30-year retired military officer. I've seen war. Naive was my kind way of saying you have made a very poor argument here. I don't view it worth my time to do otherwise than point out you're all wet, top to bottom. Moving on.
Example - Your concept of military planning. When we aren't training, equipping and defending, we are plan down to the liter of fuel, the split-second of timing and the butter needed for toast. We rehearse these plans constantly as living documents, keeping them current and staying proficient. Our objectives, tactics, every detail, are part of these plans. We update constantly based on intel and world geopolitics. You seem to think Trump had Pete and DOW just whip something up. Planning may not be sexy to talk about, but it takes up a considerable part of leadership time and forces training.
I'm sorry I slapped at you, Alex. You're one of the really, really good guys and I will never how on top of covid you were when so few journalists were able to see through the fog of deception and agenda, sprinkled with incompetence. Conservatives generally love to have discussions and debates. It's just that we so infrequently find anyone who can engage with us who isn't spinning crap for an agenda, changing the subject constantly, or resorting to name calling. You've never done that. I salute your sincere effort and I am put in my place.
You didn't need putting in your place. Nothing you said was out of line, mean-spirited, or over the top. I think Alex is being naïve and his question, "if Congress would have approved an authorization of force against Iran. I think the answer is yes" emphatically proves it. Trump could propose a solution to cure cancer for $1000 and Democrats would vote against him in unison like Lemmings walking off a cliff.
Actually Deb, Alex owes YOU an apology. And I really doubt that "seeing war" as an embedded correspondent in the Iraq invasion is comparable to actually engaging in combat.
But that aside, in response to his childish retort about "counter arguments to his examples": Alex's arguments are stupid. The fear of the left leaking plans is not only plausible, but practically guaranteed. Comparing this engagement to 9/11 attacks, Oct 7 attacks or the blitzkrig of Russia to try to make a point about whether tactical suprise has any relation AT ALL to an eventual outcome in Iran is beyond stupid. I can find 5 "experts" whose opinion will be 180 degrees from any WaPo curated "expert in Iran". None of their opinions have any value at this point. And the snark about Hegseth shreds Alex's credibility on the matter - rendering everything else in the column pretty much worthless.
And I'm a guy who is actually not happy about this conflict. I'm willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt that there was an "imminent threat", but I will definitely demand to see the intelligence that indicated what it was at some point. But I want the military to finish their job, and then walk away and let the Iranians choose what to do with their country. And I want that to happen ASAP. If there's not a clear and present danger to the US that needs to be addressed I have absolutely zero interest in engaging in any conflict in the middle east.
Imminent threat. Major alarms went off when Iran (stupidly) bragged about having enough enriched uranium to build 11 weapons. Trump has said he believed (he gets the very best intel reports there are, from as many allies as he wants to ask) Iran was going to have nuclear weapons very soon and was preparing to pre-emptively attack us and/or Isreal. (I must say, I can't think of very many reasons they would have done a victory dance around us over nuclear weapons unless they were on the verge, and could see their victory at hand.) How could Iran, dumb enough to bring 40 leaders together for a meeting while we had a major buildup around them, preserve, hide and produce weapons from those materials? One answer: China. If that situation didn't qualify as imminent threat (take it out now or live cowering with it), what does?
The Biden Admin. had a direct line to CNN. They leaked many things, one being the raid on Roger Stone's home, complete with armed FBI at 5am. ARMED FBI to raid Stone's home when he and his wife are 70 somethings. CNN was on the scene to record everything, they were conveniently waiting around the corner. No doubt there are anti Trump politicians and bureaucrats who would leak info. in a heartbeat to ruin Trump's plans on striking Iran. The Dems do not care about the country, they care about power and right now Trump has it. Recently, Senator Fetterman said in an interview that he is putting country over party and supports the strikes on Iran because they are needed. Iran has been playing the nuclear weapon game for 47 years. They would ramp up enrichment of uranium and then the President at the time would give them money to agree to stop. Obama's "Iran deal" was $440 billion, (delivered in cash in the middle of the night), dollars to stop pursuing a nuclear weapon and allow inspections. They were still working on a nuclear weapon as they agreed to the deal, they never stopped. This deal would let them have a nuclear bomb in 10 years. 10 years from Obama's 2016 deal is NOW. They never stopped enriching uranium, took the money, and funded terrorism across the world. We tried diplomacy, Iran's Ayatollah would not agree to the terms. It's well past time to stop pacifying them.
I don't think you need to apologize, first- Alex was wrong about you in particular. Second, that argument that he's seen it and you (or I) have not kind of runs against the grain of free speech and his own argument about the Constitution and consulting Congress. We're only allowed an opinion if we experienced the thing we are discussing? It is beneath Alex to do that. He should know better. And won't even bother to drill down on what he means by "he's seen it" because I think that argument is without merit on its face in this case.
Alex, could you point me to where in the constitution it says that Congress has oversight authority over anything (but especially war)? The facts are:
1. Congress is the sole body able to *declare* war. The president (as commander in chief) is the one that would prosecute it.
2. If Congress doesn't like a given war, then they always have the option to cease funding for it (that's what happened with Vietnam).
That's about it for the constitution. However, once Congress passes a law (with the support of the executive, or after having overridden a veto), that law becomes the precedent that is followed until it is either repealed by the Congress or declared unconstitutional by the courts (which hasn't happened to date). Given that:
3. Congress passed the war powers act in 1973 which gives the executive authority to conduct activities for up to 60 days with or without Congressional approval (after 60 days, it's necessary).
The truth of the matter is that the *REAL* problem in our government isn't the president (whoever that may be), but rather the Congress, which has the constitutional mandate to govern, and which has given up that responsibility. Meanwhile, they also insist on "oversight" (whatever that means), even though there is no place in the constitution that mandates that.
