Even if they back down today, will this will encourage or discourage the Iranians from building their own bomb? I suspect that they'll try harder than ever to build their "pillar of fire" and if that doesn't work, they'll buy one from North Korea and park it in a van near the White House
Of course it will. When it was the Iranian regime fighting off domestic protestors, and we were just geopolitical cheerleaders for the populace, that was a civil conflict. Now we're the aggressors and invaders. Our attacks will do nothing but solidify the absolute necessity for nukes in the minds of whatever faction ends up leading Iran.
I mean, put the shoe on the other foot: Trump is very unpopular, growing more unpopular every day. If Russia or China invaded out of nowhere, would that encourage you to depose the redhats or would you temporarily set that aside to repel a foreign aggressor? Lets say you get to have your cake & eat it too: You both repel the invaders and depose your domestic opponents. If those invaders had attacked to, ostensibly, stop you from creating a weapon you were accused of making, would you decide that the weapon was unnecessary or that your adversaries feared it so much it was now required for your security?
Even in this piece, Nate manages to flaunt his caricaturized view of the left by suggesting that respect for our military is incompatible with liberal views. It is an unwillingness to sacrifice resources and lives recklessly; to ignore international norms and treaties; or to overspend on defense at the expense of fiscal discipline and/or investing in programs with higher marginal value that typifies modern liberalism. Maybe it's a throwaway comment, but it betrays the increasingly reductive, contemptuous view of "the Left" that renders much of Nate's work so seemingly out of touch with actual progressive views.
Eh, get off your soapbox. Plenty of “braver than our troops” memes mostly in progressive circles. Nate went a little too red pill in his initial quasi-optimism of Trump 2.0 (and obsession with “The River”) but has appropriately swung back since Liberation Day. A true honest broker in polarized times
And Trump's response by calling CNN a liar for printing what the Iranians stated publicly,
This was not a win for the current administration.
If anything, it sounds like this was a quasi victory for China/Iran, as it appears that Iran is seeking and may have gotten security assurances from China if they were willing to talk. Thus, Iran asking for the deal they had under Obama with additional 'hardship' bennies.
The question is, what will Trump do with a not-victory at this point. Will he accept it, spin it? Or will he reject it and escalate in 2 weeks? Or will he try to 'cancel' the cease fire early?
A 3% chance of nuclear Armageddon is bad enough. It's worse when it's a addict doubling down at the wheel, asking for another spin.
“But you don’t need to be some sort of game theory maven to appreciate that the small chance of a catastrophic outcome can outweigh the overwhelmingly likely but less than 100 percent chance of a trivial gain.”
Reminds me almost precisely of Black Swan author Nassim Taleb’s image of people picking up loose change from in front of a steam roller.
I agree completely. Any use of nuclear weapons is very (but not infinitely) bad outcome. The concerning aspect of this situation is that Trump likely greatly underestimates the negative consequences of a nuclear strike. Indeed, he’s talked somewhat eagerly of using nukes in the past.
I largely agree with this post, but it contains one fatal error, "And maybe if Trump had ordered a nuclear attack — or even something short of that — people in the chain of command would have regarded it as an unlawful order, refused to carry it out, and we’d be in some sort of constitutional crisis." This is a common false-security belief.
The US President has unilateral authority to launch nuclear weapons anywhere, anytime, for any reason. There is no review process, no reason required, no veto. The military runs realistic drills to ensure the people physically pushing the buttons will push them, even if there is no known threat or reason. The "abort" switch to cancel launches was deliberately removed (there remains a short-term abort for a very brief period, meant for botched launches, but not a practical path for correcting mistakes). There is no "unlawful order" protection, the President's order is lawful by definition, even if it's issued by a vindictive, reckless, bully out of pique or a mental incompetent out of confusion. The people carrying out the order are typically junior officers--first lieutenants or captains in the army or air-force, or lieutenant j.g. in the navy stationed far from Washington, not experienced staff officers likely to appreciate the entire international situation and possibly willing to violate military law and defy a President.
This is, of course, a relic of literal Dr. Strangelove Cold War insanity.
As a libertarian, I used to ask people, "Would you want the President to have this power if your worst enemy were President." Most people laugh off the question, but I got optimistic when half the population's worst enemy, Donald Trump, got elected; followed by a mental incompetent who should have been everyone's worst nightmare to hold the nuclear button. I thought people would finally wake up and put sensible limits around arbitrary executive power.
Instead the response has been entirely partisan. Most people I know want to crimp the power of Presidents they don't like, but only by increasing power of Presidents or other institutions they do like. Democrats talked seriously of packing the Supreme Court, removing judicial checks and balances. Trump has jettisoned many conventional safeguards like requiring judicial warrants for entering private homes, or due process before murdering suspected drug smugglers. The fight is not about how much arbitrary power the government should have, but which party will control that arbitrary power.
