Dem
47
GOP
53
Students sometimes struggle to wrap their heads around the periodization of the Vietnam War, and the fact that different sources list different start dates for that conflict. It's not too hard; there was no Pearl Harbor for Vietnam, but there was a fall of the French colonial regime, accompanied by the partition of the nation and the arrival of a few dozen U.S. military advisers (1954), with that few dozen growing to a few hundred and then a few thousand over the next decade. And there was also a little incident in the Gulf of Tonkin, followed by a use of force resolution, followed by a dramatic increase in the number of troops (1964). So, it's really just a question of "when U.S. troops first arrived" vs. "when things got serious."
One cannot help but sense parallels with the burgeoning Iran War, albeit on an extremely accelerated timeline (as is always the case with this administration). First, it was the June 2025 airstrikes on Iran, which Donald Trump said had ended Iran's nuclear program for all time, defanging them as a threat to U.S. national security. Then it was the bombings of Tehran a few weeks ago, which were also meant to end the supposedly-already-ended nuclear threat. Since then, the U.S. and its one real ally here (Israel) have continued to pour it on, with Trump claiming that the U.S. has "destroyed 100% of Iran's Military Capability." Hm, interesting. As those wry Brits at The Economist observed earlier this week: "Although President Donald Trump says he has 'destroyed 100% of Iran's Military Capability,' the 0% that remains is playing havoc with the global economy."
Despite the President's multiple claims of total victory, and his suggestion that the U.S. might leave Iran at any time, the administration continues slip-sliding its way toward another long, drawn-out "forever" war. Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that the United States is about to launch its "largest strike yet." As a historian, (Z) can tell you that the purpose of such a massive strike is generally to bring the enemy to its knees. If it works (e.g., Hiroshima and Nagasaki), then great. But usually all it does is kill a bunch of people and cause the enemy to become more entrenched (e.g., the Battle of the Somme, Operation Rolling Thunder, etc.). By all indications, the regime in Iran is the latter type of foe (more entrenched) and not the former (we surrender!).
This "largest strike yet" will presumably be conducted with planes and drones and missiles, since that is how this war has been waged by the U.S. so far. However, there is also reporting that the Pentagon is making preliminary arrangements to deploy thousands more soldiers in the region and, critically, to begin deploying them on Iranian soil (specifically, along the Strait of Hormuz). And once you've got a few thousand soldiers occupying enemy territory, what's a thousand more? And a thousand more beyond that? And a thousand more beyond that?
Coincident with the announcement of the "largest strike yet," the administration also asked Congress for money to keep prosecuting the war. How much? They want $200 billion, an amount that Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) described as "staggering." Needless to say, that is a figure that is completely incompatible with "this thing will be over in a week or so."
The House Republican Conference, which is of course a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization, welcomed the request for more funds. Or, at least, the leadership, starting with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), certainly did. In fact, some House Republicans are licking their chops, because they think this might be their key to a second reconciliation bill full of all sorts of goodies. The logic is that many members would be afraid to vote against an appropriation for the Pentagon, for fear of being accused of not supporting the troops.
This line of thinking seems like fantasy to us. First, consider the $200 billion as just a standalone bill. We would imagine that there are many Republicans in the House who would vote against it (and we already know of two, because Reps. Lauren Boebert, R-CO, and Thomas Massie, R-KY, said they would). Meanwhile, why would Democrats be cowed into paying for a war they had no voice in approving, that they largely don't support, and that is unpopular with the public in general and with Democratic and independent voters in particular? Any Democratic member who got "Why don't you support our troops?" at a town hall would answer, "I do, but I don't support another 10,000 $6 million missiles for use against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., and where military action was not approved by Congress." That would probably get an ovation.
Yes, we think Democrats would hold the line on a standalone bill, particularly in the Senate, where getting to 60 votes would be a near-impossibility. The Senate problem is why the reconciliation idea is being bandied about, of course, because that only requires 50 votes in the upper chamber. However, there is still the problem of getting enough Republican votes, in both chambers. Further, everyone wants to put their particular goodies into reconciliation bills. And if there was a second Trump v2.0 reconciliation bill, it would run headfirst into the problem of GOP members who want some pork and maybe some tax cuts versus Freedom Caucusers who want to cut spending to make up for any new outlays. Put another way, it will be hard to get the correct number of Republican votes for just a standalone bill. It will be even harder for a reconciliation bill that has the $200 billion plus a bunch of other stuff.
There's one other story on the Iran front that we should mention right now, because there's a possibility it comes home to roost before we're back at it on Monday. DNI Tulsi Gabbard appeared on the Hill yesterday to be questioned by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It would be fair to say it was Kristi-Noem-level disastrous, for two reasons. The first is that Gabbard provided a written opening statement to the committee, but when she read her own statement (which is usually what is done at the start of committee testimony) she noticeably left out this portion:
As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. The entrances to the underground facilities that were bombed have been buried and shuttered with cement.
The problem here is that this runs entirely contrary to Trump's claim that the re-invasion of Iran was necessary to re-crush their nuclear program. When asked why she self-edited, Gabbard lamely remarked that she was "running short on time."
The other issue, though related to the first, is that in response to questioning from Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Gabbard refused to say whether Iran was an imminent threat to the U.S., and declared that identifying imminent threats isn't her job. Of course, it is exactly her job. In fact, you almost couldn't come up with a simpler description of the DNI's job than "they identify imminent threats to the U.S."
So, Gabbard looked foolish and, more importantly, she looked like she was just saying whatever she needed to say to avoid making Trump look bad. Trump likes it when people cover his a** for him, but he doesn't like it when it's so obvious that everyone is saying "She was just covering Trump's a** for him." Trump is also very angry about Joe Kent still, and while he is now beyond reach, his close ally and former boss Gabbard is not. So, there is much supposition that Gabbard will be fired, or will "resign" before the weekend is out. Remember that, for Noem, once the end came, it came fast. (Z)