The flaws in the JCPOA were all laid out in detail in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to the U.S. Congress in 2015. The critique was and remains compelling and has never been rebutted on the merits. Subsequent events, such as Mossad’s seizure of Iran’s complete nuclear history documentation, have supported his claims while exposing how the American negotiators, led by Secretary of State Kerry and Robert Malley, were played by their Iranian counterparts.
To hit only the highlights, Iran never fully disclosed its nuclear program. There were to be no surprise inspections, instead a three week notice was required. Iran was allowed to place certain sites entirely off limits. There were a series of sunset clauses that, upon their expiry, would have legitimated their program.
And, of course, in exchange for no Iranian concession, Obama granted Iran the unprecedented right to enrich. While not directly relevant, Obama refused to support Iran’s 2009 Green Revolution in word, let alone in deed, seemingly to signal to the Ayatollahs that they could do business with him.
So, the JCPOA was never intended to halt Iran’s march toward a nuclear weapon. In fact, Obama never clarified his vision for the region, leaving everyone to guess.
In a functioning democracy, there are no two man chess games. In a functioning democracy differing opinions weigh in, and a group decision is made on behalf of the greater good.
We no longer have a functioning democracy, and a Dem better run for president soon, on a platform that counters the madness, or we will no longer have a country.
In a functioning democracy, all the parties are informed when actions that threaten the state are involved. Apparently, the “gang of eight” was not consulted or informed on this action. And Democrats report that no one of them was informed, much less consulted. This displays a lack of respect and distrust that has no satisfactory result. Now the action will be viewed as unilateral — the better to claim sole credit, no doubt — and set up even more division. With the Iraq war, the Dems could claim they were lied to, but they were not only informed but required to weigh in. Bush was able to hang the war around their neck as well. This is the real chess game that’s going on. Trump has little interest in the world game since his profits all reside state side.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I now see how Trump was “elected.” You might start with the premise that Democrats represent at least half, if not more of the electorate and the US population. Sounds like you’re happy to draw that line between representative government and “just shit we like to say.” Very convincing.
We have what we have. As far as I know, none of the current Dem leadership was indicted for taking secret documents or discussing war plans on insecure commercial communication channels. Not trying to pose a what-about, just stating facts. If there’s a legitimate concern, then it’s surprising that this administration hasn’t moved to prosecute. They’re not shy in that department. Otherwise, speculation is just shit posting.
DOJ was an arm of the previous admin. Be that as it may, Trump was protecting the opposition by removing opportunity. He's thoughtful that way. Cheers.
It pains me to say it, but Trump made the right move on this one. We see the real threat of a nuclear state swinging the sword of Damocles over another state’s head in the Russia-Ukraine war. Biden was reluctant to arm Zelinsky because Russia threatened to use its nukes. It’s awful to say, but any state that views its people as martyrs in waiting should not have nuclear weapons. Let’s see if part of the grand bargain here includes denying nukes to the other Gulf states, I.e., Saudi Arabia. After all, the US and Israel seem willing to act as proxies for the kingdoms.
There are two countries that are not only calling for some nation not to exist but are destroying it—namely, the U.S. and Israel. That's their position with regard to the Palestinians. And they're not just saying it, they're doing it day by day. That's the meaning of the policies that are going on right before our eyes in Gaza and the West Bank, which we (the US) supporting.
Odd that. Israel withdrew from Gaza, evicted their people from Gaza in the name of peace. Gaza continued to send terrorists into Israel. Israel built a fence to try and maintain peace. October 7. Israel reaponded to end that threat. What would you have suggested they do?
Again, read a book on the actual history. It’s not a secret; even the Israeli newspaper reports are not as unhinged divorced from reality as your comments.
I would challenge the premise of your assertion. Israel didn’t threaten to nuke Iran and it’s not state policy to annihilate Iran. Besides, we can’t put the Israel nuke genie back in the bottle, but it certainly serves us all to reduce the states that have nukes.
Israel has not explicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran. However, its leaders have made veiled threats, consistent with their strategy of deterrence through ambiguity. Everyone knows they have hundreds of nukes and zero qualms about murdering civilians.
