The Morning Dispatch: Iran Attacks

Plus, how we got to this point and a quick look at 2020 fundraising numbers.

By
11

Happy Wednesday. We were putting this newsletter to bed last night when we heard the shocking news: Iran had launched missiles at U.S. troops in Iraq. No doubt we’ll find out how the U.S. plans to respond, if at all, today—in the meantime, our thoughts go out to the American service members in the area and their families; we’ll do our best to get you up to speed on what’s happened in the region over the last few days.

Quick Hits: What You Need To Know

  • Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday he has enough support to pass a set of rules for President Trump’s upcoming impeachment trial without locking down parameters surrounding witnesses and document requests. Speaker Pelosi, for her part, reportedly told Democrats she still has no plans to send over impeachment articles until the Senate provides more details on the trial.

  • If there wasn’t enough going on in Iran, a Ukrainian Airlines Boeing 737 plane crashed near Tehran late last night with 180 passengers on board. And if that wasn’t enough, a 4.9 magnitude earthquake was reported to strike near Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant around the same time.

  • The Department of Justice recommended up to six months in jail for Mike Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
11
By
Comments (11)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Michael

    Our struggle today is in part because Schoolhouse Rock never had a song about impeachment.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Phil253

    Steve - Glad to be a life-time member and looking forward to more and more insightful articles. A question I have is regarding the Iraqi parliament passing a measure calling on Prime Minister Abdul Mahdi to expel U.S. forces from the country. You failed to mention it was "non-binding" and that also a majority of the Kurd and Sunni representatives did not show for the vote. Also, I have read that Hezbollah threatened the lives of any member of the Iraqi parliament who voted no on the resolution. Can you confirm this? Thanks.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Steve Hayes

      Philip - Apologies for the delay in responding. You're right that resolution was non-binding and right that we didn't include that detail in this write-up. We did have it in the original piece on Tuesday, but it should have been in this one, too. That's good context. And so, too, is the fact that the vote didn't include all members of the parliament and brokedown, to some extent, along sectarian lines. I can't confirm the Hezbollah threats but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

      Ultimately, I think PM Adel Abdul Mahdi will shape the outcome here, in part because he's still the PM, even if a bit of a figurehead. In October and November, there was significant in-fighting among Shiite political factions w/regard to the protests targeting the government in Baghdad. Some prominent Shiites, including Ayatollah Ali Sistani, issued statements that seemed to side w/the protestors and warn against further intervention from Iran. Not surprisingly, the Shiite groups aligned with Iran backed the government and some of them even provided active help to Baghdad as the central government sought to tamp down the growing protests. This is why some of those protests began to include, prominently, anti-Iran sentiments . Those different factions seem to have come together in the aftermath of the Suleimani strikes -- or at least they're on the same side of the issue. Bears watching.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Phil253

        Steve - thanks for the response. And agree bears watching.

        Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    My take on the Iranian response is this: the Iranians presume Trump made an impulsive mistake (by his own goals and standards) and are allowing him to back out of the situation leaving them in a position to quietly continue their previous campaign to expand their influence in the region.

    Trump's *Trumpism* is really, really good for Iran's goals: Trump makes millions of Americans repeat that the US should just pack up and leave the Middle East entirely in the way we left Syria. This mindless populism is really *good* for Iran and its goals.

    Trump's *brain* on the other hand can lead to impulsive actions like the one from a few days ago. The Iranians don't have to be geniuses to figure out that Trump needs a major news story to distract from his impeachment situation.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Butch Earl

    Last night on Fox News, Tucker Carlson opined the situation in Iraq is exactly what Bill Kristol and Max Boot want it to be. I'm definitely looking forward to David French's analysis of the situation.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Kevin Durant?

    “Like vinyl, what other remnants (hah, get it, The Remnant?) should we bring back from the ‘70s?”
    —————————————-
    This is an easy one:

    Bars that you can smoke in and manageable federal deficits

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Jason

    With more details this may - repeat may - bear out as a sufficient, but non-major response by the Iranians. I'm defining major here as a reflection on casualties, long-term implications, especially potentially if they knew it would be unlikely to result in casualties (and immediately afterwards stated they wouldn't attack again if we didn't).

    Not suggesting we don't respond, but if we don't it'll be clear looking back in a week or so we "won" this exchange. Killing their top general and the head of a good chunk of their deep state, suffering no casualties or costly immediate retaliation in return.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Steve Hayes

      Hey Jason, Good point. I think you accurately describe the short-term takeaway here. (See today's TMD for comments from Rep Mike Gallagher to Declan making basically the same point.) My concern is longer-term. It's inconceivable to me that the Iranians are now content w/letting us get away with killing Suleimani. Khameini and other leading regime officials have said this won't be it. I believe them and the last 40 years suggests they mean it.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Jason

        Thanks Steve. Admittedly my point was well within the emerging consensus immediately following the attack.

        Agreed 100% re a longer term response as the immediate crisis cooled - there is no way they let this go. I think the critical tactical question is what sort of attack, thinking three "tiers"
        - An Abqaiq-like major attack on a regional ally
        - Attacking regional assets of ours, e.g. crashing a drone into a ship, or a hostage situation involving citizens in the region with a throwaway name militant group
        - Direct asymmetric attack (think a Lebanese 22 year old with a clean passport in a Café Milano type plot)

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Phil253

        So true. Iran has been preaching Death To America since 1979. I don't see this changing without a civil war in Iran, which sadly, probably will not happen.

        Collapse