53 Comments
User's avatar
50 Bravo's avatar

No sale. A country controlled and run by religious fanatics spends the past 20+ years promising to exterminate all the jews it can find as soon as they can build the weapons and the delivery systems consistent with that goal. Said government also says that they will then move on to “the great satan” as soon as they can build the weapons and the delivery systems consistent their desire to achieve that goal. Sorry you have a problem with this outcome but the mullahs did this to themselves. If the Iranians like living under the remains of their theocracy that is their problem they just need to understand they will never be allowed to build nukes. Never.

Expand full comment
Jimm Roberts's avatar

50 Bravo -You make a good point.

I fear, however, the more the Iranians are battered and bruised, the more they will seek to become a nuclear power.

Having nuclear weapons seems to be the equivalent of bug spray. No one dares bother those who have them.

Perhaps clever diplomats might be able to craft some formula that conveys benefits to Iran in exchange for their verifiable commitment not to join the nuclear bomb club.

Giving Iran a factory to produce air conditioners and them subsidize their price so they are virtually free would probably make a hit in that hot and dusty part of the world

Expand full comment
Tlasso's avatar

Jimm, The people want the mullahs gone. They are controlled by the radicals. I feel for them. Plus Saudi, Iraq, Bahrain, UAE, all want Iran not to have nuclear weapons.

Expand full comment
Alex's avatar

What nonsense. There are jews living in Iran, the descendants of the jews Iran rescued in WWII from Nazi-occupied France. There's even a wikipedia on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdol_Hossein_Sardari The jews in Iran have held positions in their Parliament. What Iran hates, and wants to exterminate is political zionism. They are not alone in that.

Expand full comment
Joey Genochio's avatar

All of that would be fair to justify a preemptive strike on Iran. I’m okay with the strike as an easy opportunity to damage their nuclear capability after Israel had done the seemingly easy work of taking out all of Iran’s air defenses in a couple strikes. Whatever Iran’s strength was, seems to be pitiful now. How is it that for decades the threat of a nuke was always right around the corner, just a week or a month away? Do we believe our intelligence community in 2025 when they say there was no immediate threat of Iran developing a deliverable nuclear weapon? Is that relevant, or has Iran’s clearly stated evil intentions across the decades warrant the recent attacks and any future attacks? Perhaps. But there’s a right way and wrong way to go about these chess moves and this one was touted as a checkmate when really we just took a pawn.

Expand full comment
50 Bravo's avatar

I’ve worked with situations poorly described by the gods of intelligence in DC. If you can’t say with certainty WHEN they’ll have deliverable nukes to fit on their ballistic missiles then you don’t play the game. No adult thinks they won’t use those devices given the opportunity. Trump did what my instructors at Benning would have suggested. “Don’t pull it unless you’re ready to use it and IF you pull it…use it.

Expand full comment
Joey Genochio's avatar

That opens the door to a preemptive attack on North Korea too but that’s another issue. I’m fine with the strike. Just think it’s far too soon to call it a win of any kind. If it turns out we actually achieved something beyond the intel communities initial assessment of only setting them back a couple months, then Trump and others can celebrate. But for now it seems like we got involved in another act of war with no indication that this did anything more than slightly hinder and motivate an enemy bent on destruction.

We should continue to help Israel with regard to Iran.

It seems Israel was far more effective, creative, and justified in their own defense here. Wiping out Iran’s terror groups, its leaders, its air defenses, striking its facilities. If Iran were to develop a nuke, Israel would be the first target. Statistically it seems any ballistic missile carrying the warhead would be unlikely to reach its target through Israeli and US air defenses in the region, and Iran likely wouldn’t have many to launch. The first indication of an actual nuke would then bring hellfire on them. Feels like we haven’t reached true desperation here, yet. Not trying to argue, just enjoy discussing. Cheers!

Expand full comment
50 Bravo's avatar

IMO the NORK government is a threat only to the poor should that live there. Darling leader has a demonstrated preference for hot cars and fast women. All that fun stops when the dance starts.

In the case of Israel the threat level is significantly different. The old farts running Iran are doing "gods" work doncha know and apparently would be happy to be incinerated if they got Tel Aviv first. Israel isn't large enough to absorb that punishment and still function. Iran is. Were it up to me I'd prefer to be bit early than a bit late.

As far as the competence of the IDF they are doing what they do best but they apparently couldn't deal with the deep site.

Expand full comment
Tlasso's avatar

I agree with you but I am concerned because I keep reading that we have them a heads up which gave them time move the 900 pounds of enriched uranium. I sure hope not but how do you figure why the Iranians gave us a heads up before their retaliation??

Expand full comment
Kenny Ellison's avatar

Only time will tell how what we did to Iran just a few days ago will pan out. You may be right Joel, but you also could be wrong. How about we wait a little before we start sounding like Bill Bonner.

Expand full comment
Alex's avatar

Joel, I commend you for sounding like Bill Bonner. Great article. More, please.

Expand full comment
Kevin Beck's avatar

But ... but ... It's a boost to GDP (I say with total sarcastic humor).

The value of the bombs "exported" to Iran will boost our GDP for the quarter by about $45 million. The "delivery costs" for those B-2 bombers to fly overseas will boost our GDP by a few million for the cost of the fuel and the salaries of those bomber pilots. Same with the refueling planes. And the cost of those Tomahawks will also go into the "Exports" column on the income statement.