Garry. I’m inclined to agree. Would you hazard a guess on whether or not the Iranians escalate or back down now? Part of the Israeli prep for this of course was to personally target key leaders in the regime. I think this was a calculated move to increase the probability that the others actually opt to back down when the time comes. It’s easy to chant “death to America” when you are not personally targeted but all of the “top boys” in the Theocratic regime now know that it is their own lives on the line. To stretch your analogy, how do you play a game of chess with a gun to your head. Changes the calculus significantly. The strong move here is for someone like Macron to come in now as “good cop” and allow them to back down and save face. Even if Bibi’s goal is regime change, getting them to back down right now to let subversion work its magic is probably GTO.
“…how do you play a game of chess with a gun to your head.” Add the fact that the chamber might or might not be loaded — it’s Russian roulette chess. Sometimes you can make the right move with dangerous consequences. As we await the click or the bang, we’ll know which this was. China and Russia have weighed in with their displeasure. We’ll see how that displeasure manifests, especially with Russia that is dependent on Iran for its efforts in Ukraine.
"I would urge everyone to evaluate the situation with measured objectivity. If you would have condemned this attack had Obama launched it, then fair enough. But, if deep down, you know you wouldn’t have, then you shouldn’t do so here."
Here's the difference: if Obama had launched it, I would have confidence that it was after considered evaluation of all the evidence in favor and against such a move and also careful gaming out of the upsides and downsides of the possible responses.
With Trump, we know that he ignored advice that there was no threat and we do not know what evidence he had that there was a threat. I can easily believe that all he cared about was "disproving" TACO.
So...Trump pulls out of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement - which, by all accounts, Iran had been following to the letter since that time - thus giving Iran "permission" to restart its nuclear program. Then Netanyahu - desperate to remain in power, and who cannot do so without Israel being actively "at war" (and with Gaza "winding down" - sort of), preemptively strikes at Iran, with "tacit American and European support." And now, the U.S. has openly bombed Iran's alleged nuclear program sites.
Yes, the "reasons" may be different (and one can argue about the comparative legitimacy of or justification for those reasons), but how is what Israel and American have done in Iran that different from Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Yes, Hamas and Hezbollah, among other Iranian proxies, have "attacked" Israel several times. But Iran itself has not. And while it may be more difficult to fight against a non-State terrorist group, those groups are still NOT the country that may be providing their primary support. We have attacked the country - which did NOT attack Israel, much less the U.S.
Personally, and having as much knowledge and awareness of the global geopolitic as any lay person, I have never seen Iran as the existential (much less real) threat to world peace - or even to Israel - that so many others have. They had ceased their attempts to build nuclear weapons in 2015, and dismantled their centrifuges. They were a weakened (and weakening) country. They posed little or no threat - certainly to the U.S., or probably even to Israel (except via their proxies - and this attack was clearly NOT about those proxies).
Yes, they have always been filled with bluster and hatred toward Israel. But that's all it was.
Let's set aside that it would have taken Iran AT LEAST 2-3 years to create a functioning nuclear weapon, and ANOTHER year or two to create a functioning delivery system for that weapon. And that would be for ONE weapon. To create an arsenal of such weapons would have taken a decade or more. So Iran's nuclear program would not have become an actual threat to ANYONE for at least a decade, so there would have been plenty of time and opportunities to stop it in ways that did not "require" what amounts to a declaration of war. (Consider that even North Korea does not have a functioning nuclear weapon, and they have been working on it much longer, and with much greater dedication). Yeas, Israel was already at war with Iran, and we "simply" joined on their side. But until we did, Iran had no cause to attack the U.S. or its assets. Now, they do.
Now let's consider. Iran lobs a nuclear weapon at Israel. First, Israel DOES have an arsenal, and would flatten Iran in response. And if THEY didn't or couldn't do it, the U.S. would turn Iran into a parking lot in a matter of hours.
Don't you think Iran knows this?
As well, despite whatever commonalities other Arab nations may have with Iran vis-a-vis Israel, and despite those other Arab nations' own enmities toward Israel, those countries know that a nuclear weapon lobbed at Israel would cause fallout that would ultimately kill tens or hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Arabs. And I doubt those Arab countries are willing to sacrifice those numbers just to eliminate Israel. (And don't forget that they would also have to deal with the global political fallout from encouraging and/or not helping prevent such a situation.)
Don't you think Iran knows this as well?
By any measure, by any thoughtful reality, by any geopolitical factor, this attack by the U.S. was foolish, short-sighted and dangerous, since (as noted) Iran has NEVER posed the degree of existential or other threat to Israel (or the region) that all its decades of bluster and bloviation have suggested.
