WSJ: “Escalation Shouldn’t Punish the People”

UPDATE: Stupid saber rattling. If he’d just shut up, but he can’t control himself.

President Trump said he agreed to suspend attacks on Iran for two weeks subject to the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, pointing to progress on a 10-point proposal from Tehran. The U.S. has halted all offensive operations in Iran, according to a senior U.S. official. Stock futures surged and oil prices fell sharply on the news.

I agree with all of this morning’s Journal editorial which I’ve excerpted. Of course we have a sad history of directly targeting civilians in war (German cities, Japan firebombing – as many as 200,000 civilians in one night in Tokyo – two nuclear bombs…), no excuse.

Striking indiscriminately at critical infrastructure would be wrong as well as unwise, punishing the Iranian people we need on our side. “They would be willing to suffer that in order to have freedom,” Mr. Trump said. Regime mismanagement has already left Iran’s grid in a permanent state of crisis, but such an attack could give Iranians all the suffering with none of the freedom. It could also erode support for the war at home and abroad.

The obvious solution is to discriminate between types of infrastructure. Bridges can be legitimate targets, but it depends if they have any military use of note. Otherwise, why punish the people?

Energy sources can also be legitimate targets if they have a particularly notable military nexus, such as providing fuel for missile launchers. But not every energy target will meet that standard, and the military benefit doesn’t justify plunging 90 million people into darkness.

One yardstick by which to judge any U.S. escalation is this: In addition to increasing “pressure,” which may never be enough to sway Iran’s regime, will it help prepare an operation to reopen Hormuz? The U.S. has a strong interest in causing chaos for Iran’s military, and targeting can allow it to do so without bombing every power plant in the country.