President Donald Trump holds a Cabinet meeting, Wednesday, April 30, 2025, in the Cabinet Room. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)
Nearly a month into an illegal war with Iran, I think it’s time to ask who’s in charge?
It’s not the commander-in-chief. Donald Trump told reporters yesterday that the war is over, that regime change has been achieved and that the Iranians “want to make a deal so badly.”
Literally, as the president was saying this, Israel was firing on Iran. Iran was firing on Israel (as well as on Gulf states.) Before that, Iran cut deals with Japan and India to allow tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. It's shipping its own oil while others are charged millions.
Trump also said “we’re talking to the right people,” but whoever they are, they are not in a position of authority. The US sent Iran a 15-point ceasefire plan, including the removal of its enriched uranium. The Post broke news of the plan at 10:05 this morning. Within half an hour, the AP broke news of Iran’s rejection of it. Then, minutes later, the AP said Iran has issued its own terms of peace, including war reparations and sovereignty of the strait.
The only thing Trump has control of right now is the markets. Oil prices eased and stocks rose after he said the US and Iran would be negotiating. The markets responded despite his record of market manipulation and despite Iran’s insistence that no such talks existed. Even so, Trump’s lies seem to be working in more ways than one. He’s keeping the price of a gallon of gas from reaching $5 while apparently enabling $1.5 billion in insider-trading profits.
Despite the lies, one truth-teller has emerged, James Mattis. The former secretary of defense said, “we're in a tough spot … and I can't identify a lot of good options.” Trump can’t quit, he said, without turning over control of the strait to Iran. But neither can he ensure security, he said, even if the US controlled the strait. “They've got anti-ship cruise missiles that could be fired off the back of a pickup truck that can go 100 miles,” he said. “So there's the problem."
Mattis sees tactics, not strategy. We "are fighting in a markedly limited war, and I think that what we're seeing is a situation where targetry never makes up for a lack of strategy.”
Why is Trump saying the Iran war is over, despite 1,000 soldiers and 2,200 Marines being dispatched in what seems to be a build-up for an invasion of Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil depot. That’s the question I asked the Secretary of Defense Rock, the anonymous publisher of History Does You, a newsletter about the intersection of military and civilian life.
Who’s in charge?
The war isn't over. Is gaslighting the only thing Trump has left?
Trump is probably not getting the best information. NBC News reported this morning that his briefings are essentially a CENTCOM highlight-reels in addition to what people around him are saying. There doesn't appear to be any formal inter-agency process to measure success so what the president is thinking is what the goal is. See enough stuff getting blown up, and I could see why Trump would be saying that, but as they say, the enemy gets a vote.
So it's like James Mattis said, lots of tactics ("targetry") but no strategy? The inner circle can make the president feel good and make themselves feel good. Meanwhile, Israel keeps firing, Iran keeps firing and the rest of us see our incomes go into the gas pump.
As far as I can tell.
As I wrote: "One of the striking features of the current crisis has been the degree to which official statements appear to shift within hours of one another and often contradict the statement that preceded it. At times the operation is framed as a narrowly limited effort to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. At other moments it is presented as an opportunity for the Iranian people to overthrow the regime. Still other statements emphasize that the United States is not seeking regime change but ‘the regime sure did change.’ This ping ponging makes it almost impossible to determine whether the campaign is pursuing a single coherent political or military objective or several overlapping ones that have not been reconciled in the slightest at the strategic level."
The Post broke news of a ceasefire plan 30 minutes ago. Then, in the last minute, Iran said no deal. Trump is gaming markets with lies. Is Iran catching on to what he's doing?
I don't think Iran is monitoring the markets, but why would they negotiate? The United States hasn't negotiated in good faith at all. Yes, they have taken a tremendous pounding, but they've essentially turned the strait into a personal tollway, and the United States has made very little effort to open it up militarily. It appears the IRGC and other political leadership have been able to consolidate power despite the constant attempts to kill them. There might be a threshold where they decide to seek an off ramp, but I don't see one at the moment.
Indeed, they are acting like they have the advantage. Per the AP, just now: “Iran issues its own ceasefire proposal, calling for war reparations and sovereignty over Strait of Hormuz.” Given what we know about Trump, he might even accept those terms.
I have a hard time believing Trump would accept war reparations and sovereignty over the strait. The Gulf Cooperation Council states would not like that. I suppose if some American military operation went off the rails and congressional Republicans were breathing down his neck, he might accept maximalist Iranian demands, but I don't think we are even close to that at the moment. “Ceasefire then negotiate” seems like the most obvious path but maybe Trump wants to try and capture Kharg Island before seriously trying to negotiate.
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
- Ending Iran war now would cede Hormuz to the enemy, Trump’s former Defense secretary says - POLITICO ›
- Speaking in Houston, Mattis issues Iran warning with a Texas-size reality check ›
- Mattis delivers harsh Iran assessment: "We're in a tough spot" ›
- Jim Mattis: Ending war now would cede Strait of Hormuz to Iran ›