Israel

America’s Military Might

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

Is It Enough for Lasting Peace?

For decades, the United States has held the greatest military advantage in the world. Its aircraft carriers, intelligence networks, advanced weapons systems, and global alliances have given it unmatched power. Yet history has repeatedly shown that military strength alone does not guarantee political success.

The war with Iran this year highlights a difficult reality: a country can win battles and still struggle to win the peace. The long-term consequences will not be determined only by missiles destroyed or military targets hit. They will be determined by what happens after the fighting ends — and whether leaders learn the lessons of the past.

The United States entered this conflict with overwhelming conventional military superiority. Iran could not compete directly with American forces. But Iran has spent decades preparing for a different kind of conflict — one based on endurance, regional influence, unconventional strategies for warfare, and making any confrontation costly.

This has been Iran’s strategy: if it cannot defeat the United States militarily, it can make victory politically complicated.

America’s Lost Advantage Was Not Military — It Was Strategic

The United States once had significant leverage over Iran. The nuclear agreement negotiated during the Obama administration created international inspections and placed limits on Iran’s nuclear program. It was imperfect, but it provided something valuable: visibility and diplomatic influence. (Washington Post)

When the agreement collapsed under Trump and the United States returned to a maximum-pressure strategy. The goal was to force Iran into accepting broader restrictions. Instead, Iran adapted.

Years of sanctions damaged Iran’s economy, but they also pushed Iran to develop survival strategies, strengthen ties with countries like China and Russia, and build a more independent military capability.

The lesson is uncomfortable: economic pressure can weaken a country without changing its government’s behavior.  Iran learned that it could absorb punishment and continue operating. The United States still had more power, but Iran became better at using the tools available to it.

The Unintended Consequences of War

The immediate goal of military action may have been to weaken Iran’s capabilities. But the political consequences are much harder to control. When  there is no plan it is difficult to keep up with the opposition.

External attacks often create the very unity that governments lack during times of internal crisis. Iran’s leadership can use the conflict to argue that the country is under attack and that opposition must be suppressed in the name of national security.

A government facing foreign pressure often becomes more defensive and more authoritarian. The war may have weakened Iran’s military infrastructure, but it has strengthened hardliners who argue that compromise with the West is impossible. (Reuters)

This is one of the great contradictions of modern warfare: a strike intended to weaken a government can sometimes strengthen its political position.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Lessons

The United States has learned repeatedly that destroying an enemy’s military capacity is easier than creating lasting political stability.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, America demonstrated its ability to win major military campaigns. The greater challenge was building governments, maintaining public support, and preventing instability after the fighting ended.

Iran presents an even more complex challenge. It is a large country with a deep national identity, a long history, and a government that has survived decades of pressure. The question is not whether the United States can strike Iran.

The Question is what happens the day after? 

Without a political strategy, military success can become the opening chapter of a longer conflict.  The Trump administration did not have a coherent war plan given that the Secretary of Defense is an idiot. And clearly the agreement we signed demonstrates the lack of a political strategy.

Trump signed the deal with Iran to advance peace talks and convince Americans that the war was a win.  Of course, the agreement achieves none of the goals that Trump claimed would emerge. And Iran gains access to billions of dollars to rebuild the consequences of the war.  A win? (Washington Post)

What will happen is a resupply of the oil market, lower gas prices, and allowing Republicans the time to regain their focus on the midterms.

A More Dangerous Middle East?

The war also changes the regional balance of power. Iran’s influence may be reduced, but it is unlikely to disappear. Tehran has spent years building relationships with groups and governments across the region. If weakened, Iran may rely even more on indirect methods:

  • proxy forces
  • cyber operations
  • missile threats and drones
  • political influence campaigns

A weaker Iran does not automatically mean a safer Middle East. The danger is that the conflict creates a new cycle: retaliation, escalation, and another generation growing up with war as the normal condition. (Reuters)

The Global Consequences

The impact extends beyond the Middle East. Energy markets, inflation, global shipping, and international alliances are all affected by instability in the region. A prolonged conflict could increase defense spending while forcing governments to make difficult choices about domestic priorities.

China and Russia also benefit strategically from American attention being focused on another major conflict. Every prolonged U.S. military engagement creates opportunities for competitors to expand their influence elsewhere.

