To ask what an American–Israeli victory over Iran would “look like” is to assume that there exists a final state that can be identified, fixed, and preserved. There is no such state.
Good piece, Mr Kaplan. Just to say also, geography and the adjacency of Western Europe to the Middle East, puts us here within DIRECT range of Iranian firepower. THUS it is ABSOLUTELY true to say if Israel wins then Europe wins, and only if Israel wins.
Grudging respect. That is all there is at the Top. We also stopped a Nazi Six European take-over here by the Re-formed Nazi Party. It was nice to get a Thankyou from The Americans for this. Always nice to be on the right side…. That is to say AntiNazi.
The press, in general, are apoplectic ONLY because Trump is exhibiting strength and showing courage. This has been coming for decades, and the willful blindness of the wider world, NO, the cowardice of their leaders is staggering. I hope I live long enough to read some good books about the great lions, Trump and Netanyahu.
Thank you Kaplan. A very important way to think about conflict and history. To me it is innovative and eye opening. It may be a flawed western mindset to insist on finality and conclusion to understand history that is itself continuous. Sitting in America, an ocean away from everything, it is easier to conjure the myth of beginning and ending. I appreciate your thoughts.
It would be nice to get regime change, but given the mass slaughter of protesters by the regime, it was not likely.
However, the problem with not having regime change is that in a few years, this will happen again. And with an openly anti-Semitic Democrat Party in power, Israel will be helpless to do anything.
"The modern Western mind is addicted to the language of resolution." History isn't so clean and ordered. WWI or the Great War was the "War to End All Wars" and WWII was the result as many historians think. Since the end of WWII there have been a series of wars despite the demise of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan from Korea, Vietnam between the French and Americans, to all the wars that Israel has fought since 1948 among many, many others. When I was a '70's Army Infantryman I thought that the predominant view of history was that it was either periods of peace punctuated with war or war punctuated by periods of peace. Regardless, history marches on.
To say “Israel strong, Iran weak, U.S. setting the agenda” is not only a gross simplistic view but not quite accurate. It’s much more complex. To ask if Israel n the U.S. will degrade Iran’s nuclear capability either permanently or for decades is exactly why the war is being fought. To ask the same about missile n drone manufacturing is a 2nd objective. And finally, Iran’s ability to fund terror against Israel n the world must end. If we don’t reach those goals, then is this just mowing the lawn - with nearly catastrophic costs? So far, Iran’s asymmetric response, the Strait is closed and cluster bombs are falling all over Israel. For an enemy who is “weak” they are landing strategic blows across the entire Middle East. We need accountability. Are we on a path to achieving our goals or not? If so, persuade the world with some signs. So far cheerleading isn’t getting us there.
This is why I constantly want to know from the naysayers not when this will end but rather what do want things to look like when the actions end; what position do YOU WANT the US, Israel and Iran to be in at such time and if the action were to end today why is that a good thing or bad thing in terms of what comes next and when.
I understand the author’s point that history doesn’t really produce clean “endings,” but every war still needs clear objectives. In this case the objectives seem straightforward: Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, it must stop funding and arming terrorist proxies, and its ability to threaten the region with missiles and destabilization has to be dismantled. Those are measurable goals. If Iran’s nuclear program is eliminated, its military threat reduced, and strict inspections ensure it cannot rebuild those capabilities, then the war has achieved its purpose. Everything beyond that may continue as part of the broader strategic struggle, but those core objectives define success.
Dismantling lasts only as long as it takes China to rebuild its Iranian foothold in the ME, with waterfront property on the Strait of Hormuz. As Eric R. says above, with a Democratic president openly hostile to Israel [or with "isolationist" Vance] I don't see a positive outcome next time around. Does this mean we need to make installing the Shah a priority? Maybe.
Ideally, my friend, I’m with you on regime change. If the Iranian people themselves were able to replace this theocracy with something more stable — even something like the Shah’s return — that would certainly change the whole equation. And I wouldn’t rule it out yet. My sense is that we haven’t seen the final act here. Iran is unlikely to cave easily, and I don’t believe Trump is the type to back down either.
But even setting regime change aside, if the regime’s military capabilities are truly dismantled — its missiles, navy, and nuclear infrastructure — rebuilding won’t be easy. A decimated Iran would not be an attractive platform for China to rebuild power quickly in the region. At that point they would be starting almost from scratch.
Those objectives need to outlast a Democrat White House (whenever they win it back). Otherwise they can rebuild all of that and more in a short number of years.
Davey, That’s a fair concern. Any strategic gains have to survive changes in leadership, otherwise adversaries simply wait for the political cycle to turn. But that’s exactly why dismantling Iran’s capabilities as thoroughly as possible matters. If their nuclear program, missile infrastructure, and regional projection are seriously degraded, rebuilding all of that would take many years, not just a single election cycle. And that’s assuming the current regime even survives.
You can call it “pearl clutching” all you want. The facts are that no one seems to have given enough thought or weight to how Iran might counter n we’re in a big mess. And what’s worse is that the bullshitters in charge keep telling us we won. We need success, not pearl clutching.
With $900 billion spent each year on defense, the U.S. possesses unmatched power—but lacking the political will to use it, we fail to pursue the one thing essential in war: a decisive, enduring victory over those who seek our destruction
Good piece, Mr Kaplan. Just to say also, geography and the adjacency of Western Europe to the Middle East, puts us here within DIRECT range of Iranian firepower. THUS it is ABSOLUTELY true to say if Israel wins then Europe wins, and only if Israel wins.
