Author: p_c_neary@hotmail.com

You might have heard the President and the Pope were openly feuding recently. Let’s observe factually what happened, then how it was covered. The main points?

• The United States and Israel engaged in offensive military operations against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
• The Pope gave his “Urbi et Orbi” speech.
• The President made several comments on TruthSocial disputing the Pope.
• The Pope responded to press questions about the President’s remarks.
• The President and Vice President made several more comments about the Pope’s comments.
• Several American Cardinals defended the Pope and further criticized the American administration.

These are simple statements of fact, without editorial comment. How they played out, and how they were played by the media, are more like a remake of Mean Girls. For reasons we shall see, the facts are important, because they show how the truth was distorted for various political perspectives.

From the top, the US and Israel engaged in offensive military operations against Iran. While they achieved surprise, it was neither a surprise attack nor the beginning of the war, which as I detailed in an earlier blog post, has been going on for forty-seven years. The fact the US never responded to Iranian provocations is the reason they were so surprised this time. Whether the war is just, and whether it is wise, are questions which can be debated.

Around Christmas and Easter every year, the Pope gives his state-of-the-world speech, entitled “Urbi et Orbi” (Latin for “to the city and the world”). The speech is actually a blessing, and the tradition goes back to the 13th century. In the modern era, Popes generally highlight the need for peace, as there are almost always some form of warfare afoot. Recent Popes even took to listing each and every conflict, specifically condemning such violence.

In a different take this year (you can read the whole message here, it’s quite short), Pope Leo XIV decried war in general without naming conflicts. Pointedly, he said, “Let those who have weapons lay them down! Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace!” and “We are growing accustomed to violence, resigning ourselves to it, and becoming indifferent. Indifferent to the deaths of thousands of people.” There is nothing in this statement that directly attacks the administration, and it is not political. In fact, by the standard of such messages, it was quite plain.

Interestingly, just after the Pope issued his message, a news story broke that the Undersecretary of War (a Catholic) had summoned the Papal Nuncio (the Pope’s Ambassador to the United States) back in January and threatened him to “get on board” with American foreign policy. I’ll skip detailing the reasons I called this one fake immediately, and sure enough, the participants quickly and totally demolished the “controversy.” Both the administration and the Vatican have termed the report “highly distorted” and a “fabrication.” Yes, they met, and yes, they argued. They even had a frank-and-earnest exchange as they say in diplomatic terms. This story died a quick death, but we’ll return to it later.

On April 7th, President Trump issued his infamous “a whole civilization will die tonight” text; the Pope responded the next day, calling the threat “truly unacceptable.” Once again, President Trump ignored the dictates of wisdom and decorum in issuing such a statement. It was unwise because it was flippant, and a leader should be unmistakably clear when issuing threats. For example, Truman and Churchill issued the Potsdam declaration in 1945, explaining what “unconditional surrender” the allies demanded of the Imperial Japanese regime, and they ended it with this statement: “The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.” In a historical note, Truman knew the atomic bomb had been successfully tested days earlier; this was no idle threat on his part. Nor is a threat a war crime, but that’s a blog for another day.

The Pope was of course correct in criticizing the President’s language, and the matter should have stopped there, as a ceasefire was shortly thereafter announced. But the Pope had also called for a Peace Vigil on April 11th, and there he sharpened his criticism, but still without naming President Trump or the United States. He did say, “Enough of the idolatry of self and money! Enough of the display of power! Enough of war!” and “Even the holy Name of God, the God of life, is being dragged into discourses of death” adding that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.” Press and some Vatican sources highlighted that these last statements were directly targeted at comments from War Secretary Hegseth.

Never one to take a deescalatory ramp on social media, President Trump vented in full fury, first saying the Pope was “weak on crime” and “terrible” and suggesting Leo is only the Pope because Trump is the President. As if to move from the sublime to the ridiculous, Trump posed an AI-generated comic depicting himself in a pose eerily reminiscent of the Risen Lord, healing the sick and giving hope to all. After massive criticism from Christians of all stripes (including MAGA), he deleted it without apology, and said he thought it depicted him as a doctor (spawning even more great memes).

