Weirdest. War. Ever.

Talk about living in interesting times

Befitting the title, a question that seems out of place for the situation: Have you ever had a laugh-out-loud moment as missiles were flying and bombs were dropping? This is not to be flippant; war is not a joking matter. But, thus far, the fighting between Israel and Iran has introduced a new presidential tag line – “Thank you for attention to this matter” – an f-bomb as Trump sounded like the frustrated parent of two toddlers running amok in a store, and ginned-up outrage over the SecDef’s use of “our boys” in commending the B-2 pilots because one of them is a female.

If real people were not being killed, this would fall somewhere between dark comedy and farce. But real people are being killed, and giving credit where it’s due, brokering a cease-fire was vintage Trump. Earlier this week, I questioned his reasoning regarding the missile strike and considered its implications. Today, that mission looks more like a live-fire training exercise. The nuclear sites were evacuated before the strikes, as if the Iranians knew what was coming. And Tehran’s “retaliation” was to let us know that some missiles would be fired at an empty base in Qatar.

Hindsight being what it is, the episode looked more like scripted theater than genuine combat. Now, however, comes the hard part – working toward a deal that all parties can live with and abide by. This will be especially difficult since none of the participants has full faith and trust in the others. There are competing agendas and interests in play, and the virtual guarantee that none of the players will get everything they want. So, step one is to define what “success” looks like so that the parties might recognize it.

In the ideal blue-sky world, a non-homicidal group would assume leadership of Iran, unleashing its human capital and dragging the country out of its medieval mindset. Absent such a group, the next-best thing is preventing the mullahs from going nuclear. It’s not just we and the Israelis who want that; it’s also the Saudis, the other Gulf states, and most of the rest of the 195 other countries in the world. On paper, it looks simple and sounds obvious. In reality, it is more complex. Issues to be addressed include what must happen to reach the desired end state, how long it will take, what it will cost to get there, and what the potential ramifications are.

Critical to making good decisions is reliable information. The parties must have a common set of facts and assumptions from which to work because, in the fog of war or warlike conditions, the first casualty is usually accurate information. As such, a hat tip to long-time reader Bobbi for providing this link from The Institute for Science and International Security. As best I can tell, the group has a solid reputation for analyses on nuclear proliferation. Founded in 1993, the organization also has the self-awareness and sense of humor to call itself ‘the good ISIS,’ as it was formed 20 years before the terrorist organization that bears the same initials.

The Institute’s post-strike assessment is a deep dive into the aftermath of what Trump called the 12-day war. The report goes well beyond the three sites that were targeted and considers the entirety of Iran’s nuclear apparatus, along with the country’s ability to make weapons-grade uranium and its capacity for creating an actual weapon. The document is worth a look for understanding the lay of the land. Here is the synopsis:

“Overall, Israel's and U.S. attacks have effectively destroyed Iran’s centrifuge enrichment program. It will be a long time before Iran comes anywhere near the capability it had before the attack. That being said, there are residuals such as stocks of 60%, 20%, and 3-5% enriched uranium and the centrifuges manufactured but not yet installed at Natanz or Fordow. These non-destroyed parts pose a threat as they can be used in the future to produce weapon-grade uranium.

The International Atomic Energy Agency believes damage was significant, but it does not know what happened to 900 pounds of enriched Iranian uranium. Not to undersell the point, but that’s a problem. Someone knows the answer. An immediate show of good faith would be for that someone to speak up and for a broad coalition of partners to reach a custody agreement for that material as talks unfold.

By ‘broad coalition,’ I mean the equivalent of a global powers summit. This stopped being a purely regional concern long ago. Tehran has long ties to Russia, and China is Iran’s biggest oil buyer; they and other countries are as vested in a suitable outcome as we and Israel are. This may well mean that discussions get messy or contentious. So be it. If resolution were easy, the problem would not exist. My point is that a unilateral decision where the US alone spells out the terms is not likely to be successful, and if a deal can be brokered using a bigger group, does it matter whose idea it was?

In the meantime, there will be the ankle-biting palace intrigue news coverage, with competing claims of just how severe the damage America inflicted was. A back and forth has emerged with Trump clinging to his initial ‘total obliteration’ claim, and other reports saying Iranian progress was only delayed by months. The interested parties need to treat this as so much white noise. The media’s incentives are much different from those of any govt, especially where this administration is concerned.

Every single president of the terror era has said that a nuclear Iran cannot be allowed. W did, as did Obama, both versions of Trump, and Biden’s puppeteers. Even Kamala knew the status quo could not stand. All of that makes the howling over this strike intellectually dishonest. Unless someone can make a persuasive case for why Iran should have nukes, there are two options: be quiet and stop embarrassing yourself, or be part of a solution that all parties will want to accept.