This NYT article explains crucial points that are ignored in this myopic discussion of military strikes and short-term gains. The weaponization plants at Isfahan that were destroyed by both the IDF and the US were only operative AFTER DT cancelled the JCPOA. The experts cited in the article bemoan the excessive focus on uranium enrichment. And now, of course, there will be no IAEA inspections of any sites in Iran.
I knew what your opinion would be, but listened anyway so I could hear how you supported it.
I really dislike the phrase "I may be wrong, but I'm never in doubt." Luckily you guys only subscribe to the second half of that phrase.
Truly, there must be *some* element that exists in the situation we are viewing today where things turn out less than ideally, isn't there?
Also, in pointing out that Iran had plans to assassinate Trump, you correctly added they also had others in their sites like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. Maybe beside the point, but worth mentioning that President Trump has removed protection for those other individuals.
I am open to Eric and Elliot’s opinions and but have to call out how strident they are towards other anti-Trump conservatives’ skepticism and fear over the Iran Strike. We have seen how Trump staged a coup and blew past all constitutional norms, so concerns raised by Robert Kagan and Charlie Sykes are not certainly reasonable and not hyperbolic.
- Trump killed the talks that could have ended Iran's nuclear weapons program and normalized relations with Iran
- Israel's theft of Palestinian property in the creation of the their state and by the terrorists called "settlers"
Sure, it's important to evaluate the current situation, but ignoring those fundamental issues ensures that memory holes will be allowed such that situations like this continue to exist. The US is not a bright shining city on a hill, we have not fought for "liberty" and "freedom", but for access to resources and markets because we believe that we are god's elect. Let's end that myth.
Why did the Shield of the Republic podcast titled “Can NATO Survive”, with LTG (ret.) Douglas Lute, never get posted on The Bulwark website? It only got put on YouTube June 22, and I only found out about it by reading these comments. Was this an editorial decision, or did somebody screw up?
I was a bit surprised that the Iran-Israel ceasefire was not a topic of discussion in the video, particularly given the level of uncertainty that surrounds the effectiveness of the recent US bombings in Iran. If we can accept as facts that there is a high level of uncertainty about how effective the bombing sorties were and that the Israelis were fairly effective in degrading Iran's defensive capabilities it seems to be me that any ceasefire will be shortlived, at least as far as Israel is concerned.
It seems to me that the ultimate goal of the recent strikes against Iran from the Israeli perspective has been to reduce the possibility of Iran building atomic weapons to the lowest level possible. It also seems to me that the results of the recent bombing have not reduced that possibility to a level that is significantly lower than it was before the bombing commenced. A possible outgrowth of the minimal reduction in the possibility of manufacturing atomic weapons, is that Israel will have incentives to start another assault.
Iranian defenses have been degraded, which makes strikes against Iran more likely to be successful. Along with that, the cost in terms of Israeli lives in mounting new attacks, will be lowered from what it would have been. As time goes on Iran will certainly spend money and effort to rebuild their defensive capabilities, meaning that Israel will want to re-engage sooner rather than later.
Another reason Israel will have to want to start another round of assaults is that there seems to be a great deal of uncertainty about what the status of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium is. If it was moved before the US bombed Iran Saturday night, and its location is unknown, that uranium could be used to create one or more dirty bombs that could be use against Iran's foes, with Israel being close to the top, if not at the top of the list. Again, Israel has reasons to want to return to the scene of the battle to disrupt as much as possible any chance Iran will have to resort to a dirty bomb strategy.
Iran, on the other hand, does have incentives to prolong any ceasefire. The extra time will give the Iranian regime a headstart on rebuilding its degraded military capability and on planning any sort of retaliation it may want to deploy.
Beyond the military incentives for re-starting the Israeli bombing campaign Netanyahu certainly has his own incentives to want to re-start the bombing campaign in Iran. If there has been minimal damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities thus far, Netanyahu's legacy will not be enhanced much by the recent forays. Redoubling or tripling the effort made so far will likely burnish Netanyahu's image within Israel and possibly within the the US. Given the rather precarious nature of the Netanyahu's governing coalition and the fact that elections must be held no later than 2026, I think will can count on an itchy Netanyahu trigger finger.