Not to be left out, Vice President Vance took up station as Trump’s “Catholic” wing-man, suggesting the Pope needed to be careful in talking about theology and should focus on morality rather than political strategy. All those involved would be wise to be careful in their pronouncements here, friend, but sadly that’s not the case. And all political strategy is eventually about morality, dontchano? And as if to prove both points, the three most-prominent American Catholic Cardinals suddenly appeared on 60 Minutes, defending the Pope and rebuking the US President and Vice President. But they couldn’t stop there, as Cardinal McElroy went on to declare the US action against Iran is “not a just war.”

Phew. And those are just the facts, with a few observations of my own thrown in. What are we to make of it? First off, all press coverage of the Vatican is highly suspect. Most of the media view religion as some sort of weird throwback, and they don’t even have the language to describe what is happening when they cover it. If you watch the press cover a Papal conclave, they treat it like a political convention, which is just odd. Second, the timing coincidence of the Pope’s messages, the manufactured story about a Pentagon confrontation, and the 60 Minutes follow-up are at the very least suspicious (I’ll explain). Finally, one would think political leaders would have learned by now it is unwise to mess with the Pope.

The Press. Media love confrontation, and they rushed back and forth between the Pope and President figuratively asking “did you hear what she said about you?” If you believe Pope Francis said “who am I to judge” about a homosexual priest, you probably fell for one of the media’s biggest mis-characterizations. Yet they continue to repeat it. They fanned this latest controversy and made it worse than it ever was. They are the ones reporting “Vatican sources” explaining what the Pope meant, when the Pope said what he said. You need only note that when things got really touchy, the Pope said he “never attacked the President” and “doesn’t do politics,” just “proclaims the Gospel.” Period. End of sentence. The Holy Spirit doesn’t need spin.

The Coincidences. It’s probably not a true conspiracy, but I would love for an investigative journalist to pull on these threads. The FREEP (Free Press) story about the Pentagon confrontation happened in January, but suddenly broke public right after the Pope’s Urbi et Orbi message at Easter. The story was flogged nationally by Christopher Hale, a proud Democratic National Committee member and former candidate for Congress with zero Vatican expertise, who nonetheless writes a blog entitled “Letters from Leo.” Oh, and those “Vatican sources” made sure and point out that the Pope had just met with David Axelrod, Obama’s eminence gris, before this current back-n-forth. It is not a secret there are those in the Curia (the Vatican permanent bureaucracy) and even the US church hierarchy who detest President Trump. It is not at all outlandish to suggest some of these coincidences were not, well, coincidental.

Which is not to say the Pope and the President don’t have real, serious differences of opinion. The Pope has remained non-specific, sticking to the Gospel, and avoiding direct criticism of the President or the specific US military activity. How do I know that? If the Pope had indeed determined the US action in Iran was an unjust war, he would be duty-bound to declare it as such. He would not be beating around the bush or speaking elliptically: prophets (ie., people who see and tell the truth) must do so. The Almighty does not take kindly to prophets who don’t do their job, Jonah! And that would entail the twenty-five percent of the US armed forces who are Catholic–including even more of the senior military and intelligence ranks–having to choose whether to refuse orders or violate their faith. It’s the theological equivalent of the nuclear option, and not only does the Pope solely wield it, he is required to use it. And he hasn’t.

Meanwhile, the press continues to beat the confrontation drum. Legacy media headlines (NYT: ‘Woe to Those Who Manipulate Religion,’ Pope Says Amid Standoff With Trump, Washington Post: Pope Leo decries ‘tyrants’ ravaging world, days after insults from Trump) highlight a few lines from an address the Pope gave to a war-ravaged area in Cameroon which has somehow found a way to make peace among neighbors. Again, he never mentions Trump or the US war in Iran. It’s another off-ramp, even if the press would prefer it was a crash test. Trump may take this off-ramp: today he said “I’m not fighting with him” about the Pope, while claiming he (Trump) is “all about the Gospel, I’m about it as much as anyone can be.” I guess that’s a Trumpian step in the correct direction.

Finally, the Apology. Back in Ye Good Ole Days, Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV got in a feud with Pope Gregory VII about who got to appoint bishops (Pope or King). Gregory excommunicated Henry (threatening his legitimacy and thus his crown), then made him wait in the snow barefoot for three days before pardoning him. In our era, asked whether he might do something for Catholics in the Soviet Union as a sop to the Pope, Josef Stalin asked, “The Pope? How many (military) divisions does he have?” Decades later, Pope (St.) John Paul II metaphorically answered the question by helping liberate Poland with nary a soldier, beginning the process that dissolved that “Soviet Union.” When Popes speak, they often do so gently, but that doesn’t mean they are “WEAK.” The Pope may speak softly, but he carries a big . . . cross.