In 1789 congress passed a statute setting the number of justices on the Supreme Court at 6. That number was changed several times in the 19th century, and in 1869 it was set at 9, where it has remained. Why do you believe judicial checks and balances survived all these prior changes, but would not survive one more change?
Before you ask "why," ask "whether." I do not believe that packing the Supreme Court would destroy judicial checks and balances.
What I do believe is the motivation for packing is to make the government more powerful and arbitrary. The point of packing is not to increase the number of justices, but to stack the court with political partisans. No one is suggesting increasing the number of justices and filling the new slots by bipartisan commission, or selecting the replacements according to judicial expertise and Constitutional fidelity. It's entirely about stuffing the Supreme Court ballot box with judges pledged to rule according to progressive political positions rather than the law.
If one party can pack, the other party can repack. What is legal versus illegal can change every four years. Without predictable and stable rule of law, government power is everything, individual choice is nothing.
I think sensible people should look at reckless, bullying, vindictive, lying, corrupt Donald Trump; and doddering, confused, lying, lightweight, corrupt Joe Biden, and decide we need to limit arbitrary executive power to the minimum necessary. That seems to me a much better plan than hoping all future presidents are wise, benevolent, careful, honest and fair.
Equating Trump and Biden is beyond preposterous. Biden was a pretty normal president who adhered to norms and followed the law. Other than the pardons, IDK how he was corrupt.
(The reason I posted at all is because you said packing the court would have ended checks and balances)
Sorry, my phrasing was unclear. Packing the court and removing judicial checks and balances were two separate goals, not one.
Trump and Biden are only equal in that neither one should have his finger on the nuclear button. I think nobody should, but if someone has to have it, I prefer Obama, or Mr. Rogers if he were still alive.
Assuming for the sake of argument the founders intended for a unitary executive theory interpretation of Article II, it was formulated in an era of muskets, horses, and wooden ships. Even a rash, unilateral gunboat siege by a demented president would not have existential consequences for the world at that time. During the early stages of the First Barbery War, Jefferson posited his war powers were very limited, stating that he could not "without the sanction of Congress, [to] go beyond the line of defense". Congress approved Jefferson taking offensive action the following year.
It can be argued that it is suboptimal or dangerous to second guess a President's Article II authorities when trying to repel an imminent invasion of US soil by a hostile foreign nation. However, in the modern era, as McNamara intuited during his tenure as SecDef, "They'll be no learning period with nuclear weapons. Make one mistake and you're going to destroy nations." Allowing one person to have this much power is a huge failure mode.
I like the idea of amending the constitution to create some kind of review process. Just thinking aloud: perhaps each state could choose a rotating group of 3 judges to live in a bunker waiting to review a presidential order on a moment's notice. There are dozens of different ways this be could structured as long as it enforces multilateralism and independence from the president.
We don't need a Constitutional amendment, Congress could just take back the powers it granted the President. And I don't think we need anything as Cold-Warish as a 24/7 bunker of judges. Just run all military decisions through the normal chain of command and declare that using nuclear weapons inappropriately is an unlawful order, rather than something defined as lawful.
On top of that, I'd get rid of all weapons of mass destructions or, if that is impossible, put rational safeguards around them so they cannot be unleashed foolishing, in error, by accident or by malice.
You raise a good point that a constitutional amendment is a heavy lift and Congress could do a great deal to restore their powers without any changes. However, the courts tend to regard foreign affairs and military conflict as non-justiciable in courts. I don't see how you can enforce statutory constraints on officers in the chain of command in real-time. It took a year for IEEPA tariffs to be overturned after hundreds of billions were already collected.
This is an excellent blog (https://fivepoints.mattglassman.net/p/the-court-ieepa-and-the-legislative) that I read a few months back about the need to restore the legislative veto of delegated powers. Congress made conditional delegations of Article I powers with a mechanism to override exercises of their powers by simple majority. SCOTUS struck down the legislative veto in the early 1980s saying a resolution (not a law because it lacks POTUS's signature) that cancels an executive action violates the presentment clause. The delegation part was left intact. Now, Congress usually needs a 2/3rds majority in both houses to override executive exercises of its Article I powers. War Powers Act has a 60-day sunset provision as do a number of other tariff statutes, but many other statutes do not.
If we wanted to restore Congress's powers, we would need to elect a president who would be willing to repeal unconditional delegations of Article I powers. Most presidents would veto such legislation to maintain their optionality.
Well a Constitutional amendment is a stronger barrier, but as you say, a heavier lift to accomplish. I tend to think the Constitution is pretty good as written, we just need a Congress that can live up to it. It's vain to hope for Presidents who will not take power handed to them by Congress and the Courts--but we could elect a Congress jealous of its Constitutional powers that only consents to judges who take the Constitution seriously.
