Correspondent #1
I am torn between agreeing with Lindsey Graham and bombing the nuclear facilities and Marjory Taylor Greene and not bombing them. I suspect Trump wants to do enough to provoke Iran into attacking a US base and having his Pearl Harbor (or Gulf of Tonkin) to justify giving Israel bunker busters and a green light. I think Israel may have a superduper intelligence operation but it seems led by a man with the most shriveled of humanistic fellow-feelings. As for Trump, I followed a few minutes of his Q&A this morning, via closed captions, and don't understand how everyone doesn't realized he is insane.
Correspondent #2
I'm equally disoriented: I find myself in agreement with Netanyahu on something really important; I am encouraged that Trump is ready to drop the bunker-buster on the Asshole-tola. What's wrong with me? Not even the fact that it's Marjorie Taylor Greene voicing the opposing view gives me comfort. I'm in the camp with Bibi and the Orange Monster. God help me.
I have believed for 50 years now (really, since the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran, followed by the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the attack on the USS Cole, and the endless acts of terror since) that the only thing really authoritarian governments respect is force. That's been especially true of Arab dictators forever. It was certainly true of Hussein, Assad, Gaddafi, a slew of Egyptian leaders (with the notable exception of Sadat, and look where that got him) et cetera ad nauseam. We've been played for decades by these cancerous zealots, and nowhere has that been more true than in Iran and its puppet states. (It's not just Arabs. Putin has played us the same way, and he, too, only respects force.
There's no morality play here for me — as there was in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. We invaded sovereign countries there, and it was indefensible. But we're not invading Iran. We're making sure that one of the most diabolical, fanatical, anti-Semitic, dangerous regimes in the world doesn't get a nuclear weapon. Let's do it, and let's do it now, when the Israelis have weakened Iran in every strategic way.
If this does end up in "regime change" (what a euphemism), so be it. I won't lose a drop of sleep over that, either. That said, I imagine there will be terrifying chaos, death and suffering in Iran if the current crew goes away, but it's better than the alternative — just as it's proving to be in Syria.
Correspondent #3
I’m pretty much agree that fanatical religious governments in the ME are a danger to us all.
Correspondent #1
Does that include the present Israeli one?
Correspondent #4 (me)
I am by nature muscular. I like the dramatic, the definitive, the bold. I am suspicious of quivering liberals. I thought that Israel's takeout of Syrian and Iraqi nuclear installations by air raids was justified and smart. I can understand the attraction of disarming enemies like Hamas and Hezbullah, and I share it, although with familiar reservations about methods and aims in Gaza and the West Bank.. They have vowed Israeli destruction - a country can't live with that, if groups like that have real power. You can't make deals with groups like that.
I think the government of Iran is despicable and dangerous in ways both foreign and domestic. I understand the need to make sure they don't become endowed with nuclear weapons. I support efforts to ensure they don't get them. Iran is now at a low point of power, and I understand the idea of the military option, similar to Syria and Iraq, but 10 times or 100 times more difficult. Still, allowing them to titter around with diplomacy while the production goes into overdrive is not wise. They are untrustworthy.
But, there is so much we do not know. I never expect truth to emerge from either Netanyahu or the current American government. Netanyahu is an extremist, egged on by other extremists. He can't wait to pull the trigger. He is full of hate. It makes me queasy to be on his side.
It is a wonderful thing to imagine an Iran under new leadership. But who's to say it would be any better? The Iranian people certainly have the potential for a good country -- more so than the Arab countries - try to find one to praise, I can't. But we have enough experience to know that dramatic decapitations can lead to hell, even when it's an interior decapitation, as with Russia as Putin has emerged from the rubble.
If we could say for sure that a few bunker buster bombs could destroy the nuclear installations in an uncomplicated fashion, maybe that would be warranted. It's a big step for the US to take, and you never know where it goes. Much of the world would be against it. If it went well, Europe would be for it. If it were clean.
Does Israel really need it? I believe that no matter how awful the Israeli government, Israeli nukes will always be defensive. We used to have to take that as a matter of faith, but with the current government and other governments yet to come, it's just a hope left where there used to be certainty. Who's to say where the limits are? An emboldened power can do unexpected things and have unexpected ambitions.