I agree with Bishop Robert Barron, who said Trump owes the Pope an apology. I doubt it will ever happen. But that’s all there is to this in the end. The President thinks he’s ending a fifty year nuclear threat. The Pope wants all to live in peace, not war. Some people who don’t like Trump will do anything to poison the well, and some on the MAGA side would just as soon worship Trump as Jesus. The press loves a good fight. Are you not entertained?

Whether you think it was inevitable (as I did), avoidable for the moment (as most do), or completely uncalled for (really? what was your solution?), the US is at war with Iran. If you follow the legacy media closely, you might think America is at the edge of disaster. If you listen closely to the Commander in Chief, you might think we won the war several times already. Here’s a steady assessment, with some historical perspective thrown in.

The US and Israel achieved strategic surprise. It’s amazing, given that the Islamic Republic of Iran declared war on both at its inception almost fifty years ago. But the Israelis focused on closer, more immediate threats and bided their time; the United States chose to ignore the bellicose language, the hostages, the terrorist attacks, as only a superpower can choose to do. It all became so routine that Tehran’s negotiators actually thought they could show up and figuratively tell the US to “shove it” and go home smiling. It didn’t work, and they were surprised. Not sorry.

The US and Israel made a conscious choice to fight this war alone. No one was warned, no one was consulted, no UN imprimatur sought, despite the fact a war with Iran has consequences all over the world. This was a not uncommon practice for the Israelis, who increasingly see a world antagonistic to their very existence (note the spread of “from the river to the sea” rhetoric). It was very unusual for the United States. Usually we at least give our friends and allies a heads-up. In this case, we expected them to take a pass on participating, so it appears we treated them as NPCs (non-player characters, as in video games). The President should not have been surprised when the allies he treated thusly chose to criticize the war and refuse to assist. However, I will add that in the long history of ruffled US-NATO relations, there is only one time NATO countries have refused the US overflight rights, and that was only France and Spain (both quasi-NATO members at the time) during Reagan’s Libya bombing in 1986. For so many countries to do so this time represents an escalation on their part, and will have repercussions. No one can fault a NATO member for refusing to let us use US bases for bombing runs, but to deny airspace? Too far.

The US and Israel have achieved air supremacy over Iran. We are flying hundreds of sorties a day, in daylight, with minimal losses. We have deployed airframes like the venerable B52 and the inestimable A-10, which should never be used where surface-to-air missiles systems are coordinated and integrated. During the search and rescue effort for the downed F15E crew member, there is verified footage of a US aircraft refueling two helicopters at low altitude over Iran. You don’t do that where there is any kind of remaining air defense threat.

But what about that F15E? The A-10 which limped home to a crash landing? The helicopters which took fire and perhaps casualties during the rescue? Air supremacy doesn’t mean “nothing bad can happen” (except perhaps in President Trump’s mind). In my days in camouflage, we used to joke that a well-placed rock can take down a Huey (helicopter), and it wasn’t really an exaggeration. And all militaries are familiar with something called small arms air defense: the notion you take all your various “guns,” aim at a single point in the sky ahead of an aircraft, and let the pilot fly into a wall of lead, where something bad will happen. “Big sky, little bullet” is a refrain every pilot hears and fears. What does air supremacy look like? Twenty thousand sorties and two aircraft shot down, that’s what. Comical fact: right now, the Iranians have tallied two kills, the US has destroyed two of its own, and Kuwait has three kills of US aircraft (apparently it’s quite easy when shooting at your own side)!

Iran’s missile launching and production capabilities have been greatly reduced. About a third of the launchers have been confirmed as destroyed, and another third are assessed as out of action/buried. The latter can be recovered, but it’s not like we aren’t watching and waiting for Iran to attempt to do so. So they have one-third as many launchers available as they did before the war. While there aren’t details out publicly on the missile production facilities, we have been hammering them for weeks now. Note this has little effect on the total number of missiles they retain. While we know where their largest stockpiles were, missiles can be temporarily hidden in many places, which is why it’s best to focus on launchers. Missiles without launchers are static displays, not weapons.