Chilling and well written and analyzed. In the end, it's clear that we are at the mercy of a mentally unstable man in charge of the most powerful military in the world, waging war with a group of desperate religious zealots with their backs against the wall and little to lose
I do agree that this whole episode is disastrous and once again threatens to lower the threshold for nuclear weapons which is literally as dangerous as gets. However, I do wonder sometimes if the President says absurd things just to get attention. Quite literally I think it was a publicity stunt. He cannot stand when the conversation moves off of him. So he says something so ridiculous and insane that it brings the conversation right back to him. He has no legit plans to follow through just bringing the conversation back to him somehow. The more people talk about him and the more he feels he "owns the libs" the better his day is.
And we, the collective we, all for it every. Singe. Time. And the sad part is we have to fall for it because it literally affects the entire world when the President says something. Its a vicious, ugly cycle but it happens day after day after day with no end in sight.
My impression had been that his “a civilization ends tonight” threat was an over-the-top exaggeration of the likely impact (albeit still catastrophic for the people of Iran) that the previously threatened bombing of power-plants, bridges, and other civilian infrastructure would have. But am I 100% certain he meant that and not nukes? No, I am not. And as Nate discussed, any % chance that a nuclear strike is what he meant to imply is absolutely unacceptable.
I’m not sure what exactly you mean by the phrase “have pursued the bomb”. However, there is no credible evidence that Iran has planned or attempted to build nuclear weapons. Although it has never provided a credible explanation for its need of enriched uranium, either.
Nate, please define success criteria for the next ultimatum. For example:
1. IRAN BACKS DOWN: Oil ships can safely travel the Strait of Hormuz.
2. TRUMP BACKS DOWN: #1 false and USA takes no military action.
3. THREAT CARRIED OUT: USA bombs infrastructure or military targets.
Without objective success criteria, there's just partisans talking about tacos or the art of the deal.
I interpreted "a whole civilization will die tonight" as "comply or your 47-year regime is going to be even less capable and comfortable." You should do better than to amplify the people saying it means "3% chance we nuke 90 million people!"
Also, it was funny when you said that Pete Hegseth is erratic (link to 2024 hit piece where unnamed sources says he drinks) and unqualified (but is somehow capable of grabbing Maduro and doing the Easter Air Force rescue.)
There’s a difference between our military being qualified to conduct complex and secretive operations and the qualifications of the Secretary of Defense in leading portions of top military brass. Hegseth did not plan these complex military operations. The generals he just fired did.
I think looking at a different example, such as the withdrawal (withdraw?) from Afghanistan, we can see that there is likely a difference attributable to civilian leadership.
Personally, I don't think Hegseth is a good pick or even an acceptable pick for reasons I don't want to bother with here. However, it's really hard to attribute the difference in apparent military readiness and demonstrated capability between the Biden and Trump 2.0 administrations to coincidence.
Remember when he summoned all the generals and admirals for an in person meeting at a public location? If he needed an all hands on deck he could do a conference call. Instead he wanted a power move, waste taxpayers money flying them in, and put the chain of command in risk. That was his direct action. That was his incompetence. Federal government is a giant bureaucratic machine. That means the success of an event is a result of a team effort, which hardly has anything to do with the guy on the very top. A lot of federal agencies have been leader-less and bleeding dry since inauguration. Do you see much difference from outside?
I think the analysis on nuclear weapons and the threat thereof is pretty good. We've been in Trumpland for awhile now, not sure why the immediate response of those left of center is to assume he was discussing nukes. First, Trump usually says whatever dumb idea he thinks, and he didn't mention nukes. Second, he's been repeating the "bomb them into oblivion" take for a month about Hormuz, and it never seemed to go beyond a conventional threat.
With this kind of thing, my sense is that we need to be as aware of assumptions in rhetoric as Mr. Silver is in statistical and number based analysis. Here's what I mean by that. If you assume that Nate is super careful in how he speaks about complicated matters, because he cares about the accuracy and repeatability of his process... that would fit. His entire gig is doing really complicated analysis and then not misreading or misrepresenting what the numbers show. If you applied that mindset to the tweets / events of Iran the last couple of days - this is a ridiculous and dangerous game that over the long haul is a loser. But DJT is coming from the mindset and assumption of a deal maker. The back and forth of a deal maker isn't always about sensitivity to accuracy, it is about starting somewhere you never intend to finish at, a weirdly oppositional way of speaking. The most successful deal makers will intentionally say things that are not reasonable while aiming at reasonable and sane in an iterative process, maybe even a win-win if you will.
