Some thoughts on the ceasefire
David E. Sanger, reporting for The New York Times:
Without question, it was a down-to-the-wire tactical victory, one that should, at least temporarily, get oil, fertilizer and helium flowing again through the Strait of Hormuz, and calm markets that feared a global energy shock would lead to a global recession.
But it resolved none of the fundamental issues that led to the war.
It leaves a theocratic government, backed by the vicious Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in charge of a cowed population that has been pummeled by missiles and bombs, and finds itself still under the thumb of a familiar regime, even if under new management. It leaves Iranās nuclear stockpile in place, including the 970 pounds of near-bomb-grade material that was, in theory, the casus belli of this war.
Let me preface my thoughts by stating that I am appreciative of the ceasefire that is in place. I have little faith that it will hold, but if it does, I hope it marks the start of an age of peace in a region that sorely needs it.
With that said ā¦ I canāt help but ask what was the purpose of all of this? Donald Trump laid out three objectives in his address on the first day of operations:
- To destroy Iranās nuclear facilities, in particular their nuclear weapons production capability
- To degrade and eliminate the Iranian regime
- To allow the populace to overthrow the regime and reclaim power
As it stands, it appears none of these objectives have been met. Iranās nuclear facilities were, supposedly, already āobliteratedā last year. If that was meant to be true then, and is presumably false now, it does not lend confidence to the assumption that they actually accomplished it this time. More worryingly, the regime is still in place. Sure, the Ayatollah was dealt with (credit for that strike goes to the IDF), but his son took his place. And, given Iranās ability to continue to launch waves of missiles and drones against other Gulf nations, it seems clear that enough of the governmental and military power structures survived to retain control of the country. Thus, the last objective is automatically invalidated.
The same regime that is responsible for the massacre of over 36,000 of their own citizens ā not to mention their role in the October 7 attacks ā is allowed to exist. It is reprehensible that the President considers that acceptable. It feels like weāve speedrun the war in Afghanistan, which also ended with the same government and military in place. No prizes for guessing who negotiated the end of that war.
What did this war actually achieve? The destabilisation of the Middle East, the worldwide disruption of air travel, the continued polarisation of politics and people, a price of oil that will never fall to pre-war levels, and the deaths of 13 service members. There are only two positive outcomes I can think of at this moment. The first is that the armed forcesā search-and-rescue teams rose to the occasion and saved the crew of the F-15E that ejected over Iran. It is a testament to their resolve, and to the Air Forceās SERE training. The second is that we have yet more proof that wars of aggression have no place in the 21st century. I hope that this is the last such war, but Iām certain that it wonāt be.
Two things can be true at the same time: the Iranian regime, in its current capacity, does not deserve to exist, and those service members should still be alive.
I think often of the crew of the KC-135 Stratotanker. Nickel on the grass.