Berl Falbaum
If there ever was a war which should not have happened it is the U.S.-Iran conflict.
Thousands of lives were lost, billions of dollars spent, the economic and political worlds set afire around the globe, and we are just about where we were before February 28 when President Trump decided to “obliterate” Iran for a second time within roughly eight months.
It is difficult to evaluate the results for two reasons: Trump lies consistently so we cannot evaluate his reasons for declaring war or his claims of “victory” with any certainty; and his objectives for the war changed by the hour.
Let’s analyze some issues along with the 10-point peace plan proposed by Iran.
First, a couple of non-peace plan issues.
Regime change: Yes, that was achieved with Israel killing the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. He was succeeded by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei.
The problem: The son is reported to be more of a hardliner than his father. So much for that. Iran is still theocratic and authoritarian.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio implied that not much may have been accomplished, stating:
“The people who head them [Iranians}, this clerical regime, that is the problem. And if there are new people now in charge who have a more reasonable vision of the future, that would be good news for us, for them, for the entire world. But we also have to be prepared for the possibility, maybe even the probability, that that is not the case.”
President Trump claimed the U.S. totally obliterated Iran’s military capabilities. While its military was significantly degraded, not only did Iran shoot done U.S. jets, but fired missiles into and neighboring Arab countries. Moreover, intelligence agencies reported Iran began rebuilding its military sites almost immediately. Some, it was reported, were operational only hours after U.S. attacks.
Now to the peace plan. How bad is it? Well, neither Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer nor House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries would think of presenting such a one-sided proposal to Republicans.
We’ll begin with the “biggie,” nuclear enrichment. Despite Trump’s boasts that he has destroyed Iran’s nuclear capability, the country has retained 970 pounds (440 kilograms) of highly enriched uranium, enough to build 12-24 nuclear bombs.
Under the peace plan, Iran would be permitted to keep its enriched uranium but also to continue its nuclear enrichment program.
Here are some other highlights:
• Iran would continue to control the Strait of Hormuz which it closed during the conflict, but now it would charge a fee for ships using it.
• Under the plan, the U.S. would lift all sanctions — primary and secondary — presently imposed on Iran.
• The U.S. would “guarantee” that neither the U.S. nor its allies would launch new attacks on Iran and, if that were not enough, it would remove all its forces from the region. Also, Iran demands an end on attacks on its allies (read Hamas and Hezbollah.)
• Iran is seeking reparations for destruction of its military sites, critical infrastructure, pharmaceutical and steel plants, bridges, universities and energy facilities.
(There is some ambiguity in the peace plan because the one in English differs somewhat from the one made public to Iranians by Iranian media outlets. The latter is even more demanding).
This comes after Trump threatened to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age, and warned that if Iran did not relent and open the Strait of Hormuz, “a [Iran] civilization will die…”
When asked if he was concerned whether Iranians would suffer if the power plants and bridges were struck, Trump replied:
“No, they want us to do it,” because, he added, “Iranians were living in hell.”
Who would not want to be bombed back to the Stone Age?
Even some of Trump’s strong supporters criticized his call to destroy a civilization.
Said Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin:
“I do not want to see us start blowing up civilian infrastructure.” He told The Wall Street Journal that such an attack would be “a huge mistake” and that the President would lose support if he followed through on his threat to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages.”
Representative Nathaniel Moran, a Republican from Texas, said:
“I do not support the destruction of a whole civilization. That is not who we are, and it is not consistent with the principles that have long guided America.”
There is a MAGA continent commending Trump for agreeing to the ceasefire. The best response to that came from Pedro Sánchez, prime minister of Spain, who said:
“The Government of Spain will not applaud those who set the world on fire just because they show up with a bucket.”
Generally, it is the victor in wars that makes the harshest demands. So, based on the proposed 10-point Iranian peace plan, who do you conclude won this war?
In launching this war, Trump bragged that he had done something no other U.S. president ever did or even considered.