The public statements of this administration often make me recoil too. And I'm not super interested in defending this kind of rhetoric, but my questions would be something like this: 1) Do you really think Iran is in the room with World Class Poker Players? In the sense of, are they likely to play "correctly" given what we've seen the last 40 years? 2) What is the alternative? To give Iran a reasonable and rational cease fire agreement as your opening offer? Does that work, ever, with this kind of regime? Should we ignore that it worked really well this time (at least so far)? Has DJT ever nuked anyone? Does he seem interested in murdering millions of innocent civilians to stick it to Iran? The chance of actually lauching nukes was zero, stop it with the 3% rationalization.
My point isn't that bluffing (however obliquely) with nuclear weapons is a good idea. Of course not. But from the assumptive set of deal making with very bad actors, with a strong internal cadre of "never back down to the Great Satan," this approach isn't incoherent. You could read this as playing chicken with nuclear bombs, or you could read this as pretty standard saber rattling to a bully that doesn't seem to understand anything else.
It is not really the case (other than on TV, I guess) that the best deal makers start with unreasonable positions. In fact, based on my experiences negotiating deals among some of the largest companies in the world, real deals seldom come together in that fashion. Often some of the best negotiators will expose their final position and anchor there while negotiating secondary or tertiary issues. It depends a lot on the nature of the relationships, the relative bargaining positions, availability of other options, etc.
But, the idea that the best way to negotiate a car purchase, for example, is to offer far less than the dealer will accept is silly and a waste of time (and if it's a private seller they might just be annoyed and tell you to go away, in which case you might end up paying more if you really want that car -- that is actually more analogous to the Trump/Iran situation, IMO). If you do a little research, you can figure out the minimum the dealer will accept for the car, offer that, and stick to that offer. But that requires preparation, facts, etc. Not shooting from the hip.
I'm basing that statement on watching firsthand a fair number of high level deals made in a Fortune 50 company. That being said, I would tend to agree with you if the other party is high level and operating in good faith. In that case, it would often go as you described. When our company was being attacked, it got much more aggressive. Have you really seen good negotiators expose their final position when they are dealing with someone acting in bad faith and seeking to harm you and your company?
I can't say I have ever been in a negotiation where the other party would say they are seeking to harm my company (even if we thought what they were doing was harming us). That said, we are talking about Trump's negotiation tactics, and it's Iran who is being attacked and the United States that is seeking to harm them.
I think where the comparison breaks down, though, is that ultimately the lead "negotiator" for the United States does not have incentives that are aligned with his employer (certainly this can happen sometimes in corporate negotiations, but **typically** incentive structures for executives are aligned to company/division performance and large important agreements obviously contribute to that performance). Broader concerns about the employer that would typically constrain the things a negotiator will do/threaten are not present here because the fate of the average American and America's position in the global community do not matter to DJT, and he's a lame duck president. He's arguably more incentivized to please a variety foreign leaders in case he needs protection from prosecution once he's out of office.
This is exactly my take. One has to read the room and temperament of who you are negotiating with. The Iranian regime's starting bid was demanding end to all sanctions and reparations from "The Great Satan" which is an equally preposterous place to start. They set the tone for how negotiation would proceed. They knew they would not get their opening offer and likewise Trump, speaking to them in a language they could relate to made unrealistic, bombastic remarks. Any mention of nukes is merely inference or interpolation. Bottom line: Trump got a ceasefire out of the deal.....and he didn't have to give the regime a plane load of money to get it.
Great argument. But does it need nukes? Wouldn't destruction of Iran's infrastructure and economy, and their inevitable retaliation against the Gulf countries and others, have been a disaster for Trump and the US?
Nate, I love your work, especially on things like political projections and sports events. But, if you heard "nuclear annihilation" of 90 million people somewhere in Trump's threat, your ears must be hearing much different words that mine are. As a former Air Force officer, what I heard was, "We will bomb every bridge and bomb every power plant and the Iranian civilization will be returned to the Stone Age for a very long time. Five thousand years of civilization goes 'poof.'" As horrible as that would be, he certainly wasn't threatening the use of a nuke. Odds of that was zero, not 3% or any percent.
Yes, that interpretation is certainly possible, and frankly better than the alternative. However, I believe the statements were intentionally vague, to create uncertainty and preserve options. That the intent to convey nuclear options were in play seems confirmed by the sudden appearance of stories in the last few days about the allegedly unusual flights of the doomsday plane.
Even if they back down today, will this will encourage or discourage the Iranians from building their own bomb? I suspect that they'll try harder than ever to build their "pillar of fire" and if that doesn't work, they'll buy one from North Korea and park it in a van near the White House
Of course it will. When it was the Iranian regime fighting off domestic protestors, and we were just geopolitical cheerleaders for the populace, that was a civil conflict. Now we're the aggressors and invaders. Our attacks will do nothing but solidify the absolute necessity for nukes in the minds of whatever faction ends up leading Iran.
