Iran war! What is it good for?
Congress, do your job.
It’s no secret that I was an early skeptic of the Iran war. I don’t think an attack was justified or wise, but since we are already embroiled in the conflict, I find myself in the same position as many others who have serious concerns but are hoping for the best. If we are going to fight, I want to fight to win.
One of the first steps in fighting to win is having a defined goal. So far, that has been a problem. Justifications and objectives for the war offered by the Administration range from destroying Iran’s nuclear program to undercutting the nation’s ability to foment terror to regime change and even “unconditional surrender.” These narratives could conceivably overlap, but the shifting nature of causus belli seems to reflect a lack of a real, defined strategy. If we want to win the war, we must decide what winning means.
In my opinion, there should be two goals. At this point, our focus should be on destroying Iran’s nuclear production and delivery capability and restoring stability to the world economy. Damage to Iran’s terror networks would be a plus, as would regime change, but we have to realize at this point that regime change is unlikely.
As I discussed two weeks ago, earlier in the war, there are some things that air power can do, and some that it cannot. Historically, air power alone has never implemented regime change. Air power can destroy things, but it can’t rebuild them. It can damage a regime, but it can’t topple it.
There was hope in some quarters that Iranian dissidents would rise up and overthrow the theocratic Islamist regime. So far, there seems to be no evidence that this is happening. The only way to change the regime is to put boots on the ground (a phrase that I detest, but it’s accurate) in Iran.
Attempting regime change would mean occupying Iran, the seventeenth-largest country in the world. Iran is approximately the size of Alaska, four times as large as California, and two and a half times the size of Afghanistan, another mountainous country that we did not have the manpower to subdue, even with coalition partners. Occupying Iran would represent a black hole into which American soldiers and taxpayer dollars disappear for the foreseeable future.
So, what is an appropriate and realistic strategy? First, we should decimate Iran’s nuclear, missile, and drone facilities. When we aided Israel in 2025’s 12 Day War, I was concerned that the president pulled the plug too quickly, before this objective was met. Apparently, I was correct because here we are again. Since the genie is already out of the bottle, we should avoid that mistake this time.
We should also attack Iran’s ability to threaten its neighbors and Persian Gulf shipping. Leaving Iran with the ability to retaliate after the war is over would mean that it is likely that we will have to return and do the job over again in the near future.
In any case, we'll likely have to come back anyway. The regime is still going to be in power and will be focused on revenge. The more completely we do the job now, the longer it will be before they recover and become a serious threat once again. I’ve heard this described as “lawn mowing,” and I think it will be a long-term reality.
So, I’d hammer Iran with air power, and then negotiate a ceasefire. The problem at this point is that Iran may not be ready to quit. The Iranian regime is reportedly demanding compensation and a US withdrawal from the Persian Gulf as its price for ending the war.
How can Iran make demands at this point, you might ask. Even though they have taken a beating, they still have leverage in the form of controlling the Strait of Hormuz and their continued ability to launch drone and missile attacks on their neighbors. Despite claims that Iran was running out of missiles and drones, the attacks have continued with some recent high-profile successes, such as damaging five KC-135 tankers at a Saudi air base and a strike on a port in the UAE that stopped oil shipments.
So far, the war has been limited in that neither side has gone after oil infrastructure or desalination plants in earnest, but that could change. Destroying oil facilities could cause oil shortages and even worse price spikes, while attacking desalination plants in a region where potable water is in short supply could spark a humanitarian crisis.
It was almost a year ago that Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs threatened to tank the world economy, and once again, the world economy is on the brink. This time, the problem is the likelihood of significant and long-term oil disruptions. If the Iranian regime thinks that it will be destroyed, there is nothing to prevent it from setting the Persian Gulf oil facilities on fire, and with them, the world economy. A faltering economy might be the one thing that can persuade Trump to back down from Iran, just as he backed off the initial tariffs.
Two weeks ago, I referenced the story of the tar baby, and it looks as though that prediction is coming true. The US has moved more assets into the region and, despite claims that Iran’s military is being destroyed, missile and drone attacks are still inflicting damage around the Gulf, and the Strait of Hormuz is closed to all shipping except Iranian and Chinese. We have grabbed the tar baby and are finding it difficult to let go.
If we land ground troops in Iran, it is going to be even harder to let go. Whether the landings are on Kharg Island or along the Strait of Hormuz, our troops would be vulnerable to both conventional and guerrilla attacks as well as drone and missile bombardments. Our troops would be on the receiving end of the Ukrainian drone videos we’ve watched for three years.
Over the weekend, there were reports that the US was moving a Marine expeditionary force from Okinawa to the Middle East. This signals a likely escalation to ground combat, as well as further weakening US forces in the Pacific, where China has its eye on Taiwan, where things have been suspiciously quiet.
