audacious actions often fail
risks
Reports Thursday indicate the Israelis now assess the U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear sites on 21 June were not quite as successful as announced. First reports often require revision so this is not surprising but does beg the obvious question: how will this affect the mullahs calculations for the future?
None of us know, of course. i am not even sure the mullahs know yet, weeks after the attack. Calculations in response often require far greater thought than knee jerk reactions initiating change.
We do know, however, that Iran is highly unlikely to resume discussions with the United States on the successor to a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed between the Obama administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran a decade ago. Diplomacy requires at least a hint of trust but neither Washington nor Teheran appears to harbor much of that towards the other side these days.
Despite its well known disdain for Teheran’s rulers, the new Trump administration resumed talks with our long-standing adversaries in hopes of stemming the creation of a further nuclear weapons capacity in the Persian Gulf region. For the foreseeable future, those conversations would seem in abeyance.
Every audacious action carries risk of failure as actions create consequences. Iran had decades to situate their nuclear activities and fuel supplies as far out of harm’s way as possible. Regardless of the skill of those conducting the operation, it did not achieve the goal of obliterating Iran’s nuclear program.
Reports abounded this week regarding the UnderSecretary of Defense, Bridge Colby, seizing the initiative to refocus U.S. efforts to stymie China. Colby’s hostility towards U.S. support for Ukraine results from a conviction that any other conflict diverts pressure that could apply against China; I cannot imagine him any less interested in the Iran question for the same reason.
As the middle of July nears, we see a future no clearer than we did at this point a month ago, despite the airstrikes. The one clear outcome is that everyone understands the United States will continue to use the military tool of statecraft as readily as any other administration. That was not understood by some following the election last fall, but all administrations, regardless of political orientation, have a comparable set of tools to wield in different ways. Over the past half century, even with our abundance of thought, resources, and innovation, we tend towards the blunt instrument of force though it does not invariably succeed.
I welcome your thoughts on iran, U.S. power, or any other topic. My goal is to generate measured, civil conversation on these questions as none of us has a sole answer to the interrelated challenges of our contemporary era.
Thank you for your time. I am grateful to those who support this column financially as subscribers. $55 annually or $8 monthly makes a tremendous difference in what I can read.
It is a beautiful Friday in July where I sit, with color and wildlife abounding. How about for you?
Be well and be safe. FIN
Jack Detsch, Nahal Toosi, Paul McCleary, and Joe Gould, “Pentagon policy chief’s rogue decisions have irked some US allies and the Trump Administration”, politico.com, 8 July 2025, retrieved at https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/08/elbridge-colby-trump-administration-frustrations-00443337
David E. Sanger, “Some of Iran’s Enriched Uranium Survived Attacks, Israeli Official Says”, NewYorkTimes.com, 10 July 2025, retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/us/politics/iran-attacks-damage.html