Osler's Razor

I am definitely no Iran expert. Nevertheless, here are a few thoughts and observations--as Rod Serling liked to say, submitted for your approval:

1. If Iran is THREE months away from a nuclear weapon, then the JCPOA probably really is a colossal farce (although, in fairness, the David Sanger NYT story seems to claim 12 months is a more likely time frame and, moreover, according to Madeleine Albright, quoted in the article, who seems to assume meticulous fidelity to the deal on the part of Iran, they are 1) unlikely to break out of the remaining agreement and accelerate and 2) if they did, they should be more distant from production as a result of their diminished uranium stockpile).

2. Assuming this conflict does not lead to a cataclysmic clash in the Valley of Yehosephat resulting in the ultimate destruction of humanity, it may be an opportunity to learn a low-cost lesson concerning the limits and downsides of our modern imperial presidency. What one president can decree by fiat--another president may unravel unilaterally. Good to know. Perhaps we should rediscover the treaty-making process outlined in our ancient Constitution.

3. Surely, the argument over a nuclear Iran was/is not really the central issue for either Presidents Obama or Trump (although that may not be true for Saudi Arabia, Israel, et al). Rather, the Obama admin entered office with a notion of rehabilitating Iran as a regional counterweight to Sunni dominance (not unlike our policies during the 1970s surrounding the Shah). Irony of ironies (or at least an out-sized example of unintended consequences), as you note above, the gambit has not done nearly as much for Iran as it has to inadvertently empower and enable the emerging Triple Entente of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel (literally unthinkable just a few years ago).

Remember when all the experts agreed that the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East was the disposition of the Palestinian question? How quaint!

I agree with you. The Middle East is a perplexing cauldron of ancient enmities and modern conflicting interests unlikely to land on stability in our lifetime. Perhaps we can hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
 

Farmer: I wish I understood what the plan is going forward. I think there may be one, actually.
 

Mark: I hear you. A plan going forward would be very nice. And I am sure there are lots of people in close proximity to the situation room who have gamed all this all out and have lots of plans. Whether that translates into a coherent exec vision, and whether those schemes will survive the maneuvering sure to ensue, well, those seem like a couple of $64K questions.
 

My own hunch is that they left the Iran deal with another plan in hand. I hope it is not one centered on military action. I hope it isn't; among other things, that would be contrary to the platform Trump ran on (as is pulling out of the Iran deal). If nothing else, I think it is fair to say that Trump has done the things he promised to do. It turns out people should have taken him both literally and seriously.
 

The Balkans, Middle East,etc. are now and always have been tribal lands with major religious differences. A close relative spent over 30 years in diplomatic posts in the area. Her candid and sincerely held belief was that it is an insoluble problem due primarily to the religious differences, secondary to the tribal alliances.

Enabling another nuclear power is a terrible idea, as is treating these differences as tho they are subject to rational arguments. All we can do is muddle along and hope. Proving that we don't honor our commitments just makes it worse.
 

I have no idea what will happen. What troubles me at the moment, about Trump's decision, is that I think we in the general public have no idea how much Trump understands what he's doing when he makes these decisions. It seems this campaign promise is like most--all?-- of his other promises, which amount to tearing apart every regulation, executive order, international agreement, law, etc that Obama put into place. Everything.

I even wonder if Trump wants to take apart anything that has the word "deal" attached to it, because his ego thinks he can make a better one.

Maybe, Mark, there is another plan in place. It never occurred to me there would be, though, because I have no trust whatsoever that Trump listens to anyone else. He probably does, but despite the (few) experienced senior staff members still around, there's more evidence to suggest Trump goes his own way than that he listens to advisors' experience.

And I think that's different from before. Even with presidents I didn't like, I don't think I doubted that they listened to advisors, that they could be made to understand the options, and that they wanted to learn and understand their options. With Trump, I don't know that he listens, learns, or cares to. He'd rather tantalize Emmanuel Macron, toy with him and Angela Merkel, and then do whatever the hell he wants. I don't like this void of not-knowing that Trump's created; it scares me that the cabinet seems no longer to be a safety net for the country.

Aargh . . . don't know if that makes any sense!