Finally, he said something that is absolutely true.
Thousands of lives were lost, billions of dollars spent, the economic and political worlds set afire around the globe, and we are just about where we were before February 28 when President Trump decided to “obliterate” Iran for a second time within roughly eight months.
It is difficult to evaluate the results for two reasons: Trump lies consistently so we cannot evaluate his reasons for declaring war or his claims of “victory” with any certainty; and his objectives for the war changed by the hour.
Let’s analyze some issues along with the 10-point peace plan proposed by Iran.
First, a couple of non-peace plan issues.
Regime change: Yes, that was achieved with Israel killing the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. He was succeeded by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei.
The problem: The son is reported to be more of a hardliner than his father. So much for that. Iran is still theocratic and authoritarian.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio implied that not much may have been accomplished, stating:
“The people who head them [Iranians}, this clerical regime, that is the problem. And if there are new people now in charge who have a more reasonable vision of the future, that would be good news for us, for them, for the entire world. But we also have to be prepared for the possibility, maybe even the probability, that that is not the case.”
President Trump claimed the U.S. totally obliterated Iran’s military capabilities. While its military was significantly degraded, not only did Iran shoot done U.S. jets, but fired missiles into and neighboring Arab countries. Moreover, intelligence agencies reported Iran began rebuilding its military sites almost immediately. Some, it was reported, were operational only hours after U.S. attacks.
Now to the peace plan. How bad is it? Well, neither Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer nor House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries would think of presenting such a one-sided proposal to Republicans.
We’ll begin with the “biggie,” nuclear enrichment. Despite Trump’s boasts that he has destroyed Iran’s nuclear capability, the country has retained 970 pounds (440 kilograms) of highly enriched uranium, enough to build 12-24 nuclear bombs.
Under the peace plan, Iran would be permitted to keep its enriched uranium but also to continue its nuclear enrichment program.
Here are some other highlights:
• Iran would continue to control the Strait of Hormuz which it closed during the conflict, but now it would charge a fee for ships using it.
• Under the plan, the U.S. would lift all sanctions — primary and secondary — presently imposed on Iran.
• The U.S. would “guarantee” that neither the U.S. nor its allies would launch new attacks on Iran and, if that were not enough, it would remove all its forces from the region. Also, Iran demands an end on attacks on its allies (read Hamas and Hezbollah.)
• Iran is seeking reparations for destruction of its military sites, critical infrastructure, pharmaceutical and steel plants, bridges, universities and energy facilities.
(There is some ambiguity in the peace plan because the one in English differs somewhat from the one made public to Iranians by Iranian media outlets. The latter is even more demanding).
This comes after Trump threatened to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age, and warned that if Iran did not relent and open the Strait of Hormuz, “a [Iran] civilization will die…”
When asked if he was concerned whether Iranians would suffer if the power plants and bridges were struck, Trump replied:
“No, they want us to do it,” because, he added, “Iranians were living in hell.”
Who would not want to be bombed back to the Stone Age?
Even some of Trump’s strong supporters criticized his call to destroy a civilization.
Said Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin:
“I do not want to see us start blowing up civilian infrastructure.” He told The Wall Street Journal that such an attack would be “a huge mistake” and that the President would lose support if he followed through on his threat to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages.”
Representative Nathaniel Moran, a Republican from Texas, said:
“I do not support the destruction of a whole civilization. That is not who we are, and it is not consistent with the principles that have long guided America.”
There is a MAGA continent commending Trump for agreeing to the ceasefire. The best response to that came from Pedro Sánchez, prime minister of Spain, who said:
“The Government of Spain will not applaud those who set the world on fire just because they show up with a bucket.”
Generally, it is the victor in wars that makes the harshest demands. So, based on the proposed 10-point Iranian peace plan, who do you conclude won this war?
In launching this war, Trump bragged that he had done something no other U.S. president ever did or even considered.
Finally, he said something that is absolutely true.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