I mean, put the shoe on the other foot: Trump is very unpopular, growing more unpopular every day. If Russia or China invaded out of nowhere, would that encourage you to depose the redhats or would you temporarily set that aside to repel a foreign aggressor? Lets say you get to have your cake & eat it too: You both repel the invaders and depose your domestic opponents. If those invaders had attacked to, ostensibly, stop you from creating a weapon you were accused of making, would you decide that the weapon was unnecessary or that your adversaries feared it so much it was now required for your security?
Even in this piece, Nate manages to flaunt his caricaturized view of the left by suggesting that respect for our military is incompatible with liberal views. It is an unwillingness to sacrifice resources and lives recklessly; to ignore international norms and treaties; or to overspend on defense at the expense of fiscal discipline and/or investing in programs with higher marginal value that typifies modern liberalism. Maybe it's a throwaway comment, but it betrays the increasingly reductive, contemptuous view of "the Left" that renders much of Nate's work so seemingly out of touch with actual progressive views.
Eh, get off your soapbox. Plenty of “braver than our troops” memes mostly in progressive circles. Nate went a little too red pill in his initial quasi-optimism of Trump 2.0 (and obsession with “The River”) but has appropriately swung back since Liberation Day. A true honest broker in polarized times
Based on the list of points Iran put forward,
And Trump's response by calling CNN a liar for printing what the Iranians stated publicly,
This was not a win for the current administration.
If anything, it sounds like this was a quasi victory for China/Iran, as it appears that Iran is seeking and may have gotten security assurances from China if they were willing to talk. Thus, Iran asking for the deal they had under Obama with additional 'hardship' bennies.
The question is, what will Trump do with a not-victory at this point. Will he accept it, spin it? Or will he reject it and escalate in 2 weeks? Or will he try to 'cancel' the cease fire early?
A 3% chance of nuclear Armageddon is bad enough. It's worse when it's a addict doubling down at the wheel, asking for another spin.
Come on, "bennies?"
Benny in the world of game theory and gaming is short for 'Benefit'.
That is the definition in use, not the colloquialism of the streets, meaning drugs.
I refuse to try and play linguistic hop scotch because 'someone' will be offended over a term, especially when the meaning is clear.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bennie
Fair enough, but it still sounds stupid.
“But you don’t need to be some sort of game theory maven to appreciate that the small chance of a catastrophic outcome can outweigh the overwhelmingly likely but less than 100 percent chance of a trivial gain.”
Reminds me almost precisely of Black Swan author Nassim Taleb’s image of people picking up loose change from in front of a steam roller.
I think you nailed it. And I have a PhD in American Politics and (second) International Relations. 100%
I agree completely. Any use of nuclear weapons is very (but not infinitely) bad outcome. The concerning aspect of this situation is that Trump likely greatly underestimates the negative consequences of a nuclear strike. Indeed, he’s talked somewhat eagerly of using nukes in the past.
I largely agree with this post, but it contains one fatal error, "And maybe if Trump had ordered a nuclear attack — or even something short of that — people in the chain of command would have regarded it as an unlawful order, refused to carry it out, and we’d be in some sort of constitutional crisis." This is a common false-security belief.
The US President has unilateral authority to launch nuclear weapons anywhere, anytime, for any reason. There is no review process, no reason required, no veto. The military runs realistic drills to ensure the people physically pushing the buttons will push them, even if there is no known threat or reason. The "abort" switch to cancel launches was deliberately removed (there remains a short-term abort for a very brief period, meant for botched launches, but not a practical path for correcting mistakes). There is no "unlawful order" protection, the President's order is lawful by definition, even if it's issued by a vindictive, reckless, bully out of pique or a mental incompetent out of confusion. The people carrying out the order are typically junior officers--first lieutenants or captains in the army or air-force, or lieutenant j.g. in the navy stationed far from Washington, not experienced staff officers likely to appreciate the entire international situation and possibly willing to violate military law and defy a President.
This is, of course, a relic of literal Dr. Strangelove Cold War insanity.
As a libertarian, I used to ask people, "Would you want the President to have this power if your worst enemy were President." Most people laugh off the question, but I got optimistic when half the population's worst enemy, Donald Trump, got elected; followed by a mental incompetent who should have been everyone's worst nightmare to hold the nuclear button. I thought people would finally wake up and put sensible limits around arbitrary executive power.
Instead the response has been entirely partisan. Most people I know want to crimp the power of Presidents they don't like, but only by increasing power of Presidents or other institutions they do like. Democrats talked seriously of packing the Supreme Court, removing judicial checks and balances. Trump has jettisoned many conventional safeguards like requiring judicial warrants for entering private homes, or due process before murdering suspected drug smugglers. The fight is not about how much arbitrary power the government should have, but which party will control that arbitrary power.
