The Death of Experts is Leading us into War with Iran
Negotiating a real estate term sheet or looking good on television does not qualify you to be a statesman.
I’m going to depart from my usual posts and shoot from the hip. A number of significant events happened this past week, which makes it difficult to approach the news with my normal mix of seriousness and levity. Usually, I like to poke fun and make light of absurdity where I see it. Further, I aim to go beyond simple narration of the news. It’s why I shy away from the hot take and let events marinate before writing my thoughts.
But the present commands my attention. Israel is engaged in a full-scale war against Iran to degrade its nuclear program. As far as Joe Q Public is aware, the United States’ involvement has so far been limited to intercepting Iranian missiles fired at Israel and bellicose tweets from President Trump demanding Iran’s unconditional surrender. Multiple aircraft carrier groups and other U.S. military assets are also en route to the region. There’s chatter our involvement will increase by the end of this week.
I am noticing several pundits comparing what is happening now to the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. On the surface, the comparison is tempting. Another war in the Middle East where America’s strategic interest is framed in terms of the existential threat of an adversary possessing weapons of mass destruction. The term ‘regime change’ is also back in vogue. I will forgive you for having the feeling of déjà vu.
But this situation is different. First, America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq was built upon an over year-long campaign to persuade the American public and the world of its necessity. Remember the United Nations weapons inspectors and Hans Blix? Remember Secretary of State Colin Powell’s address to the United Nations? There was also over a decade of conflict and mistrust between Iraq and the United States. The conflict dated back to the first Gulf War in 1990, Operation Desert Fox in 1998, economic sanctions, and a no-fly zone imposed in northern and southern Iraq.
The United States went to great lengths to build a case for war against Iraq. Too far, in fact. America’s invasion is often described as an intelligence failure, but that is only part of the picture. Elements of America’s intelligence and diplomatic communities did dissent, but they were overridden by the Bush Administration’s hawks, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld’s deputy Paul Wolfowitz. If anyone wants a trip down memory lane, I suggest clicking the following links to read about the CIA’s efforts to stop the Bush Administration from using information attributed to Iraqi defector Curveball and yellowcake purchases in Niger. Their recruitment of Iraq’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri, and head of intelligence, Tahir Jalil Habbush Al-Tikriti, is also often overlooked in the retrospectives.
The CIA’s experts and others in the Department of State were pushed aside in Iraq. A different administration would have prioritized different intelligence to draw the opposite conclusion. What is true was that a great deal of the rationale for that war rested on the presumption Saddam Hussein had something to hide. He played games with the weapons inspectors and acted coy about what weapons he possessed. This led many Americans to conclude he was up to no good.
Feeding this narrative was a frequent guest on American cable television, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (at the time, Netanyahu was Israel’s foreign minister). In a 2002 testimony before the U.S. Congress, he said, “There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, is working, is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons.”
Which brings me back to the present situation between Iran and Israel. But first, a disclaimer, my Middle East bonafides are a little rusty. The last time I was in the region was 2012, and professionally I have drifted away ever since. Yet, I have always watched Israel with a keen interest. It goes back to a childhood fascination with the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Rabin was Prime Minister of Israel when he was shot and killed by a far-right Jewish extremist opposed to the Oslo Accords. My not yet ten-year-old brain, previously occupied with baseball and Saturday morning cartoons, realized for the first time there were places and people so very different from what I understood. It left a mark.
The Israeli Prime Minister who succeed Rabin was Netanyahu (Netanyahu has been Prime Minister three times). Netanyahu has long advocated for the use of military force against Iran. In the same 2002 testimony before the U.S. Congress cited above, he drew parallels between the Taliban, Iraq, and Iran, and stated, “It’s not a question of whether you would like to see a regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it.”
Now, before I beat up on Netanyahu some more, it’s important to state that Iran does have nuclear capabilities. It also has a history of destabilizing the region through proxy forces such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad's in Syria, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen. Unlike with Iraq, this is not a matter of debate. The point of contention is how quickly Iran can weaponize the uranium it has already enriched and, if it does, can the rest of the world sleep at night knowing Iran possesses such a capability.
In launching its attack last week, Israel said Iran is fast approaching a weapon, and they needed to strike now to preempt Iran. The U.S. intelligence community, on the other hand, assessed that Iran is not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon and, if it were, was three years away.
Here’s where my personal skepticism comes into play. This is perhaps an error in my judgement, as it is not based on first hand or timely information, but Netanyahu and other Iran hawks have told us Iran is moments away from going nuclear for three decades now.
Here’s Netanyahu with a cool chart at the United Nations in 2012, where he stated, “By next spring, at most by next summer at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimates Iran currently has enough highly enriched uranium to build ten bombs. Yet, the Iranians have not taken steps to weaponize that material, according to the IAEA and U.S. intelligence community. Thus, it’s hard for me to think of Netanyahu as anything other than the boy who cried wolf one too many times. Plus, this wasn’t an issue six months ago.
Netanyahu is backing the United States into a corner. While Israeli strikes have degraded Iran’s nuclear industry by destroying ballistic missile launchers and key facilities involved in manufacturing, and assassinating scientists, it’s incapable of delivering the finishing blow. Iran’s most important nuclear sites are said to be buried deep underground. Absent an Israeli ground incursion, there is only one weapon that can do the job: the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator. It is a 30,000 pound “bunker buster” bomb that can penetrate 200 feet. Only the United States Air Force possesses this weapon, and it can only be delivered by a B-2 bomber.
