Iran Attack Is 'Nightmare Scenario' For Gulf Countries

Regional Gulf allies (Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman) are not fans of the Iranian regime but view regime change and potential civil war in Iran as a nightmare scenario they had been working to prevent through diplomatic negotiations.

“Well, they're absolutely not fans of the Iranian regime. And you're seeing some fairly sharp statements come out of both Saudi Arabia, the UAE, with respect to strikes that Iran has already taken retaliatory strikes on U.S. targets in their countries. But that said, I think there's no doubt that this is a nightmare scenario for the neighboring Gulf countries. This is precisely what they had been hoping against and had been working diligently behind the scenes in order for negotiations and diplomacy to be successful.”

The president characterized the current Iran operation as a war rather than a special operation, marking a significant escalation in language and commitment.

“He used the term he didn't call this a special operation. As he pointed out a few moments ago. He has characterized this as a war.”

The Venezuela operation was a commando operation (different in kind from the current larger military operation), similar to the failed U.S. operation ordered by President Carter in 1979 in Iran, which could have failed catastrophically but succeeded, emboldening the current approach.

“You know, that's the thing about starting a major war. This is not a special operation. You know, what you had in Venezuela was a commando operation. Could have gone very badly wrong in the way that the operation ordered by President Carter went wrong in 98, you know, in 1979 in Iran. That could have gone wrong. It didn't. It went very well.”

The Trump administration's approach to announcing war and conducting military operations differs extraordinarily from previous United States presidents, characterized by direct social media announcements without formal press conferences or congressional engagement.

“this is the way that, you know, President Trump has approached these things. It is extraordinarily different from previous United States presidents. You know, it's not my taste that that's how I would like to have, you know, my leader announced that he's taking the country to war”

The president stated that nuclear facilities were obliterated, but nuclear experts assessed that while facilities sustained some damage, Iran was able to rebuild them quickly, and there were no intelligence reports of imminent Iranian nuclear weapons capability.

“the president came out and said we destroyed those those facilities, we obliterated them. Nuclear experts I talked to were we're less sure...Now we're talking about Iran having been able to build those back very quickly...I don't think so. I mean, I think surely the president set obliterated for his own political reasons last June. But by all accounts, the nuclear facilities did sustain some amount, if not significant, damage.”

The current military operation against Iran is characterized as a war by the president, not a special operation, representing a significant categorical difference in scale and commitment from previous limited operations.

“You know, that's the thing about starting a major war. This is not a special operation.”

The president announced the military action against Iran via social media posting to his account, without holding a formal press conference, speaking at Mar-a-Lago while wearing a white baseball cap and no necktie, and not being scheduled to speak further that day—a departure from conventional presidential war announcements.

“we've seen the president go to a podium at Mar a Lago wearing no necktie, wearing a white baseball cap with you as a emblazoned on it, released a statement not to any press. Nobody was in the audience posted on social media. And here we are. He's not scheduled to speak today as well.”

Regional states (Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain) had been facilitating and conducting diplomatic negotiations with Iran to prevent exactly the kind of military conflict and regime change that is now occurring.

“the Omanis, who were facilitating these negotiations that apparently were for not...This is precisely what they had been hoping against and had been working diligently behind the scenes in order for negotiations and diplomacy to be successful.”

The Trump administration's pattern of rapid military operations (Venezuela regime change in 12 hours, nuclear strikes last summer) has created a pattern of success that encouraged the president to initiate the current larger-scale conflict with Iran despite not fully understanding how difficult it is to control and end large-scale conflicts on favorable terms.

“I think that's part of the reason why this is happening now, that basically the president has had two very successful military operations. The you know, the first in Venezuela. The second was last summer when they bombed the nuclear sites in Iran. And, you know, did that, you know, successfully...So and I think that encouraged him to go ahead and have a go now. It's just that I am very dubious that he has a full understanding of where, you know, how difficult it is to control events once you begin a large scale conflict and also how how difficult it can be to end them on your terms.”

The military strategy of striking Iranian nuclear sites and air defenses only succeeds if it achieves regime change; without regime change, the same regime with the same goals and means can rebuild their programs quickly, as demonstrated by the rapid reconstitution of ballistic missiles after last summer's strikes.

“we're going to do all this stuff by force, but it only really works if you get regime change. And that is really the lesson of what has happened before...They took out a lot of the air defenses...That the lesson of that was is that we're back we're back here doing it again...There was no regime change. It is the same regime. They have the same goals and they have the means in order to rebuild their programs. They rebuilt the ballistic missile stuff that was destroyed fairly quickly.”

A president should seek congressional permission and agreement before initiating a war of choice, particularly when no imminent threat exists, representing a departure from constitutional norms that Trump has undertaken.

“my preference would be also that that he would go first to Congress and get permission for agreement for a war of choice, because, you know, as was said before, there was no imminent threat here.”

The president lacks full understanding of how difficult it is to control events once a large-scale conflict begins and how difficult it can be to end such conflicts on one's own terms, despite recent success in limited military operations.

“I am very dubious that he has a full understanding of where, you know, how difficult it is to control events once you begin a large scale conflict and also how how difficult it can be to end them on your terms.”

Even if Iran had been able to reconstitute its nuclear program (uranium enrichment), that represents only the first step toward building a warhead and putting it on a missile, and there is significant distance between enrichment capability and actual nuclear weapons capability, making enrichment capability alone not an imminent threat.

“Even if the Iranians had been able to reconstitute their nuclear program, the program by talking about its uranium enrichment program, that's the first step towards building a warhead and putting in it on a missile. You know, it's it's not there's a there's a distance between those things. You know, it's it's important. The breakout thing is a is an important issue, but it's not an imminent threat.”