Skip to main content

To War or Not to War, that is the Question

It is no surprise to learn that Mr. Netanyahu has moved forward his next visit to the White House from February 18 to Wednesday, February 11. The commentary on the U.S.-Iran meeting in Oman on February 6 was too optimistic. It sounded like a repeat of Steve Witkoff trying to find a way to a nuclear deal with Iran, which led to Netanyahu attacking Iran in June 2025 to stop such a deal. Now Netanyahu wants the U.S. and Israel to jointly “mow the grass” in Iran, focusing on ballistic missiles and killing off the political and military leadership. 
        Netanyahu is also not happy with Trump’s pushing forward on Phase II of the Gaza peace plan, and Trump’s plan to schedule the first meeting of the Board of Peace in Washington on February 19 to focus on funding of Gaza rebuilding. Netanyahu has not signed up Israel on the Board of Peace, and it will be interesting to see if he attends the first meeting (or somehow succeeds in getting that meeting cancelled). 
        It was interesting to read what Ilan Goldenberg and Nate Swanson wrote in their article in Foreign Affairs dated Jan 31, 2026, America’s Best Chance to Transform Iran: ‘The United States must also play a stabilizing regional role. Trump can leverage his overwhelming popularity in Israel to restrain Netanyahu, making clear that the United States does not support a strike…’ 
        Meanwhile, Steve Erlanger reported in the New York Times on Feb 7, 2026, that Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute has learned that some Iranians believe for diplomacy to work, “a short, intense war may be necessary to correct Trump’s perception and compel him to adopt more realistic demands.” Parsi said, even if Iran takes large losses in such a war, so will the Americans and Israelis, and “Trump has less tolerance for losses or a protracted war.’ 

        What will President Trump do about Iran? To War of Not to War, that is the Question.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘New war with Israel at any moment’, ‘still digging through rubble’

The news about Iran has taken an ominous tone in the last couple days. Here is some reporting and commentary.  Newsweek on August 18, 2025, reported that Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said ‘ We are not in a ceasefire; we are in a stage of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the U.S. or Israel. A new war with Israel could break out at any moment .’  Yonah Jeremy Bob commented in The Jerusalem Post on August 19, 2025, that ‘ Khamenei can either “drink from the poisoned chalice” of diplomatic concessions … or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly ’.   Bob also noted that ‘ right now Iran is still digging through rubbl e’. The U.S. attacked Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan on June 22. Two months of digging. No surprise that there has been no public news about that.
Post a Comment
Read more

Assessing possible outcomes of the snapback mechanism

The initiation by the E3 of the 30-day snapback mechanism in the UN Security Council makes everything more difficult and there is great uncertainty about the outcome. Will it be peaceful with a new nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by the U.S., endorsed by the UNSC and verified by IAEA, or will Iran withdraw from NPT with further military action by Israel and the U.S.?                 To perhaps shed a little light on what the outcome will be, here is my analysis of how the players - Iran, U.S. and E3 - may be assessing the acceptability of the range of outcomes. Four levels of acceptability were used: 1 Fully acceptable; 2 Less acceptable; 3 Just acceptable; and 4 Not acceptable. Four near term 30-day outcomes are listed, and two optimistic outcomes with an interim U.S.-Iran agreement reached within a 6-month extension.                 For the 30-day near term, the best outcome would b...
Post a Comment
Read more

‘Making nuclear fuel’ under the NPT

It is with some hesitation that I take issue with the latest publication of the renowned Henry Sokolski and Sharon Squassoni on August 15 in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, titled: “ Actually, the NPT doesn’t guarantee a right to make nuclear fuel .”  But someone should defend the IAEA and international safeguards! Here are points in question.            ‘ The [NPT] treaty was designed to prevent dangerous bombmaking activitie s.’  NPT is far more complex than that. It is common to state the three pillars of NPT: nuclear disarmament; nuclear nonproliferation; and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Nonproliferation involves the commitment of non-nuclear states not to pursue nuclear weapons and to accept IAEA inspection to confirm that commitment is being followed. Perhaps Sokolsky intends to refer to INFCIRC/153, which lays out how IAEA and the state cooperate to carry out that confirmation. If so, INFCIRC/153 is not designed to ‘prevent’...
Post a Comment
Read more