Thanks for this. I don't have illusions about the Iranian regime and I believe that a nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable threat. My problem is that I don't trust Trump (or anyone in his circle) and I don't trust Netanyahu.
Some of the points I made may still be valid, including my criticism of US chicken hawks and Israeli hawks taking reckless actions that could well seriously endanger Israel and produce a much wider war. And the possibility of global cooperation to achieve Iran's more fundamental objective: civilizationally necessarily sources of electricity.
Your point about this dragging the US into another Iraq-style conflagration is very worrisome.
I think it is important to remember that China currently imports over 50% of its oil from Iran at a substantial discount to the world price. It is also in their interest to see that the Iranian regime is supplied with enough weapons to bog the United States down into a protracted war such that the US will not have the capacity to protect Taiwan. They could also extend a nuclear umbrella over Iran to prevent Israel from its nuclear deterrent. Many things to consider before assuming an opponent is weak and has no options.
Again, as usual, thoughtful, wise, analysis. I joined J-Street because it is the one voice speaking for American Jews that speaks to my heart and soul that compels me to hold to our Judaic values no matter the urge to defend ourselves with force. I differ from you in one respect. I am a pacifist, a conscientious objector. But I must admit, when I heard of the successes of Trump's bunker busting bombs on the nuclear reactors, I was elated. Upon reflection, though, as you say, we don't yet know all the consequences. I know that this unusual wavering for me on policy based on the outcome is a dead end. Help me with this. My instinct tells me that it is imperative that we keep our eyes on the long-term, a goal that we may only be here on earth long enough to set the seeds for--a peaceful future for our children and their children. I know such a future is never achieved with violence, even if it appears our enemy will obliterate us if we don't use it.
Jeremy, as always you have an exquisite way of describing an impossible situation. I wish you could get this out as an opinion piece in the NYT or the Washington Post so that more people can read your nuanced response.
While I had a different view than yours, Jeremy,in that I was hoping Trump would decide to attack Iran's nuclear sites, I think what you've written here is "spot on" in every way. Your analysis is SO nuanced and SO empathetic! Keep up the great work!
Thanks. Appreciate that some have reached a different conclusion on whether this was the right move or not. Some people's judgments will also shift in the days and weeks ahead as the ramifications play out. The important thing is that we all need to understand the risks entailed in this move.
Israeli and American officials can’t threaten the Iranian people into friendship. There exists considerable alignment between Israelis and ordinary Iranians, who both can agree that they would like to see Iran’s revolutionary theocracy fall. The Iranian people should be natural allies to anyone seeking the downfall of their oppressors.
Recklessly, they could become collateral damage in response to Iranian counterattacks undermines all of Israel’s war aims, not least because it risks pushing the Iranian people back into the arms of a widely loathed regime in the face of real, existential threats to their beloved homeland.
Israel should be doing everything it can to avoid civilian casualties and keep the Iranian people—the most immediate victims of the Islamic Republic—out of the line of fire.
This makes sense from a humanitarian perspective, but strategically too. If regime change is indeed Israel and America’s objective, then they should heed the lesson of the past three decades of military intervention in the Middle East: a change in government cannot be imposed from outside. It must come from within, and Israel, US partners, should not risk alienating the very constituency it needs most to get the job done.
1) Whatever the United Should have done becomes somewhat moot given that it has acted.
2) Obviously we don't know what's going to happen next. What Iran will do directly or through its proxies and agents both in the Middle East - and around the world.
3) This was sort of a "Guns of August" moment - hopefully without the rest!. But in the sense of Either act now; or it will be too late. Both because Hamas, Hezbollah and Iranians "capacities" had been weakened and their defenses...And of course because many believe would be too late. That the Iranian nuclear was almost among us. (Which of course leads others to say - even if Iran had nukes; not a real threat - because wouldnt be crazy enough to use them. This is Iran. They have their beliefs. Can never be certain.)
4) Can make a good case that US allies in the region especially Saudis will be glad not to have to face Iranian nukes. And even that as is attributed to Machiavelli "Better to be Feared than Loved." (Ideally both is nice!) - As the US sends out a message.