What about the Iranian missile attacks throughout the region? The last German V1/V2 rocket attacks happened in late March 1945, about five weeks before their surrender. You can keep firing rockets and missiles right up until the end. Look at the rate of firing, which has decreased about 90%. “Oh, but Iran is holding back, waiting for the US to exhaust its interceptors” some experts say. These same experts claim Iran is in an existential war. You don’t hold back in an existential war. More likely, their command structure is fragmented, and their targeting capability is limited or non-existent. Evidence of my assertion? They don’t fire salvos designed to overwhelm any site’s defenses, they fire small numbers of missiles at widely diverse targets, from Turkey to Saudi to Diego Garcia (note to those who claim Iran doesn’t have longer-range missiles: Rome is closer to Iran than Diego Garcia). They seems to be throwing a missile here or there, hoping one hits home. They don’t fire accurately: either we are spoofing their guidance system or it isn’t good. Look at what they hit: buildings in cities, or a sprawling petro-chemical complex, especially for their longer-range missiles. Even when we mistakenly bombed two schools, the missiles hit exactly where they were aimed.

If Iran wanted to send a war-winning message, it would salvo a hundred missiles from different launch sites at a single Arab petroleum facility on the Gulf, destroying it. That would be a message. They don’t, because they can’t. Their missiles, like Germany’s buzz bombs, provide terror, not military useful capability.

What about those drones? What role have they played? Attack drones weren’t much of a thing back in my days in uniform, but clearly they are a major combat factor today (see Ukraine). Like any applied military technology, drones are in the period where they seem unstoppable: cheap to build, easy to operate, difficult to defend against. The countervailing capabilities have not yet matured, but they will. In the end, drones may prove to be Iran’s most versatile and effective weapon. But that weapon is no guarantor of success, tactically, operationally, or strategically. Like their missiles, they have shown no operational plan for employing drones, nor a strategy.

Iran’s Navy is gone. Yes, they still have small speedboats they could use to attack undefended tankers, but those are suicide missions with any naval or air protection. They can lay mines, but that again becomes a suicide mission over time, and mines are only an obstacle, they don’t close the strait permanently. Iran has some area-denial capability with shore-based anti-ship missiles, which the US is apparently moving toward targeting. But that involves launchers and missiles and fire control, all very target-able assets. These small boats, mines and missiles are not insignificant capabilities, but they present a very routine challenge to naval operations, and I trust the US Navy is capable of confronting them.

Iran has established effective control over the Strait of Hormuz. As others have pointed out and I can confirm, this outcome was considered and planned for in every Iran scenario on the books. Why was the Trump administration then surprised by it? Simple. All those scenarios started with Iran declaring the strait closed with a missile strike on a tanker or by mine-laying. Then the US declares the strait closed to all Iranian fuel exports, and the Iranian economy collapses and the war is over. That is why closing the strait never seemed much of a real threat; it’s much like the sheriff scene in Blazing Saddles.

Why did it work this time? I don’t know whether whoever is remaining in charge in Iran just got lucky or was very shrewd, but the Trump administration never shut off Iran’s exports. Instead, they removed restrictions on the sale of Iranian oil, providing a temporary boon. Why? Because they feared the spike in oil prices that would result. Now before you climb high on your rhetorical horse and call this the stupidest thing you have ever heard, let me ask you this: who has the EU given more money to since Russia invaded Ukraine over four years ago: Russia, or Ukraine? In those four years, the EU has sent Russia over US$220 billion dollars for oil and natural gas, and sent Ukraine US $200 billion in all forms of aid. Oil and gas prices make nations do crazy things.

While the President has correctly insisted gas prices will return to normal once the war is over, there is little benefit in trying to hold them down while prolonging the conflict. Why he hasn’t taken (or destroyed) Kharg island or closed the strait to Iranian tankers is a strategic mystery.