As noted, for Iran, this attack is a "declaration of war" by the U.S., even if it was "just" joining an already existing war. And even if Iran does do not have the military or other resources to "win" such a war, the fact that we have started it is nothing short of insane.
For the first time, I cannot agree with Garry and, indeed, vehemently disagree.
Whatever the merits of this bombing, it's clearly illegal for Trump to do it unilaterally without any sort of Congressional authorization. He isn't the first president to do stuff like this-- he is drawing on a long line of terrible precedents that shamefully went unchallenged-- but that doesn't make it ok. In our Constitutional system, Congress is supposed to decide when we go to war, period.
I would note also that the US didn't get involved in Israel's prior actions against nuclear facilities, so the fact that those turned out okay for Israel and the region is weak evidence that this involvement will turn out well for the US.
I despise Trump and want to see him in prison and I don't think letting Netanyahoo pulling us into war with Iran is a good idea but it's not illegal. According to the War Powers Act the President as 48 hours to inform congress about the use of military force. From there, without congressional authorization the use of such force is limited 60 days.
Attacking another country without provocation is however a violation of international law.
You write: “The flawed Obama-era nuclear deal was an attempt to temporarily stop the clock—yet it didn’t fundamentally change either side’s objectives. And there are no timeouts in chess.” What is the basis for this?
The most obvious explanation is that Trump and the GOP vociferously opposed that deal, which was a massive diplomatic achievement, simply because Obama did it. By all accounts, the deal was working. But Trump immediately pulled out of it and then tried eventually to renegotiate it. But the US’s credibility was destroyed and no deal could be reached again.
Isn’t this a crisis of his own making? Would we still be in this situation if the deal was kept in place?
Your chess analogy also requires more. How often did you make moves without assessing your opponent’s possible responses (and how you would respond in each case)? That type of analysis is completely missing from your piece but it is critical. The “wrong” decision does not mean the loss of a chess game, but potentially a catastrophic war for humankind.
Garry, You presuppose the strikes actually destroyed Iran’s nuclear program which I doubt that very much. According to Wikipedia, the US had a total of 29 GBU57s with a penetration depth of 60m max through reinforced concrete. If the Iranian facilities were at 100m like some reported, two bombs would be required per target with a second bomb immediately following the first one through its penetration. Best case, they destroyed 10 targets in the three locations. I suspect that the facilities on the surface are of little importance to the overall nuclear program. If I’m right, Iran can still assemble multiple ~10kT nuclear warheads in a short period of time and has ample infrastructure to transport them and cause a great deal of trouble.
I fear that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has convinced many regimes that only nuclear weapons can ensure their survival.
BTW, you can’t compare Syria’s or Iraq’s nuclear programs to Iran’s. Iran’s is far more mature and far better protected.
It’s only the right call if you buy the hypocritical rhetoric about terrorism. The US and Israel have zero moral high ground in all of this and the attack was nothing more than theatrics that Putin himself helped orchestrate. But as usual the innocent people that will suffer from the bombs, price increases and potential domestic conflicts will suffer.
It’s the right call if Tulsi Gabbard’s intelligence was indeed wrong, and why was that, btw? Where I go off the rails is the media (and the American people) incessantly beating the drum regarding the $180 billion we spent on Ukraine and how we shouldn’t be because “America first” but now no one is asking how much we’ve spent with Israel and this bombing expedition (and let’s include Yemen and 2 lost jets off aircraft carriers).
I think Trump did what Bibi Netanyahu asked him to do. I think Trump's reason is to join forces with Israel to take over at least part of Iran and its strategic location, control of shipping, and its resources. Also to drive the Palestinians into reservations in occupied Iran, so that Gaza can be turned into a Mediterranean coastline of resort hotels.
Recall that Netanyahu has been asserting Iran's near term ability to make a nuclear bomb since 2015. And do recall that Iran's position since the 1979 revolution has been the destruction of Israel.
We know that the GOP in Congress are solidly behind Trump on this escapade. See, for example, Vice President JD Vance's statement "I empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East. I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents..."
The GOP view appears to be that they don't care about a few bombs, so long as there aren't American troops invading or getting hurt.