The danger is Iran’s theocratic leaders, under threat of punishing Israeli strikes, talk of regime change, and a bellicose and erratic American president, might consider its best bet for survival is a sprint to finishing a bomb. If this happens, the United States’ calculus changes. We will almost certainly step in and destroy Iran’s underground nuclear sites to prevent the embattled regime from gaining such a destructive power.
Until this point, I have criticized Netanyahu. There is much I don’t like about the man, but he’s not exactly an unknown quantity. He has advocated striking Iran for three decades. Why has he not done so before? What changed? It’s simple. The United States has unilaterally abdicated its role as leader of the post-World War II international security order.
It began as soon as President Trump assumed his second term in office on January 20th. In under a month, his administration signaled it would not honor the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance’s mutual defense assurances, and pivoted towards a spheres of influence doctrine. In effect, America, in the blink of an eye, abandoned every single ally and adopted the Russian view of international affairs. On the heels of this diplomatic and military break with Europe and other democracies, the United States threatened Canada, Panama, and Greenland with force and then imposed tariffs on the entire world. We morphed from a steady hand to an unpredictable bully.
The repercussions are incalculable. It’s a fool's errand to predict specific chains of events, but history shows us that when power shifts, chaos and violence ensue. Power abhors a vacuum, so we are told.
This is where I have to get some digs in as a card-carrying member of The Swamp. At the outset of this administration, government experts were pushed aside, bullied, and attacked. Tech bros from Silicon Valley said they had arrived to save America from dumb bureaucrats. I ground my teeth when I read some tech CEO’s quote that Washington, D.C. was about to experience a level of competency it couldn’t comprehend. As we watched these so-called geniuses destroy institutions with a child-like understanding of how the government works, MAGA routed out the “Deep State” and “traumatized” civil servants. We were told Elon Musk and his pre-pubescent hackers could move fast and innovate, and The Swamp was too stupid to understand. Somehow, the IT department, which is an enabling function in government, took over without any understanding of the actual mission objectives. The result? Anyone who didn’t know how to push code or engineer products was pushed out. The geniuses were certain AI could do everyone else’s job.
They fed the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) into “the wood chipper,” and placed a conspiracy theorist in charge of the intelligence community. An alcoholic weekend news personality was appointed head of the largest military on earth. He fired generals because of “DEI.” They fired FBI agents for being assigned to cases the Administration didn’t approve of. Those who weren’t let go were given a huckster and a podcaster for leadership.
So the story about America being led by its nose into a senseless war with Iran isn’t only a story about Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump. No, it’s also about the death of experts.
President Trump appointed Steve Witkoff to lead nuclear disarmament talks with Iran (he is also in charge of negotiations to end hostilities between Russia and Ukraine). Witkoff is a real estate developer. I will say that again. Witkoff is a real estate developer. That’s it. No relevant experience or qualifications. His defenders inside and outside the Trump Administration say this is what makes him better than the experts, just like the boss.
Forgive my cruelty here, but you have to be a little thick in the head to believe negotiating a real estate term sheet, no matter how large of a deal or difficult of a counterparty, is the same thing as international diplomacy. First, if a real estate deal fails, you go hunting for the next property. If a peace negotiation fails, people die. Second, both parties in a real estate deal know roughly what the other is after, and it all boils down to a financial return on investment. All the parties have to do is find a combination of terms that creates an acceptable financial outcome. That is not the case in international diplomacy. The party on the other side of the table could be engaging in bad faith talks to project a peacemaker image, while playing a different game in the shadows. Moreover, both players must consider how the other could financially or physically harm them if negotiations fail. Then there is the fact that most international negotiations have multiple parties involved, many of whom have competing interests. Of course, there is history as well. Many belligerents don’t actually want to resolve their differences. This type of actor uses negotiation to bide their time or please their benefactors in exchange for aid. It’s why diplomacy is more than a negotiation, it’s an integrated dance between defense, intelligence, foreign aide, public persuasion (both domestic and foreign), and commerce.
Let’s bring it back to earth and make things a little more relatable. Sending Steve Witkoff to negotiate nuclear disarmament with Iran is no different from sending a toddler to fix a broken dishwasher. They don’t know what they don’t know. Plus, it sends everyone the signal you are deeply unserious about getting the job done, a fool, or trying to provoke them.
Thus, is anyone surprised Netanyahu chose this moment to do what he hasn’t been able to do for three decades? The real estate developers, software coders, and television personalities in the Trump Administration do not understand where America’s national security interest lies. We have always restrained Israel because a war with Iran is potentially destabilizing for the entire region.
There is a good phrase in the military that goes, “No plan survives contact with the enemy.” This little gem is meant as a reminder that you can think through scenarios and plan down to the smallest detail, but the reality will play out differently. The enemy gets a vote and you better be prepared to think on your feet and adapt to the actual situation as it unfolds. It’s why acting erratically, treating allies with disdain, confusing foes for friends, and employing unserious people in serious roles is so dangerous. Friends and adversaries alike begin adapting their behavior and deciding what it means when they can no longer count on America. In Israel’s case, this meant striking Iran.
Acting responsibly on the international stage and playing a central role has always been to America’s benefit. Somehow, we let a failed real estate developer convince us he knew better, other countries were taking advantage of America, and he would bring peace. His apologists keep telling us his childish card playing analogies and incomprehensible behavior are proof of his genius, and a testament to the man who had someone else write The Art of the Deal for him.
Here’s my pitch: let’s listen once more to people who devote their lives to becoming experts. Stop outsourcing nuance and complexity to ChatGPT, and stop thinking that because experts don’t bat a 1,000 that they aren’t Hall of Fame material with a 400 average. It might just be the difference between peace and World War III.
Blake