All this leads to the conclusion that Trump will have his work cut out for him if he wants to the keep the ceasefire in place. It remains to be seen how well he can contain Netanyahu in this effort. If Netanyahu disregards Trump's nighttime jeremiads Iran will naturally have to respond. Any Iranian response may escalate to targets outside Israel into realms that will have impacts on many more nations than just Israel. Under the circumstances Trump may be forced to re-enter the fray. It will be interesting to see what type of whirlwind Trump has sown with his bombing campaign.
This conversation appears to me to have been recorded before the ceasefire was announced. It’s daytime and the guys refer to various things that happened “yesterday”, on Sunday. Hopefully, they’ll do a wider ranging discussion that will drop tomorrow on Thursday, and some of what you refer to will be addressed.
I have to say, it is very refreshing to hear a discussion among people who actually know what they are talking about. That's the reason I faithfully listen to this podcast and look forward to future ones.
That said, I do have one disappointment. I am fine with considering that Trump actually did something right. Stopped clock and all that. What I didn't hear was a discussion of what happens next. If the initial damage assessment turns out to be more-or-less correct, what is the plan for the future? If we've delayed the Iranian nuclear program by a year, the current administration (barring divine intervention) will face yet another moment of maximum concern about a nuclear-armed Iranian Republic. What then?
This was a special, perhaps unique, opportunity. It is unlikely that fate will grant us another. Whatever Trump's motives and inclinations in this instance, how comfortable are we with our prospects at the next decision point? If a nuclear-armed Iranian Republic is an existential threat, then what is the plan and how likely are we to have faith in any such plan this administration is likely to champion?
Tell me how trump is not an isolationist at heart.. he doesn’t like NATO, he has turned his back on Ukraine and he identifies with authoritarians like Putin, BEBE, N Korea, just to name a few ….
Thank you for the podcast. I always am interested in your takes on defense issues.
I am a lifelong Democrat but have come to believe that our military needs to be strong, and sometimes intervention is necessary. I have been on the fence about these strikes and still am.
For one thing the Obama deal with Iran froze their nuclear program for the years it was in in effect. It was supported with inspections so we would have a much better idea what they were doing. If we had stayed in that deal all this may not have been necessary. Trump was trying to negotiate a deal tha similar to the previous deal.
For a second the dismissal of Iran's response being dismissed is wrong. Iran sponsored the insurgence and bombing of US military personnel. We will not know for months if Iran will respond assymetrically. I believe they certainly will in Isreal.
So I am still unsure if this was the right thing to do. I will reserve my judgement until we see what happens in the coming months. On the other hand Trump couldn't wait that long. I do think he did this for the wrong reasons. He is so eager for a Nobel Peace Prize that he thinks he can dictate peace from truth social. Also a cease fire is not peace.
I still believe the Obamas deal with Iran would have led to a longer term solution than a single air strike. And if anything the last week has proved to Iran they Nuclear weapons to prevent attacks in the future, because none of this would have happened if they had nuclear weapons, Korea is exhibit 1
Dear Messrs. Cohen and Edelman: The decision to strike Iran may be correct, but the process at arriving at such a decision appears to be bad. Of course bad processes sometimes can lead to a good result. Do either of you believe that Trump consulted with appropriate people in his administration (military, intelligence, economic, etc.) to discuss the pros and cons of such a strike and possible next steps? Do either of you believe that Trump briefed the leaders of Congress to get their buy-in? Do either of you believe that Trump discussed this with key allies? I suspect that it is more likely that Netanyahu told Trump that an attack on Iranian nuclear sites would bring peace to the Middle East and guaranty for Trump the Nobel peace prize. (Look how angry Trump was when the cease fire was being violated.)
Now that the strike has happened, what comes next? I expect that Iran will retaliate in some asymmetrical way, but any retaliation may not happen for two or more years. Will Iran and Russia cooperate in some way? Russia needs access to the Persian Gulf that may be jeopardized by a new regime. Might Russia help Iran with its nuclear ambitions in exchange for Iran helping Russia in its war against Ukraine? Will Iran block the straight of Hormuz and cause oil prices to rise (which may help Russia)?
With or without regime change, might any regime and Iranians believe that ultimately getting a nuclear bomb is a national necessity in order to change the calculus that Israel, the US, and any other country must consider when contemplating an attack? Thus, will the US need to periodically strike Iran to continually delay its getting a nuclear bomb?
Thank you for your insights on this and for your entertaining and informative podcasts.