News flash: American troops and civilians have been and still are in Iran's sights. "Iran vowed swift retaliation Saturday following the U.S. military’s strikes on the Iranian nuclear program. “Every American citizen or military personnel in the region is now a target,” a commentator on Iranian state media said. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops are stationed in the Middle East. Al-Asad Air Base, an Iraqi installation 150 miles west of Baghdad that is operated jointly by the Iraqi and U.S. air forces, houses thousands of American troops, the largest U.S. deployment in the country. Iran and its proxies have in recent years attacked it repeatedly. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/06/19/middle-east-us-bases-iran-strikes-trump/.
Note also that it is improvident to disregard the opportunities presented by this escapade to North Korea, China, and Russia.
It seems pretty likely to me that Iran was not as close as Israel says it was to having a nuclear weapon, and the threat has been exaggerated. The window of opportunity created by Assad's collapse - the 'opening' of Syrian airspace creating a corridor to Iran was just too good to waste.
Obama's treaty with Iran was far from perfect but it was a couple of steps in the right direction. We wouldn't be where we are today if Trump hadn't torn it up.
And the more trustworthy intelligence- ie not from Netanayahoo who's been claiming that Iran is one year away from building a bomb for over 30 years- say that the Iranians weren't pursuing one now.
"The flawed Obama-era nuclear deal was an attempt to temporarily stop the clock."
So, do you agree with Trumps revoking of the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)? It was an excellent achievement with very few critics. The US is in this mess because of Trump. Netanyahu had his ear both times.
The Obama-era BIPARTISAN-crafted nuclear deal was brilliant. Problem was, it removed Bibi’s bogeyman to distract the world from Israel’s terrorism in West Bank and Gaza, and Israelis of his corruption. This is Bibi’s game TO STAY OUT OF PRISON and I’m really surprised and sad that you can’t see that, Kasparov.
I hate the Iranian regime as much as anyone but the ends do not justify the means, ever. And what makes you think the Iranians would truly be liberated to set up a their own secular state?
The major "flaw" in the Obamba nuclear deal was that Trump pulled out of the deal
The “flaw” was that it had Obama’s name on it. Trump, no doubt, will expect his Nobel as a result of this action.
The flaws in the JCPOA were all laid out in detail in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to the U.S. Congress in 2015. The critique was and remains compelling and has never been rebutted on the merits. Subsequent events, such as Mossad’s seizure of Iran’s complete nuclear history documentation, have supported his claims while exposing how the American negotiators, led by Secretary of State Kerry and Robert Malley, were played by their Iranian counterparts.
To hit only the highlights, Iran never fully disclosed its nuclear program. There were to be no surprise inspections, instead a three week notice was required. Iran was allowed to place certain sites entirely off limits. There were a series of sunset clauses that, upon their expiry, would have legitimated their program.
And, of course, in exchange for no Iranian concession, Obama granted Iran the unprecedented right to enrich. While not directly relevant, Obama refused to support Iran’s 2009 Green Revolution in word, let alone in deed, seemingly to signal to the Ayatollahs that they could do business with him.
So, the JCPOA was never intended to halt Iran’s march toward a nuclear weapon. In fact, Obama never clarified his vision for the region, leaving everyone to guess.
In a functioning democracy, there are no two man chess games. In a functioning democracy differing opinions weigh in, and a group decision is made on behalf of the greater good.
We no longer have a functioning democracy, and a Dem better run for president soon, on a platform that counters the madness, or we will no longer have a country.
In a functioning democracy, all the parties are informed when actions that threaten the state are involved. Apparently, the “gang of eight” was not consulted or informed on this action. And Democrats report that no one of them was informed, much less consulted. This displays a lack of respect and distrust that has no satisfactory result. Now the action will be viewed as unilateral — the better to claim sole credit, no doubt — and set up even more division. With the Iraq war, the Dems could claim they were lied to, but they were not only informed but required to weigh in. Bush was able to hang the war around their neck as well. This is the real chess game that’s going on. Trump has little interest in the world game since his profits all reside state side.
Would anyone in their right mind entrust this group of Democrats with such information? I think not.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I now see how Trump was “elected.” You might start with the premise that Democrats represent at least half, if not more of the electorate and the US population. Sounds like you’re happy to draw that line between representative government and “just shit we like to say.” Very convincing.
No, I'm commenting on the content of character of the current Democrat Party. Would that it were different.
We have what we have. As far as I know, none of the current Dem leadership was indicted for taking secret documents or discussing war plans on insecure commercial communication channels. Not trying to pose a what-about, just stating facts. If there’s a legitimate concern, then it’s surprising that this administration hasn’t moved to prosecute. They’re not shy in that department. Otherwise, speculation is just shit posting.
