By Noah Rothman
Thursday, March 05, 2026
To hear administration officials tell it, the objectives
it hopes to achieve in Iran run the gamut.
The White House wants to put an end to Iran’s nuclear
ambitions for all time. It seeks to neutralize Iran’s ballistic missile
capabilities and their potential to deny Western military forces access to the
Middle East. It intends to arrest Iran’s support for terrorist groups
throughout the region. “All I want is freedom for the people,” Donald
Trump told the Washington Post, introducing the promotion of liberty
abroad as yet another goal of this conflict.
Each of these objectives would accompany the implosion of
the mullocracy in Tehran. The Trump administration is wary of saying outright
that regime collapse is its true goal, but the Israelis aren’t.
Jerusalem’s objective is to “create the conditions” for
regime change, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Toward that end,
one Israel-based security expert told the Financial Times, Israel is attacking “the pillars of
this regime” and “everything that holds it together.” But what will follow the
Islamic Republic? That’s tomorrow’s problem. “If we can have a coup, great,”
the analyst added. “If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have
a civil war, great.”
Israel is fighting this war as it has fought every
conflict it has waged since October 7, 2023, with the goal of achieving
tactical victories at the lowest possible cost in blood and treasure. The full
flourishing of the Iranian people would be nice. And who wouldn’t welcome the
establishment of a durable and placid social contract throughout the Middle
East? Those are fine outcomes, but the IDF has a narrower agenda: break the
back of the Iranian regime and rid the world of its terror masters once and for
all while putting its soldiers at as little risk as possible.
The U.S. has joined the IDF in that enterprise, but
Americans have not seen their military fight that kind of war in a long time.
For some, it is a disorienting experience.
The United States Navy is the subject of withering
criticism, for example. CENTCOM seemed rather proud of itself when it revealed
that a U.S. attack sub used a heavyweight torpedo to break the hull of an
Iranian frigate — a first for U.S. submariners, according to Pete Hegseth,
since World War II. But this “cowardly attack,” according to a detractor,
disregarded the fact that the Iranian warship was “uninvolved
in the war.” In addition, according to the “historian” Craig
Murray, the attack amounted to a crime of war. “Despite there being no
threat of any kind, the US submarine sailed away with no attempt to pick up
survivors, leaving them to drown,” he wrote.
“Literal Nazi behavior,” the British journalist Richard Medhurst said of the U.S. Navy for executing that
attack “in international waters” well outside “the combat zone.” Contrary to
those who have convinced themselves that the Iranian ship was no threat to U.S.
forces, however, the IRIS Dena, one of Iran’s newest warships, “was armed
with heavy guns, surface-to-air missiles, anti-ship missiles and torpedoes.”
Naturally, every platform that allows Iran to project
power is a legitimate target in this war, and the advanced American attack sub
didn’t surface because that would expose its position to the enemy. These are
best practices in combat if the objective is to defeat an enemy force.
For some, the U.S.-Israeli air campaign is just as vexing
as the war at sea. “They are just carpet bombing a place more dense and crowded
than New York City,” Black Lives Matter activist Shaun
King said of the attacks on Iranian regime targets in Tehran. We can at
least comprehend King’s ignorance. He just doesn’t understand what he’s looking
at.
King doesn’t seem to know that the vertical pillars of
smoke erupting from these strikes are indicative of penetrating ordnance (the
column shoots upward because it is funneled in that direction by the crater the
munition had just made). Nor is he apparently aware that virtually all of
America’s gravity bombs are fitted with Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)
kits that transform them from “dumb” bombs — the sort once used in “carpet
bombing” raids designed to level a discrete area — into precision-guided weapons.
Indeed, the whole operation is “a war crime,” according
to “human rights barrister” Geoffrey Robertson. “There can be no peace without justice,
whatever happens to any future government,” he wrote, gesturing impotently in
the direction of “international law.” The “warmongering powers” America and
Israel “should have no say over a set of rules that should instead reflect the
values of decent democracies,” he declared.
But the U.S. and Israel will have not just “a say”
but unrivaled influence over the direction in which a post–Islamic Republic
Iran progresses, because that is the spoil they will have won for themselves on
the battlefield. Have we forgotten? That is how wars work.
What we’re witnessing is an informative exhibition of how
complex military engagements are actually won — through the application of
overwhelming and ruthless force.
Moreover, this demonstration of Western power has had a
sobering effect on America’s adversaries. In much the same way that Chinese
military analysts were clearly impressed with the tactical acumen the U.S.
armed forces displayed in Venezuela in January, the People’s Republic’s thinkers are
giving the American military credit where it’s due. As one Chinese
analyst confessed, America’s power-projection capabilities are limited by
its “will.” Contrary to the happy narratives bandied about in Beijing, “the
U.S. retains formidable economic strength and possesses unparalleled military
power globally.” Even Trump’s antagonism toward U.S. partners and allies seem
not to have mattered much. Washington’s “diplomatic influence remains
significant,” another Chinese observer admitted.
But what we’re seeing is not the result of diplomatic
overtures. Diplomacy is not what united the Gulf states against the Iranian regime as it
lashes out in all directions. Diplomacy did not convince the Lebanese
government to, miraculously enough, outlaw the Iranian terrorist group Hezbollah and begin to finally crack down on its militants. And diplomacy is not
crushing the Islamist regime in Tehran, which is already coming apart at the
seams. “Israeli intelligence sources suggest that there are signs of Iranian
soldiers, police officers and IRGC members failing to show up for duty,” The
Economist reported Wednesday.
This is all quite bewildering for those who believe that
any exercise of U.S. military power is illegitimate, and for whom defense is
not a priority — not when we could be shoveling U.S. taxpayer dollars into the insatiable
maw of America’s ever-expanding
entitlement liabilities. And yet, while this confusion is explicable, it is
not excusable. Theirs is a cultivated ignorance — a benightedness encouraged by
policymakers who, for decades, convinced themselves that wars can be lost but
never truly won.
That was a paradigm Washington occasionally forced on Jerusalem, but not today. This war
is being fought with the aim of ensuring that the Islamic Republic is not only
defeated but that its agents and sympathizers know they have been
defeated. That sounds quaint. It’s not supposed to be how wars are fought
anymore, if they are fought at all. “Every new war reopens an enormous
question,” the left-wing journalist Robert Koehler wrote. “How do we evolve beyond this?”
If you see the application of Western military power
against a malign force already at war with the West as an evolutionary
cul-de-sac, a vestigial trait the enlightened among us long ago sloughed off,
you’re likely to be hopelessly confused by events. But what we’re watching is
not at all confusing. Rather, it’s exquisitely simple, albeit rare: We win,
they lose.
No comments:
Post a Comment