I’m very sympathetic to the argument that regime change is not the true objective but really weird to get an article via newsletter that says Trump isn’t talking regime change and consistently narrowed the objectives while watching him say unconditional surrender is the goal.
Unconditional surrender was the standards the US sought with Japan in WWII and led to the dropping of the only two nuclear weapons in the history of warfare . . . . and even then Japan was able to obtain conditions including the continuation of the Imperial line.
To be clear this is not actually entirely snark. There are parts of that argument that I can see. But I do think this interestingly illustrates its tensions and holes b/c the data isn’t there to reverse on its basis (yet).
Evidence piling up that the Trump regime thought Iran is Venezuela, and the Maduro operation—which needed some luck to go as smoothly as it did, and didn’t actually advance US national interest or improve anything for Venezuelans—was easily repeatable in the Middle East.
This was not very smart.
Wonder where folks who held to the Trump not as bad as Bush globally due to imo incorrectly analyzed broad Iraq/WoT death data stand on if that’s still true.
That’s, in my view, because “forever war” is a bad frame to begin with.
Endless war though has a lot to say about this war because it’s not solely defined by duration.
fellowtravelersblog.com/2021/12/06/a...
I do think all of these things are likely tbh
but!
those things can be true but also all parties for some reason feel like the war should continue to limp along
*note.
Should not given size and that these aren’t meant to be covert, I’d assume if it is US (as ev seems to lean) that will likely be coming due to investigation. And if not US, that answers who here given specific context.
But certainly not helping the already deeply undermined trust on attribution.
The lack of resolution of attribution/responsibility for this big case in Iran, in some key ways mirrors an issue we’ve been seeing in Yemen, Somalia, and other places with multiple forces conducting air/drone strikes.
www.justsecurity.org/129392/us-ai...
Reuters Exclusive
"U.S. military investigators believe it is likely that U.S. forces were responsible for an apparent strike on an Iranian girls' school."
"The strike would rank among the worst cases of civilian casualties in decades of U.S. conflicts in the Middle East."
Feel like the big focus on AI targeting and the big civilian casualty case (and other smaller ones) is crowding out the question of whether/how this admin’s actions regarding institutional support for targeting review/precautions may have had an impact.
All declarations of sudden breaking of the norm should not only address cases like Russia targeting Ukrainian leaders, history of U.S. / West plots in Iran, but also the set of cases like this www.justice.gov/archives/opa...
Not saying any is perfectly clear but norm is weaker than said.
😂 wasn’t directed at anyone in particular.
To be fair I’m sure I’m guilty of that too.
I would like a mute but only for posts above a certain rate option.
Lots of folks I value their insight but also sometimes feel the whole timeline is them on a tear.
Also very small sample size of cases where people would want to take such an act not due to norms but due to lack or limited character of conflicts.
I remain very skeptical of claims there was a strong norm against assassinating top government figures that was suddenly breached - especially when it comes to the long history of U.S. Iran tensions.
Really think a lot of this is complicated by questionable assumption that failures don’t count.
I’m sorry but framing this as some kind of secret knowledge and an admission rather than a deliberate messaging strategy for political/legal reasons is malpractice to say the least.
And it is even more so if (not this article) you’re relying on anonymous sources.
newrepublic.com/post/207325/...
The fatal flaw in Iraq 2003 was the absence of a *good* post-hostilities plan, not the very existence of a plan in the first place.
Researchers have found that a majority of studies on coastal sea levels underestimated how high water levels are, and hundreds of millions of people are closer to peril than previously thought.
www.nytimes.com/2026/03/04/c...
The idea that nation-building was the key flaw of the early WoT or the primary root of endlessness is a deeply harmful myth.
Yeah. I think there’s a big aspect of this. I don’t want to dismiss the regime change thing but it’s pretty clear this is part of whatever swirl of logics is operating at the moment.
I’m also just not sure the regime change literature is actually great when there’s an attitude of regime collapse.
Also while there’s clearly unlimited or regime change aims in the air, it’s important people remember that limited aims can also (or even moreso) lead to high levels of violence. And that they can also drive when failing trends towards unlimited/regime change aims as perceived path out of failure.
Yeah think even with the clear influence of the regime change talk and its impact, this holds.
Trying to read what’s happening solely through the concept of regime changes misses/obscures alot of what’s happening.
Suppose "Israel made us attack Iran" might have seemed a more appealing explanation than "the President attacked Iran on a whim because he enjoys military spectacle and using the US military as his personal plaything."
Hadn’t thought to run this N-Gram. I’ve done various other synonyms for endless war.
Interesting peaks. Surprised by fall off in later 2000s
Usual caveats about this kind of thing and its limits.
In fact, in many ways missile etc. exchanges are at the core of some of the most known representations of the concept of endless war including 1984.
The war on terror version is arguably a newcomer to the concept.
I do have some thoughts on what that definition ought be / what to look for in making a determination that a war has an endless character, and I think there’s very good reason to fear this meets the definition.
www.newamerica.org/future-secur...
Coverage of and questions for admin figures on whether this is an endless war should involve a definition of endlessness.
And no just saying “national-building,” “Iraq,” or “Afghanistan” doesn’t cut it.
www.politico.com/news/2026/03...
