Iran: Miscalculation or No Calculation?

Political Notes

by Jon Fuhrman

Tuesday, March 10. We don’t know, and we may not ever know, if President Trump was seriously engaging in negotiations with Iran, or if the negotiations were simply a smoke screen for his decision finally to “resolve” the Iranian problem by killing their leadership (since, realistically, even the President knew they couldn’t kidnap the Ayatollah as we did President Maduro of Venezuela). We may never know whether Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had to convince President Trump to attack Iran, or whether he simply found in the President a willing co-conspirator eager to “solve” the Iranian problem.

Whatever the roots, our attack on Iran is looking more and more like a catastrophic misjudgment. First off, the President clearly intended to catalyze a “regime change” in Iran. The evil Supreme Leader (who, admittedly, really was a pretty awful person) would be removed from the chess board, and new leadership would spring forth to lead Iran in a new direction. This hope belied a profound misunderstanding of the structure of the regime and the power of the diverse elements upholding that regime. After the death of the Supreme Leader from the Israeli and American bombing of his residential compound, his son Mojtaba Khamenei was appointed Supreme Leader (notwithstanding President Trump’s laughable demand that he be consulted in selecting the new leader).

The President was hoping that a new leader would be amenable to negotiating with the US and yielding to our demands that Iran abandon its nuclear ambitions, give up its store of partially enriched uranium, stop supporting proxy groups like Hezbollah and Houthi rebels outside of Iran, terminate its ballistic missile program and accept a subservient role in international affairs.

What is the likelihood that Mojtaba Khamenei might agree to any of these demands? He was known as a hardliner to begin with. But now he is avenging not only the martyrdom of his father, but, as reported by the NY Times, also the deaths of his mother, his wife and one of his children killed in that same bombing raid (just another shocking example of the disregard that we and the Israelis have had about collateral damage from the bombing campaign). So much for letting bygones be bygones. The new Supreme Leader is now likely to fight on regardless of the consequences for his country, intent on wreaking whatever revenge he can.

Perhaps the most maddening facet of this is that the elder Khamenei was old, sick and likely to die within a few years, if not sooner. His son Mojtaba was surely one of the candidates who might have replaced the elder Khamenei in a “normal” succession, but there were several other strong candidates, most of whom had, arguably, much stronger credentials as Islamic sages and religious leaders, credentials crucially important to the religious hierarchy – the Assembly of Experts – that would choose the new leader. But by killing the elder Khamenei, by making him a martyr, we essentially assured the appointment of his avenging son as the new Supreme Leader.

So now we’re stuck, with an Iranian leader intent on avenging the murder of most of his family in a surprise attack reminiscent of Pearl Harbor, and an American leader seemingly divorced from reality and acting on either gut instinct or whims. How does this end? The Administration will have to go to Congress sometime in the next few weeks for a supplemental appropriations bill, to replace the vast amount of munitions used in bombing Iran; this may give Congress the opportunity to restrain the President. Other than that, it seems hard to see what might force two implacable opponents to come to terms.

On the political front, Democrats had about as good a night as they could have dreamed of last Tuesday. In Texas, James Talarico won the US Senate primary, and his opponent, Jasmine Crockett, immediately and gracefully endorsed him and pushed for a unified party for the November elections, in stark contrast to the Republicans. Their incumbent Senator, John Cornyn, barely edged out the State Attorney-General, Ken Paxton, who is about as close to a certifiable lunatic as you can get, even in Texas politics, but because Cornyn didn’t get over 50%, there will be a run-off between those two in late May. President Trump said he would endorse one or the other, and demanded that the candidate he didn’t endorse drop out, but neither seemed willing to do that, and the President has held off on his endorsement (perhaps to avoid having a candidate openly defy him). Further, historic trends in Texas suggest that, if an incumbent is forced into a run-off, the incumbent loses.

This is precisely the Democrats’ dream scenario – a united Democratic party watches for 10 weeks while Republicans tear each other apart and spend north of $100 million doing so, money that could have gone to the general election, in Texas or elsewhere, and then nominate someone so far out there as to alienate most of the Bush wing of the GOP. Further, the Democratic candidate, James Talarico, rolled up huge margins in the heavily Hispanic areas of Texas, suggesting that many of those Hispanic voters who had flirted with Trump in 2024 are returning to the Democratic fold. And then to sweeten the pot, despite the GOP having a significant edge in registered voters, more people voted in the Democratic primary than in the GOP primary, a relatively rare occurrence, especially when both sides had strongly contested primaries. This provides even more evidence about the enthusiasm gap between the two parties, and suggests that, finally, Texas may actually be ready to elect one or more Democrats statewide. In fact, with crazy Ken Paxton at the top of the GOP ticket, Talarico may have enough coattails to help the Democratic candidate for Governor, Gina Hinojosa, defeat the incumbent GOP Governor Greg Abbot, who is running for a fourth term.

Finally, in North Carolina, as in Texas, more Democrats voted in their primary than did Republicans in their primary, again despite a GOP registration edge. Roy Cooper will be the Democratic nominee for the open Senate seat, currently held by Republican Thom Tillis. Cooper was twice elected Governor, in 2016 and 2020, in elections where Trump carried the state, and then had to retire due to term limits. His opponent, Michael Whatley, served as national chair for the GOP, but has never run for office, let alone been elected to office, in North Carolina (or anywhere else, for that matter). This seat is an absolute must-win for the Democrats, and once again, everything seems to be lining up in our favor. The latest polling, from about a month ago, has Cooper up 10 points over Whatley.

November is only 8 months away – practically a lifetime in politics, but actually not really that far. If we (and the nation) can hold out till then, we may be able to force a major change in direction, and perhaps restore just a bit of sanity to American politics.