Frank Bruni: Bret, we’re now nearly a week into a war with Iran. At the outset, you argued for the military strikes’ importance in “advancing democratic values” and said that people around the world would recognize that the United States “still stands for freedom.” Do you actually believe that democratic values and freedom were the motivations here?
Bret Stephens: They were among the motivations. A democratic Iran that represented the will of its people would not have spent the past 47 years waging war against the Big and Little Satans — that is, the United States and Israel. It would not have squandered its national treasure financing and arming groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, too. It would not have courted global sanctions through its secretive nuclear program.
That said, if what this war accomplishes isn’t quite regime change — which, I think, has perhaps a 30 percent chance of succeeding — but achieves what might be called “regime modification,” then that also will count as success. By that, I mean an outcome that gets the Iranians to verifiably and irreversibly divest themselves of their nuclear and long-range missile programs and to stop supporting terrorist proxies.
Frank: Accomplishes “regime modification” at what price? And how modified a regime? And why, with all due respect, do I feel that those promoting and defending this war are spreading out a buffet of reasons and goals and asking us skeptics to pick the dish that most appeals to us? You want roast chicken? There’s a wing and a drumstick over here! Oh, no, you craved penne alla vodka? Behold these noodles! I have intellectual and moral indigestion. And a diminishing, not growing, appetite.
Bret: No question Trump did a terrible job explaining himself. Americans have a right to know why he’s putting service members in harm’s way. But I don’t think the justifications are quite the smorgasbord you suggest.
I’d boil it down to one paragraph:
Iran has been waging a “forever war” against us ever since this regime came to power in 1979. These strikes are an attempt finally to put an end to that war, not to start a new one. We need to do it because the regime has flatly refused to curb its most threatening behavior, even after last June’s war. And we need to do it now for the same reason you try to deal with cancer at Stage 1 rather than Stage 4: Because waiting till they reconstitute their nuclear programs and manufacture thousands of missiles a year would make stopping them in the future much costlier. That they are close allies of Russia and China raises the geopolitical stakes. That they just slaughtered thousands of their own people raises the moral stakes.
To me, that’s a coherent case.
Frank: It’s a case, but is it or was it Trump’s? No insult intended, but your rationale matters considerably less than Trump’s — and as you say, he’s done a terrible job explaining himself. That’s because he has never carefully worked this out in his own mind, and frankly that’s terrifying. His incoherence on this issue isn’t an asterisk; it’s a devastating tell.
Bret: The best case I’ve heard against the war boils down to one sentence: “Do you really trust Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth to fight, and finish, this war?” My answer is: The jury is out. But at least the military side of it seems, so far, to have been accomplished with impressive competence.
Frank: “Impressive competence” is premature and not a hallmark of this administration. There are simply too many contradictory statements and signals from Trump and his sidekicks for any American other than the most Trump-besotted or jingoistic to have confidence that this will turn out well. We were told in June that we’d obliterated Iran’s nuclear program, but now we’re told that we’re bombing Iran to make sure the program has been obliterated. Trump has advocated a popular uprising against a “sick and sinister” Iranian government that slaughtered thousands of protesters, but he now says that he’s willing to talk to its surviving members and let it stay in place. None of this adds up, Bret. Not an iota of it. And the current military campaign is merely that. What’s the plan for Iran — what’s its future — when the bombing ends?
Bret: That’s a serious problem, and one in which U.S. and Israeli interests start to differ. Trump would be happy to strike a deal with the regime’s next leader, whereas Israelis are really determined to force a change of regime or the collapse of the Iranian state into different ethnic pieces. But that’s an argument for early April, not early March.
Frank: Well, I have a question for today, and I ask it because you’ve been so eloquent about the dangers of intensifying antisemitism. What happens now that Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson have said that Israel forced the administration’s hand on the timing of this war?
Bret: There is a lot of bad faith, most of it coming from critics of the war on the far right and far left, that this is somehow a “war for Israel,” which regurgitates the antisemitic trope that wily Jews are conniving to get a great power to do their bidding. Actually, this is a war with Israel, in the sense that, unlike most of our more recent coalitions, the Israelis are equal military partners in a joint attempt to take down a common enemy. MAGA types used to complain that our allies never pulled their own weight in terms of bearing the price in lives and treasure. Now they’re telling us that the Israelis are pulling too much weight?
Frank: I’m just noting that the Tucker Carlsons and Megyn Kellys of the right are pushing the Israel-is-wagging-the-dog line hard; this schism in MAGA world isn’t going away anytime soon and seems only to get worse and worse.
But let’s pivot to Democratic fault lines — and to ever exciting, endlessly fascinating Texas, where Democrats voted in huge numbers in a primary on Tuesday.