I'm glad you have no illusions about the threat from Iran. Because many have. (Some others actually want Iran to have nuke. See it all over social media.)
I personally think it would "constructive" if J Street made this clearer. AND (as a I've mentioned before) - speaking out against the anti-Israel haters in this country (Jewish and non-Jewish alike)
I'm not blind to certain realities as to how Israel is viewed in many places. And not blind to the costs since October 7th. And not seeking to defend Netanyahu re various issues. But Certainly Israel has come a long way since the threat Israel faced on October 7th. Hamas. Hezbollah. Lebanon. Syria. And now Iran. Massive accomplishment by Israel and the IDF. (And agree that not everything can be military. And that diplomacy and peace-making is good where possible.) And certainly avoid hubris (as after 1967)
I could be wrong about this but I am not entirely convinced that in the interim there is gong to be a major retaliation by Iran against the United States. Because Iran’s military has been severely degraded by Israel over the past ten days and I am skeptical that the strikes were nearly as successful as Trump claimed that they were last night when he addressed the American people from the White House.
I am not a scientist but it would seem to me that if the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the United States Air Force last night were the “spectacular success” that Trump claimed they were there would have been a massive radiation fallout in the Middle East.
Apparently, that was not the case. So, why would Iran want to risk an all out war with the United States right now when it could fairly easily reconstitute its nuclear program in secret and hit Israel or even United States assets in the Middle East with a nuclear weapon much later on?
The immediate retaliation by Iran may come in the way of its proxies like the Houthi terrorists attacking our service personnel in the Middle East, just as you pointed out, or Iran closing the Straight of Hormuz. Or Hezbollah somehow reforming in southern Lebanon and firing deadly rockets into Israel once again. Or Americans and/or Jews being attacked in the U.S. and/or other places by Iranian sympathizing terrorists.
Trump campaigned for President in 2016, 2020, and 2024 on always “putting America first” and as a peace candidate who would prevent the U.S. from getting entangled in forever wars in the Middle East and other places.
Last night he broke his promise to “put America first” because it is now going to be much harder to prevent Iran, an adversary of the U.S., from ultimately acquiring a nuclear weapon that can be used against U.S. military and/or other assets in the region and/or our close ally, Israel.
What incentive is there now for Iran to negotiate win the U.S. regarding its nuclear program being that the U.S. has already attempted to destroy it militarily? Why would Khamenei or any other Iranian leader ever again trust Trump on anything after his rash and reckless decision last night, especially after he withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 for no rhyme or reason?
And should the strikes last night against Iran by the U.S. lead to a protracted war with Iran involving the U.S., Trump will have violated his key campaign pledge to prevent a forever war.
I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist but it seems to me like the precipitous and ill-advised decision by Trump last night to order the U.S. Air Force to strike at nuclear sites inside Iran was an attempt by a weak and wanting in confidence President of the United States to project an image of strength to mentally compensate for his inferiority complex.
Please tell me what you think when you have the opportunity.
That is the right question. There's no resolution and no agreement if we don't understand what would allow the other side to get to yes. Was it right to draw a "no enrichment at all" bottom line? Would there be a way to establish low-level civilian enrichment under international supervision on Iranian soil? We will probably now never know, but the JCPOA showed there was a way to have a secure, low-level enrichment program with international oversight and achieve our core goal without war.
I like this quote, from George Conway, I think: a smart and evil man manipulated a stupid and evil man into a war against a fanatical and evil regime.
We are in perilous times our country is being run by unqualified leaders.
Thanks for this. I don't have illusions about the Iranian regime and I believe that a nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable threat. My problem is that I don't trust Trump (or anyone in his circle) and I don't trust Netanyahu.
Jeremy, thank you for your What Next? https://jeremybenami.substack.com/p/now-what.
Me, I'm now at somewhat of a lack of words. Last Sunday I submitted and yesterday withdrew an op-ed to the Cleveland Plain Dealer citing your earlier post about diplomacy, and I've now re-posted it here: https://michaelalandover.substack.com/p/two-steps-towards-ending-two-three.