DOJ was an arm of the previous admin. Be that as it may, Trump was protecting the opposition by removing opportunity. He's thoughtful that way. Cheers.
It pains me to say it, but Trump made the right move on this one. We see the real threat of a nuclear state swinging the sword of Damocles over another state’s head in the Russia-Ukraine war. Biden was reluctant to arm Zelinsky because Russia threatened to use its nukes. It’s awful to say, but any state that views its people as martyrs in waiting should not have nuclear weapons. Let’s see if part of the grand bargain here includes denying nukes to the other Gulf states, I.e., Saudi Arabia. After all, the US and Israel seem willing to act as proxies for the kingdoms.
Israel—a bellicose state committing genocide—has hundreds of nuclear weapons and is swinging the Sword of Damocles over the entire Middle East.
Any state that commits genocide certainly should not have nuclear weapons, no?
Which of its neighbors has Israel threatened with annihilation?
Gaza, like Iran, chose poorly and is paying a price.
You need to read more.
There are two countries that are not only calling for some nation not to exist but are destroying it—namely, the U.S. and Israel. That's their position with regard to the Palestinians. And they're not just saying it, they're doing it day by day. That's the meaning of the policies that are going on right before our eyes in Gaza and the West Bank, which we (the US) supporting.
Odd that. Israel withdrew from Gaza, evicted their people from Gaza in the name of peace. Gaza continued to send terrorists into Israel. Israel built a fence to try and maintain peace. October 7. Israel reaponded to end that threat. What would you have suggested they do?
Again, read a book on the actual history. It’s not a secret; even the Israeli newspaper reports are not as unhinged divorced from reality as your comments.
I would challenge the premise of your assertion. Israel didn’t threaten to nuke Iran and it’s not state policy to annihilate Iran. Besides, we can’t put the Israel nuke genie back in the bottle, but it certainly serves us all to reduce the states that have nukes.
Israel has not explicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran. However, its leaders have made veiled threats, consistent with their strategy of deterrence through ambiguity. Everyone knows they have hundreds of nukes and zero qualms about murdering civilians.
And Iran has had proxies in the area who lob missiles into Israel daily. Just imagine of they had nukes.
Garry. I’m inclined to agree. Would you hazard a guess on whether or not the Iranians escalate or back down now? Part of the Israeli prep for this of course was to personally target key leaders in the regime. I think this was a calculated move to increase the probability that the others actually opt to back down when the time comes. It’s easy to chant “death to America” when you are not personally targeted but all of the “top boys” in the Theocratic regime now know that it is their own lives on the line. To stretch your analogy, how do you play a game of chess with a gun to your head. Changes the calculus significantly. The strong move here is for someone like Macron to come in now as “good cop” and allow them to back down and save face. Even if Bibi’s goal is regime change, getting them to back down right now to let subversion work its magic is probably GTO.
“…how do you play a game of chess with a gun to your head.” Add the fact that the chamber might or might not be loaded — it’s Russian roulette chess. Sometimes you can make the right move with dangerous consequences. As we await the click or the bang, we’ll know which this was. China and Russia have weighed in with their displeasure. We’ll see how that displeasure manifests, especially with Russia that is dependent on Iran for its efforts in Ukraine.
"I would urge everyone to evaluate the situation with measured objectivity. If you would have condemned this attack had Obama launched it, then fair enough. But, if deep down, you know you wouldn’t have, then you shouldn’t do so here."
Here's the difference: if Obama had launched it, I would have confidence that it was after considered evaluation of all the evidence in favor and against such a move and also careful gaming out of the upsides and downsides of the possible responses.
With Trump, we know that he ignored advice that there was no threat and we do not know what evidence he had that there was a threat. I can easily believe that all he cared about was "disproving" TACO.
So...Trump pulls out of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement - which, by all accounts, Iran had been following to the letter since that time - thus giving Iran "permission" to restart its nuclear program. Then Netanyahu - desperate to remain in power, and who cannot do so without Israel being actively "at war" (and with Gaza "winding down" - sort of), preemptively strikes at Iran, with "tacit American and European support." And now, the U.S. has openly bombed Iran's alleged nuclear program sites.
