Just to comment on #2, as a Jew Khamenei wanted me, my family, my relatives, and any other Jews dead or unacceptably subjugated. This is in addition to the internal human rights violations and killing of Iranians who dared to dissent.
I think this is why across the spectrum, except in the far left and right wing as you mention, politicians are saying something along the lines of “Khamenei was evil and Iran can’t have a nuke but we don’t want a forever war and maybe Trump should consult Congress.” In other words, no objection on a moral basis, just a cost and procedural basis
I think it’s more than procedural, though. Going to Congress demands that the executive branch has actually thought out the reasons for the attack, war, whatever, and has thought out the risk/reward analysis adequately. And because people in Congress will have to live with their votes, there will be some measure of critical thinking (though for sure some will just vote yea or nay without really thinking at all). The morality itself can be complicated, depending on the odds you attach to various possible outcomes.
4) Duration and intensity of media coverage (largely driven by 1-3)
The comparison to Libya deserves more attention. Substantial air strikes and very limited special forces ground operations resulted in regime change. This transformed Libya into a failed state. But the impact on public opinion was negligible. #1, minimal lives lost. #2, no real impact on quality of life. #3, seen as effective in the beginning and then fell out of public awareness, due to #4, not a major story after the initial action.
By contrast, Biden's evacuation from Afghanistan appears to have hurt him due to #s 3 and 4.
If Israel and Trump can compete the campaign in 1-2 months, without major disruptions to the global economy, and without a post-war Iran driving frequent negative news, the impact may be small.
If the war hurts Americans by disrupting the global economy, the war drags on for months, and/or events keep occurring that keep Iran in front page headlines, I suspect Trump will regret this decision.
FWIW, re your opening about whether to use the word "war," here's what the AP said, which sounds right -- they agree with you that's the right word to use:
"The Associated Press will use the word "war" to refer to the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran, and Iran's retaliation. This decision reflects the scope and intensity of the fighting. The Merriam-Webster definition of war is quite broad: "A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations," or "a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism."...
"It is acceptable to use the term "war" to refer to the conflict in all contexts, including in headlines, photo captions and video scripts. Lowercase the word war. AP capitalizes that word only as part of a formal name. The terms "conflict" and "attacks" may also be used to describe the situation. Include specific details of the military action." "
Wikipedia does have it correct. This instance is a war initiated by US-Israel.
I think the American people - leaving the extremes on side aside - understand and support legitimate threats, reasons to attack. 9/11 was a clear case of support when it was focused on Bin Laden & the Taliban in Afghanistan, until it was used as a vehicle to invade Iraq. In this case, if Iran had indeed attacked Americans, America or genuine American interests then this current exercise would garner more support, but with (a) this president, administration that have zero reputation for anything positive and has always been about "follow the money to themselves", (b) Israel-Netanyahu being the primary benefactor with zero changes on their end or of their policies in Palestine, (c) being selective about who and when to support/attack - Venezuela for Oil, less involvement and support for Ukraine to benefit Russia, and (d) this "America First and alone" policy about zero wars etc being the trotted policy - there is little reason to support this war. All this, regardless of how evil the Iranian regime has been, including as recently as January with their own citizens, or how Congress was not allowed to vote, or how the rest of the world is being relied on as a coalition, like initial Afghanistan was.
Isn't Occam's razor here that the administration is skirting calling this a war (even though Trump himself has used the word) so they have plausible deniability when they get called out for bypassing Congress?
Trump's second term is Vance, and if Vance is elected in 2028, expect that the foreign policy precedents that Trump is establishing now will be continued.
One way Trump could be hurt by Iran is it lets Democrats say he’s out of touch. Most people care about affordability and don’t believe he’s focused on it. Starting a war is a great way to amplify that perception.
You might consider adding the Philippines Insurrection to your war chart, and amazingly there were about 4,200 US dead in that conflict (about 75% from disease).
Or it could theoretically be included in the Spanish-American War chart, as it flowed from defeating Spain.
The Saudi’s, UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, and Qua-tar generally prefer stability even while aligning strategically with U.S. positions.
They are quietly rejoicing. They realize that Iran wants to dominate the Middle East. They want Iran destabilized so they lose their nuclear and ballistic capabilities for the foreseeable future. Also, since Iran supplies China with 90% of its oil and Russia with many of its weapons, the war in Ukraine may end sooner. America MAY come out of this with greater world peace than in the last 35 years. Time will be the barometer. This war is about weakening China and Russia. That’s the real reason.
Risk 1 is huge, Inflation declines have primarily been driven by gas price declines.
Exactly.
Added, looking at the oil sourcing as Iran is wrong. It's the Persian Gulf (or Arab Gulf as the Gulf Arabs try to insist)
Straights of Hormuz are closed at this time. Qatar LNG also shut.
The percent of lower-cost oil and LNG production bottled up by Hormuz actions is not trivial.
US combat deaths are not really even a trivial risk, it's knock-ons on direct pricing pressure into inflation.