Have Russia and China been the big-winners so far? No, and those suggesting so are practically cheer-leading for the mullahs. Could those countries benefit in the long run? Of course, if the US fails miserably. So far? Iran is probably not sending quite so many drones to Russia as it needs to keep them for itself. And their production facilities are under direct attack. Likewise, China provided Iran advanced military air defense equipment which has proven worthless. Neither China nor Russia can do anything to stop the American action, and much like the case with Venezuela, Xi and Putin are standing there with–ahem–their things in their hands, looking impotent, while a potential ally falters. And while the American campaign is no doubt straining our munitions supply, Ukraine indicates there has been no reduction from the US side to it thus far.

“War Crimes.” It’s perfectly normal for your enemy to claim your attacks are war crimes. It’s even normal for human rights experts to make the same claim. The first group wants you to stop, and the second views all warfare as inherently evil. It is permissible to strike infrastructure as a legitimate war target, as long as the strike has a military purpose. If we strike a hospital’s back-up generator, that would be a war crime, as its power is solely for a hospital, a protected target (unless of course the enemy builds a headquarters in the basement). If we strike the power substation that supplies power to the local IRGC unit and the hospital, that’s not a war crime. Finally, all war crimes require either intent (you meant destroy what you destroyed) or negligence (you should have known what you destroyed). A missile that misses its target or is targeted incorrectly is not a war crime.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions are real and even reinforced as long as the mullahs and IRGC remain in power, but their progress has been suspended. Here is the entire history of Iran’s nuclear ambitions in a nutshell: their Supreme Leader made a statement forbidding possession of a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, they engaged in decades of behavior that could only result in a nuclear weapon. When called out, they negotiated limits and inspections, then cheated, lied, and denied. They have been criticized, censured, embargoed, threatened, and expelled and still refused to stop (except vocally). They fully believe none of the current attacks would have happened if they had consummated their quest, and they are correct. For the time being, Iran’s nuclear countdown clock has been defused, but no one is sure how much time was left on the timer: it may have been weeks, it may have been a year. If they are forced to give up their enriched uranium and accept real inspections, the clock may be reset.

Why does this matter? Even if Iran gets the bomb, and builds an ICBM, don’t we have sufficient forces to deter them launching one at the US? Yes, we do, and as we are the “Great Satan,” they have little doubt we will nuke the crap out of them if they try. But the problem is elsewhere: the Gulf Arab states, Europe, and especially Israel. If Iran goes nuclear, the Gulf states will insist on the same. Many believe Saudi Arabia already has a back-up plan with China or Pakistan or India to drop a line of credit and “buy” an instant nuclear capability. European countries are talking tough about defending against Russia, but they can’t even summon the will to ensure their oil and gas gets out of the Gulf; they would be open to Iranian intimidation. And that leaves Israel. I put the odds at fifty-fifty that some future Mullah Supremo in Tehran decides he will go down in the history books as the one who eliminated the Jewish race. What did the world mean when it said, “never again?”

The Middle East has been a thorn in America’s side for fifty years. A nuclear-armed Iran makes it a gaping chest wound, not a thorn. Which is why I think this war was inevitable. Inevitable doesn’t mean this was the right time to launch it, though. The necessity for surprise and the opportunity to kill the majority of Iran’s leadership in a single strike proved to be the driving force behind “why now.” Was that a good rationale?

Will the elimination of most of Iran’s leadership lead to an even worse set of leaders, or perhaps regime change? This really is the key question behind the war rationale. At its most basic, consider this: the current (dead) leadership killed more Americans, took more hostages, violated more international norms, ignored more American threats, sponsored more terrorists, suffered more international approbation, and killed more of its own people than any other country in the last fifty years. What exactly is going to come around that is “worse?” Just-as-bad is possible, maybe even probable, but worse? So a once-in-their-lifetime chance to send that top group collectively to Allah? Priceless.

What about a possible regime change? It’s not likely, at least in the short term. Everyone in the leadership pipeline is IRGC or radical mullah, so it’s naive to hope for the long-sought, never-discovered “Iranian moderates.” Tehran has proven capable of shooting unarmed female marchers in the head and hanging teenagers for protesting. They will not go down without a fight, because they know with certainty the retribution which awaits them. While a peace-loving, democratic Iran would be a wonderful thing, the US doesn’t even need that. We only need an Iran that fore-swears nuclear weapons (with requisite checks because of past bad behavior), does not sponsor terrorism, and does not threaten freedom of passage in the Gulf. They don’t have to like the Gulf Arab states or Israel, they just have to stop trying to kill them. That’s all the change we require.

