Five hours before President Donald Trump’s deadline for a deal with Iran, the New York Times published a damning investigation on how the U.S. ended up in this war.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who visited Washington numerous times leading up to the dropping of bombs, made his grand pitch to the president on Feb. 11.
During that meeting, Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence officials told Trump that current conditions in Iran would make for a quick and decisive victory:
“Iran’s ballistic missile program could be destroyed in a few weeks,” Israeli officials reportedly claimed. “The regime would be so weakened that it could not choke off the Strait of Hormuz, and the likelihood that Iran would land blows against U.S. interests in neighboring countries was assessed as minimal.”
Mossad also told U.S. officials that a bombing campaign would create the conditions for Iranian protesters to once again take to the streets and topple the regime.
The war is now in its sixth week and those assessments have aged incredibly poorly. The ballistic missile program is damaged but still operational. Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz. Iran and its proxies have continued to hit U.S. interests in neighboring countries. And there’s no clear second wave of mass protests against the regime.
Trump’s advisors warned him at the time that Israeli intelligence had a pattern of overselling to garner U.S. support for its military projects. CIA Director John Ratcliffe called the Israeli assessment “farcical.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said it was “bullshit.” General Dan Caine expressed skepticism. Vice President JD Vance listed off at least a half dozen reasons why the war was a bad idea.
Nevertheless, Trump persisted.
CONTINUE READING
Enjoyed this post? If so, please consider subscribing to State of the Day or sharing this with a friend. You’d be supporting this newsletter and helping keep independent journalism alive.