The Nuclear Question

Perhaps the most important long-term consequence involves Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A country that believes it can be attacked at any time may conclude that only a nuclear deterrent can guarantee survival. That does not make nuclear weapons acceptable. It demonstrates the dangerous logic that can develop when diplomacy collapses.

The world has seen this before: insecurity can drive nations toward the very weapons everyone is trying to prevent them from obtaining.

America’s Real Test

The United States faces a larger question than whether it can defeat Iran militarily.

It must answer whether it has a strategy for creating stability after the conflict. American power remains unmatched, but power without a political plan has limits. The greatest danger is not losing a battle. The greatest danger is winning the battle while creating the conditions for the next war.

The true measure of success will not be how much damage was done to Iran. It will be whether the United States and its allies can build a more stable future — one where diplomacy replaces endless cycles of confrontation.

Because history’s warning is clear:

Winning a war is a military achievement. Winning the peace is a political one.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

The 25th Amendment Is Not a Political Weapon

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

And That’s the Point

In moments of national anxiety, Americans reach for constitutional tools that promise swift accountability. Few are invoked as quickly—and as loosely—as the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Commentators, politicians, and partisans across the spectrum have treated it as a kind of emergency eject button for a president they believe is dangerous.

That’s a mistake. And it’s a dangerous one.

The 25th Amendment was not designed to settle political disputes or correct bad leadership. It exists for one reason: incapacity. Not unpopularity. Not recklessness. Not even abuse of power. Incapacity.

Understanding that distinction isn’t academic, it’s essential to preserving constitutional order.

A Mechanism Built for Crisis, Not Convenience

Section 4 of the amendment is the most dramatic and least understood provision. It lays out a process that is both swift and deliberately hard to sustain. If a president is unable to perform the duties of the office, the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can declare that incapacity in writing. Power transfers immediately. The vice president becomes Acting President.

That’s the easy part.

What follows is a gauntlet designed to prevent abuse. The president can contest the declaration. If that happens, Congress must step in.  It takes a two-thirds vote in both chambers to keep the president sidelined.

In other words, Section 4 only works if there is overwhelming, bipartisan agreement that the president is genuinely unable to function.

That is not a bug. It’s the whole design.

What It Would Actually Look Like

Strip away the cable news speculation, and a real Section 4 scenario is stark and unsettling.

A president suffers a severe stroke. Or exhibits clear cognitive breakdown. This  would include confusion, inability to process basic information, or failure to respond during a national security emergency. Advisors notice first. Then the Cabinet. The vice president is forced into a decision no one seeks, whether to challenge the authority of the person who appointed them.

If they act, the transfer of power is immediate. Military command, intelligence briefings, executive authority—all shift to the vice president in an instant. Markets react. Allies call. Adversaries watch closely.

And then the fight begins.

The president, almost certainly, contests the move. Now Congress must decide—not in theory, but under pressure, in real time, with the stability of the government at stake. Within days, lawmakers must reach a supermajority consensus on a question that is as medical as it is political.  Is the president truly unable to do the job?

If the answer is anything short of overwhelming agreement, power snaps back to the president.

That’s how high the bar is. And it should be.

The Line We Keep Trying to Blur

In recent years—especially after the January 6 United States Capitol attack—calls to invoke Section 4 grew louder, particularly targeting Donald Trump. Many Americans, understandably alarmed, saw the amendment as a way to act quickly where other mechanisms seemed slow or uncertain.

But here’s the hard truth: even in that extraordinary moment, proving incapacity—not misconduct, not recklessness, but inability—would have been extraordinarily difficult.

And that’s because the amendment draws a bright, necessary line:

  • A president can make dangerous or unpopular decisions and still be capable.
  • A president can behave erratically and still be legally “able.”
  • A president can abuse power—and still not meet the threshold for removal under the 25th Amendment.

Those situations are addressed elsewhere in the Constitution—most notably through impeachment.

Conflating the two isn’t just sloppy thinking. It risks turning a medical and constitutional safeguard into a political weapon.

Why the Restraint Matters

If Section 4 were easy to invoke—or easier to sustain—it would invite constant use. Every period of divided government would carry the temptation to declare the president “unfit.” Every crisis would become a pretext.

The result wouldn’t be accountability. It would be instability.