Some of the points I made may still be valid, including my criticism of US chicken hawks and Israeli hawks taking reckless actions that could well seriously endanger Israel and produce a much wider war. And the possibility of global cooperation to achieve Iran's more fundamental objective: civilizationally necessarily sources of electricity.
Your point about this dragging the US into another Iraq-style conflagration is very worrisome.
The danger of Russia and China building a NATO-lite kind of growing military partnership (see CEPA report and other reports, https://cepa.org/comprehensive-reports/partnership-short-of-alliance-military-cooperation-between-russia-and-china/), and drawing other nations in is worrisome. The US attack will give a strong impetus to nations like Iran, South Africa, Brazil and others to consider joining something like this.
Finally, there is the danger we will lose focus on resuming efforts at a resumption of a ceasefire and hostage releases in Gaza.
We have to push back on the macho-like tendency to cheer Netanyahu, as this may not end well.
I think it is important to remember that China currently imports over 50% of its oil from Iran at a substantial discount to the world price. It is also in their interest to see that the Iranian regime is supplied with enough weapons to bog the United States down into a protracted war such that the US will not have the capacity to protect Taiwan. They could also extend a nuclear umbrella over Iran to prevent Israel from its nuclear deterrent. Many things to consider before assuming an opponent is weak and has no options.
Again, as usual, thoughtful, wise, analysis. I joined J-Street because it is the one voice speaking for American Jews that speaks to my heart and soul that compels me to hold to our Judaic values no matter the urge to defend ourselves with force. I differ from you in one respect. I am a pacifist, a conscientious objector. But I must admit, when I heard of the successes of Trump's bunker busting bombs on the nuclear reactors, I was elated. Upon reflection, though, as you say, we don't yet know all the consequences. I know that this unusual wavering for me on policy based on the outcome is a dead end. Help me with this. My instinct tells me that it is imperative that we keep our eyes on the long-term, a goal that we may only be here on earth long enough to set the seeds for--a peaceful future for our children and their children. I know such a future is never achieved with violence, even if it appears our enemy will obliterate us if we don't use it.
I appreciate the nuance and self-awareness of your reply.
Strategic, pragmatic analysis of a treacherous situation!
Jeremy, as always you have an exquisite way of describing an impossible situation. I wish you could get this out as an opinion piece in the NYT or the Washington Post so that more people can read your nuanced response.
While I had a different view than yours, Jeremy,in that I was hoping Trump would decide to attack Iran's nuclear sites, I think what you've written here is "spot on" in every way. Your analysis is SO nuanced and SO empathetic! Keep up the great work!
Thanks. Appreciate that some have reached a different conclusion on whether this was the right move or not. Some people's judgments will also shift in the days and weeks ahead as the ramifications play out. The important thing is that we all need to understand the risks entailed in this move.
I wish our leaders would think as critically and compassionately as you.
Israel Can’t Win if It Loses the Iranian People.
Israeli and American officials can’t threaten the Iranian people into friendship. There exists considerable alignment between Israelis and ordinary Iranians, who both can agree that they would like to see Iran’s revolutionary theocracy fall. The Iranian people should be natural allies to anyone seeking the downfall of their oppressors.
Recklessly, they could become collateral damage in response to Iranian counterattacks undermines all of Israel’s war aims, not least because it risks pushing the Iranian people back into the arms of a widely loathed regime in the face of real, existential threats to their beloved homeland.
Israel should be doing everything it can to avoid civilian casualties and keep the Iranian people—the most immediate victims of the Islamic Republic—out of the line of fire.
This makes sense from a humanitarian perspective, but strategically too. If regime change is indeed Israel and America’s objective, then they should heed the lesson of the past three decades of military intervention in the Middle East: a change in government cannot be imposed from outside. It must come from within, and Israel, US partners, should not risk alienating the very constituency it needs most to get the job done.
1) Whatever the United Should have done becomes somewhat moot given that it has acted.
2) Obviously we don't know what's going to happen next. What Iran will do directly or through its proxies and agents both in the Middle East - and around the world.