You speak with great confidence and authority but memories of the Global War on Terror continue to detract from my acceptance of your perspective. Also: Is it possible Trump’s motivation is that elusive Nobel Peace Prize? Making a deal in Queens is a lot different than global geopolitical negotiations.
The strike may or may not have been strategically a good idea, but the best assessment I’ve seen so far is that it was a real time military exercise. And maybe payback for assassination threats (mentioned here but I haven’t heard that anywhere else). Iran has been vehemently anti-American since I graduated high school, and we haven’t conducted a strike like this that I recall. I still don’t see, haven’t heard a coherent policy and goals from this administration. I realize asking for that is like believing in Santa Claus, but the lack of any goal or reasoning is ludicrous.
It was also the first time those bunker busters bombs were used in a real life situation, so it also serves as test of the bombs effectiveness IRL. It’s kind of like those mileage estimates on your new car, “your mileage may vary”. I’m hoping the Israelis have penetrated the Iranian military and goveto the point that someone on their side who gets their eyeballs on the facility will be able to tell us more.
That may be a benefit, but it doesn’t seem like a good justification for a military strike. Sovereign nations, even unfriendly ones, should not be test subjects or targets. “Oh, look, Bob, it works!”
The Iranians would have done us a huge favor by eliminating Trump. We all wish for a regime change in Iran, but it's absurd for you two to hope for it after previous attempts have consistently failed.
I'm not of the mind to give Trump credit for this. I have no doubt he made the situation worse by ripping up the JPCOA. Then just last week he was scolding Netanyahu, who I'm no fan of, for their attack on Iran. He only reversed course when he saw how well it was playing on Fox News, which is laughable process for a US president to be making foreign policy decisions. This says nothing about the way he announced the success of the mission on Saturday, seeming more interested in being a braggart than the seriousness of the moment, and the contrary info that has flowed from this administration, as JVL explained so well in his emergency Triad over the weekend. So while I agree with the action, Trump got there by tripping all over himself. Giving him credit would be like saying "hey it works!" one of the two times a broken clock is right per day.
This NYT article explains crucial points that are ignored in this myopic discussion of military strikes and short-term gains. The weaponization plants at Isfahan that were destroyed by both the IDF and the US were only operative AFTER DT cancelled the JCPOA. The experts cited in the article bemoan the excessive focus on uranium enrichment. And now, of course, there will be no IAEA inspections of any sites in Iran.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/28/science/iran-nuclear-uranium-metal.html
I knew what your opinion would be, but listened anyway so I could hear how you supported it.
I really dislike the phrase "I may be wrong, but I'm never in doubt." Luckily you guys only subscribe to the second half of that phrase.
Truly, there must be *some* element that exists in the situation we are viewing today where things turn out less than ideally, isn't there?
Also, in pointing out that Iran had plans to assassinate Trump, you correctly added they also had others in their sites like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. Maybe beside the point, but worth mentioning that President Trump has removed protection for those other individuals.
I am open to Eric and Elliot’s opinions and but have to call out how strident they are towards other anti-Trump conservatives’ skepticism and fear over the Iran Strike. We have seen how Trump staged a coup and blew past all constitutional norms, so concerns raised by Robert Kagan and Charlie Sykes are not certainly reasonable and not hyperbolic.
We're here, because:
- Trump killed the talks that could have ended Iran's nuclear weapons program and normalized relations with Iran
- Israel's theft of Palestinian property in the creation of the their state and by the terrorists called "settlers"
Sure, it's important to evaluate the current situation, but ignoring those fundamental issues ensures that memory holes will be allowed such that situations like this continue to exist. The US is not a bright shining city on a hill, we have not fought for "liberty" and "freedom", but for access to resources and markets because we believe that we are god's elect. Let's end that myth.
How about Israel using the cease fire to build up the kinetic capabilities of the Iranian opposition groups, like MEK?
Why did the Shield of the Republic podcast titled “Can NATO Survive”, with LTG (ret.) Douglas Lute, never get posted on The Bulwark website? It only got put on YouTube June 22, and I only found out about it by reading these comments. Was this an editorial decision, or did somebody screw up?
I was a bit surprised that the Iran-Israel ceasefire was not a topic of discussion in the video, particularly given the level of uncertainty that surrounds the effectiveness of the recent US bombings in Iran. If we can accept as facts that there is a high level of uncertainty about how effective the bombing sorties were and that the Israelis were fairly effective in degrading Iran's defensive capabilities it seems to be me that any ceasefire will be shortlived, at least as far as Israel is concerned.
