About Those Bunker Busters

Two days ago, American bombers attacked three nuclear facilities in Iran. This culmination - or perhaps merely escalation - of a long series of efforts to deter the mad mullahs of that theocracy from making nuclear bombs is a complicated matter to process. On the one hand, it's yet another iteration of American militarism that feels like "more of the same" stuff that libertarians and others skeptical of America's foreign adventures of the past seven-plus decades have justifiably criticized. On the other hand, this one feels different.

Some are taking a very simplistic and binary "America just started a war with Iran" viewpoint, but to paraphrase Thornton Melon, that leaves out a bunch of stuff.

Iran has been waging a proxy war with the West for decades. While Israel has been its prime target via the terrorist organizations it has been funding - Iran's constitution calls for the elimination of the state of Israel, and Iran's government does not recognize Israel at all - fundamentalist Islamism has no interest in coexistence with non-Muslim nations. American Presidents have attempted to negotiate away Iran's pursuit of nukes for decades. Obama shipped pallets of cash, to the tune of $1.7B, to Iran in exchange for promises. Biden unsanctioned billions more, again in exchange for promises.

Promises that you and I know they have never had any intention of keeping.

The mullahs would at times insist their enrichment of uranium was strictly for domestic power generation and therefore peaceful, but there's absolutely no need to enrich to medium or high levels for reactors. Nuclear power requires uranium enriched to 3-5%. Iran, per Google AI (source: the IAEA), had amassed over 400 kg of 60% uranium as of last month, and getting to that level of enrichment is actually the hard part. Going from 60% to the 90% enrichment used in nuclear bombs is easier, and that reported quantity is sufficient to make ten nuclear bombs. This alone, in my mind, makes the assertions that Iran was very close to making bombs credible.

One might argue, "who are we to tell Iran they can't have nukes?" While that argument can be made about any nation, the answer in Iran's case is that they offered not to in exchange for money, reduced sanctions, and the like. That they used that money to bankroll Hamas, several Hezbollah militias, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, the Badr Organization, the Fatemiyoun Division, the Zaynabiyoun Brigade, and more assigns them responsibility and blame for all that those terrorist groups have done, including the October 7 massacre. Make no mistake, Iran is an aggressor nation and has been for decades. Its leadership hides behind proxies, behind the taqiyya precept that accommodates lying to infidels, and behind the rhetoric of perpetual outrage, but that does not excuse or grant benefit of the doubt.

The combination of a declared desire to obliterate an ally and the multiply violated agreements to cease pursuit of nuclear bombs overrides the question "who are we?" What is the point of an agreement, after all, if there is no penalty for violating it? Why should an aggressor nation be given a pass because it's hiding behind puppets?

I had a "gut check" after I read that Trump ordered the destruction of three Iranian nuclear facilities, including the one that the Israelis did not have the means to destroy. If the goal is limited to ending Iran's nuclear ambitions once and for all, my skepticism re foreign entanglements gives way to a favorable conclusion.

Trump's actions to date feel correct.

With the caveat that things can change very rapidly, and the continued belief that pursuing a nation-building exercise there as we have tried and failed at so many times before would be a huge mistake.

So far, the administration's rhetoric runs contrary to that. But, they've played everything very close to the vest so far, so I wait and see if that changes.

Meanwhile, the Iranian regime, badly degraded in military capability by the Israelis and suffering a huge black eye from the destruction of their nuclear facilities, is engaging in face-saving actions. Launching missiles at civilian targets in Israel would normally be condemned by the rest of the world, but because it's Israel, the world shrugs. Closing the Strait of Hormuz and thereby threatening the global economy is similarly waved off by many as something other than an act of unjustified aggression. Both activities appear intended to put the pressure of public opinion on Netanyahu and on Trump, but I think the Iranians may finally be realizing that won't play the way it has in the past.

What next? It much depends on what Khamenei and his brain trust decide after their initial face-saving acts. Do they go down in a blaze of glory, or do they capitulate, lick their wounds, and plot for another day?

I won't dare try to guess.

But, the powder keg that this felt like before doesn't loom as threatening today. Israel has proven, yet again, that Iran is in any direct conflict a paper tiger, and I figure the Israelis are far from done in their efforts to destroy Iran's war-making ability. The nuclear bomb threat is similarly a memory now, because I am certain that any remaining facilities will, if any effort is resumed, suffer similar visits from B-2 bombers.

The Iranian regime is, by many reports, deeply unpopular with the Iranian people. The lack of Iranians marching in American streets demanding an end to American aggression is its own telltale, as is the opposition party's simpleminded contrarianism. There remains the matter of Trump acting without Congressional declaration of war, but the precedent for President-ordered military strikes is long and bipartisan, and this instance isn't one I'd look to be my test case. The loud silence from the Arab world regarding Israel's strikes on military targets in Iran also tells us a lot, as does the likelihood that some of those nations are deliberately turning a blind eye to or surreptitiously condoning Israeli overflights.

In any event, the long-term realpolitik assessment of these strikes at the heart of the Iranian nuclear program will, I expect, be widely positive, even by people who veneer it with criticism and condemnation.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of murderous assholes.