Just ask Paul Krugman. Even he will understand.

Expand full comment
Beth Fitzpatrick's avatar

Quite frankly, I'm shocked at your take on this. "Death to America" chants on an almost daily basis does not sit well nor harbor feelings of well being with Americans. We have had many attacks against us from these fanatics over the years. Whether Iran was one week, one month or one year away from producing a nuclear weapon is irrelevant. The timing was right, the execution of the mission was flawless, and the fortitude of a President to protect his people should be applauded. We finally have someone at the helm who can actually make decisions and is willing to do so.

Expand full comment
Sluggo's avatar

Concur Beth. After four+ decades of “Death to America”, the mullahs finally ran into a president that figures that chant might be very close to being more than a rallying cry, that they just might be serious.

Expand full comment
Jimm Roberts's avatar

Joel, Defense contractors do not start wars nor tell our military services what items they should have; they simply build what the war fighter's demand whether in peacetime or in wartime.

Also, the lobbying these contractors engage in is not nefarious or illicit.

Fundamentally, it's explaining to their Congressional representatives what the war fighters have asked them to produce and at what cost

The larger the contractor's presence (e. g., employees) in the Congressman's district, the more attentive the Congressman will be to the contractor's explanations.

Expand full comment
Tlasso's avatar

Jimm, respectfully again I have to disagree with part of what you said. The defense contractors lobby Congress trying to sell what they make whether the military wants it or not. Being retired Army I have seen the problems that caused. As in I need a tank but congress wants to buy a glorified hummer. Because of jobs as you said. Combo of lobbyists and Congress who are sometimes nefarious. Just my opinion.

Expand full comment
Jimm Roberts's avatar

T - I recognize your experience and won’t quibble with your opinion.

Mine is dated; it’s from a different era but underscores that corporate lobbying makes a difference

For example, in my day, we persuaded Congress to buy more C-130’s than the Air Force requested.

Result: Everyone was happy.

The USAF got more airplanes than they had funds appropriated; Lockheed was happy — they got to make and sell more Herks — and the Congressman instrumental in securing the supplemental appropriation had his election fundraiser well attended

Expand full comment
Tlasso's avatar

Except we might not have needed them and added debt that we didn’t need. But your example is exactly what I see as wrong, buying something not asked for or needed.

Expand full comment
Jimm Roberts's avatar

T - In the example I cited, it was an Air Force "ask" that became our task.

As a supplemental appropriation, however, the additional C-130's did increase the final sum appropriated for Defense.

Expand full comment
Tlasso's avatar

Jimm, Were you a comptroller or resource management officer?

Expand full comment
Jimm Roberts's avatar

I was the L-1011 rep in WDC. My boss was the VP for Legislative Affairs.

Expand full comment
Michael Buhmiller's avatar

Excellent point yet it turns out we bought many of the fantastic ever present consistently needed and used Hercules C-130 at what could have been a good price due to someone's forward thinking or pushiness...

Expand full comment
Tlasso's avatar

True but if they took on debt to do that 50 years ago think of how that compounded! And maybe the government didn’t borrow money back then and then it was not a big deal.

Expand full comment
John Bootsma's avatar

Way to go Joel. I have never seen so many posts that disagreed with you. But I love you all the same. 😊

Expand full comment
DOLEV REUVEN GILMORE's avatar

Sure, let's let the most evil regime in the world have nuclear bombs that can kill millions of infidels per shot, just because they haven't yet developed missiles that can reach the USA.

Expand full comment
Ted Bohrer's avatar

Joel, 50 Bravo said it as plain as possible. Years ago, Trump didn't, and still doesn't, want a war. The previous two Democrat administrations had 12 years to negotiate the Iranians out of their nuke plans. They could have used other means. But no. When we got literally down to the wire, we were forced to take action. Sadly, per Trump and others, there was no option left. When the other side won't talk, what's left? Why is that so hard to understand?

Expand full comment
Mark1's avatar

If all it costs is a few hundred million to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program, it’s a bargain in the long run.

Expand full comment
Robert C Culwell's avatar

Thank Joel

Free minds, free markets.

Lord, have mercy.....

Expand full comment
Dave Wilson's avatar

You constantly amaze me with your perceptions and your ability to express them. Excellent! For me, War! What is it good for? Absolutely noth’in!

Expand full comment
Michael Buhmiller's avatar

was that country joe and the fish... War what is it good for?

Expand full comment
Robert John Chaney's avatar

Good work...if only the public would wake up!

Expand full comment
Buenos Aires Portal's avatar

Judging by these comments, the propaganda is much stronger than I thought!

Expand full comment
Doug Hornig's avatar

Spot on. Fifty years ago, George McGovern addressed his Senate colleagues in a way that would be unthinkable today. "This chamber reeks of blood," he said. Still does....

Expand full comment
Alex's avatar

The best anti-war movie ever is Starship Troopers. I am reminded of the scene where (spoiler alert) we travel to the other side of the galaxy to bomb the bug planet. No one is sure who started bombing first... The movie is like a history of the US since WWI. Brilliant filmmaker, Paul Verhoeven.

Expand full comment
Clem Devine's avatar

Well Joel, I think is is brilliant that the leverage Iran had is gone, and most of the World seems to agree. I pity the ordinary Iranians living under the religious fanatics especially the women.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/15gtVPbhLc/

Expand full comment