March 27, 2026
Jed Babbin Asks What 's the Plan in Iran, Stan?
Timothy Birdnow
Jed Babbin asks what our definition of victory is in Iran.
Jed is a former assistant Secretary of Defense (War) during the Reagan years and is someone whose opinion is not to be taken lightly, but in this instance I think he's wrong.
For example, Jed argue:
"But no one — not even the son of the late Shah — has been able to establish a new government, even one in exile. Mr. Trump has made many pleas to the Iranian people to rise up but they are still too afraid of the regime to do so."
But that is NOT what Mr. Trump said - he said specifically for the Iranians to NOT take action until our military campaign is concluded then he welcomes them to move. He specifically asked them not to while the bombs were dropping.
He is correct that no one group has been able to take control of the country but he sees that as a bad thing while I see it as a good thing; it means the old regime is no longer unified and in charge. I believe Trump has been negotiating with one faction while another wants to continue the war. Which faction will win out? Probably the ones who remain alive after all is said and done. Now which faction do you suppose that will be?
He's also right that Iran continues to launch missile and drone strikes on Israel but again, what does that tell us? Every time they launch these weapons they no longer have them in their arsenal, and the bombing has likely taken out their ability to produce new ones. What this tells us is Iran was far better armed than they let on and there was a reason for that. They had those weapons for offensive capabilities, which means so they could attack their neighbors. Those were not for defense.
We all know that Iran surprised us with the missile attack on Diego Garcia, which was twice as far as their missiles could supposedly reach; they lied to us about their missile range. Now they could hit Paris or perhaps even London with their longer range missiles and once they had nukes small enough to mount on such they would pose a serious threat to Europe. In nuclear strategy it's not what someone has so much as what someone could have. That's how strategic thinking went all through the Cold War and it helped prevent a thermonuclear war.
He says:
"So where do we go from here? It is pretty clear that we will have to deploy ground troops to really end the ayatollahs’ regime. About 5,000 more Marines and sailors are on the way to Iran. If the Marines are landed their small force will not be capable of removing the regime without help from the Iranian people."
With all due respect to someone with superior expertise, I don't see why. Jed assumes the Iranian People aren't going to do the job, but eventually the survivors of the regime will not be able to project any power and there will be a vacuum in Iran, to be filled by new people. It may take too much time, and that is a political problem and not a military one, but troops in Iran would still have no clear objective (except maybe to capture and remove nuclear material) while the bombing campaign has specific, clear objectives - kill the Iranian leadership, degrade their military capabilities, and demoralize them. Send in troops and all you get are a bunch of guys wandering around, just prime for booby traps and guerilla warfare.
Once we get the Strait of Hormuz open, and that is likely what Trump is doing with this contingent of paratroopers and the like coming in, trying to take Kharg island and thus paralyze the Iranian oil industry while at the same time helping to open the Strait, then Iran can be completely strangled economically. They will run out of weapons, there is no question. And their leadership is all too busy enjoying 72 virgins and a mule to be able to fight back effectively.
You do know that we have not touched Iran's basic infrastructure yet and we could go there well before we launch a physical invasion of the country. Trump is trying to take out the leadership but leave the nation intact.
I think Trump has been quite clear on his aims; finish off the nuclear program, drive the Mullah-ocracy out of power, and end Iran's support for terrorism worldwide. He's largely accomplished the second goal, although the Revolutionary government is still in power in theory. And Israel is accomplishing the latter, bombing Hizbollah into the last century. Getting the Iranian nuclear material out of the country is going to be the toughest problem, but we've certainly degraded their program and there is every reason to believe a lot of that nuclear material they possessed could have been damaged by the bombing.
Jed makes a good argument but I think he's just wrong.
For the record, years ago Jed and I had a long e-mail argument over the "war on terror" that was initiated by him after I left a comment on one of his American Spectator articles. He devoted a LOT of time arguing with me over it and I took that as an honor as he obviously had great respect for my opinion, just some schlub babbling in a comments section. I have to admit I did not win the debate (although I don't think I lost it) because Jed was GOOD and really knew his stuff. But he's pretty much an isolationist, was then and remains so today.
I think there is something to not wanting to get tangled up in all sorts of conflicts (and as you all know I'm for staying out of the Ukraine dustup), but there are times you simply have to act. This is one of them. It's always been one of them with Iran and we kicked the issue down the road far too long. At some point you run out of road. That's where we are now.
I agree; Trump should address the nation and give us his game plan. But Trump doesn't want to do that because he's read Sun Tzu and knows a good commander is unpredictable and confusing to his enemies and Trump has not just the Iranians as enemies but the Democrats and media too and he dare not give away his strategy. Trump's thinking on this is sound. But it's costing the GOP with the American People.
And if we lose in the upcoming elections we lose EVERYTHING. Trump will be investigated repeatedly, will be impeached again and again, and will lose funding for everything he tries to do. Trump needs to shore up popular support and he needs to nail this sucker down and leave triumphant. I think he can do it but I think he may find himself unduly delayed, and that isn't going to be helpful for the midterms.
So hopefully Jed is wrong and my rather sunny assessment is correct. I'm not a military guy, nor am I a Middle Eastern/Iranian guy. My main area of study in college was Russia, which is largely out of the picture in all this.
I sure do know how to pick my fights, don't I? Me, a former Real Estate guy who was trained in Russian Affairs and Scientific Translation up against a former undersecretary of Defense under the great Ronald Reagan.
God I hope and pray I am right.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
04:18 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1274 words, total size 8 kb.
1
Seems Kharg island is more symbolic then an actual threat. The real threat is the island in the Persian gulf which is located midway between UAE and Iran from which the IRGC can launch drones. There are also 2 other islands closer to Iran that pose a threat to shipping in the gulf just before entering the straits. Taking these three islands would do more to secure the strait then Kharg.As far as the people in Iran go time will teel. One thing a lot of the IRGC leaders have been offed by drones launched inside Iran. Small drones that cause smaller explosions as to limit collateral damage and still do the job. There is a resistance group called the immortals that is working with the Israelis eliminating IRGC leaders. Only the Israelis know how large and how armed this group is. This whole operation didnt just happen. Planning has been going on for some time.
Posted by: Mike at March 27, 2026 11:35 PM (ny1sC)
2
Good point Mike. Kharg is mainly a financial center, as oil and gas go through there. But for military value it is limited, as you point out. It's not close enough to the actual strait itself (which is probably part of why Iran chose it in the first place; it wouldn't be threatened in any showdown over the strait.
I hadn't heard that about the drones being launched inside Iran. That suggests the hand of Mossad to me, Mossad working with the Iranian rebels.
I hadn't heard that about the drones being launched inside Iran. That suggests the hand of Mossad to me, Mossad working with the Iranian rebels.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at March 28, 2026 06:44 AM (oflqW)
30kb generated in CPU 0.061, elapsed 0.3011 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2349 seconds, 185 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.2349 seconds, 185 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
