Trump's Mission [Not] Accomplished
Plus: NYC Dems pick a socialist.
Yet another reminder why we shouldn’t go to war with a chronic liar.
Happy Wednesday.
This is not a rehearsal. This is the story of our lifetime and the challenge of our generation. If you think the fight for sanity, democracy, and the rule of law is worth it, please consider supporting us. Because we can’t do this without you.
To the Contrary is a reader-supported publication. There are no investors. No sugar daddies. No merch. We’re not affiliated with any PACS. Or parties. Just me. And the dogs.
You may disagree with me from time time, because I’m not offering you a safe space. But I can promise straight, sober, sane, and snarky commentary.
It is still early days, so all of the caveats, cautions, and hedges are in order. But the early indications are that Saturday’s bunker-busting bombing of Iran did not, in fact, “obliterate” its nuclear program as Donald Trump had assured us.
In fact, the strike may have delayed Iran’s ability get the bomb by only a few months.
A preliminary classified U.S. report says the American bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings, according to officials familiar with the findings.
Via CNN: “ Early US intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites, sources say”
The US military strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities last weekend did not destroy the core components of the country’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by months, according to an early US intelligence assessment that was described by four people briefed on it.
The assessment…was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence arm. It is based on a battle damage assessment conducted by US Central Command in the aftermath of the US strikes, one of the sources said.
The analysis of the damage to the sites and the impact of the strikes on Iran’s nuclear ambitions is ongoing, and could change as more intelligence becomes available. But the early findings are at odds with President Donald Trump’s repeated claims that the strikes “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also said on Sunday that Iran’s nuclear ambitions “have been obliterated.”
Two of the people familiar with the assessment said Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed. One of the people said the centrifuges are largely “intact.”
**
This is awkward for Trump who was preparing to strut his way into the NATO summit as Master of the Universe.
But, alas.
Via the NYT: “Intel Report on Iran Upends Victory Lap Trump Was Hoping for at NATO.”
As President Trump landed in the Netherlands on Tuesday for the annual meeting of NATO allies, he was desperate to hold together the fragile cease-fire between Israel and Iran, cursing and cajoling to make sure that history would remember him for bombing Iran’s nuclear sites over the weekend and brokering a peace deal days later.
Predictably, Trump went into an incandescent ALL-CAPS rage over the leak, posting:
FAKE NEWS CNN, TOGETHER WITH THE FAILING NEW YORK TIMES, HAVE TEAMED UP IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEMEAN ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL MILITARY STRIKES IN HISTORY. THE NUCLEAR SITES IN IRAN ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED! BOTH THE TIMES AND CNN ARE GETTING SLAMMED BY THE PUBLIC!
We can expect MAGA to go into full denial as well, emphasizing that the preliminary report is rated as “low confidence”
And the truth?
Have you been paying attention? A president who lies about the election (and pretty much everything else) is fully capable of lying and fudging, and hyping matters of war and peace as well.
What did you expect?
So what happens next?
The whole point of the attack was to destroy or seriously impair Iran’s nuclear capabilities. If it failed, does that mean Trump will have to bomb again? Will he blow up his own ceasefire? Will he leave the job unfinished?
Will Iran return to the negotiating table after the last round turned out to be a ruse? Will it now accelerate its efforts to build the bomb, as the only guarantor of its safety?
And back home: will Trump listen to the assessments of an intelligence community whose findings he rejected before launching the attack; and whose assessments he is denouncing? And if he doesn’t listen to his own government, who will he listen to? (Trick question, I know.)
**
Make sure you read Will Saletan’s timeline of Trump’s lies and gaffes surrounding his war with Iran. As Saletan notes, “His babbling, bumbling, and bluster undermined the mission and its chances of long-term success.”
It’s worth remembering how Trump lied about the negotiations.
[Well] after the time frame in which his national security team supposedly concluded that Iran was no longer negotiating in good faith, Trump continued to insist in public—as he does with fruitless trade negotiations and cease-fire talks—that everything was going swimmingly.
“We had some very good talks with Iran yesterday and today,” Trump told reporters on May 25. “I think we could have some good news on the Iran front.” Three days later, he claimed again that “we’re having some very good talks with Iran” and “we’re very close to a solution.”