You think Europe will thank us in any meaningful way?
Grudging respect. That is all there is at the Top. We also stopped a Nazi Six European take-over here by the Re-formed Nazi Party. It was nice to get a Thankyou from The Americans for this. Always nice to be on the right side…. That is to say AntiNazi.
The press, in general, are apoplectic ONLY because Trump is exhibiting strength and showing courage. This has been coming for decades, and the willful blindness of the wider world, NO, the cowardice of their leaders is staggering. I hope I live long enough to read some good books about the great lions, Trump and Netanyahu.
Thank you Kaplan. A very important way to think about conflict and history. To me it is innovative and eye opening. It may be a flawed western mindset to insist on finality and conclusion to understand history that is itself continuous. Sitting in America, an ocean away from everything, it is easier to conjure the myth of beginning and ending. I appreciate your thoughts.
Very good analysis. Us Americans tend to be very impatient and that's a problem.
It would be nice to get regime change, but given the mass slaughter of protesters by the regime, it was not likely.
However, the problem with not having regime change is that in a few years, this will happen again. And with an openly anti-Semitic Democrat Party in power, Israel will be helpless to do anything.
"The modern Western mind is addicted to the language of resolution." History isn't so clean and ordered. WWI or the Great War was the "War to End All Wars" and WWII was the result as many historians think. Since the end of WWII there have been a series of wars despite the demise of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan from Korea, Vietnam between the French and Americans, to all the wars that Israel has fought since 1948 among many, many others. When I was a '70's Army Infantryman I thought that the predominant view of history was that it was either periods of peace punctuated with war or war punctuated by periods of peace. Regardless, history marches on.
To say “Israel strong, Iran weak, U.S. setting the agenda” is not only a gross simplistic view but not quite accurate. It’s much more complex. To ask if Israel n the U.S. will degrade Iran’s nuclear capability either permanently or for decades is exactly why the war is being fought. To ask the same about missile n drone manufacturing is a 2nd objective. And finally, Iran’s ability to fund terror against Israel n the world must end. If we don’t reach those goals, then is this just mowing the lawn - with nearly catastrophic costs? So far, Iran’s asymmetric response, the Strait is closed and cluster bombs are falling all over Israel. For an enemy who is “weak” they are landing strategic blows across the entire Middle East. We need accountability. Are we on a path to achieving our goals or not? If so, persuade the world with some signs. So far cheerleading isn’t getting us there.
Harvey, we are just weeks into a conflagration that should have happened LONG before now. All the pearl clutching is really annoying.
Nachum Kaplan = Moral Clarity = Rock of Sense!
Well stated because historically based.
This is why I constantly want to know from the naysayers not when this will end but rather what do want things to look like when the actions end; what position do YOU WANT the US, Israel and Iran to be in at such time and if the action were to end today why is that a good thing or bad thing in terms of what comes next and when.
I understand the author’s point that history doesn’t really produce clean “endings,” but every war still needs clear objectives. In this case the objectives seem straightforward: Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, it must stop funding and arming terrorist proxies, and its ability to threaten the region with missiles and destabilization has to be dismantled. Those are measurable goals. If Iran’s nuclear program is eliminated, its military threat reduced, and strict inspections ensure it cannot rebuild those capabilities, then the war has achieved its purpose. Everything beyond that may continue as part of the broader strategic struggle, but those core objectives define success.
Dismantling lasts only as long as it takes China to rebuild its Iranian foothold in the ME, with waterfront property on the Strait of Hormuz. As Eric R. says above, with a Democratic president openly hostile to Israel [or with "isolationist" Vance] I don't see a positive outcome next time around. Does this mean we need to make installing the Shah a priority? Maybe.
Ideally, my friend, I’m with you on regime change. If the Iranian people themselves were able to replace this theocracy with something more stable — even something like the Shah’s return — that would certainly change the whole equation. And I wouldn’t rule it out yet. My sense is that we haven’t seen the final act here. Iran is unlikely to cave easily, and I don’t believe Trump is the type to back down either.
But even setting regime change aside, if the regime’s military capabilities are truly dismantled — its missiles, navy, and nuclear infrastructure — rebuilding won’t be easy. A decimated Iran would not be an attractive platform for China to rebuild power quickly in the region. At that point they would be starting almost from scratch.
Those objectives need to outlast a Democrat White House (whenever they win it back). Otherwise they can rebuild all of that and more in a short number of years.
Davey, That’s a fair concern. Any strategic gains have to survive changes in leadership, otherwise adversaries simply wait for the political cycle to turn. But that’s exactly why dismantling Iran’s capabilities as thoroughly as possible matters. If their nuclear program, missile infrastructure, and regional projection are seriously degraded, rebuilding all of that would take many years, not just a single election cycle. And that’s assuming the current regime even survives.
The end begins with Qatar asking the US to close Al Udeid Air Base and the US rebuilding in Israel (without conditions).
Your best column because of the long range of the truth you explore. Process is the nature of all things. Thank you for the clarity.
Cannot disagree with any of that.
Well written.
Also interesting to specialty where Saudi / UAE / Kuwaiti / Bahraini & even Qatari focus may turn next.
You can call it “pearl clutching” all you want. The facts are that no one seems to have given enough thought or weight to how Iran might counter n we’re in a big mess. And what’s worse is that the bullshitters in charge keep telling us we won. We need success, not pearl clutching.
With $900 billion spent each year on defense, the U.S. possesses unmatched power—but lacking the political will to use it, we fail to pursue the one thing essential in war: a decisive, enduring victory over those who seek our destruction