It seems to me that the ultimate goal of the recent strikes against Iran from the Israeli perspective has been to reduce the possibility of Iran building atomic weapons to the lowest level possible. It also seems to me that the results of the recent bombing have not reduced that possibility to a level that is significantly lower than it was before the bombing commenced. A possible outgrowth of the minimal reduction in the possibility of manufacturing atomic weapons, is that Israel will have incentives to start another assault.
Iranian defenses have been degraded, which makes strikes against Iran more likely to be successful. Along with that, the cost in terms of Israeli lives in mounting new attacks, will be lowered from what it would have been. As time goes on Iran will certainly spend money and effort to rebuild their defensive capabilities, meaning that Israel will want to re-engage sooner rather than later.
Another reason Israel will have to want to start another round of assaults is that there seems to be a great deal of uncertainty about what the status of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium is. If it was moved before the US bombed Iran Saturday night, and its location is unknown, that uranium could be used to create one or more dirty bombs that could be use against Iran's foes, with Israel being close to the top, if not at the top of the list. Again, Israel has reasons to want to return to the scene of the battle to disrupt as much as possible any chance Iran will have to resort to a dirty bomb strategy.
Iran, on the other hand, does have incentives to prolong any ceasefire. The extra time will give the Iranian regime a headstart on rebuilding its degraded military capability and on planning any sort of retaliation it may want to deploy.
Beyond the military incentives for re-starting the Israeli bombing campaign Netanyahu certainly has his own incentives to want to re-start the bombing campaign in Iran. If there has been minimal damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities thus far, Netanyahu's legacy will not be enhanced much by the recent forays. Redoubling or tripling the effort made so far will likely burnish Netanyahu's image within Israel and possibly within the the US. Given the rather precarious nature of the Netanyahu's governing coalition and the fact that elections must be held no later than 2026, I think will can count on an itchy Netanyahu trigger finger.
All this leads to the conclusion that Trump will have his work cut out for him if he wants to the keep the ceasefire in place. It remains to be seen how well he can contain Netanyahu in this effort. If Netanyahu disregards Trump's nighttime jeremiads Iran will naturally have to respond. Any Iranian response may escalate to targets outside Israel into realms that will have impacts on many more nations than just Israel. Under the circumstances Trump may be forced to re-enter the fray. It will be interesting to see what type of whirlwind Trump has sown with his bombing campaign.
This conversation appears to me to have been recorded before the ceasefire was announced. It’s daytime and the guys refer to various things that happened “yesterday”, on Sunday. Hopefully, they’ll do a wider ranging discussion that will drop tomorrow on Thursday, and some of what you refer to will be addressed.
I have to say, it is very refreshing to hear a discussion among people who actually know what they are talking about. That's the reason I faithfully listen to this podcast and look forward to future ones.
That said, I do have one disappointment. I am fine with considering that Trump actually did something right. Stopped clock and all that. What I didn't hear was a discussion of what happens next. If the initial damage assessment turns out to be more-or-less correct, what is the plan for the future? If we've delayed the Iranian nuclear program by a year, the current administration (barring divine intervention) will face yet another moment of maximum concern about a nuclear-armed Iranian Republic. What then?
This was a special, perhaps unique, opportunity. It is unlikely that fate will grant us another. Whatever Trump's motives and inclinations in this instance, how comfortable are we with our prospects at the next decision point? If a nuclear-armed Iranian Republic is an existential threat, then what is the plan and how likely are we to have faith in any such plan this administration is likely to champion?
Tell me how trump is not an isolationist at heart.. he doesn’t like NATO, he has turned his back on Ukraine and he identifies with authoritarians like Putin, BEBE, N Korea, just to name a few ….
Thank you for the podcast. I always am interested in your takes on defense issues.
I am a lifelong Democrat but have come to believe that our military needs to be strong, and sometimes intervention is necessary. I have been on the fence about these strikes and still am.
For one thing the Obama deal with Iran froze their nuclear program for the years it was in in effect. It was supported with inspections so we would have a much better idea what they were doing. If we had stayed in that deal all this may not have been necessary. Trump was trying to negotiate a deal tha similar to the previous deal.