What happens next? The war has plateaued just short of the “hell” President Trump twice (or was it thrice?) threatened. It will not resolve without some further escalation. To the regret of my air-power enthusiast friends, this war will disprove (one again) the idea you can win a war by aerial bombing. The slowest, safest next step is to establish a naval blockade of Iranian exports, seizing them à la Venezuela. The problem here is that it’s very slow and time consuming.

If the US chooses a slightly faster approach, we could use the Marines to conduct raids or clearing operations on the smaller islands in the strait, limiting-but-not-eliminating Iran’s control. It would also serve as a point of pride to occupy Iranian territory and take prisoners. These islands are sparsely inhabited and defended, so the Marines could make short work of them. The same can be said for raids on anti-ship missile locations on the Iranian mainland. Again, not completely decisive, but tightening the noose, so to speak.

The faster and most decisive move is to concentrate the Marines and airborne soldiers on taking Kharg island. The IRGC cannot hold it against those forces for long. Control of that island results in control of around seventy-five percent of Iran’s oil exporting capability. Iran could destroy their own infrastructure, but again, that’s suicidal. Likewise, bombing our forces there has the same result, as Iran’s missiles and artillery aren’t accurate enough to do otherwise. This option goes back to the “game-over” strategy that ended all those Iran wargames in the Pentagon. Our forces there could prove to be a magnet for Iranian drones, missiles, and artillery, but that of course means they have to come out and play in a fairly limited area of the Iranian mainland across from the island. Taking Kharg is messy (as in casualties and destroyed infrastructure) but it’s effective.

And of course a negotiated settlement is always available. But for the US to claim this “excursion” was worth it, we require an iron-clad “no nukes” pledge backed up by independent inspections, free navigation for the strait of Hormuz, and probably a commitment to stop supporting terrorist proxies. I say probably on the last one because the Israelis have gone a long way to ending this problem. If Iran wants a limited end to hostilities, these should be the terms. if they want more, like out of sanctions and back into the community of nations, ending their threats to the Gulf Arab states and Israel are also a must, as well as limiting their ballistic missile efforts and terrorist proxies.

The United States isn’t asking for much: stop acting like an unhinged death-cult. We really have few gripes with Iran, while they have many with others.

I have been “jonesing” to write about our current war with Iran. We’re still at sea, I have oodles of time on my hands, and the wonders of modern digital communications mean I can still be inundated with current information and commentary. But I waited, and waited. Why? Because first-takes are often the worst takes, war reporting is often just wrong (Clausewitz–that dead Prussian, called it the “fog of war”), and most of the commentary I have read thus far proceeds from an underlying political premise to a hasty conclusion. Of two stripes, both reminiscent of Trump Devotion/Derangement Syndrome (TD2S):

• Trump is a mastermind playing 4D chess (!?!) and all this will come out great for America, or
• Trump is an idiot and therefore the US is headed for a devastating failure, a quagmire, or both. And he only did it because (1) Putin told him to, (2) to distract from the Epstein files, or (3) because he suffers from third stage syphilis. No kidding. I have seen all three, sometimes in combination.

Now before I go any further, let me be clear: I haven’t made up my mind whether this particular Iran campaign is a good idea. It is simply too early to tell. Bad ideas can have good outcomes, and vice versa. But I can assure you this: if you have made up your mind already, it’s because you fell into one of the two mindsets described above. Because there is not enough evidence to do otherwise.

Which is not to say there are not criticisms (valid or otherwise) based on what we know thus far. And here they are:

“Trump has engaged in a war of choice.”

I regret to inform you that war always requires at least two parties, and both sides must opt “in.” If one doesn’t, the other wins by default. When the rebels shelled Fort Sumter, Lincoln had the choice to ignore them and let the South “go its own way” (cue Fleetwood Mac). Many of his advisors actually counselled him to do so, as most realized what a bloody mess it would be. He chose to resist. If you think there is something unique about the choice Trump just made, you’re wrong. It happens all the time. Yes, most Presidents provide much more explanation to the country before going into war, and what explanation Trump has provided has been inconsistent (I’m being diplomatic to a fault here, but more on that later). So complain about the explanation, but drop the “choice” argument. It only sounds impressive if you know nothing about war, politics, etc.