Bret: And, by a decent margin, anointed James Talarico, a young evangelical liberal who somehow reminds me of Jimmy Carter — not least in his antipathy toward Israel — as their Senate candidate. I have a hard time believing that any Democrat can win statewide office in Texas. But the second-round Republican primary battle between John Cornyn, the incumbent whose main weakness is that he’s a grown-up, and Ken Paxton, the challenger whose main weakness is that he’s a human I.E.D., means that Talarico could just maybe sneak up the middle.
I remember that a few years ago you thought Beto O’Rourke had, maybe, a chance. Could Talarico fare any better?
Frank: Your memory is excellent. Beto was — is? — an enormously talented politician. So is Talarico, but I’m less concerned now with his chances in November than with what his primary victory says about the Democratic Party as November nears. He’s a more sensible choice than Representative Jasmine Crockett, whom he defeated, would have been. That gives me hope that Democrats are being as ruthlessly practical and pragmatic as they must be to make sure that one chamber or both chambers in Congress wind up in the party’s control. And if they do win Texas, if Talarico sneaks up the middle, to borrow your fetching phrase? That hugely improves the party’s odds of regaining a Senate majority.
And Talarico brings a much cooler temperature — and a greater emphasis on across-the-aisle outreach — to politics than Crockett does. That’s important, and I think that’s the better midterm strategy for Democrats.
Bret: Agree. The great challenge in our politics today is finding a way to restore charisma to the center, and candidates like Talarico give me hope that it’s possible. The problem we face in American politics generally is that primary voters often tend to be more ideological than voters in general elections, and that’s a significant part of how we often end up with such ideologically polarizing and awful candidates.
And by “we,” I mostly mean Republicans.
Frank: Hah! Indeed. Those of us who are eager to put forward Democrats who don’t have such a pointed ideological edge are forever wondering what those candidates look like — what the right symbols and signaling of cultural moderation are. Often, the answer is a person with past military service. Sometimes it’s someone who has been a big-time athlete. Talarico is modeling another possibility: a tribune of deep and frequently expressed religious faith.
As for charismatic centrism (oxymoron alert!), I think Pete Buttigieg is going for that, and I note that he’s doing quite well in prediction markets and some polling. As 2028 chatter heats up, Bret, which Democrats seem to you the best choices, and which seem to be dangerous, foolish traps?
Bret: If Roy Cooper wins in North Carolina, he could be a formidable candidate — experienced, centrist, sane and southern. I continue to think Josh Shapiro is an exceptionally gifted politician; if his Jewishness is an issue for certain Democrats, shame on them. As for Buttigieg, there’s no doubt he has incredible rhetorical gifts. But he also has that McKinsey consultant vibe, and his C.V. basically amounts to being mayor of a small city and running a second-tier cabinet department.
We’ve often talked before about Gavin Newsom, so I won’t repeat my rapidly expanding objections to him. But the absolutely dumbest thing Democrats could do would be renominate Kamala Harris.
Frank: I would be shocked if they did that. I think she’s going to run into problems raising as much money as a credible presidential candidate needs, because people want to bet on a proven winner. You know who may raise money quite easily? Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. According to some recent reporting, she hasn’t decided whether she wants to run in 2028 for the Senate or the White House. I’d urge the former. As gifted as she is, I think she showed at the Munich Security Conference that more seasoning is in order.
Bret: I felt sorry for her. How can anyone who’s served eight years in Congress be expected to have a thought-out position on such an obscure subject as whether the United States should defend Taiwan in the event of war?
Frank: You’re so demanding, Bret.
Bret: Frank, since we’ve spent so much of this conversation discussing foreign policy, I have to give a shout-out to our Israel-based colleagues Ronen Bergman and David M. Halbfinger for their incredible reporting on how the opening salvo in the Iran war unfolded. And if readers want even more detail, they should watch Ronen’s interview with my friend Dan Senor on his Call Me Back podcast. We live in an increasingly fact-free culture; to read Ronen, David and so many other Times reporters is to be reminded that not only can the truth set you free, it can also set your heart pounding.
Frank: I’d like to end on a lighter note and guide readers toward another terrific Times journalist, Elisabeth Egan, who does lovely profiles of book authors. A recent one showcased Patricia Finn, who, after decades of ghostwriting, just had her first novel, “The Golden Boy,” published. Finn is 71. And her surprise at and nervousness about this turn of events is captured in this lovely snippet from Liz’s article:
With the fluttery amiability of a character from an Anne Tyler novel, Finn did everything she could to avoid talking about “The Golden Boy.” She repositioned chairs. She offered six different beverages, clearly pushing the tea that would require setup and ministration.
That’s a tea party I would have gratefully joined.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post What Is Trump Up To in Iran? appeared first on New York Times.