Lindsey Graham seemed to signal that the Marines’ target would be Kharg Island, which would be a massive escalation both in terms of starting a ground war and threatening Iran’s economic survival while simultaneously failing to open the Strait of Hormuz. It would have the advantage of requiring fewer troops than an occupation of hundreds of miles of Iranian coastline, however.
At the same time, it is unlikely that a limited occupation of the Iranian side of the Strait could reopen shipping lanes. Iranian missiles and drone swarms are flying hundreds of miles across the Gulf. We would have to occupy a huge swath of the country to put their launchers out of range of shipping in the Gulf. That would take far more than the 2,500 Marines currently en route.
On the other hand, committing ground forces could play into Iran’s hands. Once we have troops in contact, it is very difficult to withdraw them without losing face. It would become a war of attrition in which Iran’s goal would be to wait us out, as the Vietnamese and Afghans did. Even if Democrats regained power, they might not end the war. We saw that in Afghanistan under Obama.
Maybe we would be able to set up a free Iranian government, but there are doubts as to whether that is even a goal. The Trump Administration left the Venezuelan regime intact (minus Maduro) and has signalled that it would accept a new Iranian leader from within the current regime.
If setting up a free Iran is an objective, it will likely require a full occupation of the country for a prolonged period of time. As we have seen in the past, troops initially greeted as liberators can quickly come to be seen as occupiers.
With the war unpopular from the beginning, there is no appetite in the American public for a prolonged round of nation-building. We should give Iranian opposition groups all the help we can, but we can’t do it for them.
I am not saying all this because I want America to lose this war. Just the opposite. I am saying it because I am tired of America winning battles and losing wars due to poor strategic thinking. I want America to succeed, and I want Iran to be free, but we also need to be realistic.
The Trump Administration did not plan to evacuate diplomatic personnel and their families, it did not plan to combat Iranian drone swarms despite Russia’s experience in Ukraine, and it did not plan on Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz despite warnings from military commanders. It sounds a lot like the Trump Administration planned on an easy war with the Iranian regime complying by rolling over dead after a few days, and now that Plan A has failed, there is no Plan B except to escalate. That is a recipe for failure, as LBJ learned in Vietnam.
The US needs to step back to phase one and decide what we can realistically hope to gain from this war. We need achievable goals that do not rely on wishful thinking and Trump’s whims. Turning back the clock on Iran’s nuclear ambitions is a realistic objective.
And now that it is apparent that this war is not going to be over in a matter of days, Congress needs to get involved before the president decides to unilaterally commit troops. Whether Congress decides to authorize an open-ended deployment to Iran or not, the decision needs to be a national one with an open debate. We do not need to allow the president to get the country into a very long, costly war with no input from the voters or the legislature. Donald Trump is not a king and should not make decisions on war and peace alone.
It is already difficult for Congress to oppose an ongoing war and risk being labeled as defeatists or not supportive of the troops, but our elected representatives need to stand up and do their jobs. If the war is worth fighting, it is worth going on the political record for. If it isn’t, we should start looking for a way to end it.
That is a lot easier than what we are asking of our soldiers.
GOVT GONE WILD Another ICE detainee has died after allegedly being abandoned by her jailers. Daphy Michel, 31, a Haitian immigrant, was reportedly found dead at a Pennsylvania bus terminal four days after her charges were dismissed by a judge and three days after she was apparently released by ICE without notifying her family.
An Afghan immigrant who served with US Special Forces was detained by ICE in Texas. The 41-year-old died the next day.
Separately, testimony by ICE agents in a civil trial indicated that the agency had a quota of eight arrests per day. The agency had previously denied having arrest quotas. The agents used an app to target areas with numerous immigrants, but its data was often wrong.
DOGE DEPOSITIONS Video clips of depositions by former DOGE staffers went viral. The clips showed that DOGE staffers often had no idea what they were cutting, at one point defending removal of a video about Jewish slave labor in the Holocaust as DEI, and did not care who they hurt. They also admitted that their efforts did not reduce the deficit. The judge in the case about restoring grant money ordered that the videos be removed, but they are still widely available across the internet.
THE EPSTEIN FILES have still not been released in the 420 days that Donald Trump has been back in office.
SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS: You can follow us on social media at several different locations. Official Racket News pages include:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NewsRacket
Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/NewsRacket
Threads: https://www.threads.com/@theracketnews
Mastodon: https://bird.makeup/users/newsracket
Our personal accounts on the platform formerly known as Twitter:
David: https://x.com/captainkudzu
Steve: https://x.com/stevengberman
Jay: https://x.com/curmudgeon_NH