Yesterday I got invited onto a reasonably well-known and somewhat Trump-friendly podcast to talk about the leaks involving America’s attack on Iran. A friend had recommended me, and because I didn’t want anything I might say on the show to reflect poorly on my friend, I responded to the invitation with the following—after which I didn’t hear back. Which is of course fine, but because I think my take has some merit (and because I took the trouble to write it), I’m posting it here:

* * * * *

Thanks for reading The Heart of the Matter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Thanks for asking and I’d be happy to. But let me first share with you my take, with the understanding that if it’s not what the host is looking for, I will completely understand!

I know almost nothing about bunker buster bombs; or about the resilience of the Iranian facilities at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz; or about what it takes to damage or destroy centrifuges and/or enriched uranium. And I have a feeling that most of the people confidently opining one way or the other about the degree to which Midnight Hammer achieved its aims know no more than I do.

What I do know a bit about is human nature (it’s a novelist’s stock in trade, along with coffee!), so I know the Trump administration is highly motivated to depict the attack as an unqualified success. In this regard, I find it hard to believe that when Trump announced the Iranian program had been “obliterated,” anyone in the administration could really have known such a thing.

But similarly, I know Trump’s political adversaries are equally motivated to present the attack as a catastrophe, and will therefore engage in leaks, distortions, and even fabrications to discredit Trump.

Knowing that each side is heavily motivated to spin or worse, I tend to discount the trustworthiness of all these claims, whichever direction. And I hope the Trump administration will soon settle the argument by releasing some form of information expert third parties can dispassionately evaluate. Though of course, partisans will continue to discount even a third-party assessment if it doesn’t track with their political slant.

I should also add that I think none of this crisis—none of its risks and none of its costs—would have been necessary if in 2018 Trump hadn’t withdrawn from the JCPOA. I’m far from an Obama fan, but I think his administration and the other powers involved (China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK, and US, plus the European Union) did as good a job in negotiating that deal as anyone could have. It limited Iran’s enrichment to keep it far from weapons-grade, and involved intrusive on-site inspections. There were no allegations that Iran was ever violating it before Trump withdrew.

I should also add that I feel no partisan affiliation for the Republican or Democrat wing of the duopoly. I tend to distrust and even to loathe all politicians more or less equally, and that’s the framework I generally apply to events.

Apologies for the long text but I appreciate the invitation and wanted to let you know in advance how I approach this topic! Again, if the host is looking for a different take, I will completely understand.

Thanks for reading The Heart of the Matter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.