Yes, the "reasons" may be different (and one can argue about the comparative legitimacy of or justification for those reasons), but how is what Israel and American have done in Iran that different from Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Yes, Hamas and Hezbollah, among other Iranian proxies, have "attacked" Israel several times. But Iran itself has not. And while it may be more difficult to fight against a non-State terrorist group, those groups are still NOT the country that may be providing their primary support. We have attacked the country - which did NOT attack Israel, much less the U.S.
Personally, and having as much knowledge and awareness of the global geopolitic as any lay person, I have never seen Iran as the existential (much less real) threat to world peace - or even to Israel - that so many others have. They had ceased their attempts to build nuclear weapons in 2015, and dismantled their centrifuges. They were a weakened (and weakening) country. They posed little or no threat - certainly to the U.S., or probably even to Israel (except via their proxies - and this attack was clearly NOT about those proxies).
Yes, they have always been filled with bluster and hatred toward Israel. But that's all it was.
Let's set aside that it would have taken Iran AT LEAST 2-3 years to create a functioning nuclear weapon, and ANOTHER year or two to create a functioning delivery system for that weapon. And that would be for ONE weapon. To create an arsenal of such weapons would have taken a decade or more. So Iran's nuclear program would not have become an actual threat to ANYONE for at least a decade, so there would have been plenty of time and opportunities to stop it in ways that did not "require" what amounts to a declaration of war. (Consider that even North Korea does not have a functioning nuclear weapon, and they have been working on it much longer, and with much greater dedication). Yeas, Israel was already at war with Iran, and we "simply" joined on their side. But until we did, Iran had no cause to attack the U.S. or its assets. Now, they do.
Now let's consider. Iran lobs a nuclear weapon at Israel. First, Israel DOES have an arsenal, and would flatten Iran in response. And if THEY didn't or couldn't do it, the U.S. would turn Iran into a parking lot in a matter of hours.
Don't you think Iran knows this?
As well, despite whatever commonalities other Arab nations may have with Iran vis-a-vis Israel, and despite those other Arab nations' own enmities toward Israel, those countries know that a nuclear weapon lobbed at Israel would cause fallout that would ultimately kill tens or hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Arabs. And I doubt those Arab countries are willing to sacrifice those numbers just to eliminate Israel. (And don't forget that they would also have to deal with the global political fallout from encouraging and/or not helping prevent such a situation.)
Don't you think Iran knows this as well?
By any measure, by any thoughtful reality, by any geopolitical factor, this attack by the U.S. was foolish, short-sighted and dangerous, since (as noted) Iran has NEVER posed the degree of existential or other threat to Israel (or the region) that all its decades of bluster and bloviation have suggested.
As noted, for Iran, this attack is a "declaration of war" by the U.S., even if it was "just" joining an already existing war. And even if Iran does do not have the military or other resources to "win" such a war, the fact that we have started it is nothing short of insane.
For the first time, I cannot agree with Garry and, indeed, vehemently disagree.
Whatever the merits of this bombing, it's clearly illegal for Trump to do it unilaterally without any sort of Congressional authorization. He isn't the first president to do stuff like this-- he is drawing on a long line of terrible precedents that shamefully went unchallenged-- but that doesn't make it ok. In our Constitutional system, Congress is supposed to decide when we go to war, period.
I would note also that the US didn't get involved in Israel's prior actions against nuclear facilities, so the fact that those turned out okay for Israel and the region is weak evidence that this involvement will turn out well for the US.
I despise Trump and want to see him in prison and I don't think letting Netanyahoo pulling us into war with Iran is a good idea but it's not illegal. According to the War Powers Act the President as 48 hours to inform congress about the use of military force. From there, without congressional authorization the use of such force is limited 60 days.
Attacking another country without provocation is however a violation of international law.
You write: “The flawed Obama-era nuclear deal was an attempt to temporarily stop the clock—yet it didn’t fundamentally change either side’s objectives. And there are no timeouts in chess.” What is the basis for this?
The most obvious explanation is that Trump and the GOP vociferously opposed that deal, which was a massive diplomatic achievement, simply because Obama did it. By all accounts, the deal was working. But Trump immediately pulled out of it and then tried eventually to renegotiate it. But the US’s credibility was destroyed and no deal could be reached again.
Isn’t this a crisis of his own making? Would we still be in this situation if the deal was kept in place?