Congress insists on oversight because, regardless of party, it gives them ample opportunities to grandstand and win hoped-for points with the electorate.
Well, both things could be true. :) It might not be an argument. But what amazes me most about people is how anyone can be sure of any point of view in the middle east. The constitution allows for the president to do military action partly for the reason of surprise and/or because he has more info than we do. How can Tucker and Greenwald demonize Israel and people here who disagree? WHAT if you are wrong?? I don't know if it's right to kill people for sure, but I also can see how complicated this is. I don't trust Iran or radical Islam. I am trusting Donald Trump because we don't have the information he does and the Democrats can't be trusted not to mess up the deal and cost us lives and more. There's a better than even chance things can improve there. And what about just standing by while they maime women and kill 30,000 people? Is that right? I really don't know.
THIS!! My issue is with those on EITHER side of the argument who claims to be "so sure" of their opinion being truth. That in and of itself requires a level of hubris that negates their entire argument when I listen.
Yeah, I think it does require hubris. I am reluctantly trusting Trump to do this and that it will turn out better. But I really do not understand people demonizing Israel for Gaza or taking a position on any of it other than maybe we can't afford it. What if the people who don't want to stop Iran are wrong? I don't know all the answers and those that claim they do and attack people who disagree instead of debating things really bug me.
Well I have been in a war, and in hindsight we shouldn't have. Our strategy was based on politicians and their various personal wants, not on winning or preventing death to the civilians, and the 58000 or so of our hero service members. Or achieving a significant aim except a 'domino theory'.
All conflict since has been for the same reason, and the same results.
If you don't believe, or discount what you have seen, what you have heard, It is but a step to thinking this Iran action is also political. We instigated the threat decades ago, and that most certainly was political.
This conflict is not. Iran does not accept any responsibility for those that don't adhere to their beliefs. Offers have been made to accommodate Iran for decades. All have been rebuffed.
Would they use nuclear if they were able to build a bomb? Absolutely. If nothing else, a dirty satchel bomb.
They weren't surprised that they would be attacked but upped the anty.
Besides, from a squad up to world war, surprise is basic tactics. I can't see that from Congress. It is still corrupt and misdealing and not about to change. Unless something horrible happens to change their minds.
Given the recalcitrant political environment, personally, stopping the conflict would be the outcome for Congress, leaving the threat as it was.....and may still be.
We are in it and should stay until Iranian clergy is on its knees.
We did not instigate war. The Iranian revolutionaries did by taking over our Embassy and holding our citizens hostage for 444 days. Feckless Carter made one feeble attempt to rescue our hostages which failed miserably. That was it for 444 days.
Perhaps not naive, but imo, very misguided if you think strategic strikes and stealth this shrewd would have been approved by Congress. Just recall their faces at the SOTU: should we sit or stand? Congress is largely eunuchs and fools who do not know good from evil. No, Alex, Trump was right yet again. 🇺🇸
Your tweets on this war show you have a horrible ability to look at the both the rationale for this war and for the tactical and strategic benefits this war will benefit. You're a skipping record, bouncing on the same line over and over. Or a parrot going "Rawk! Unconstitutional!"
But despite all that please show me your articles, tweets, social media posts, TV interviews, etc., when you were vocally criticizing Obama for Libya and droning American citizens, and Biden for action against the Houthis. Obama for putting troops into Syria/Iraq to fight Isis. Otherwise you're just a flipping hypocrite.
His arrogance in how he presents his case, not his actual viewpoint, is turning me off terribly to his work. I've held off on the unsubscribe button, for now, but it's getting tougher.
One small example of the MANY I could address here - The element of surprise is not to win the war, it is to strike a hard blow and to preserve loss of life and assets. It is one advantage in a dance of many steps. Insulting to any military strategist or member, for that matter, to suggest they are thinking otherwise. Your piece is just hard to take seriously, line after line, from premise to "facts" to conclusions.
And after everything that’s happened to say that there are no democrats who hate Trump enough to betray America is complete blindness. We had 4 years of leading democrats blatantly lying about all the evidence they saw of Trump being a Russian agent. All blatant lies, that literally got us into war!
And just this week Sen Murphy was already publicly leaking closed door briefings about military strategy. I mean, it seems Alex is blind on this issue.
Let me further add for all the ridiculous constitution waving: correct me if I’m wrong but he hasn’t made a single post about how lower court judges keep unconstitutionally blocking Trump’s every domestic move, even when they are constantly overturned by superior court judges. This is *the* massive constitutional crisis of our time as activist judges are destroying our judiciary, and he’s stayed mum on it. You can’t only run to the constitution when it hurts your feelings.
Agreed, although I'll point out that they're doing that because 1, it's the only option they have, and 2, they know the media will cover them favorably, and 3, the media won't cover the reversals. Personally, I would like to see SCOTUS really bring the hammer down on these judges for doing this (and let's be clear, it's a very small minority of judges that somehow keep getting randomly assigned these cases - it's the damndest thing...)
These judges are not doing their job. Their job is to view evidence and decide whether Trump's actions are in line with the Constitution. These judges are ignoring the Constitution. I watched some of the Congressional hearings for Biden nominees. Senator Kennedy of LA read aloud their social media posts and past employment for various groups. They were ALL activists not judicial candidates. They either represented radical organizations or supported radical groups online. When confronted with their own words, they would deny or conveniently not remember what they said.
