“The U.S. has destroyed most of Iran’s navy and neutered what remains of it. Its air defenses no longer exist. Some large part of its ballistic missiles have been used, destroyed or damaged.” That’s from the Wall Street Journal’s excellent Barton Swaim on April 2nd, a month after bombing by the U.S. and Israel commenced.
It reveals the U.S.'s monumental blunder. Figure that Swaim was late. More than a few op-eds had already written as Swaim did about Iran’s military condition. Which is the problem.
Conservatives told us for the longest time what a threat Iran was, only for its military to be “destroyed” within a week or two? Where’s the outrage over the waste of so much prowess on such an impressively weak foe? The frustration grows.
Imagine if Iran had attempted a U.S. invasion from 6,000 miles away...
To which some will say the real Iran threat was to its neighbors. See above, while also asking if Congress should have been allowed to vote on warring meant to protect others. And no, this is not an Israel comment. U.S. “allies” including Saudi Arabia have been cheering on Iran’s destruction arguably more than anyone else.
A Wall Street Journal editorial page that sets the weather on the right has written that “Iran has threatened Gulf oil production for decades.” While the editorial page’s assertion is debatable, what’s not debatable is that during the Reagan ‘80s and Clinton ‘90s, the price of a barrel of oil fell as low as $7 and $10 respectively.
Then Journal editorial page editor Robert Bartley well understood the why behind such cheap oil: a stronger more stable U.S. dollar in which oil is priced. Yes, the best, most cost-free war against Iran is a stable dollar policy that elevates the economics of every American while imperiling the economics of petrostates.
Which brings us to the President who took us to war. Here’s a gem of a Trump rant that the Journal's editorialists unearthed for readers last week: “The Wall Street Journal, one of the worst and most inaccurate ‘Editorial Boards’ in the World, stated that I ‘declared premature victory in Iran.’ Actually, it is a Victory, and there’s nothing ‘premature’ about it!” Hmmm.
Readers can rest assured that the Journal’s editorial page didn’t quote Trump to elevate his mental state. It speaks to easily the most blunderous quality of the war: countless conservatives (Bret Stephens comes to mind most prominently, but there are others) have made sport of mocking Trump, his narcissistic ways, his arrogance, his know-nothingness, and seemingly unhinged qualities for years, but when Trump decides to risk troops on war with Iran, they find one-issue wisdom in the man they despise.
Which is maddening. Imagine vilifying an individual in most ways (particularly mentally) only to trust him not just with the usage of U.S. troops, but U.S. reputation around the world.
As you’re reading this, the U.S. isn’t negotiating with a new Iran undergoing "regime change." Instead, the world’s most powerful country has been reduced by a war of choice to negotiating with Iran, all the while hoping Iran will give in on nukes (Swaim said Iran’s nuclear program “lies under rubble”) plus agree to re-open a Strait of Hormuz that was formerly open.
The Iran error reminds us once again that the incompetence of government doesn't stop at the border. This truth sadly eludes conservatives prone to situationally extolling the virtues of limited, constitutional governance locally, only for them to routinely forget rhetoric mouthed when searching for problems for government to "solve" with guns thousands of miles away.
