Between Iraq and a hard place

We live in the weirdest era of the past 150 years. It's so weird, I agree with almost everything former US Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) said about Iran today:

Let’s call this what it is: Iran has been in a slow-burn war against the United States for decades. Whether through Hezbollah, Shiite militias in Iraq, or direct attacks on oil infrastructure and U.S. assets, the Iranian regime has made its hostility clear. And they've never hidden their intentions. From “Death to America” chants in Tehran to plotting the assassination of former U.S. officials on American soil, their posture has never changed.

Now, with tensions escalating again—this time with former President Donald Trump’s renewed saber-rattling—it's time to ask the question: What would it actually look like if the United States struck Iran militarily? And perhaps just as important: What should we avoid repeating from past wars?

Let’s stop pretending Iran is some invincible superpower. Its economy is in shambles. Its currency has collapsed. Its population—especially its youth—are disillusioned, angry, and ready for change. Its military is large but outdated. And its strength relies on asymmetry and subterfuge, not traditional battlefield dominance. A quick strike focused not on the people but on the unpopular nuclear program and IRGC can possibly keep the people on our side, as they take their nation back. A prolonged, protracted fight risks losing that goodwill.

Fortunately, he's not advocating that we attack Iran. No one really is, though Josh Marshall makes the argument that it looks like a quick win for the OAFPOTUS (despite it being terrifying in the long term) to drop a 15-ton bomb on Iran's Furdow nuclear facility. I really hope he doesn't, not least because I would rather have the US set its own foreign policy, rather than Benjamin Netanyahu.