“Not pose an immediate threat”? Yeah, I guess Iran had only 69 percent enriched uranium, enough for 11 nukes. What would be immediate? A nuclear tipped missile expected to land in New York City or Washington DC in the next 15 minutes? The people leading Iran are total nutcases. Only a complete nut job would attack neighboring Arab countries when Iran is already under attack by the two most powerful militaries in the world. For the world’s protection, Iran cannot be allowed to get within a country mile of a nuclear weapon.
For hundreds of years Islamists have been trying to take over the world. Their goal has always been destruction of any country that stands in their way by any means necessary. The only choice for non Muslims, (Infidels) is to convert to Islam or be killed. You are correct the people leading Iran are nutcases
Mark, I wouldn't use a nuke on DC as an example. Even the Iranians are smart enough to know the Congress is the biggest ally they have. At least while Trump is president and probably after.
One could make a cogent argument that Iran has been at war with America for a half-century. So we ARE in a war, declared or otherwise. Much like a divorce, a war only takes one party to start, but two to stop. Notwithstanding the points made, of course the howling is the worst when DJT does what damn near every president before him has done.
Why electing humans in positions of extreme power over large numbers of citizens, who such rulers have not served in the military in some form is a serious profound absence of judgment by such citizenry.
IRAN: "We have enough uranium enriched to 60% that we can make about 10 nuclear bombs in a matter of weeks, our stated goal is to destroy America, and we've killed thousands of their citizens over the years trying to prove we mean it."
That's enough of an "immediate threat" for me. I'm good.
You keep asking interesting questions. Currently, I trust the President. At the same time, I do not trust all members of Congress. Some I severely distrust and can’t believe that they are in office. Not that they’re dumb or otherwise empty headed, but that they cannot be trusted remotely to act in the best interests of the United States. So how do you make plans with traitors in your midst. I can’t get past that.
In my opinion, this is one of the worst takes on this situation. You are kidding yourself if you believe the Democrats would not have leaked these plans. The world is significantly better off, and safer, as a result of this action. And, this was a legal action.
Yes, the Dems would have leaked. And maybe some RINOs, too. If for no other reason than to make Trump look bad. And saying they wouldn’t? and it would be treason? Puleeeze. As if ANY politician has been jailed or in any way punished for treason (or any of their other crimes) in recent memory. They think they’re untouchable.
Mystified, Alex, how someone as astute as you can call the risk of lawmakers leaking plans against a Muslim enemy "risible nonsense". I have two words for that: Omar, Tlaib. I could add a few more.
How about Robert Malley. We had an Iranian spy with security clearance in the Biden White House. Can you say we do not have another? When you get your security clearance - let us all know. Or at least spend some time reading all of the geopolitical opinions out there.. I don't hear in this piece that you've bothered to.
BRAVE SEARCH: Robert Malley, the former U.S. Special Envoy for Iran, has been at the center of a major controversy involving allegations of mishandling classified information and ties to individuals linked to Iranian influence operations. While he is not accused of being an Iranian spy, investigations have raised serious concerns about his conduct.
“Any member of Congress who publicly disclosed specific individual missions would face immediate scorn or worse.”
I’m still waiting for the person who leaked the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling to be identified so we can heap scorn or worse on them.
I really want to take Berenson seriously, especially when it comes to the medical/pharmaceutical industry, but he keeps on posting silliness like this.
Not a chance, Alex. You don't have the information Trump does to start with (though we all know it MIGHT be wrong). Donald Trump could NOT trust congress to keep their mouths shut because they hate Donald trump more than they love America. You ought to know that. WHY do you want to take a chance of Iran getting nuclear weapons when they don't value their own lives? They figure they are getting their 17 virgins. Look what they've always done. Look at the Somalis. I know all Muslims aren't crazy, but they are the one group I do not trust to become Americans--they are setting up parallel societies here in Michigan. It's worrisome. So you are wrong.
Alex, my advice is to not put an UNSUBCRIBE button anywhere near articles like this. You seem hopelessly naïve about the grave spot we are either in, or are almost in. Waiting for congressional approval while those fanatics make uranium behind an ever increasing shield of missiles and drones would have been historically reckless.
Alex, on this we disagree. I live in Teharangeles. My friend from Irsm are thrilled that this is happening. Many have families there and many have lost a friend or relative during this war. But they know what life was like and tbey knew that Zoran wanted to and was going to bomb The big Satan. Dont think that the Zoran fuck was placed in NY by American voters. This is a global jihad that must be stopped. I was undercover in FBI for 5 years and infiltrated mosques and conventions. They got excited talking about taking the US down yo establish the Caliphate. This shit is real.i tried to tell people but they thought I was a kook. I was i was.
Probability of having one Dem prematurely blabbing the attack that would have resulted in more of our soldiers being killed particularly if an informed Iran struck first is so high its a given. Alex, I wish you would live in the real world instead of fantasy land. Congress had bunches of notification with the weeks of military buildup in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea and the Mediterranean. Having plenty of advance notice and 47 years of Iran declaring war on the U. S. and killing hundreds of American soldiers, did any Dem or Repub in Congress propose the idea of a Declaration of War. No, nada nyet. They had their chance and sat on their thumbs.
We actually saw the blabbing they were doing after being briefed- Look at Senator Warren as one example. Who knows what they said on background or off the record. Does Alex remember all the phony leaked stuff in Trump 1? So yeah, I think Donald Trump saw a weakened Iran with millions of Iranians wanting to overthrow the regime two months ago and when they got the intel on Khamenei, they decided to take the shot. The same way Obama did with Bin Laden. The difference is that it took ten years to make that happen and 1500 Americans soldiers were killed and 3000 civilians on 9/11 before that happened. And yes, the last declared War was 85 years ago so that ship has sailed whether we like it or not. So, after 47 years of pussyfooting around Trump did something. How many people wondered why we didn't do this in 2003 instead of Iraq (My short answer, Saddam tried to Daddy Bush, so they were the target).