Can we say that about Iran as well? We brand them as extremists, theocrats who might be immune to death threats. I have believed that. I don't believe in the equivalency of Iran and Israel, I believe in the Muslim threat to the Jewish state which on doesn't see in reverse from Israel. But I am also humbled by seeing so much idiocy in the world, real idiocy. I am humbled by my own inability to predict and to analyze correctly. I guess that I believe that yes, nukes are defensive, and what is achieved by conventional force is then ensured against retribution by the possession of nukes. Roll into a neighboring country and take it over, and if challenged, say it was my right to do so, and don't do anything against me because I have nukes. I guess I'd just go back to a simple belief in non-proliferation.
What would happen if the bunker-busters were successful? What would be the effect on the US policy in the future. "Muscular" might understate it. More aggressive support to MAGA? Neoconservatism unleashed? Domestic coup solidified?
I guess I'd only have faith in the raid on Iran if it were backed by NATO. It's one thing for Israel to act -- understandable. I worry about my judgement even there, though. My reflex is always Jewish pride, that's our boy, so smart and brave! I guess I can stick by the thought of it's being in essence defensive. But it would be quite another thing for the US to act. I would distrust the end. Emboldened Trump. Ensuring safety to Israel in this way might be one of the worst things that ever happened to the US.
So, at the end of this muddle, I guess I'm happy for Israel's success -- I don't want Israel to be under threat. But unless we could get international support from Europe, which Trump won't seek, I guess I come down against the bunker busters. And I'd hope for Iranian regime change, but that will have to come internally.
Sorry not to be definitive. Actually, I haven't been following it closely so I don't know what smart commentators are saying. I love to deliver the last well-reasoned word, but I guess I don't have it today. Just a muddle of thoughts.
Correspondent #1
"Muddle" seems to be the default position. And I've been listening to the experts. Kind of quiver-making that the keen-thinkers who will be making the final decision are Trump, Netanyahu, and that mullah with the big beard. Chips will fall where may.
Correspondent #2
When I was in law school, I had a very erudite professor from Germany named Maximillian Pock, educated in England, who sounded like Abba Eban when he spoke. He taught us that, when one is faced with two difficult choices, "always take the least incisive alternative". He meant that you opt for the choice that moves you the shortest distance, preserves your future options and avoids what might be a big mistake.
I'm not sure his wisdom applies here, but he, too, would come down on the side of NOT bunker-bombing at this point.
I see the risks on both sides, but I'm in the Netanyahu camp on this one — a place I never, ever thought I could be.
As I said yesterday, there is no negotiating with Iran and its Mullahs. There's delay and obfuscation on their part, but they will not be deterred in their quest for nuclear weaponry. All the history so far tells us that. They have been the primary sponsor of world terrorism for nearly 50 years. They are a rogue state, passionately committed to the annihilation of Israel — and the Great Satan, the United States. Now — right now — there is a unique opportunity to knock out their nuclear progress. It's not an attack on their population or the initiation of a larger war. (And if it does result in regime change, bravo!)
Of course, things could go wrong. But this is not the same sort of risk we took when we put American troops into Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. We can fly this mission and then only get sucked in deeper if Iran attacks us somewhere else (if, indeed, they even possess the ability to do so).
Notice that no one — not the Russians, not the Chinese, not even the key Arab states — is warning us not to do this. Everyone gets that Iran is a threat to the rest of the world as long as it's governed by religious fanatics. (And though I smiled at Big Bob's rejoinder yesterday in that context, suggesting that Israel might also be governed by religious fanatics, it plainly is not. It's still a robust democracy, for better and worse. It suffers from a very powerful right wing, but so do we.)
On balance, I say, let's go for it. Professor Pock would be disappointed in me, but I'm sure that's not the first time.
Correspondent #3
You make a strong but not a new or unusual case for Trump to enter the fray with our bunker buster bombs - why now, what has changed? Our DNI Tulsi Gabbard stated, on March 26 in the Annual Threat Assessment, that as of now..” IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.”.
It may seem ironic that I quote this particular loathsome DNI, with her reported ties Putin & Assad, but her Intelligence report is a collective, effort not just hers. Putin & Xi are hanging back, as we once again get political advice by the usual suspects to eliminate an existential threat to ZIsreal & US. Our two greatest existential threats, Russia and China must be smiling & waiting.
As Winston Churchill stated “it’s better to jaw jaw than war war.”
Now in real time Netanyahu has ‘pillars falling’, as Thomas Friedman worried about recently, on hospitals in Israel and Bibi’s corruption trial continues.
