negotiated settlement.

From your lips, Bret…but negotiation is rarely the Persian way, since those silly bazaaris always think they can out-negotiate you. As an Indian diplomat who had the unpleasant experience of haggling with the Iranians once told me: “They are impossible. They agree, then they walk away, thinking they can get more.”

Actually, the best commentary on Iran that I’ve seen was on Fareed Zakaria’s Sunday program on CNN—Richard Haass, formerly of the Council on Foreign Relations; Admiral James Stavrides'; Vali Nasr of Johns Hopkins and the Israel journalist, Nadav Eyal. There was general agreement about where this conflict may go from here. Haass and Stavrides were especially good, offering three possible scenarios:

1. Iran escalates, expanding attacks on Israel, attacking American forces in the region, staging assassinations and terrorist attacks in the US itself, closing the Strait of Hormuz, making mischief with cyber-warfare. Neither Haass nor Stavrides ruled this out, but both thought it unlikely. Iran is defenseless right now. It still has some assets in the south, protecting its petroleum industry, but the country’s government, defense and industrial centers are vulnerable. Its most important asset is oil, which is why it’ll probably leave Hormuz alone, as the Washington Post reported today:

   Most of the oil that goes through the strait is delivered to Asia, and Iran is wary of alienating its ally China, in particular. Iran may also lack the firepower to successfully block the strait.

   There are other silly scenarios floating about, like the possibility that Russia gives Iran nuclear weapons. I doubt it. There is also the possibility that the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) overthrow the regime and install a more hawkish government, which is unlikely since the Guards have been the steel behind the regime since the Iraq war. Essentially, they run the place now; the Ayatollah is a fig leaf over a military dictatorship. Finally, there’s the disaster we cannot begin to imagine—9/11 should always be in our minds.

2. More likely: A targeted response, as in the past. When Trump successfully assassinated the IRGC leader Qassem Suleimani—Iran’s most talented general—the Iranian response was a lot of bluster and pinprick strikes on US air bases in Iraq, resulting in no casualties. Some sort of response is likely now, given Persian pride. And it is also likely that the Iranians will try to piece together a nuclear program for use/deterrence in the future. That would be far more difficult project if Iran escalates.

3. Iran wises up. They negotiate an end to the nuclear program, with a regional enrichment facility—not in Iran—to feed the country’s peacetime medical and energy needs. In return, they are blandished with carrots, the lifting of economic sanctions, a welcome back to the community of nations. Peace! Prosperity! What’s not to like? (Well, the current regime is what’s not to like—and the Iranian people, happy at last, might want a taste of real democracy.)

But what will we do, if this turns out to be a genius stroke on Trump’s part? What if this stokes his megalomania? What if he steps up his outrageous attempts to destroy the rule of law? What if the Democrats seem even weaker and more incompetent as a result? That should be our greatest fear, but held quietly, lest Trump be given more political fodder.

The current liberal horror fantasy is that there are too many moving pieces, too many ifs and buts, for something not to go wrong. It always does. But the notion that Iran will turn out to be Iraq, is—as Haass and Stavrides opine—unlikely. I’d be shocked if there were American troops on the ground, in force (maybe some special operators on targeted, creepless missions). It would be too much, I suppose, for Democrats to congratulate the U.S. military on the brilliance of the operation. Just as it would be too much for Trump to shut his yap and stop spouting Ayatollah-like provocations. Let it be, Don. It’s a good sign that the Pentagon is being its same old reliable self, refusing to characterize the attack until the Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA).

This is one of those moments when people like me overanalyze, predict wantonly and overstep our briefs. So take most everything above with a grain of salt. It is a Sanity scenario. Those things never happen.

—wapo

Ignatius

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/06/22/trump-iran-strike-aftermath-uncertainty/

Stephens