I’m tired of no one ever complaining about what a president does like Clinton and Obama unless it’s DJT. I’m anti war but if we can wipe out the cancer that runs Iran then I’m happy
I would like to caution that, if your post, after three minutes, collects 24 likes before anyone could possibly have read it, as this one has, you may want to evaluate the effects of audience capture.
I haven't had a chance to read more than three minutes of this piece, and take some objection to the "put aside XYZ" points because I dont think you can put those aside. But I was astonished to see the immediate likes, and am questioning whether substantively engaging here is worth it.
Congressional approval from a Congress where half the members care most about grandstanding/preening their disdain for Orange Man Bad rather than the issues at hand.
Just because people “like” what Alex wrote does not mean they agree with what he wrote. I “like” seeing Alex’s reasoning and perspective and see all the holes in his arguments. Alex must not be a chess player. Trump and Xi are.
I actually hit "like" to get to the post from email and then read it and check the comments. I "unliked" this post once I read it. So maybe that is what others do.
There were no comments when I received Alec’s post, 34 when I commented. I suspect there are many reasons why, not least being we don’t all get it at the same time.
Unless you can tell me you received the article earlier than its posted time for me (4:18pm EST), thats somewhat irrelevant. I care not if people received it later, I am interested in the argument that some people received it earlier than 4:18pm and liked it but did not comment.
I can confirm, and my post (although it took like two minutes to write and proof), is evidence of the 24 likes within three minutes of the 4:18pm posting.
Given that Senators Schiff and Warner regularly lie about Intelligence briefings for political reasons and suffer no consequences and at least 10% of Congress trades on defense stocks based on military and Intelligence briefings with no consequences, I'd say the argument that Congressmen would never pass along secrets about military strikes is simply absurd. Massie would, Al Green would, Omar and Tlaib would and probably have.
Buying defense stocks almost reaches the level of treason IMO. Mind you, nothing will happen to them, and I suspect they would be first to go to their moral high ground when the school was supposedly bombed by US. 😡
So I don't know how to put this other than this is a terrible take and you should consider taking it down its so bad. Presidents sending troops off to war without congressional approval goes all the way back to Jefferson, you know one of those founding fathers we have. The president presides over our military, that is constitutional. Did trump declare war on Iran or did Iran declare war on the US. Its obviously the latter. Just a brief look into Iran's current history will tell you that. Nearly 50 years the Iranian regime has chanted death to America. They have been the number one state sponsor of terrorism. They have killed thousands of Americans directly and indirectly. We have tried talking to them for decades. They lie to nuclear inspectors. We have tried bribing them. We have even attacked them before (in a much lighter way), these people will simply not be deterred by the likes of the US or anyone else. Their goal is simple, hasten the return of the Mahdi and nuclear bombs are the easiest way to do that. So yeah the president absolutely has the CONSTITUTIONAL authority to attack these people with or without congress. And as a matter of fact the gang of eight (Congressional leadership) was in fact informed about this decision. The war powers resolution gives the president 60 days to do his business if Congress decides this war is not allowed. More than enough time to take care of business here. Also there is another resolution (I forget the name off the top of my head), where anyone who was involved in 9/11 attacks, we can use military action against them without congressional approval. Iran did in fact sponsor Osama Bin Laden. And another thing, Trump has a history of very short wars. He clearly has a game plan. Given his track record I am actually inclined to believe this war will be short lived. And another thing, you seem to have a lot of faith in congress to do the right thing. That's laughable and very naive on your part. I don't believe for one second, if Iran was posing an imminent threat that all of congress would back Trump. Hell I don't believe all Republicans would. As far as details being leaked by Congress it happens all the time, ALL THE TIME, especially to push a political agenda. I appreciate your journalism but this article is just egregious.
If the Senate Dems will endanger our country by filibustering the
Homeland Security funding, don't you think they would filibuster the Declaration of War. Goodbye surprise. Hello Iran firing thousand of missiles and drone uncontested on out troops and the Gulf nations.
Let's just say you are incredibly naive in this matter and leave it at that. P.S. BTW, the rules were followed.
Calling me naive is not a counterargument to the specific examples I’ve offered
Btw, only one of us has seen war. It’s not you.
30-year retired military officer. I've seen war. Naive was my kind way of saying you have made a very poor argument here. I don't view it worth my time to do otherwise than point out you're all wet, top to bottom. Moving on.
Example - Your concept of military planning. When we aren't training, equipping and defending, we are plan down to the liter of fuel, the split-second of timing and the butter needed for toast. We rehearse these plans constantly as living documents, keeping them current and staying proficient. Our objectives, tactics, every detail, are part of these plans. We update constantly based on intel and world geopolitics. You seem to think Trump had Pete and DOW just whip something up. Planning may not be sexy to talk about, but it takes up a considerable part of leadership time and forces training.
I'm sorry I slapped at you, Alex. You're one of the really, really good guys and I will never how on top of covid you were when so few journalists were able to see through the fog of deception and agenda, sprinkled with incompetence. Conservatives generally love to have discussions and debates. It's just that we so infrequently find anyone who can engage with us who isn't spinning crap for an agenda, changing the subject constantly, or resorting to name calling. You've never done that. I salute your sincere effort and I am put in my place.
You didn't need putting in your place. Nothing you said was out of line, mean-spirited, or over the top. I think Alex is being naïve and his question, "if Congress would have approved an authorization of force against Iran. I think the answer is yes" emphatically proves it. Trump could propose a solution to cure cancer for $1000 and Democrats would vote against him in unison like Lemmings walking off a cliff.
