Post

I'm worried. I sat with things for a bit today to try and see through the immediate fears, but I still land largely here: there's no obvious offramp, and the men behind it are not of a caliber which allows for humiliation. Does that automatically mean nuclear use? No, but… we should be serious. 1/x

First - I still think conventional bombardment of civilian infrastructure is the more likely order. There are few legal or moral justifications for such punishments, but the alarms have been loudly there for months that such concerns are not part of this admin's (or its military's) thinking.

But watching the last few days, I *am* increasingly worried about nuclear use. Yes, it's my focus and I'm sensitive to it to begin with. And yes it remains unlikely! But there are few other ways to take the visible frustrations of the WH and imagine which options they are considering.

...and of course, such a move satisfies the cruelty bravado instincts which have been celebrated over the last 16 months. This is the crux, since there's no military need for these weapons here. But if the above about the choice being between humiliation and escalation is right... it's an opening.

There would be many separate crises stemming from such an attack, including big-picture stuff like alliances breaking, sanctions, retaliations (of other sorts), etc., and also super-local concerns depending on the attack profile, geography, weather, etc. One thing it wouldn't be is covered-up.

It's posting war; the only way this admin goes nuclear in Iran is proudly. This is the signaling point: the masculine demonstration; the implicit threat of killing cities. But - the likely narrative will still be that it was for solely out of military necessity, with all the usual points made.