Of course me as a financier of Renewable energy assets, the hydrocarbons effect here has a sort of guilty pleasure on multiple fronts.
Just to comment on #2, as a Jew Khamenei wanted me, my family, my relatives, and any other Jews dead or unacceptably subjugated. This is in addition to the internal human rights violations and killing of Iranians who dared to dissent.
I think this is why across the spectrum, except in the far left and right wing as you mention, politicians are saying something along the lines of “Khamenei was evil and Iran can’t have a nuke but we don’t want a forever war and maybe Trump should consult Congress.” In other words, no objection on a moral basis, just a cost and procedural basis
I think it’s more than procedural, though. Going to Congress demands that the executive branch has actually thought out the reasons for the attack, war, whatever, and has thought out the risk/reward analysis adequately. And because people in Congress will have to live with their votes, there will be some measure of critical thinking (though for sure some will just vote yea or nay without really thinking at all). The morality itself can be complicated, depending on the odds you attach to various possible outcomes.
I'd evaluate this through four lenses:
1) American lives lost
2) Impact on quality of life across America
3) Perceived government competence
4) Duration and intensity of media coverage (largely driven by 1-3)
The comparison to Libya deserves more attention. Substantial air strikes and very limited special forces ground operations resulted in regime change. This transformed Libya into a failed state. But the impact on public opinion was negligible. #1, minimal lives lost. #2, no real impact on quality of life. #3, seen as effective in the beginning and then fell out of public awareness, due to #4, not a major story after the initial action.
By contrast, Biden's evacuation from Afghanistan appears to have hurt him due to #s 3 and 4.
If Israel and Trump can compete the campaign in 1-2 months, without major disruptions to the global economy, and without a post-war Iran driving frequent negative news, the impact may be small.
If the war hurts Americans by disrupting the global economy, the war drags on for months, and/or events keep occurring that keep Iran in front page headlines, I suspect Trump will regret this decision.
FWIW, re your opening about whether to use the word "war," here's what the AP said, which sounds right -- they agree with you that's the right word to use:
"The Associated Press will use the word "war" to refer to the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran, and Iran's retaliation. This decision reflects the scope and intensity of the fighting. The Merriam-Webster definition of war is quite broad: "A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations," or "a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism."...
"It is acceptable to use the term "war" to refer to the conflict in all contexts, including in headlines, photo captions and video scripts. Lowercase the word war. AP capitalizes that word only as part of a formal name. The terms "conflict" and "attacks" may also be used to describe the situation. Include specific details of the military action." "
Wikipedia does have it correct. This instance is a war initiated by US-Israel.
I think the American people - leaving the extremes on side aside - understand and support legitimate threats, reasons to attack. 9/11 was a clear case of support when it was focused on Bin Laden & the Taliban in Afghanistan, until it was used as a vehicle to invade Iraq. In this case, if Iran had indeed attacked Americans, America or genuine American interests then this current exercise would garner more support, but with (a) this president, administration that have zero reputation for anything positive and has always been about "follow the money to themselves", (b) Israel-Netanyahu being the primary benefactor with zero changes on their end or of their policies in Palestine, (c) being selective about who and when to support/attack - Venezuela for Oil, less involvement and support for Ukraine to benefit Russia, and (d) this "America First and alone" policy about zero wars etc being the trotted policy - there is little reason to support this war. All this, regardless of how evil the Iranian regime has been, including as recently as January with their own citizens, or how Congress was not allowed to vote, or how the rest of the world is being relied on as a coalition, like initial Afghanistan was.
Isn't Occam's razor here that the administration is skirting calling this a war (even though Trump himself has used the word) so they have plausible deniability when they get called out for bypassing Congress?
No need to skirt, there's for better or worse plenty of unchallenged precedent...
Wasn't saying it hasn't been done before. Just that it's what they're doing.
Trump's second term is Vance, and if Vance is elected in 2028, expect that the foreign policy precedents that Trump is establishing now will be continued.
One way Trump could be hurt by Iran is it lets Democrats say he’s out of touch. Most people care about affordability and don’t believe he’s focused on it. Starting a war is a great way to amplify that perception.
Very useful from Dan Drezner. https://danieldrezner.substack.com/p/good-tactics-do-not-add-up-to-a-strategy Good Tactics Do Not Add Up to a Strategy on Iran
You might consider adding the Philippines Insurrection to your war chart, and amazingly there were about 4,200 US dead in that conflict (about 75% from disease).
Or it could theoretically be included in the Spanish-American War chart, as it flowed from defeating Spain.
The Saudi’s, UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, and Qua-tar generally prefer stability even while aligning strategically with U.S. positions.
They are quietly rejoicing. They realize that Iran wants to dominate the Middle East. They want Iran destabilized so they lose their nuclear and ballistic capabilities for the foreseeable future. Also, since Iran supplies China with 90% of its oil and Russia with many of its weapons, the war in Ukraine may end sooner. America MAY come out of this with greater world peace than in the last 35 years. Time will be the barometer. This war is about weakening China and Russia. That’s the real reason.