Actually Deb, Alex owes YOU an apology. And I really doubt that "seeing war" as an embedded correspondent in the Iraq invasion is comparable to actually engaging in combat.
But that aside, in response to his childish retort about "counter arguments to his examples": Alex's arguments are stupid. The fear of the left leaking plans is not only plausible, but practically guaranteed. Comparing this engagement to 9/11 attacks, Oct 7 attacks or the blitzkrig of Russia to try to make a point about whether tactical suprise has any relation AT ALL to an eventual outcome in Iran is beyond stupid. I can find 5 "experts" whose opinion will be 180 degrees from any WaPo curated "expert in Iran". None of their opinions have any value at this point. And the snark about Hegseth shreds Alex's credibility on the matter - rendering everything else in the column pretty much worthless.
And I'm a guy who is actually not happy about this conflict. I'm willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt that there was an "imminent threat", but I will definitely demand to see the intelligence that indicated what it was at some point. But I want the military to finish their job, and then walk away and let the Iranians choose what to do with their country. And I want that to happen ASAP. If there's not a clear and present danger to the US that needs to be addressed I have absolutely zero interest in engaging in any conflict in the middle east.
And finally, thank you for your service.
Imminent threat. Major alarms went off when Iran (stupidly) bragged about having enough enriched uranium to build 11 weapons. Trump has said he believed (he gets the very best intel reports there are, from as many allies as he wants to ask) Iran was going to have nuclear weapons very soon and was preparing to pre-emptively attack us and/or Isreal. (I must say, I can't think of very many reasons they would have done a victory dance around us over nuclear weapons unless they were on the verge, and could see their victory at hand.) How could Iran, dumb enough to bring 40 leaders together for a meeting while we had a major buildup around them, preserve, hide and produce weapons from those materials? One answer: China. If that situation didn't qualify as imminent threat (take it out now or live cowering with it), what does?
"And I really doubt that "seeing war" as an embedded correspondent in the Iraq invasion is comparable to actually engaging in combat."
Bingo. That's the worst element of his arrogant, and wrong, backhand. Eff him.
The Biden Admin. had a direct line to CNN. They leaked many things, one being the raid on Roger Stone's home, complete with armed FBI at 5am. ARMED FBI to raid Stone's home when he and his wife are 70 somethings. CNN was on the scene to record everything, they were conveniently waiting around the corner. No doubt there are anti Trump politicians and bureaucrats who would leak info. in a heartbeat to ruin Trump's plans on striking Iran. The Dems do not care about the country, they care about power and right now Trump has it. Recently, Senator Fetterman said in an interview that he is putting country over party and supports the strikes on Iran because they are needed. Iran has been playing the nuclear weapon game for 47 years. They would ramp up enrichment of uranium and then the President at the time would give them money to agree to stop. Obama's "Iran deal" was $440 billion, (delivered in cash in the middle of the night), dollars to stop pursuing a nuclear weapon and allow inspections. They were still working on a nuclear weapon as they agreed to the deal, they never stopped. This deal would let them have a nuclear bomb in 10 years. 10 years from Obama's 2016 deal is NOW. They never stopped enriching uranium, took the money, and funded terrorism across the world. We tried diplomacy, Iran's Ayatollah would not agree to the terms. It's well past time to stop pacifying them.
I don't think you need to apologize, first- Alex was wrong about you in particular. Second, that argument that he's seen it and you (or I) have not kind of runs against the grain of free speech and his own argument about the Constitution and consulting Congress. We're only allowed an opinion if we experienced the thing we are discussing? It is beneath Alex to do that. He should know better. And won't even bother to drill down on what he means by "he's seen it" because I think that argument is without merit on its face in this case.
No.no.no. Alex had it coming.
Yes, Alex is right, it's better to make an argument, but you were far from out of line. either.
You're not wrong and you have expertise. Don't apologize.
Nothing better than a metaphorical swift kick in the balls! Way to go sir!
You've seen war? From up close or from afar?
Alex, could you point me to where in the constitution it says that Congress has oversight authority over anything (but especially war)? The facts are:
1. Congress is the sole body able to *declare* war. The president (as commander in chief) is the one that would prosecute it.
2. If Congress doesn't like a given war, then they always have the option to cease funding for it (that's what happened with Vietnam).
That's about it for the constitution. However, once Congress passes a law (with the support of the executive, or after having overridden a veto), that law becomes the precedent that is followed until it is either repealed by the Congress or declared unconstitutional by the courts (which hasn't happened to date). Given that:
3. Congress passed the war powers act in 1973 which gives the executive authority to conduct activities for up to 60 days with or without Congressional approval (after 60 days, it's necessary).
The truth of the matter is that the *REAL* problem in our government isn't the president (whoever that may be), but rather the Congress, which has the constitutional mandate to govern, and which has given up that responsibility. Meanwhile, they also insist on "oversight" (whatever that means), even though there is no place in the constitution that mandates that.
Congress insists on oversight because, regardless of party, it gives them ample opportunities to grandstand and win hoped-for points with the electorate.
Exactly!
Well, both things could be true. :) It might not be an argument. But what amazes me most about people is how anyone can be sure of any point of view in the middle east. The constitution allows for the president to do military action partly for the reason of surprise and/or because he has more info than we do. How can Tucker and Greenwald demonize Israel and people here who disagree? WHAT if you are wrong?? I don't know if it's right to kill people for sure, but I also can see how complicated this is. I don't trust Iran or radical Islam. I am trusting Donald Trump because we don't have the information he does and the Democrats can't be trusted not to mess up the deal and cost us lives and more. There's a better than even chance things can improve there. And what about just standing by while they maime women and kill 30,000 people? Is that right? I really don't know.
