Good morning. Here’s the news you need to start your day:
More news is below. But first, we take a look at the forces at play in the Israel-Iran conflict.
Weapons grade
Israel calls its attack on Iran’s nuclear program a justified response to an existential threat: Benjamin Netanyahu argues that Iran’s leaders should be taken at their word when they say they wish to wipe his country off the map. So Israel has spent the last several days razing Iran’s nuclear structures and killing the people in charge of them; more than 200 people have died, according to the Iranian health ministry. Iran has been shooting back, blowing up buildings in Tel Aviv; at least 24 people have died, according to Israel. Why are these two nations in this mess? Iran watched the United States fell governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The government believes nuclear bombs (and the threat that it could use them) will protect it, just as they have protected North Korea. Israel does not believe in the power of diplomacy to solve this existential threat. North Korea has been tolerated as a rogue regime with nuclear bombs because nations assume Kim Jong-un won’t use them. But Israel and its supporters treat Iran as uniquely irrational. Netanyahu saw a previous deal as vulnerable to cheating, and he struck Iran last week while President Trump was negotiating a new one. But military intervention has its problems, too. Today’s newsletter is about that puzzle. The talking cureAmerican presidents have chased a nuclear deal and asked Israel for restraint. The agreement struck in the last years of the Obama administration did not meet Netanyahu’s very high bar — the total elimination of Iran’s nuclear program — but it put inspectors on the ground to ensure Iran halted development. In exchange, Western nations loosened sanctions and unfroze Iran’s assets. But even the most ardent proponents of Obama’s deal had to admit that it was a temporary measure to hold off Iranian nuclear ambitions for a decade, with the hope that something — anything — would follow. By most accounts, Iran was abiding by the terms, but Trump shredded the agreement in his first term, promising in this term that he would deliver something more secure. Before he could, Jerusalem and Tehran went to war. Fighting it outMilitary intervention may get short-term results. But it won’t induce a regime to change its ambitions, and it almost always brings unintended consequences. Four decades ago, Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq, determined to nullify Saddam Hussein’s capabilities. World powers criticized the violation of another country’s sovereignty, but Israelis still see it as a success: Baghdad never became a nuclear power. On the other hand, the operation did not sate Saddam Hussein’s hunger for other weapons of mass destruction. He developed chemical agents — and later used them on his enemies. Eventually, George W. Bush used their existence to justify a U.S. invasion. The bombing over the past week has already achieved some results. Aside from the targets eliminated or badly damaged — Iran’s air defenses, the Natanz nuclear enrichment complex, key missile sites — Tehran said yesterday it wanted an end to the fighting and would negotiate. Yet there are few scenarios in which the regime changes. Maybe Tehran would sign a new nonproliferation deal. But even after these strikes, its store of enriched uranium still exists. Its underground lab to enrich more still exists (though Trump is weighing whether to lend a massive bomb to help destroy it, my colleagues reported last night). And the government’s desires — to have sanctions lifted and to prevent any future invasion — still exist. No wonder Netanyahu says he wants nothing to do with talks. Mutual destructionIsrael’s perceived existential threat assumes that Iran’s leadership is irrational, or at least that it’s impervious to the theory of mutually assured destruction that has prevented a nuclear exchange since the outbreak of the Cold War. If an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel would mean the incineration of Tehran, would Iran’s government really carry out its oft-repeated threat to destroy the Jewish state? Israel thinks the chances are good enough that it started a war last week. In the end, mutually assured destruction, much like diplomacy, is based on faith — in the rationality of leadership, in the instinct of self-preservation, in a desired future for humanity. That faith is in short supply in the Middle East. More on the conflict
Foreign Policy
Trump Administration
Trump’s Businesses
More on Politics
Minnesota Manhunt
Other Big Stories
Tax cuts don’t usually leave the poor significantly worse off. And cuts to the social safety net don’t usually include benefits for the rich. But as the chart above shows, the tax- and spending-cut bill that House Republicans passed last month does both. It would lower after-tax incomes for the bottom 30 percent of households while raising incomes for everyone else, particularly the richest 10 percent. See how the bill compares with other major tax and entitlement legislation.
Protests against Trump can succeed only when they’re nonviolent, Omar Wasow and Robb Willer argue. Here are columns by Michelle Goldberg on the “No Kings” protests and Thomas Friedman on the Israel-Iran war. The Times Sale: Our best rate for readers of The Morning. Save now with our best offer on unlimited news and analysis as part of the complete Times experience: $1/week for your first year.
Pigeon Fest: Thousands gathered to celebrate New York’s most resilient bird. Lucky move: The woman who won a raffle for a country cottage in Ireland is a U.S. Marine Corps officer, and she paid about $13. Your pick: The most clicked link in The Morning yesterday was about anti-tourism protests in Europe. Lives Lived: Overcoming resistance from male sports officials, and even doctors, Nina Kuscsik was the first woman to enter the New York City Marathon and the first official female winner of the Boston Marathon. She died at 86.
The Army was the only life Maj. Erica Vandal knew. With a sterling performance record, accolades and more than a dozen years of service, she was on track to take command of a 650-soldier field artillery battalion as early as 2027. But in the first days of Trump’s second term, the president issued an executive order barring around 4,200 transgender service members, including the major, from the U.S. military. Trump said that they lacked the “honesty,” “humility” and “integrity” to serve. Now Vandal had to make a choice: |
