John Law (10:12)
Alright, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left expects the war's impact will soon be felt at home in the U.S. some say the U.S. and Israeli strategy is unlikely to produce the desired results. In Ms. Now, Joseph Ceballos Roeig said America can't afford Trump's war with Iran and for long. The war is costing the US an estimated $1 billion a day, according to two congressional sources with knowledge of the matter. Oil prices are now forecast to go higher, while gas prices have already jumped to $3.32. It's the highest price it has reached in either of Trump's two terms, Zabias Roy wrote. The knock on effects of increasingly expensive oil will be felt next. Higher costs for oil and gas will spread to the cost of other goods and services, particularly those relying on trucks for transportation. Higher prices for airline tickets aren't out of the question. Grocery bills and electricity prices will also follow suit if the war drags on. Iran's clerical regime does have incentives to drive up global oil prices as high as possible. In a last ditch effort to ensure its survival, the Iranian military has already targeted power plants and oil refineries in the gulf, and the financial fallout of the war stands to get worse if nothing changes the bias, reag said. The building blocks of prolonged uncertainty are all falling into place. Trump remains devoted to his tariffs. If the war in Iran stretches on for months, it will magnify the expected price increases for food, furniture and much more. In the New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman wrote, Trump has no idea how to end the war with Iran. Nothing would improve the prospects of the people of Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Gaza, Yemen and Israel more than removing the Islamic regime in Tehran, friedman said. But what if that regime is also so embedded in mayoralities, schools, police stations, government jobs, the banking system, the military, neighborhood paramilitaries that despite its unpopularity with a majority of Iranians, it can't be removed without plunging the entire Iranian landmass, about a sixth the size of the United States and home to 90 million people, into chaos? Nothing underscores the embeddedness of this regime more than the fact that Iran just replaced its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, killed earlier in the war with with his son Mojtab al Khamenei, said to be another hardliner, friedman wrote. Iran's regime is a disgrace, a menace to its own people, to its neighborhoods and to a rules based order as much as any other nation. But endlessly bombing it, destroying more and more military and civilian infrastructure and just hoping that Iranians seeking democracy will come together, show me where has that ever happened in history? Alright, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. Some on the right say the US Is winning the war and should press on. Others urge Trump to wind down the conflict as soon as he can, the Wall Street Journal editorial board argued. Iran isn't winning this war. The reality inside Iran and the region is that the US And Israel continue to make progress. The regime loses more of its military each day, along with the ability to hurt its neighbors. The Israelis estimate that 70 to 75% of Iran's missile launchers have been destroyed and the US has destroyed at least 43 Iranian ships, the board said. At 10 days in, the war can hardly be considered prolonged, and there's nothing gradual about US Or Israeli strategy. Instead, there is a race Can Iran do enough damage to global energy markets with its remaining missiles and drones before it loses them or must come to terms? The US in particular has ample oil and gas supplies, Mr. Trump is also right that the disruption is likely to stop when the war does, and it is a small price to pay for major security advances, the board wrote. It would also make no sense to leave so many loose ends, from missiles and production facilities to nuclear sites at Pickaxe Mountain and the Isfahan tunnels. There's also little reason to leave standing any IRGC or besieged bases. Even if the regime survives the bombing, it's in the US Security interest to give Iranians the best chance to retake their country. In the Washington Post, Jasik Willich made the case for declaring an early victory in Iran. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth keeps underlining the war's scoped military purpose, the degradation or destruction of Iran's missile capacity, nuclear program and navy. In his telling, the United States is targeting the Islamic Republic's means of projecting power beyond its borders, not the prevailing form of government within them, which is, Willock said. Under that conception of the war, Trump ought to be able to declare victory at the time of his choosing, even in the coming days, with the highest value known military targets taken out by thousands of strikes from air and sea. That might be the best outcome both for Trump politically and for the US Strategically. The longer the war goes on, then, the more ambitious the goals may become. Replacing the Islamist tyranny that rules Iran with a freer government would obviously be the best outcome for the US and the Iranian people. But short of such regime change, the US might soon need to decide whether it is willing to settle for a weakened tyranny in Tehran with a decimated military at its disposal, Willich wrote. The prudent choice, the conservative choice, would be to take the past week's gains and walk away. Alright, that is it for what the right and the left are saying. Which brings us to what writers in the Middle east are saying. Some writers decry the war even as they hope for the end of the Iranian regime. Others suggest Iran's days as a regional power are over, no matter the war's outcome. In the New Arab, Nassram Parvaz wrote, I was tortured by Khomeini's regime. This war is still unjust for so many of us, me included. We wanted Khamenei and his henchmen to face justice in a courtroom, on trial for decades of crimes, repression and killings. I never wanted to see them killed by foreign forces. But confronted by the families of those he helped destroy, parvatz said. None of this can justify foreign military attacks that kill innocent people. The death of one man does not legitimize the bombing of a country, the destruction of infrastructure, or the killing of children. Justice cannot be delivered by missiles. Iran should be governed by the collective will of its people, not by force and not by a figure selected or imposed by the United States or Israel. Real justice cannot be outsourced to foreign powers, provost wrote. Western governments often claim that military intervention brings freedom. People in the Middle east know that this is not true. We have seen what war did to Iraq, to Afghanistan. We know that authoritarian regimes use war as a cover for repression and that foreign powers are rarely interested in self determination. In Arab news, Abdulrahman Al Rashid explored the end of Iran as a military power. So far, the signs of what will come after the war do not suggest that the regime is on the verge of collapse either through internal unrest or external pressure, al Rashid said. That may mean that the world will have to accept living with a weakened but still functioning regime. This recalls the sophomore tent scenario when Iraq signed its surrender after its defeat in Kuwait and the destruction of much of its military. Saddam Hussein's regime remained in power for another 12 years before it was finally removed in 2003. A similar pattern may now be unfolding in the coming weeks. Estimates suggest that the remaining elements of Iran's weapons arsenal, along with its factories and military institutions built over three decades, will be destroyed. This could grant the region a reprieve from Iranian threats for perhaps a decade, assuming a negative Saddam scenario in which a weakened but surviving regime attempts to rebuild its capacities, al Rashid wrote. Another possibility, however, is that Tehran itself may change, either through a transformation of the regime or its policies becoming a more normal state focused on development and regional cooperation. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take.