THIS!! My issue is with those on EITHER side of the argument who claims to be "so sure" of their opinion being truth. That in and of itself requires a level of hubris that negates their entire argument when I listen.
Yeah, I think it does require hubris. I am reluctantly trusting Trump to do this and that it will turn out better. But I really do not understand people demonizing Israel for Gaza or taking a position on any of it other than maybe we can't afford it. What if the people who don't want to stop Iran are wrong? I don't know all the answers and those that claim they do and attack people who disagree instead of debating things really bug me.
You're not naive.
BUT, you might not feel that way if you were Jewish living in Isreal opposed to Jewish in New York.
That said, im stoked you have a renewed sense of how important the constitution is.
Well I have been in a war, and in hindsight we shouldn't have. Our strategy was based on politicians and their various personal wants, not on winning or preventing death to the civilians, and the 58000 or so of our hero service members. Or achieving a significant aim except a 'domino theory'.
All conflict since has been for the same reason, and the same results.
If you don't believe, or discount what you have seen, what you have heard, It is but a step to thinking this Iran action is also political. We instigated the threat decades ago, and that most certainly was political.
This conflict is not. Iran does not accept any responsibility for those that don't adhere to their beliefs. Offers have been made to accommodate Iran for decades. All have been rebuffed.
Would they use nuclear if they were able to build a bomb? Absolutely. If nothing else, a dirty satchel bomb.
They weren't surprised that they would be attacked but upped the anty.
Besides, from a squad up to world war, surprise is basic tactics. I can't see that from Congress. It is still corrupt and misdealing and not about to change. Unless something horrible happens to change their minds.
Given the recalcitrant political environment, personally, stopping the conflict would be the outcome for Congress, leaving the threat as it was.....and may still be.
We are in it and should stay until Iranian clergy is on its knees.
Just an opinion from a very old man.......
We did not instigate war. The Iranian revolutionaries did by taking over our Embassy and holding our citizens hostage for 444 days. Feckless Carter made one feeble attempt to rescue our hostages which failed miserably. That was it for 444 days.
Actually, that was it for 47 years.
While there have been Iran funded terrorist attacks around the world.
I have not seen a nuclear explosion, neither have you.
Iran has described Isreal as a one-bomb state.
- Rich
There’s conversations that nukes don’t exist and are only Hollywood fiction propaganda used as National scare tactics: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/false-fire-5-reasons-to-doubt-the
I have seen war, in a far more ugly and intimate fashion than you. You're wrong on all counts.
Perhaps not naive, but imo, very misguided if you think strategic strikes and stealth this shrewd would have been approved by Congress. Just recall their faces at the SOTU: should we sit or stand? Congress is largely eunuchs and fools who do not know good from evil. No, Alex, Trump was right yet again. 🇺🇸
"Btw, only one of us has seen war. It’s not you."
Wow. What an arrogant, and wrong, statement.
Your tweets on this war show you have a horrible ability to look at the both the rationale for this war and for the tactical and strategic benefits this war will benefit. You're a skipping record, bouncing on the same line over and over. Or a parrot going "Rawk! Unconstitutional!"
But despite all that please show me your articles, tweets, social media posts, TV interviews, etc., when you were vocally criticizing Obama for Libya and droning American citizens, and Biden for action against the Houthis. Obama for putting troops into Syria/Iraq to fight Isis. Otherwise you're just a flipping hypocrite.
And I cancelled the subscription.
His arrogance in how he presents his case, not his actual viewpoint, is turning me off terribly to his work. I've held off on the unsubscribe button, for now, but it's getting tougher.
I think Alex has "voter's remorse".
What a condescending and presumptuous thing to say! (And erroneous, as it turns out).
seems like he might be trying a bit too hard to avoid audience capture
lulz. rake stepper.
Alex - I wrote this example making the same argument you did about this war being unconstitutional if you or anyone’s interested: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/stop-calling-it-the-iran-war-start
One small example of the MANY I could address here - The element of surprise is not to win the war, it is to strike a hard blow and to preserve loss of life and assets. It is one advantage in a dance of many steps. Insulting to any military strategist or member, for that matter, to suggest they are thinking otherwise. Your piece is just hard to take seriously, line after line, from premise to "facts" to conclusions.
And after everything that’s happened to say that there are no democrats who hate Trump enough to betray America is complete blindness. We had 4 years of leading democrats blatantly lying about all the evidence they saw of Trump being a Russian agent. All blatant lies, that literally got us into war!
And just this week Sen Murphy was already publicly leaking closed door briefings about military strategy. I mean, it seems Alex is blind on this issue.
Let me further add for all the ridiculous constitution waving: correct me if I’m wrong but he hasn’t made a single post about how lower court judges keep unconstitutionally blocking Trump’s every domestic move, even when they are constantly overturned by superior court judges. This is *the* massive constitutional crisis of our time as activist judges are destroying our judiciary, and he’s stayed mum on it. You can’t only run to the constitution when it hurts your feelings.
Agreed, although I'll point out that they're doing that because 1, it's the only option they have, and 2, they know the media will cover them favorably, and 3, the media won't cover the reversals. Personally, I would like to see SCOTUS really bring the hammer down on these judges for doing this (and let's be clear, it's a very small minority of judges that somehow keep getting randomly assigned these cases - it's the damndest thing...)
These judges are not doing their job. Their job is to view evidence and decide whether Trump's actions are in line with the Constitution. These judges are ignoring the Constitution. I watched some of the Congressional hearings for Biden nominees. Senator Kennedy of LA read aloud their social media posts and past employment for various groups. They were ALL activists not judicial candidates. They either represented radical organizations or supported radical groups online. When confronted with their own words, they would deny or conveniently not remember what they said.