In 1789 congress passed a statute setting the number of justices on the Supreme Court at 6. That number was changed several times in the 19th century, and in 1869 it was set at 9, where it has remained. Why do you believe judicial checks and balances survived all these prior changes, but would not survive one more change?
Before you ask "why," ask "whether." I do not believe that packing the Supreme Court would destroy judicial checks and balances.
What I do believe is the motivation for packing is to make the government more powerful and arbitrary. The point of packing is not to increase the number of justices, but to stack the court with political partisans. No one is suggesting increasing the number of justices and filling the new slots by bipartisan commission, or selecting the replacements according to judicial expertise and Constitutional fidelity. It's entirely about stuffing the Supreme Court ballot box with judges pledged to rule according to progressive political positions rather than the law.
If one party can pack, the other party can repack. What is legal versus illegal can change every four years. Without predictable and stable rule of law, government power is everything, individual choice is nothing.
I think sensible people should look at reckless, bullying, vindictive, lying, corrupt Donald Trump; and doddering, confused, lying, lightweight, corrupt Joe Biden, and decide we need to limit arbitrary executive power to the minimum necessary. That seems to me a much better plan than hoping all future presidents are wise, benevolent, careful, honest and fair.
Equating Trump and Biden is beyond preposterous. Biden was a pretty normal president who adhered to norms and followed the law. Other than the pardons, IDK how he was corrupt.
(The reason I posted at all is because you said packing the court would have ended checks and balances)
Sorry, my phrasing was unclear. Packing the court and removing judicial checks and balances were two separate goals, not one.
Trump and Biden are only equal in that neither one should have his finger on the nuclear button. I think nobody should, but if someone has to have it, I prefer Obama, or Mr. Rogers if he were still alive.
Assuming for the sake of argument the founders intended for a unitary executive theory interpretation of Article II, it was formulated in an era of muskets, horses, and wooden ships. Even a rash, unilateral gunboat siege by a demented president would not have existential consequences for the world at that time. During the early stages of the First Barbery War, Jefferson posited his war powers were very limited, stating that he could not "without the sanction of Congress, [to] go beyond the line of defense". Congress approved Jefferson taking offensive action the following year.
It can be argued that it is suboptimal or dangerous to second guess a President's Article II authorities when trying to repel an imminent invasion of US soil by a hostile foreign nation. However, in the modern era, as McNamara intuited during his tenure as SecDef, "They'll be no learning period with nuclear weapons. Make one mistake and you're going to destroy nations." Allowing one person to have this much power is a huge failure mode.
I like the idea of amending the constitution to create some kind of review process. Just thinking aloud: perhaps each state could choose a rotating group of 3 judges to live in a bunker waiting to review a presidential order on a moment's notice. There are dozens of different ways this be could structured as long as it enforces multilateralism and independence from the president.
We don't need a Constitutional amendment, Congress could just take back the powers it granted the President. And I don't think we need anything as Cold-Warish as a 24/7 bunker of judges. Just run all military decisions through the normal chain of command and declare that using nuclear weapons inappropriately is an unlawful order, rather than something defined as lawful.
On top of that, I'd get rid of all weapons of mass destructions or, if that is impossible, put rational safeguards around them so they cannot be unleashed foolishing, in error, by accident or by malice.
You raise a good point that a constitutional amendment is a heavy lift and Congress could do a great deal to restore their powers without any changes. However, the courts tend to regard foreign affairs and military conflict as non-justiciable in courts. I don't see how you can enforce statutory constraints on officers in the chain of command in real-time. It took a year for IEEPA tariffs to be overturned after hundreds of billions were already collected.
This is an excellent blog (https://fivepoints.mattglassman.net/p/the-court-ieepa-and-the-legislative) that I read a few months back about the need to restore the legislative veto of delegated powers. Congress made conditional delegations of Article I powers with a mechanism to override exercises of their powers by simple majority. SCOTUS struck down the legislative veto in the early 1980s saying a resolution (not a law because it lacks POTUS's signature) that cancels an executive action violates the presentment clause. The delegation part was left intact. Now, Congress usually needs a 2/3rds majority in both houses to override executive exercises of its Article I powers. War Powers Act has a 60-day sunset provision as do a number of other tariff statutes, but many other statutes do not.
If we wanted to restore Congress's powers, we would need to elect a president who would be willing to repeal unconditional delegations of Article I powers. Most presidents would veto such legislation to maintain their optionality.
My two cents. :)
Well a Constitutional amendment is a stronger barrier, but as you say, a heavier lift to accomplish. I tend to think the Constitution is pretty good as written, we just need a Congress that can live up to it. It's vain to hope for Presidents who will not take power handed to them by Congress and the Courts--but we could elect a Congress jealous of its Constitutional powers that only consents to judges who take the Constitution seriously.