Even on June 12—the day before Israel attacked Iran to thwart its nuclear weapons program—Trump continued to argue that the U.S.–Iran talks were going well enough that such an attack might unwisely jeopardize them.
The erratic bluster has continued virtually nonstop since then. Saletan’s conclusion:
Maybe the putative ceasefire will materialize and hold. Maybe damage assessments from the bombing will show that it really did set back Iran’s nuclear program for years. And maybe, if we’re really lucky, Iran will agree to a deal that gives weapons inspectors reliable access to its nuclear sites. But don’t count on it. The only thing you can count on is that even if everything goes right, Trump will do his best to fuck it up.
**
No, We Do Not Have to 'Go To War With the President We Have'
Well this is going well: “Trump drops f-bomb live on TV over Israel and Iran violating ceasefire”
**
Meanwhile: The public is not jazzed about war with Iran. A new CBS/You Gov poll finds that Americans oppose the strikes by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent. CNN’s poll found the same result.
Majorities of independents (60%) and Democrats (88%) disapprove of the decision to take military action in Iran. Republicans largely approve (82%). But just 44% of Republicans strongly approve of the airstrikes, far smaller than the group of Democrats who strongly disapprove (60%), perhaps reflecting that some in Trump’s coalition are broadly distrustful of military action abroad.
A 58% majority overall say the strikes will make Iran more of a threat to the US, with just 27% believing it will lessen the threat and the rest expecting it to do neither. Even among those who support the strikes, just 55% expect them to lessen the threat level.
The Dems Choose a Socialist
On Monday, we asked: “Is NYC about to hand Trump a massive gift?'“
Why yes, they were. Given the choice between a sex creep and a commie, Democratic primary voters chose the guy who defends the chant “globalize the intifada.”
There is so much fuckery to go around.
The victory of socialist Zohran Mamdani is a disaster for centrist and mainstream Democrats.
The Democratic establishment — the one that backed the thoroughly disgraced and deplorable Andrew Cuomo — richly deserved its thumping.
Suddenly, it’s possible to imagine NY turning red; and, yes, the result will be nationalized. As JVL recently noted, “Mamdani is like a TPUSA parody of a Democrat.” The general election has suddenly become more competitive and its outcome less predictable.
Both Republicans and progressive Democrats will exaggerate and misread the significance of Mamdani’s victory in a deep blue city that has a long track record of shitty mayors.
Trump will use Mamdani as proof that Democrats really are socialists; while progressives and their echo chamber will hail his victory as a sign that the youth vote really wants a full-on embrace of leftism.
Mamdani could turn out to be a good mayor if he wins the general election. But it’s more likely that he will be disaster, ala his fellow prog, Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson, who now has an approval rating below 20%. In an editorial that tried to warn voters, the NYT noted that “Unfortunately, Mr. Mamdani is running on an agenda uniquely unsuited to the city’s challenges.
He is a democratic socialist who too often ignores the unavoidable trade-offs of governance. He favors rent freezes that could restrict housing supply and make it harder for younger New Yorkers and new arrivals to afford housing. He wants the government to operate grocery stores, as if customer service and retail sales were strengths of the public sector. He minimizes the importance of policing….
All politics is local, but, as the centrist Democratic group Third Way warned: “[A] Mamdani win for such a high-profile office would be a devastating blow to the fight to defeat Trumpism.” Every Democrat will now be asked whether they support the socialist; their answers will be weaponized.
It does not take much imagination or political acumen to see how the DSA ideas could be weaponized against Democrats everywhere.
Republican attack ads in swing districts attaching moderate Democratic candidates to Mamdani and the DSA practically write themselves.
The fact that this came down to Cuomo and Mamdani is a really searing indictment of just how fuqqed up the Democratic establishment is.
**
Nate Silver: “Zohran delivered the Democratic establishment the thrashing it deserved.”
**
Julie Roginsky: “Wake Up, Democrats — Your Base Is Revolting.”
What were voters in New York to do? When I filled out my ballot yesterday, I did not rank either Cuomo or Mamdani — because I won’t vote for a sexual predator and because I won’t vote for a deeply inexperienced candidate who refuses to acknowledge that “Globalize the Intifada” is an offensive term to his Jewish constituents. I knew that my vote was wasted, that the five people I ranked had no shot of winning. And for this, I blame the Democratic establishment.