3) This was sort of a "Guns of August" moment - hopefully without the rest!. But in the sense of Either act now; or it will be too late. Both because Hamas, Hezbollah and Iranians "capacities" had been weakened and their defenses...And of course because many believe would be too late. That the Iranian nuclear was almost among us. (Which of course leads others to say - even if Iran had nukes; not a real threat - because wouldnt be crazy enough to use them. This is Iran. They have their beliefs. Can never be certain.)
4) Can make a good case that US allies in the region especially Saudis will be glad not to have to face Iranian nukes. And even that as is attributed to Machiavelli "Better to be Feared than Loved." (Ideally both is nice!) - As the US sends out a message.
I'm glad you have no illusions about the threat from Iran. Because many have. (Some others actually want Iran to have nuke. See it all over social media.)
I personally think it would "constructive" if J Street made this clearer. AND (as a I've mentioned before) - speaking out against the anti-Israel haters in this country (Jewish and non-Jewish alike)
I'm not blind to certain realities as to how Israel is viewed in many places. And not blind to the costs since October 7th. And not seeking to defend Netanyahu re various issues. But Certainly Israel has come a long way since the threat Israel faced on October 7th. Hamas. Hezbollah. Lebanon. Syria. And now Iran. Massive accomplishment by Israel and the IDF. (And agree that not everything can be military. And that diplomacy and peace-making is good where possible.) And certainly avoid hubris (as after 1967)
Thanks
Thanks.
See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2025/06/24/dump-trump-now/
Jeremy,
I could be wrong about this but I am not entirely convinced that in the interim there is gong to be a major retaliation by Iran against the United States. Because Iran’s military has been severely degraded by Israel over the past ten days and I am skeptical that the strikes were nearly as successful as Trump claimed that they were last night when he addressed the American people from the White House.
I am not a scientist but it would seem to me that if the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the United States Air Force last night were the “spectacular success” that Trump claimed they were there would have been a massive radiation fallout in the Middle East.
Apparently, that was not the case. So, why would Iran want to risk an all out war with the United States right now when it could fairly easily reconstitute its nuclear program in secret and hit Israel or even United States assets in the Middle East with a nuclear weapon much later on?
The immediate retaliation by Iran may come in the way of its proxies like the Houthi terrorists attacking our service personnel in the Middle East, just as you pointed out, or Iran closing the Straight of Hormuz. Or Hezbollah somehow reforming in southern Lebanon and firing deadly rockets into Israel once again. Or Americans and/or Jews being attacked in the U.S. and/or other places by Iranian sympathizing terrorists.
Trump campaigned for President in 2016, 2020, and 2024 on always “putting America first” and as a peace candidate who would prevent the U.S. from getting entangled in forever wars in the Middle East and other places.
Last night he broke his promise to “put America first” because it is now going to be much harder to prevent Iran, an adversary of the U.S., from ultimately acquiring a nuclear weapon that can be used against U.S. military and/or other assets in the region and/or our close ally, Israel.
What incentive is there now for Iran to negotiate win the U.S. regarding its nuclear program being that the U.S. has already attempted to destroy it militarily? Why would Khamenei or any other Iranian leader ever again trust Trump on anything after his rash and reckless decision last night, especially after he withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 for no rhyme or reason?
And should the strikes last night against Iran by the U.S. lead to a protracted war with Iran involving the U.S., Trump will have violated his key campaign pledge to prevent a forever war.
I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist but it seems to me like the precipitous and ill-advised decision by Trump last night to order the U.S. Air Force to strike at nuclear sites inside Iran was an attempt by a weak and wanting in confidence President of the United States to project an image of strength to mentally compensate for his inferiority complex.
Please tell me what you think when you have the opportunity.
Shavua Tov,
David Hurwitz
Chicago, IL
And Khamenei’s end game? What is that?
That is the right question. There's no resolution and no agreement if we don't understand what would allow the other side to get to yes. Was it right to draw a "no enrichment at all" bottom line? Would there be a way to establish low-level civilian enrichment under international supervision on Iranian soil? We will probably now never know, but the JCPOA showed there was a way to have a secure, low-level enrichment program with international oversight and achieve our core goal without war.
It is sheer madness. A friend asked this morning, in all sincerity: "Are we doomed?"
See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2025/06/21/impeach-trump-now/ ("Impeach Trump Now")