"We sank Iran’s navy before. Tehran should be put on notice that we are prepared and able to do it again." My column in
Nobody wants a war with Iran. But not wanting a war does not mean remaining supine in the face of its outrages, writes
In 1988 a US frigate hit an Iranian mine. The explosion nearly sank the ship. Four days later, the U.S. Navy destroyed half the Iranian fleet in a matter of hours. Iran did not molest the Navy or international shipping for many years thereafter.
In my column last week, I surmised (quoting ) that Iran's aggressive behavior was intended to show that was "a Twitter tiger." Donald just proved them right.
I support this insofar as Bret is forced to carry it out by himself
I'm not saying everyone at the Times is responsible for this but everyone there should feel responsible for it, a little bit
The steady drumbeat of exaggerated conclusions from shoddy evidence + an absurdly expansive reading of the 2001 AUMF to include Iran + a concerted effort to connect a kinetic campaign against Iran to the US president’s addled sense of machismo = ____
Believe it or not, the NYT's Bret Stephens apparently means this: "Trump might be a liar, but the U.S. military isn’t." Willful ignorance of history is not a good look for a columnist for the most important editorial/op-ed space on the Internet.
Why the hell are people agitating for war with Iran in 2019? This is like a bad movie.
Here is ⁦⁩ seconding the motion made by ⁦⁩ yesterday: Hearing no objections, the motion passes.