Chilling and well written and analyzed. In the end, it's clear that we are at the mercy of a mentally unstable man in charge of the most powerful military in the world, waging war with a group of desperate religious zealots with their backs against the wall and little to lose
I do agree that this whole episode is disastrous and once again threatens to lower the threshold for nuclear weapons which is literally as dangerous as gets. However, I do wonder sometimes if the President says absurd things just to get attention. Quite literally I think it was a publicity stunt. He cannot stand when the conversation moves off of him. So he says something so ridiculous and insane that it brings the conversation right back to him. He has no legit plans to follow through just bringing the conversation back to him somehow. The more people talk about him and the more he feels he "owns the libs" the better his day is.
And we, the collective we, all for it every. Singe. Time. And the sad part is we have to fall for it because it literally affects the entire world when the President says something. Its a vicious, ugly cycle but it happens day after day after day with no end in sight.
My impression had been that his “a civilization ends tonight” threat was an over-the-top exaggeration of the likely impact (albeit still catastrophic for the people of Iran) that the previously threatened bombing of power-plants, bridges, and other civilian infrastructure would have. But am I 100% certain he meant that and not nukes? No, I am not. And as Nate discussed, any % chance that a nuclear strike is what he meant to imply is absolutely unacceptable.
I’m not sure what exactly you mean by the phrase “have pursued the bomb”. However, there is no credible evidence that Iran has planned or attempted to build nuclear weapons. Although it has never provided a credible explanation for its need of enriched uranium, either.
If a thing walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Nate, please define success criteria for the next ultimatum. For example:
1. IRAN BACKS DOWN: Oil ships can safely travel the Strait of Hormuz.
2. TRUMP BACKS DOWN: #1 false and USA takes no military action.
3. THREAT CARRIED OUT: USA bombs infrastructure or military targets.
Without objective success criteria, there's just partisans talking about tacos or the art of the deal.
I interpreted "a whole civilization will die tonight" as "comply or your 47-year regime is going to be even less capable and comfortable." You should do better than to amplify the people saying it means "3% chance we nuke 90 million people!"
Also, it was funny when you said that Pete Hegseth is erratic (link to 2024 hit piece where unnamed sources says he drinks) and unqualified (but is somehow capable of grabbing Maduro and doing the Easter Air Force rescue.)
There’s a difference between our military being qualified to conduct complex and secretive operations and the qualifications of the Secretary of Defense in leading portions of top military brass. Hegseth did not plan these complex military operations. The generals he just fired did.
I think looking at a different example, such as the withdrawal (withdraw?) from Afghanistan, we can see that there is likely a difference attributable to civilian leadership.
Personally, I don't think Hegseth is a good pick or even an acceptable pick for reasons I don't want to bother with here. However, it's really hard to attribute the difference in apparent military readiness and demonstrated capability between the Biden and Trump 2.0 administrations to coincidence.
Remember when he summoned all the generals and admirals for an in person meeting at a public location? If he needed an all hands on deck he could do a conference call. Instead he wanted a power move, waste taxpayers money flying them in, and put the chain of command in risk. That was his direct action. That was his incompetence. Federal government is a giant bureaucratic machine. That means the success of an event is a result of a team effort, which hardly has anything to do with the guy on the very top. A lot of federal agencies have been leader-less and bleeding dry since inauguration. Do you see much difference from outside?
In what universe does “a whole civilization will die tonight” translate into “a government will be less capable and comfortable”?
If someone threatened you or your country with a similar threat, is that really how you would interpret it?
I think the analysis on nuclear weapons and the threat thereof is pretty good. We've been in Trumpland for awhile now, not sure why the immediate response of those left of center is to assume he was discussing nukes. First, Trump usually says whatever dumb idea he thinks, and he didn't mention nukes. Second, he's been repeating the "bomb them into oblivion" take for a month about Hormuz, and it never seemed to go beyond a conventional threat.
With this kind of thing, my sense is that we need to be as aware of assumptions in rhetoric as Mr. Silver is in statistical and number based analysis. Here's what I mean by that. If you assume that Nate is super careful in how he speaks about complicated matters, because he cares about the accuracy and repeatability of his process... that would fit. His entire gig is doing really complicated analysis and then not misreading or misrepresenting what the numbers show. If you applied that mindset to the tweets / events of Iran the last couple of days - this is a ridiculous and dangerous game that over the long haul is a loser. But DJT is coming from the mindset and assumption of a deal maker. The back and forth of a deal maker isn't always about sensitivity to accuracy, it is about starting somewhere you never intend to finish at, a weirdly oppositional way of speaking. The most successful deal makers will intentionally say things that are not reasonable while aiming at reasonable and sane in an iterative process, maybe even a win-win if you will.