Do you really think The Squad could have been trusted with advance notice? I do not.
“Not pose an immediate threat”? Yeah, I guess Iran had only 69 percent enriched uranium, enough for 11 nukes. What would be immediate? A nuclear tipped missile expected to land in New York City or Washington DC in the next 15 minutes? The people leading Iran are total nutcases. Only a complete nut job would attack neighboring Arab countries when Iran is already under attack by the two most powerful militaries in the world. For the world’s protection, Iran cannot be allowed to get within a country mile of a nuclear weapon.
For hundreds of years Islamists have been trying to take over the world. Their goal has always been destruction of any country that stands in their way by any means necessary. The only choice for non Muslims, (Infidels) is to convert to Islam or be killed. You are correct the people leading Iran are nutcases
Mark, I wouldn't use a nuke on DC as an example. Even the Iranians are smart enough to know the Congress is the biggest ally they have. At least while Trump is president and probably after.
A Jim Cramer moment
Great conversation regarding this comment. Well worth reading all the way through.
Calling Alex naive is an understatement.
One could make a cogent argument that Iran has been at war with America for a half-century. So we ARE in a war, declared or otherwise. Much like a divorce, a war only takes one party to start, but two to stop. Notwithstanding the points made, of course the howling is the worst when DJT does what damn near every president before him has done.
Why electing humans in positions of extreme power over large numbers of citizens, who such rulers have not served in the military in some form is a serious profound absence of judgment by such citizenry.
Made over and over since 1992….
IRAN: "We have enough uranium enriched to 60% that we can make about 10 nuclear bombs in a matter of weeks, our stated goal is to destroy America, and we've killed thousands of their citizens over the years trying to prove we mean it."
That's enough of an "immediate threat" for me. I'm good.
You keep asking interesting questions. Currently, I trust the President. At the same time, I do not trust all members of Congress. Some I severely distrust and can’t believe that they are in office. Not that they’re dumb or otherwise empty headed, but that they cannot be trusted remotely to act in the best interests of the United States. So how do you make plans with traitors in your midst. I can’t get past that.
Democrats are dumb enough to defund the Department of Homeland Security at a time when the American military is engaging Iran.
Yeah...but some of them are frigid-room-temperature-IQ dumb.
In my opinion, this is one of the worst takes on this situation. You are kidding yourself if you believe the Democrats would not have leaked these plans. The world is significantly better off, and safer, as a result of this action. And, this was a legal action.
Yes, the Dems would have leaked. And maybe some RINOs, too. If for no other reason than to make Trump look bad. And saying they wouldn’t? and it would be treason? Puleeeze. As if ANY politician has been jailed or in any way punished for treason (or any of their other crimes) in recent memory. They think they’re untouchable.
No, they ARE untouchable.
Mystified, Alex, how someone as astute as you can call the risk of lawmakers leaking plans against a Muslim enemy "risible nonsense". I have two words for that: Omar, Tlaib. I could add a few more.
How about Robert Malley. We had an Iranian spy with security clearance in the Biden White House. Can you say we do not have another? When you get your security clearance - let us all know. Or at least spend some time reading all of the geopolitical opinions out there.. I don't hear in this piece that you've bothered to.
BRAVE SEARCH: Robert Malley, the former U.S. Special Envoy for Iran, has been at the center of a major controversy involving allegations of mishandling classified information and ties to individuals linked to Iranian influence operations. While he is not accused of being an Iranian spy, investigations have raised serious concerns about his conduct.
“Any member of Congress who publicly disclosed specific individual missions would face immediate scorn or worse.”
I’m still waiting for the person who leaked the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling to be identified so we can heap scorn or worse on them.
I really want to take Berenson seriously, especially when it comes to the medical/pharmaceutical industry, but he keeps on posting silliness like this.
John, couldn’t agree more. I’m done with Alex’s hysteria and am unsubscribing. My money is better spent elsewhere.
Not a chance, Alex. You don't have the information Trump does to start with (though we all know it MIGHT be wrong). Donald Trump could NOT trust congress to keep their mouths shut because they hate Donald trump more than they love America. You ought to know that. WHY do you want to take a chance of Iran getting nuclear weapons when they don't value their own lives? They figure they are getting their 17 virgins. Look what they've always done. Look at the Somalis. I know all Muslims aren't crazy, but they are the one group I do not trust to become Americans--they are setting up parallel societies here in Michigan. It's worrisome. So you are wrong.
Alex, my advice is to not put an UNSUBCRIBE button anywhere near articles like this. You seem hopelessly naïve about the grave spot we are either in, or are almost in. Waiting for congressional approval while those fanatics make uranium behind an ever increasing shield of missiles and drones would have been historically reckless.
Alex, on this we disagree. I live in Teharangeles. My friend from Irsm are thrilled that this is happening. Many have families there and many have lost a friend or relative during this war. But they know what life was like and tbey knew that Zoran wanted to and was going to bomb The big Satan. Dont think that the Zoran fuck was placed in NY by American voters. This is a global jihad that must be stopped. I was undercover in FBI for 5 years and infiltrated mosques and conventions. They got excited talking about taking the US down yo establish the Caliphate. This shit is real.i tried to tell people but they thought I was a kook. I was i was.
Probability of having one Dem prematurely blabbing the attack that would have resulted in more of our soldiers being killed particularly if an informed Iran struck first is so high its a given. Alex, I wish you would live in the real world instead of fantasy land. Congress had bunches of notification with the weeks of military buildup in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea and the Mediterranean. Having plenty of advance notice and 47 years of Iran declaring war on the U. S. and killing hundreds of American soldiers, did any Dem or Repub in Congress propose the idea of a Declaration of War. No, nada nyet. They had their chance and sat on their thumbs.