When Cuomo popped up his head to run, all the establishment figures who flocked to him could have said no. They could have looked at other competent leaders, who did not have Cuomo’s baggage. (Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch comes to mind.) Instead, they did what they do best: tried to impose a deeply flawed candidate with a disconnected message on their own voters.
**
Garry Kasparov: “Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic Establishment’s Fault.”
Andrew Cuomo positioned himself as just that person—the normalcy candidate. The problem is that the disgraced former governor wasn’t. Normalcy is not having over a dozen sexual harassment allegations to your name. It isn’t massaging coronavirus death counts to burnish your reputation (although the architects of the Chernobyl coverup might be proud). Suddenly returning to politics less than half a decade after ignominiously resigning isn’t normal. A do-nothing, ChatGPT-written campaign from someone who only moved to the city full-time last year reeks of entitlement. We should not be surprised that these things turn voters off.
An extremist victory is what happens when the normalcy candidate isn’t actually normal…It would be hard to fault them for their disillusionment, just as we can understand why so many New Yorkers didn’t want Cuomo.
Yet in choosing someone from the far-left fringe who’s unpalatable to many in the broader electorate, Democratic primary voters will risk handing the Oval Office to JD Vance or some other unscrupulous Trump disciple. Similarly, Republican mayoral hopeful Curtis Sliwa—New York’s resident Batman in a red beret, more costumed character than proper candidate—or Turkey-bribed Trump hostage Mayor Eric Adams could have at least a fighting chance against the radical socialist.
Wednesday dogs
They have summer plans.
I find myself irked by this morning's offering. Throwing the word "socialist" around as a catch-all with no nuance or sense of context other than "socialist = bad." Poll numbers offered in hope that in reality are merely eye candy, as they will not change anything about the course of decision-making and events in Washington. The Democratic establishment is to blame for Trump, inflation, the Titanic ... everything. Fearmongering -- as if we don't already have enough of that on a daily basis.
Yeah, let's all go somewhere to die. All hope is lost. Despair. Give up. Quit. We are doomed.
I'll volunteer to ask about the elephant in the room: why is socialism bad by default, no discussion needed, no dissenting opinion allowed? Disclaimer: apparently I'm a socialist, because I do believe in basic equality. And in wealth redistribution when it can help a bigger number of people in more important ways than the wealthy merely taking the money out of circulation. And in government that is responsive to the needs of all people, even if it costs some money (gasp!) -- clean water, safe food, good roads, non-toxic environment, safe workplace, and more, all with reasonable limits that reasonable people can and mostly do agree upon. And in paying enough taxes that our kids get a good education, we have a health care system that matches the quality of that seen in our peer nations elsewhere, and so that our elderly can retire in dignity and with appreciation for their decades of hard work and sacrifice. And that capitalism, especially the crony type, isn't the solution to all of our problems and shouldn't always be our foremost goal, economically and otherwise.
And, no, I don't apologize for thinking so, and saying it out loud.
I've had about enough shaming for thinking that the world can be a better place if we have the courage to try some new ideas, in new ways, when the old ones either don't work anymore or aren't reflective of where our society and the world are going in a new era, with new realities and challenges. The devil always is in the details, and there always is a need to guard against excesses, on either side of the political spectrum. But I'm done worrying about whether MAGA likes or approves of the agenda when they clearly won't support any idea or approach coming from the left anyway. Inadvertently their own extremism creates a permission structure for extremists on the left to move still further in that direction -- "if they can do it and win, so can we." Ideally we meet in the middle somewhere, leaning left or right. I'm fine with that. But a good first step would be to stop acting like anyone and anything associated with the term "social" is automatically bad. Social has to do with society. If we don't want that, go ahead and say out loud that we're for the law of the jungle, where the biggest badasses and richest mofos out there get to make and enforce all the rules, and like high school, either you're one of the cool kids or you're cast out. Is that really where we want to go? I'd be much more afraid of that if I were under 40 and taking a long, hard look at the future.
You know who else was called a radical socialist? A disaster? Fiorello LaGuardia. This is definitely not your comfort zone. The future is never a sure bet and this could turn out to be the push the old guard Democrats needed. Because that picture of Clinton endorsing Cuomo was ... gross.