Your chess analogy also requires more. How often did you make moves without assessing your opponent’s possible responses (and how you would respond in each case)? That type of analysis is completely missing from your piece but it is critical. The “wrong” decision does not mean the loss of a chess game, but potentially a catastrophic war for humankind.
Garry, You presuppose the strikes actually destroyed Iran’s nuclear program which I doubt that very much. According to Wikipedia, the US had a total of 29 GBU57s with a penetration depth of 60m max through reinforced concrete. If the Iranian facilities were at 100m like some reported, two bombs would be required per target with a second bomb immediately following the first one through its penetration. Best case, they destroyed 10 targets in the three locations. I suspect that the facilities on the surface are of little importance to the overall nuclear program. If I’m right, Iran can still assemble multiple ~10kT nuclear warheads in a short period of time and has ample infrastructure to transport them and cause a great deal of trouble.
I fear that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has convinced many regimes that only nuclear weapons can ensure their survival.
BTW, you can’t compare Syria’s or Iraq’s nuclear programs to Iran’s. Iran’s is far more mature and far better protected.
It’s only the right call if you buy the hypocritical rhetoric about terrorism. The US and Israel have zero moral high ground in all of this and the attack was nothing more than theatrics that Putin himself helped orchestrate. But as usual the innocent people that will suffer from the bombs, price increases and potential domestic conflicts will suffer.
It’s the right call if Tulsi Gabbard’s intelligence was indeed wrong, and why was that, btw? Where I go off the rails is the media (and the American people) incessantly beating the drum regarding the $180 billion we spent on Ukraine and how we shouldn’t be because “America first” but now no one is asking how much we’ve spent with Israel and this bombing expedition (and let’s include Yemen and 2 lost jets off aircraft carriers).
I think Trump did what Bibi Netanyahu asked him to do. I think Trump's reason is to join forces with Israel to take over at least part of Iran and its strategic location, control of shipping, and its resources. Also to drive the Palestinians into reservations in occupied Iran, so that Gaza can be turned into a Mediterranean coastline of resort hotels.
Recall that Netanyahu has been asserting Iran's near term ability to make a nuclear bomb since 2015. And do recall that Iran's position since the 1979 revolution has been the destruction of Israel.
We know that the GOP in Congress are solidly behind Trump on this escapade. See, for example, Vice President JD Vance's statement "I empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East. I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents..."
The GOP view appears to be that they don't care about a few bombs, so long as there aren't American troops invading or getting hurt.
News flash: American troops and civilians have been and still are in Iran's sights. "Iran vowed swift retaliation Saturday following the U.S. military’s strikes on the Iranian nuclear program. “Every American citizen or military personnel in the region is now a target,” a commentator on Iranian state media said. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops are stationed in the Middle East. Al-Asad Air Base, an Iraqi installation 150 miles west of Baghdad that is operated jointly by the Iraqi and U.S. air forces, houses thousands of American troops, the largest U.S. deployment in the country. Iran and its proxies have in recent years attacked it repeatedly. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/06/19/middle-east-us-bases-iran-strikes-trump/.
Note also that it is improvident to disregard the opportunities presented by this escapade to North Korea, China, and Russia.
It seems pretty likely to me that Iran was not as close as Israel says it was to having a nuclear weapon, and the threat has been exaggerated. The window of opportunity created by Assad's collapse - the 'opening' of Syrian airspace creating a corridor to Iran was just too good to waste.
Obama's treaty with Iran was far from perfect but it was a couple of steps in the right direction. We wouldn't be where we are today if Trump hadn't torn it up.
And the more trustworthy intelligence- ie not from Netanayahoo who's been claiming that Iran is one year away from building a bomb for over 30 years- say that the Iranians weren't pursuing one now.
"The flawed Obama-era nuclear deal was an attempt to temporarily stop the clock."
So, do you agree with Trumps revoking of the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)? It was an excellent achievement with very few critics. The US is in this mess because of Trump. Netanyahu had his ear both times.
*Former* congressman Adam Kinzinger.
The Obama-era BIPARTISAN-crafted nuclear deal was brilliant. Problem was, it removed Bibi’s bogeyman to distract the world from Israel’s terrorism in West Bank and Gaza, and Israelis of his corruption. This is Bibi’s game TO STAY OUT OF PRISON and I’m really surprised and sad that you can’t see that, Kasparov.
I hate the Iranian regime as much as anyone but the ends do not justify the means, ever. And what makes you think the Iranians would truly be liberated to set up a their own secular state?