10 Comments
User's avatar
wiredog's avatar

One of my concerns is, what if the US attacks Iran and Iran gets lucky in a counterstrike and seriously damages a carrier? Domestically it would be a disaster for Trump and he would feel he has to do *something*. "Something mut be done! This is something!" What does (or even *can*) the Trump administration do in that case?

Geoff Anderson's avatar

sadly I suspect he would reach for the football, and push the button...

Maria's avatar

All those words together in your intro... some people should NEVER have access to nuclear weapons and battleships...

Michael Wild's avatar

I agree with nuclear weapons but battleships were conclusively found to be obsolete before I was born and I'm 63!! Let the man baby play with some battleships.

Lee Dennis's avatar

Well, I'm 82, old enough to have relatives who served (one died) on battleships in WWII. Today's are staffed by good, decent, expensively trained American sailors. Be a tragedy if the man baby loses them for the sake of his fragile ego.

AS's avatar

My only regret is that Daniel Drezner has too much going on so he can't post every day.

Paul T. Levin's avatar

Good post. Insane that Huckabee is now supposed to go around the region and try to rally support for this war of choice after just advocating for a Greater Israel. Just one question: Are you referring to the JCPOA here? "Thinking that Iran would be willing to make such a deal on the nuclear issue with an administration that withdrew after the last successful application of U.S. coercive diplomacy is borderline delusional." (If so, I fully agree.)

Richard Lewis's avatar

No surprise that the man who called Walt and Mearsheimer's AIPAC book 'piss poor monocausal socal science' has nothing to say about that third party's roll in complicating the negotiations.

Alan Neff's avatar

Our forcible interventions in/disruptions of Iran (starting with Mossadegh) have worked as well as our interventions in Afghanistan. So...no more, please.