“This is an illegal war.”

Usually followed by reference to the War Powers Act (WPA). Very simply, no President has followed the WPA as it was passed by Congress since it was passed by Congress (overriding a Nixon veto). Why not? It is a law without any consequences. Commit treason, and you can look up the penalty. Violate the War Powers Act, and you’ll get a “harrumph” from the House of Representatives. They knew this when they passed it, and they knew it even better as each of the Presidents (yes, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush uno, Clinton, Bush dos, Obama, Trump, and even Biden) did what they wanted and “interpreted” it as compliant with the WPA. The only mechanisms for compliance are impeachment or cutting off funding for the military. Why doesn’t Congress do the latter if they feel so strongly about it? Because they fear some military unit somewhere will get attacked and be unable to defend itself because Congress cut off funds. So they “piddle, twiddle, and resolve.” Don’t be like Congress (which is a great life rule, really).

“The US engaged in bad faith negotiations” or “launched a surprise attack.”

This criticism often compares the US attack on Iran with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (no, really). Japan never gave the US an ultimatum, even their last communication (which was delivered late) was an ambiguous observation about ending negotiations, not war. Meanwhile, the US made clear that Iran had to renounce its nuclear ambitions. I understand they were confused when we attacked, as we had allowed them to obfuscate for literal decades, but that’s on them, not the US.

But the larger, even gaping hole in this criticism is this: Iran has been at war with the US for forty-seven years, since Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolutionary forces chased the Shah of Iran from power. His regime instituted barbaric penalties against women and minorities, sought ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, sponsored or protected numerous bloody terrorist movements, threatened to exterminate the Jewish people, attacked its neighbors, and acted in constant opposition to American interests. What country (excluding insurgent movements) is responsible for more American deaths over that period? Iran. They literally chanted “Death to America” every morning. I know one man who tied himself into knots claiming such chants were just words, and “never hurt anybody.” Okay. They also took hostages, blew up diplomatic buildings, tried to assassinate US officials, attacked warships, and lobbed missiles indiscriminantly. Their main protection was a sense that any attempt to reduce their capabilities or change the regime would be costly and difficult. That deterrence worked, until a few days ago.

So we indeed surprised them when we started fighting back, not when we started a war.

“This could go very wrong.”

Yes, indeed, this opertion could still “go south” as we used to say in the business, and may do so. But to ignore the fact it hasn’t yet? That’s just willful disregard for reality. The great Prussian strategist Carl von Clasewitz often gets cited for his maxims about the fog and friction of war (come to think of it, I did so earlier). If uncertainty is all one takes from Clausewitz, it is a thin strategic gruel. Uncertainty resides in all life’s actions: your next parent-teacher conference, your next plane trip, your next skin cancer screening. While war has its own risks, it never is certain. To whit:

Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.

— Text prepared by General Eisenhower in case the D-Day landings failed

We all know how D-Day came out. If it had failed, the Iron Curtain would have descended on the Rhine, or the English Channel, instead of central Germany. But Ike didn’t know for sure, and had to prepare that note. If today’s media had covered Normandy, the slaughter at Omaha Beach might have convinced the American public it wasn’t worth it. Missed assault landing zones, paratroopers drowned in marshes, guns without ammo, you name it, it happened. But this was an amazing success story, not a failure. The most complicated over-the-beach invasion in military history put ashore a fighting army in days, all the trauma aside.

Set down your dog-eared (hopefully) edition of “On War” and watch, not pontificate.

“There is no plan.”

This is one I can definitively refute. From all the way back to the creation of US Central Command, they have had a OPLAN (Operational Plan) for war with Iran. It once was OPLAN 1001, and later 1025. There are also various CONPLANs (Contingency Plans) for specific scenarios of hostilities. These are the ones each President has to approve, and there are extensive war-games, reviews, and constant updates. Trump doesn’t show up at “the tank” (the Joint Chiefs of Staff conference room) and say, “go kill the ba@st@rds!” Well, maybe Hegseth did. But what the War Department does is execute a plan. Because there is one.

