Stevenson’s army, January 4 and 5
January 5
– Iran says it has 35 targets within range for possible retaliation, prompting President Trump to say the US has 52 targets. Who will blink first?
– NYT now confirms what LA Times reported yesterday, that Trump’s choice of assassination option greatly surprised his advisers. NYT says Trump wanted to hit Suleimani after contractor was killed in Kirkuk but deferred until evidence of imminent attack could be found. Some sources call evidence “razor thin.”
– WH sent war powers notification to Congress, but kept whole text classified.
– Former adviser Emma Sky says US strike hurts US-Iraq relationship.
– NYT says killing also strengthens ISIS.
-Good article in Atlantic on likely Iranian actions. Note links to CRS report saying most Iranian actions against US since 1979 have been by proxies and IISS analysis of Iranian strategy and a global military power site.
– On the political front, Atlantic has good piece arguing that Trump has done well with congressional Republicans by charming personal contact, an unreported practice. And it’s true that Obama did little in that regard with Rs or Ds.
January 4
Jonathan Swan of Axios has reported that the three more persuasive
arguments to use with President Trump are: 1. It’s the biggest ever. 2.
It’s never been done before. 3. Obama did the opposite. The Suleimani
assassination ticks all three.
– WaPo describes the weekend meetings in Florida when Trump demands prompt action.
-LA Times says Trump’s advisers were surprised by his support for the assassination option.
– NYT emphasizes the final authorization, when the operation might have been called off if Iraqi officials were part of the convoy.
– An earlier NYT story discusses refusals by G.W. Bush and Obama to kill Suleimani because of the likely consequences.
– WaPo foresees a cyber attack as the most likely Iranian response. DHS says it’s ready.
– Iraq is likely to demand withdrawal of US forces.
– WaPo notes earlier polling on US public opinion on a conflict with Iran.
– Lawfare writers say the situation is very complex under both domestic and international law.
– VP Pence misleadingly tweeted that Suleimani “assisted” the 9/11 hijackers.
– My take: the action was probably legal — and probably unwise.
And in political analysis, Lee Drutman argues that the Framers worried about precisely the political polarization we now have. Is proportional representation the best answer?
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
