Nicely written, but ultimately not persuasive. Claiming that the military angle "is working" takes no account of the political dimension of warfare. What Clausewitz noted, and the Pentagon finally figured out after Vietnam, is that war is the continuation of politics by other means. Tragically, there is no political dimension to the war in Iran. Trump joined the Israelis in targeting Iran's nuclear capability in June 2025 and then joined them again in February of this year to target Iran's leadership. There is no US policy being carried out except for whatever justification the White House claims in the heat of the moment. Nuclear weapons and a ground offensive are thought to be too much, but the question still remains - what would be the point of nukes or a ground invasion? Too bad the Obama-era treaty, which was working, had to be abandoned because it was supposedly tainted by having been negotiated by the previous administration.
The article also has a decidedly army/air force angle. Freedom of the seas, however, is a navy function. Opening the Straits of Hormuz will certainly involve joint forces, but mine sweeping and other sea lanes functions require a maritime force. Unfortunately for us, the area of operations is at the farthest reach possible from the support necessary to maintain an effective naval force. Combatant ships need a steady supply of fuel and food, and eventually ammunition, and getting those critical items to them will take more ships and lots of time, which Trump does not have.
European nations might be persuaded to support a real effort to opening the sea lanes, but the US Navy will still need to take the lead. In the meantime, Trump needs immediate action and media attention, hence more bombing, which will never be enough to win.
Fortunately all our European leaders and allies like being insulted and demeaned so they’ll be thrilled to help us out diplomatically with Iran.
(Phil, really enjoy your writing and this piece makes a lot of sense but I get hung up on the question of why would they help—other than to lower oil prices and get some semblance of stability in the region. Plus, will Trump allow himself any role other than leading man? My growing cynicism clouds thoughtful reading of your work.)
I think they will do it not to help us out, but to stabilize the area. They are currently doing what we have demanded they do, defend themselves.
What I suspect we will learn after they have done so, however that happens - is that - as you elude, their thoughts about us, along with that of the rest of the world - will not be the same. Careful what you wish for.
For this particular issue, as Col. Huber notes - even with that - it's time for a change.
I look at it differently. From an emergency medicine background.
In that the first things you do when you come on the scene of someone on fire is to first secure the scene, then stop the burn, then begin other.
I think the Colonel's solution does that.
When you find yourself in a well, no point in digging deeper. Be honest with yourselves and others, and then begin the hard work of earning the trust and self-respect back that we as a nation have lost in the decade of MAGA.
But no, I do not expect that to happen until the MAGA plague ends.
Like you, I've found generally - with this group that - no matter what the situation, I think of what an intelligent, honorable, decent person would do, as found in this article - and then I can count on them to do the exact opposite.
Sigh.
On a sadder note, I've found that the recent change in management and format here has led me to rethink my earlier withdrawal of my subscription. If I want to consider myself honorable.
Bingo! Great article! There appears to be no easy way out. There are 100,000 targets and we couldn’t hit them in 100 years.
Nicely written, but ultimately not persuasive. Claiming that the military angle "is working" takes no account of the political dimension of warfare. What Clausewitz noted, and the Pentagon finally figured out after Vietnam, is that war is the continuation of politics by other means. Tragically, there is no political dimension to the war in Iran. Trump joined the Israelis in targeting Iran's nuclear capability in June 2025 and then joined them again in February of this year to target Iran's leadership. There is no US policy being carried out except for whatever justification the White House claims in the heat of the moment. Nuclear weapons and a ground offensive are thought to be too much, but the question still remains - what would be the point of nukes or a ground invasion? Too bad the Obama-era treaty, which was working, had to be abandoned because it was supposedly tainted by having been negotiated by the previous administration.
The article also has a decidedly army/air force angle. Freedom of the seas, however, is a navy function. Opening the Straits of Hormuz will certainly involve joint forces, but mine sweeping and other sea lanes functions require a maritime force. Unfortunately for us, the area of operations is at the farthest reach possible from the support necessary to maintain an effective naval force. Combatant ships need a steady supply of fuel and food, and eventually ammunition, and getting those critical items to them will take more ships and lots of time, which Trump does not have.
European nations might be persuaded to support a real effort to opening the sea lanes, but the US Navy will still need to take the lead. In the meantime, Trump needs immediate action and media attention, hence more bombing, which will never be enough to win.
Fortunately all our European leaders and allies like being insulted and demeaned so they’ll be thrilled to help us out diplomatically with Iran.
(Phil, really enjoy your writing and this piece makes a lot of sense but I get hung up on the question of why would they help—other than to lower oil prices and get some semblance of stability in the region. Plus, will Trump allow himself any role other than leading man? My growing cynicism clouds thoughtful reading of your work.)
Mr. Gallagher,
I think they will do it not to help us out, but to stabilize the area. They are currently doing what we have demanded they do, defend themselves.
What I suspect we will learn after they have done so, however that happens - is that - as you elude, their thoughts about us, along with that of the rest of the world - will not be the same. Careful what you wish for.
For this particular issue, as Col. Huber notes - even with that - it's time for a change.
I look at it differently. From an emergency medicine background.
In that the first things you do when you come on the scene of someone on fire is to first secure the scene, then stop the burn, then begin other.
I think the Colonel's solution does that.
When you find yourself in a well, no point in digging deeper. Be honest with yourselves and others, and then begin the hard work of earning the trust and self-respect back that we as a nation have lost in the decade of MAGA.
But no, I do not expect that to happen until the MAGA plague ends.
Like you, I've found generally - with this group that - no matter what the situation, I think of what an intelligent, honorable, decent person would do, as found in this article - and then I can count on them to do the exact opposite.
Sigh.
On a sadder note, I've found that the recent change in management and format here has led me to rethink my earlier withdrawal of my subscription. If I want to consider myself honorable.
Guess I'll have chock up some money.
Dagnabbit.....
Glad to have you back, Leo!