Correspondent #4 (me)
I'm with you on the malign intent and actions of Iran - and there abuse of women, etc. I'm all for regime change. I'm not sure what to make of the immediacy of the nuclear threat, but the UN has countered the DNI assessment. I do think your professor wa quite wise in his advice. In public policy, a rather conservative voice was Lindheim from Yale who wrote about "Muddling Through," rather than solving something once and for all, and gave real intellectual heft on why that was a wise path. It's not just kicking the can down the road, it's one step at a time and see how things seem then.
It's also useful to think of the efficacy of threat rather than taking action. That was the great lack of appreciation of the Neoconservatives. They said, let's move into Iraq, set them up as a thriving modern capitalist country, and the whole ME will fall without out having to involve ourselves in each little step - every country will want it. Then the US revealed itself as a paper tiger, and forces that Bush was ignorant about, instead taking the word of Chalabi, raised their heads and boom -- the US was revealed as powerful but incompetent in planning and follow up. Better to have wielded influence by having the threat of intervention in their back pocket.
Imagine now if we used the bunker busters as threat, rather than take a chance and who knows what happens, here in the US or abroad, to our ME bases, our worldwide reputation (already in tatters), the fear our forces can inspire in enemies. What if we said we will not use it now, but we won't forswear it, either. What if we just would squeeze the regime more. Would that give internal forces more time and hope to organize? Could they envision the US coming to their aid by recognizing them if they took a few provinces, or something? I learned in acting class -- a great teacher of life, acting -- ask a son of yours! -- I learned that as soon as you lose your temper you lose your power. The threat is the thing.
Not using the bunker bombs is not the end of it. It's important to think more subtly about the future, I think. And you never know what can go wrong. As they say in the stock market, very often the way to win is not to lose. Minimize mistakes, minimize risk.
And as always, don't listen to Bibi. Bibi's greatest interest is Bibi, and he's as big a power grabber and liar as Trump
Hold your fire, but keep your guns cocked.
Correspondent #4 (me)
Here's one case for not going ahead, citing unknown unknowns. It doesn't cover the positive's I've cited for waiting - more than avoiding mistakes, it's hoarding continuing power. The definitive strike is for those who are losing -- as Japan was losing its empire to the oil embargo prior to Pearl Harbor.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/18/us/politics/us-bomb-iran-risks.html
Corresondent #2
What has changed? Two things, both momentous, in my view:
Israeli intelligence — surely better (especially on Iran) than anyone else's — contradicts the American assessment pretty fundamentally. (By the way, there have been reports as recently as this morning that Gabbard is not accurately or completely quoting our intelligence, and that would be no surprise.) The Israeli's say that nuclear weaponry is now imminent in Iran. And, yes, they've said that many times before, but they are acting on that intelligence in the most dramatic, intense and sophisticated way.
Iran has not been weakened this badly in the nearly 50 years that the fanatics have rules their country. This is an opportunity literally like no other.
So, to me, everything has changed in terms of timing, and much has changed in terms of risk.
Corresondent #2
I hear you loud and clear in general, but I think Iran is sui generis, and it's a huge mistake to let our deep wounds from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan dictate nonfeasance when this one opportunity presents itself in Iran.
We are not committing boots on the ground here. Nothing close. We're providing our ally with a weapon. We've been providing weaponry to that ally for decades, with great effect. We cannot harm our relationship with Iran by doing this; we have no relationship with Iran, which has consistently sponsored terrorist attacks against us for 50 years, while we try to reason with them.
There was a chance to stop Hitler, until there wasn't. There was a chance to stop the North Korean monsters, until there wasn't. There was a chance to stop Putin, until there wasn't. Reasoning with these maniacs is a fool's errand. Iran is a rich, powerful, well-educated country, and the mullahs have made it one of the most feared and impregnable in the world — until today, thanks to the Israelis. This is the moment to bring that regime down, and it might happen — without a single American in the country. If it doesn't, at least we've eliminated a nuclear threat in the hands of devils for many years.
If Trump doesn't use the bunker buster now, why would anyone ever believe an American threat in the future?
Correspendent #2
You're right. One thing we haven't discussed is the question of what happens if the bomb doesn't work. But I think these are the risks you take when you confront terrorists.
Do you think Obama was wrong to take all the huge risks inherent in going after bin Laden in Pakistan?
Budd Shenkin
