Recent content by Brad Sallows

Yes. Iran seems to have more capability (range) than some people thought and have conveniently confirmed a new minimum. Some will take that as a warning, and some as a challenge; of the latter, some will regard it as an unacceptable risk.

That was a military target. The distinction between military and civilian is critical here.

It might, but it would be terror bombing. That's a different context than long-range attacks on military forces and military-supporting infrastructure. Politicians caving to terror bombing would be an interesting lesson.

Yes. Iran gets its money, and a slight bit of economic pressure is relieved. Both sides get something. The Iranian government of course has to decide what mix of guns and butter is imperative for its survival at this point. It's not the first unusual trade-off. Ukraine kept pipelines open...

Combatants discover that plans have to change after contact with the enemy. Film at 11.

Precision missiles, or launch-and-hope-it-hits-something-in-the-area? HE warhead, or nuclear or chemical? If there's no precision, and it's basically a large package of explosives, it's not much more than WW II V1/V2. Lips aren't going to start quivering for that.

"He was always there" may be true, but evidently "he" was one of two or more personalities on exhibit. The other gotcha-finding one dominated up until very, very recently. If he isn't self-disciplined enough to completely keep that one in check, the media that don't like conservatives will be...

Technically there may be no veto. (Whenever consent is a condition, there is a veto.) Practically, the way the politics work there is in many cases effectively a veto.

It's a strange way to set down the laws. People can face reasonably foreseeable risks, but have to in effect respond only spontaneously with whatever is at hand.

I wish them luck. There are all sorts of ways governments (at all levels) impose uncompensated costs on people, as individuals or otherwise.

I enjoyed Eby's framing when presented with the issue. Apparently it was a choice between supporting health care, or satisfying bond rating agencies. Not a peep about all their other spending choices that have been squeezing out health care spending. The newscast would have been more amusing...

At the extremes, yes, but it depends on the capacities of the competing economies. Unfortunately for the Iranians, it isn't just a drone tennis match in which they serve and the US and Israel respond. There are munitions flowing the other way and the "broken window" costs are going to be immense.

Any decent engineer would make the fuel part of the warhead.

Everyone on the planet leaks whatever they can to push back against Trump, and people are asking why more of them aren't allowed into the discussions...

Which at some point raises the question of whether any "war crimes" are committed. Does anyone care? The topic should at least rate a mention, but some of what pundits are producing just seems to take for granted that it's no big deal if Iran escalates any way it pleases.