For a second the dismissal of Iran's response being dismissed is wrong. Iran sponsored the insurgence and bombing of US military personnel. We will not know for months if Iran will respond assymetrically. I believe they certainly will in Isreal.
So I am still unsure if this was the right thing to do. I will reserve my judgement until we see what happens in the coming months. On the other hand Trump couldn't wait that long. I do think he did this for the wrong reasons. He is so eager for a Nobel Peace Prize that he thinks he can dictate peace from truth social. Also a cease fire is not peace.
I still believe the Obamas deal with Iran would have led to a longer term solution than a single air strike. And if anything the last week has proved to Iran they Nuclear weapons to prevent attacks in the future, because none of this would have happened if they had nuclear weapons, Korea is exhibit 1
Dear Messrs. Cohen and Edelman: The decision to strike Iran may be correct, but the process at arriving at such a decision appears to be bad. Of course bad processes sometimes can lead to a good result. Do either of you believe that Trump consulted with appropriate people in his administration (military, intelligence, economic, etc.) to discuss the pros and cons of such a strike and possible next steps? Do either of you believe that Trump briefed the leaders of Congress to get their buy-in? Do either of you believe that Trump discussed this with key allies? I suspect that it is more likely that Netanyahu told Trump that an attack on Iranian nuclear sites would bring peace to the Middle East and guaranty for Trump the Nobel peace prize. (Look how angry Trump was when the cease fire was being violated.)
Now that the strike has happened, what comes next? I expect that Iran will retaliate in some asymmetrical way, but any retaliation may not happen for two or more years. Will Iran and Russia cooperate in some way? Russia needs access to the Persian Gulf that may be jeopardized by a new regime. Might Russia help Iran with its nuclear ambitions in exchange for Iran helping Russia in its war against Ukraine? Will Iran block the straight of Hormuz and cause oil prices to rise (which may help Russia)?
With or without regime change, might any regime and Iranians believe that ultimately getting a nuclear bomb is a national necessity in order to change the calculus that Israel, the US, and any other country must consider when contemplating an attack? Thus, will the US need to periodically strike Iran to continually delay its getting a nuclear bomb?
Thank you for your insights on this and for your entertaining and informative podcasts.
You speak with great confidence and authority but memories of the Global War on Terror continue to detract from my acceptance of your perspective. Also: Is it possible Trump’s motivation is that elusive Nobel Peace Prize? Making a deal in Queens is a lot different than global geopolitical negotiations.
The strike may or may not have been strategically a good idea, but the best assessment I’ve seen so far is that it was a real time military exercise. And maybe payback for assassination threats (mentioned here but I haven’t heard that anywhere else). Iran has been vehemently anti-American since I graduated high school, and we haven’t conducted a strike like this that I recall. I still don’t see, haven’t heard a coherent policy and goals from this administration. I realize asking for that is like believing in Santa Claus, but the lack of any goal or reasoning is ludicrous.
It was also the first time those bunker busters bombs were used in a real life situation, so it also serves as test of the bombs effectiveness IRL. It’s kind of like those mileage estimates on your new car, “your mileage may vary”. I’m hoping the Israelis have penetrated the Iranian military and goveto the point that someone on their side who gets their eyeballs on the facility will be able to tell us more.
That may be a benefit, but it doesn’t seem like a good justification for a military strike. Sovereign nations, even unfriendly ones, should not be test subjects or targets. “Oh, look, Bob, it works!”
Hey, take a detour to Lookout Mountain. It’s beautiful.
The Iranians would have done us a huge favor by eliminating Trump. We all wish for a regime change in Iran, but it's absurd for you two to hope for it after previous attempts have consistently failed.
I'm not of the mind to give Trump credit for this. I have no doubt he made the situation worse by ripping up the JPCOA. Then just last week he was scolding Netanyahu, who I'm no fan of, for their attack on Iran. He only reversed course when he saw how well it was playing on Fox News, which is laughable process for a US president to be making foreign policy decisions. This says nothing about the way he announced the success of the mission on Saturday, seeming more interested in being a braggart than the seriousness of the moment, and the contrary info that has flowed from this administration, as JVL explained so well in his emergency Triad over the weekend. So while I agree with the action, Trump got there by tripping all over himself. Giving him credit would be like saying "hey it works!" one of the two times a broken clock is right per day.