The public statements of this administration often make me recoil too. And I'm not super interested in defending this kind of rhetoric, but my questions would be something like this: 1) Do you really think Iran is in the room with World Class Poker Players? In the sense of, are they likely to play "correctly" given what we've seen the last 40 years? 2) What is the alternative? To give Iran a reasonable and rational cease fire agreement as your opening offer? Does that work, ever, with this kind of regime? Should we ignore that it worked really well this time (at least so far)? Has DJT ever nuked anyone? Does he seem interested in murdering millions of innocent civilians to stick it to Iran? The chance of actually lauching nukes was zero, stop it with the 3% rationalization.
My point isn't that bluffing (however obliquely) with nuclear weapons is a good idea. Of course not. But from the assumptive set of deal making with very bad actors, with a strong internal cadre of "never back down to the Great Satan," this approach isn't incoherent. You could read this as playing chicken with nuclear bombs, or you could read this as pretty standard saber rattling to a bully that doesn't seem to understand anything else.
It is not really the case (other than on TV, I guess) that the best deal makers start with unreasonable positions. In fact, based on my experiences negotiating deals among some of the largest companies in the world, real deals seldom come together in that fashion. Often some of the best negotiators will expose their final position and anchor there while negotiating secondary or tertiary issues. It depends a lot on the nature of the relationships, the relative bargaining positions, availability of other options, etc.
But, the idea that the best way to negotiate a car purchase, for example, is to offer far less than the dealer will accept is silly and a waste of time (and if it's a private seller they might just be annoyed and tell you to go away, in which case you might end up paying more if you really want that car -- that is actually more analogous to the Trump/Iran situation, IMO). If you do a little research, you can figure out the minimum the dealer will accept for the car, offer that, and stick to that offer. But that requires preparation, facts, etc. Not shooting from the hip.
I'm basing that statement on watching firsthand a fair number of high level deals made in a Fortune 50 company. That being said, I would tend to agree with you if the other party is high level and operating in good faith. In that case, it would often go as you described. When our company was being attacked, it got much more aggressive. Have you really seen good negotiators expose their final position when they are dealing with someone acting in bad faith and seeking to harm you and your company?
I can't say I have ever been in a negotiation where the other party would say they are seeking to harm my company (even if we thought what they were doing was harming us). That said, we are talking about Trump's negotiation tactics, and it's Iran who is being attacked and the United States that is seeking to harm them.
I think where the comparison breaks down, though, is that ultimately the lead "negotiator" for the United States does not have incentives that are aligned with his employer (certainly this can happen sometimes in corporate negotiations, but **typically** incentive structures for executives are aligned to company/division performance and large important agreements obviously contribute to that performance). Broader concerns about the employer that would typically constrain the things a negotiator will do/threaten are not present here because the fate of the average American and America's position in the global community do not matter to DJT, and he's a lame duck president. He's arguably more incentivized to please a variety foreign leaders in case he needs protection from prosecution once he's out of office.
This is exactly my take. One has to read the room and temperament of who you are negotiating with. The Iranian regime's starting bid was demanding end to all sanctions and reparations from "The Great Satan" which is an equally preposterous place to start. They set the tone for how negotiation would proceed. They knew they would not get their opening offer and likewise Trump, speaking to them in a language they could relate to made unrealistic, bombastic remarks. Any mention of nukes is merely inference or interpolation. Bottom line: Trump got a ceasefire out of the deal.....and he didn't have to give the regime a plane load of money to get it.
The ceasefire may be nothing more than buying time to get US military forces in position to carry out a coordinated assault.
The bottom line is that none of us knows what is going on. None of us has access to what is being planned.
I’ll hope for the best, but I’m not going to worry about it because there’s nothing I can do about it.
Great argument. But does it need nukes? Wouldn't destruction of Iran's infrastructure and economy, and their inevitable retaliation against the Gulf countries and others, have been a disaster for Trump and the US?
Nate, I love your work, especially on things like political projections and sports events. But, if you heard "nuclear annihilation" of 90 million people somewhere in Trump's threat, your ears must be hearing much different words that mine are. As a former Air Force officer, what I heard was, "We will bomb every bridge and bomb every power plant and the Iranian civilization will be returned to the Stone Age for a very long time. Five thousand years of civilization goes 'poof.'" As horrible as that would be, he certainly wasn't threatening the use of a nuke. Odds of that was zero, not 3% or any percent.
Yes, that interpretation is certainly possible, and frankly better than the alternative. However, I believe the statements were intentionally vague, to create uncertainty and preserve options. That the intent to convey nuclear options were in play seems confirmed by the sudden appearance of stories in the last few days about the allegedly unusual flights of the doomsday plane.
I interpreted it this way as well, as a threat to deliberately cause massive civilian casualties (but through conventional means).