Trump's unilateral action of bombing Iran is ultimately a natural and not-surprising outcome of the militarization of US foreign policy and imperial outlook, which began during the Cold War and in earnest under George H.W. Bush. Diplomacy has taken a back seat to military action and intervention -- rather than military action being the last and only option left. The results speak for themselves.
So what can we expect? Two thoughts:
1. It is rumored, though not confirmed, that the Indian foreign minister at the time made the statement "any country wanting to face the US needs nuclear weapons" in the aftermath of the Gulf War. The North Koreans have definitely taken such advice to heart and no one messes with them.
2. "No country without an atom bomb could properly consider itself independent". Charles DeGaulle
Good informative essay. I have one quibble with respect to the UN Resolutions, it would have been helpful to designate them as #1970 and #1973 or similar. It took me a moment of befuddlement to realize they were resolution numbers and not dates.
The political and long-range outcome of Trump's order to bomb Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities as part of the Israeli bombing campaign is of course uncertain. The strike itself was an impressive military success of course. It was a single day's (actually half hour's) military operation, and its success could have been put at risk had the administration sought Congressional approval beforehand or even extensive consultations with allies before the operation. Such steps would have given Iran the chance to prepare more elaborate defenses or measures to safeguard their enriched uranium.
Thus, operational circumstances played an important role in the US decision to go forward alone. I note that the head of NATO as well as the heads of Germany and the UK endorsed the strike after the fact, emphasizing the prime importance of denying Iran a nuclear weapon given its belligerent and threatening history against Israel and its Arab neighbors. As to the worrisome precedent the strike represents, we should emphasize that it was limited in time and scope to Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. One can debate whether Iran had decided to go forward with building a nuclear bomb. What is not debatable is the fact that Iran's extensive enrichment operations were entirely incompatible with a country that professed it only wanted to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and that it was only a short time away from producing weapons grade material if it so chose.
This operation was a fantastic success."
Hearing such an evaluation is certainly gratifying.
But when the author speaks of "bombing countries unilaterally," there’s an undeniable sense of awkwardness.
His commentary on war is extensive and detailed, almost second nature.
He notes that “recent U.S. presidents have sought support from some other body,” and gives clear approval of this shift.
His narrative consistently compares the U.S., China, and Russia, which lends his argument a certain persuasiveness.
The author is quick and diligent — once again reminding me of the old saying:
"What you write lasts longer than the hand that writes it."
Haha. Thanks to the author for sharing daily!
Is this AI-generated?
Trump's unilateral action of bombing Iran is ultimately a natural and not-surprising outcome of the militarization of US foreign policy and imperial outlook, which began during the Cold War and in earnest under George H.W. Bush. Diplomacy has taken a back seat to military action and intervention -- rather than military action being the last and only option left. The results speak for themselves.
So what can we expect? Two thoughts:
1. It is rumored, though not confirmed, that the Indian foreign minister at the time made the statement "any country wanting to face the US needs nuclear weapons" in the aftermath of the Gulf War. The North Koreans have definitely taken such advice to heart and no one messes with them.
2. "No country without an atom bomb could properly consider itself independent". Charles DeGaulle
C'est comme ça ...
Good informative essay. I have one quibble with respect to the UN Resolutions, it would have been helpful to designate them as #1970 and #1973 or similar. It took me a moment of befuddlement to realize they were resolution numbers and not dates.
The political and long-range outcome of Trump's order to bomb Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities as part of the Israeli bombing campaign is of course uncertain. The strike itself was an impressive military success of course. It was a single day's (actually half hour's) military operation, and its success could have been put at risk had the administration sought Congressional approval beforehand or even extensive consultations with allies before the operation. Such steps would have given Iran the chance to prepare more elaborate defenses or measures to safeguard their enriched uranium.
Thus, operational circumstances played an important role in the US decision to go forward alone. I note that the head of NATO as well as the heads of Germany and the UK endorsed the strike after the fact, emphasizing the prime importance of denying Iran a nuclear weapon given its belligerent and threatening history against Israel and its Arab neighbors. As to the worrisome precedent the strike represents, we should emphasize that it was limited in time and scope to Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. One can debate whether Iran had decided to go forward with building a nuclear bomb. What is not debatable is the fact that Iran's extensive enrichment operations were entirely incompatible with a country that professed it only wanted to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and that it was only a short time away from producing weapons grade material if it so chose.