We actually saw the blabbing they were doing after being briefed- Look at Senator Warren as one example. Who knows what they said on background or off the record. Does Alex remember all the phony leaked stuff in Trump 1? So yeah, I think Donald Trump saw a weakened Iran with millions of Iranians wanting to overthrow the regime two months ago and when they got the intel on Khamenei, they decided to take the shot. The same way Obama did with Bin Laden. The difference is that it took ten years to make that happen and 1500 Americans soldiers were killed and 3000 civilians on 9/11 before that happened. And yes, the last declared War was 85 years ago so that ship has sailed whether we like it or not. So, after 47 years of pussyfooting around Trump did something. How many people wondered why we didn't do this in 2003 instead of Iraq (My short answer, Saddam tried to Daddy Bush, so they were the target).
I’m tired of no one ever complaining about what a president does like Clinton and Obama unless it’s DJT. I’m anti war but if we can wipe out the cancer that runs Iran then I’m happy
I would like to caution that, if your post, after three minutes, collects 24 likes before anyone could possibly have read it, as this one has, you may want to evaluate the effects of audience capture.
I haven't had a chance to read more than three minutes of this piece, and take some objection to the "put aside XYZ" points because I dont think you can put those aside. But I was astonished to see the immediate likes, and am questioning whether substantively engaging here is worth it.
Well, Alex is a good guy. He's wrong a lot. Ha. But he's honest.
Congressional approval from a Congress where half the members care most about grandstanding/preening their disdain for Orange Man Bad rather than the issues at hand.
Just because people “like” what Alex wrote does not mean they agree with what he wrote. I “like” seeing Alex’s reasoning and perspective and see all the holes in his arguments. Alex must not be a chess player. Trump and Xi are.
This is sort of my point?
People "liking" reflexively before reading the piece is a signal, and a signal that may tend towards audience capture.
Not one of those 24 likes had read the entire article. It was instantaneous.
Im not arguing that all likes are signals of approval. I am arguing that likes given based on a headline without synthesizing reasoning is concerning.
I actually hit "like" to get to the post from email and then read it and check the comments. I "unliked" this post once I read it. So maybe that is what others do.
It’s also possible that we don’t all receive the posts at the same time.
My app says this was posted 17 minutes ago at 4:18pm EST and had no comments when I was writing mine. Was it different for you?
There were no comments when I received Alec’s post, 34 when I commented. I suspect there are many reasons why, not least being we don’t all get it at the same time.
Unless you can tell me you received the article earlier than its posted time for me (4:18pm EST), thats somewhat irrelevant. I care not if people received it later, I am interested in the argument that some people received it earlier than 4:18pm and liked it but did not comment.
I can confirm, and my post (although it took like two minutes to write and proof), is evidence of the 24 likes within three minutes of the 4:18pm posting.
Given that Senators Schiff and Warner regularly lie about Intelligence briefings for political reasons and suffer no consequences and at least 10% of Congress trades on defense stocks based on military and Intelligence briefings with no consequences, I'd say the argument that Congressmen would never pass along secrets about military strikes is simply absurd. Massie would, Al Green would, Omar and Tlaib would and probably have.
Buying defense stocks almost reaches the level of treason IMO. Mind you, nothing will happen to them, and I suspect they would be first to go to their moral high ground when the school was supposedly bombed by US. 😡
So I don't know how to put this other than this is a terrible take and you should consider taking it down its so bad. Presidents sending troops off to war without congressional approval goes all the way back to Jefferson, you know one of those founding fathers we have. The president presides over our military, that is constitutional. Did trump declare war on Iran or did Iran declare war on the US. Its obviously the latter. Just a brief look into Iran's current history will tell you that. Nearly 50 years the Iranian regime has chanted death to America. They have been the number one state sponsor of terrorism. They have killed thousands of Americans directly and indirectly. We have tried talking to them for decades. They lie to nuclear inspectors. We have tried bribing them. We have even attacked them before (in a much lighter way), these people will simply not be deterred by the likes of the US or anyone else. Their goal is simple, hasten the return of the Mahdi and nuclear bombs are the easiest way to do that. So yeah the president absolutely has the CONSTITUTIONAL authority to attack these people with or without congress. And as a matter of fact the gang of eight (Congressional leadership) was in fact informed about this decision. The war powers resolution gives the president 60 days to do his business if Congress decides this war is not allowed. More than enough time to take care of business here. Also there is another resolution (I forget the name off the top of my head), where anyone who was involved in 9/11 attacks, we can use military action against them without congressional approval. Iran did in fact sponsor Osama Bin Laden. And another thing, Trump has a history of very short wars. He clearly has a game plan. Given his track record I am actually inclined to believe this war will be short lived. And another thing, you seem to have a lot of faith in congress to do the right thing. That's laughable and very naive on your part. I don't believe for one second, if Iran was posing an imminent threat that all of congress would back Trump. Hell I don't believe all Republicans would. As far as details being leaked by Congress it happens all the time, ALL THE TIME, especially to push a political agenda. I appreciate your journalism but this article is just egregious.
If the Senate Dems will endanger our country by filibustering the
Homeland Security funding, don't you think they would filibuster the Declaration of War. Goodbye surprise. Hello Iran firing thousand of missiles and drone uncontested on out troops and the Gulf nations.
If radical Islam - as opposed to its disposable brands of Hamas and Al Qaeda - "lost" after September 11 - that's news to me...