Related to this is the claim the administration “was surprised” by something the Iranians did. Again, I can confirm that nothing the Iranians have done so far was not already in the planning documents. When commanders or civilian officials say they “didn’t anticipate Iran closing the strait of Hormuz” they are saying they knew it was possible, but considered unlikely because it’s a losing proposition. Closing the strait means nobody’s oil gets out, not just the Arab states. That ticks off countries who might otherwise look favorably on Iran, like China. And Iran can’t make the closure permanent: they only have so many mines, so many boats, so many anti-ship missiles. And each time they come out, they’re vulnerable to US air power. They can wreak havoc for sure, for a time. But if they do, the US still retains the option to destroy (or better yet) occupy Kharg island, the main point of loading for Iranian oil. No oil, no money for the IRGC or the mullahs. This is why the closure of the strait was seen as an option for Iran, but a bad one: we can escalate to cause more pain for them then they can cause for us.

“This war is a disaster.”

This is especially offensive. Couching the war as “leading to a disaster” is at least a hedge. But look at the results thus far. Iran’s blue water navy is unintentionally sub-marine. Their air force is a series of chalk outlines on the tarmac. Missile launches are down 90%, as are drone attacks. Perhaps they are holding back, but that leads one to ask: for what? The US and Israel are flying over Iran unopposed and blowing up targets at a record clip. That does not equal victory, but it can’t be characterized by a rational mind as a disaster (I’m talking to you, Senator Murphy).

As positive as the US results have been, Iran’s responses have been pathetic. While they have had some limited success against military radars, for the most part they have lobbed missiles and drones at hotels, refineries, our embassy in Baghdad, and anywhere in Israel, resulting in limited damage. Military planners considered this too as an option for Iran, and again, decided it was a bad one. Yes, they can cause some damage. No, they don’t have the targeting or missiles/drones to make an operational difference. The only effective measure by the Iranian regime thus far is the threat by the Basij militia to shoot any protestors in the head. Tough guys.

If this were a prize fight, the ref would have stopped it. But it’s not a prize fight; it’s a war. Meaning round one is just that, and no one knows how it will turn out yet. But if you think the US is behind on points in the early rounds, you might have been a Soviet Olympic judge.

“No one has explained why this war, why now.”

I’m a little sympathetic with those who are exasperated by the ever-changing comments by Trump about the goals, activities, and length of this war. But only a little. After ten years of Trump, who says whatever is on his mind without any filter, why does anybody still parse his words and complain about their unreality, their mutual incoherence, or their flat-out distortion? Why? If you look to what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says, or the CENTCOM Commander, or even Secretary Rubio, you’ll find the clarity you crave. Note I didn’t include War Secretary Hegseth, who seems to act more and more like a Marvel comics character every day. Trump and Hegseth have all the message discipline of two adolescents babbling-while-high on their sugary Halloween take.

But the American people deserve a better explanation. The funny thing is, they have had it for forty-seven years. All those Presidents have held that Iran could not be allowed to achieve nuclear weapons, had to stop killing or taking Americans hostage, had to stop fomenting terrorism. At times, some Presidents acted on those demands; other times, they negotiated, while realizing that the Iranian regime has a perfect record of not complying with any of their negotiated limitations. Sadly, the Trump administration is unwilling to make the case that this attack is a response completely in accord with decades of US policy. But it is.

Whatever you feel about it, the US is at war with Iran. If you want to make a case against the war, do so, but remember to address the problem, not the President. How does your criticism or policy alternative eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, missiles, or terrorist proxies? That’s the problem. This war may not solve it either, but you don’t have to be a Clausewitz scholar to understand how it might.

Would I like to see the Islamic Republic flushed down the toilet bowl of history? Yes, yes I would. Would I settle for them being neutered back into the Stone Age they seem to revere? Probably. Strategy in war is all about adjusting your means to accomplish your ends. I’m reminded of another statement by Lincoln:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

An Iran whose missiles no longer threaten the entire Middle East, who no longer threatens to choke off the Strait of Hormuz, who no longer funds terrorism or seeks nuclear weapons, is a goal worth fighting for, whether the President can string the subjects and verbs together or not. Finally, as we are at war, never fail to realize all our efforts must be toward victory. If you–even for a moment–think a negative result on the battlefield serves some partisan political purposes, shame on you. Few regimes have been as unceasingly evil as the one in Tehran. That doesn’t justify anything or everything the US does (just war and justice in war, as they say), but we should all be clear what we’re fighting against. And it’s not each other.