The genius of the 25th Amendment is that it resists that temptation. It demands not just concern, but consensus. Not just suspicion, but evidence. Not just urgency, but certainty.

The Bottom Line

The 25th Amendment is a constitutional safety valve—but only for the most extreme scenarios. When a president is plainly unable to carry out the duties of the office does it apply.

It is not there to save us from bad leaders.
It is there to save the country from a leader who cannot function at all.

If we forget that—if we start treating incapacity as a matter of opinion rather than fact—we don’t just misuse the amendment.

We weaken the very system it was designed to protect.

T. Michael Smith  

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

CEASEFIRE

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

The newly brokered ceasefire between the United States and Iran is less a resolution than a pause in a rapidly escalating conflict. It is a two-week truce designed to halt immediate violence, reopen critical shipping lanes like the Strait of Hormuz, and create space for negotiations, not peace. Early signs already show how fragile it is.  Disagreement over whether the deal includes fighting in Lebanon, continued regional strikes, and competing interpretations of the terms all threaten to unravel it before diplomacy can take hold. Iran has signaled it still intends to assert strategic control in the region.  U.S. and allied leaders are scrambling to stabilize global shipping and prevent a wider war. In blunt terms, this ceasefire is not peace, it’s a high-stakes holding pattern where both sides are testing whether de-escalation is possible or simply the prelude to another round of conflict.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

Understanding the Price of War on American Budgets

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

WHAT ACTUALLY MATTERS?

The United States has entered another Middle East war with speed, force—and a striking lack of honesty about what it will cost. It is a terrible way to divert attention!

Not just in lives overseas, but in policy choices here at home.

But wars like this do not stay “over there.” They come back—in budgets, in alliances, and in the quiet trade-offs that reshape domestic priorities long after the headlines fade.

A Blank Check Meets a Tight Budget

Washington is already preparing to spend tens—if not hundreds—of billions to sustain military operations against Iran. That money will not magically appear.

It never does.

At the exact moment lawmakers are debating cuts to social programs, including pressure on Medicaid and other safety-net spending, this war opens a fiscal floodgate. The same political voices arguing that the country “cannot afford” healthcare expansion or poverty reduction somehow find limitless flexibility when it comes to war.

That contradiction isn’t new—but it is becoming harder to ignore. Listen people!! Do we want healthcare, education and poverty reduction or do we want WAR?

Every missile fired, every deployment extended, is a policy choice. And those choices are being made alongside proposals to constrain domestic investment in housing, healthcare, and economic stability.

You can call it national security. But it is also resource allocation. And right now, the balance is shifting—again—away from Americans at home.

Inflation, Energy, and the Hidden Tax of War

If Congress doesn’t make you feel the cost directly, the economy will.

As tensions disrupt oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, global energy markets tighten. Prices rise. Supply chains strain.

For American families, that translates quickly:

  • Rising grocery bills
  • Increased borrowing costs
  • Higher Gas Prices

This is the hidden tax of war—one that doesn’t require a vote in Congress but lands just as forcefully in household budgets.

And it comes at a moment when affordability is already one of the central economic pressures in American life.

Executive Power, War Powers, and Accountability

There is also a constitutional cost.

The decision to engage in large-scale military action has once again stretched the limits of executive authority. Congress, constitutionally tasked with declaring war, has largely been sidelined.

This is not just a procedural concern. It is a democratic one.

When wars begin without clear authorization or sustained debate, accountability erodes. Objectives remain vague. Timelines blur. And the public is left reacting to events rather than shaping them.

If this conflict expands—and history suggests it might—the absence of clear legislative grounding will become more than a footnote. It will be a fault line. And we will have yet another mess.

NATO and the Strain on Alliances

Then there is the question of allies.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was built on the idea of collective defense and shared strategic purpose. But this war is testing that unity.

Some NATO members have offered support. Others are wary, concerned about escalation, legality, and the long-term consequences of another open-ended conflict in the Middle East.

That hesitation matters.

Because alliances are not just about military capability; they are about trust. When major actions are taken without broad alignment, that trust frays. And once frayed, it is difficult to rebuild.

At a time when global stability depends on coordinated responses—to Russia, to China, to economic shocks—a divided NATO is a strategic liability.

A Government of Trade-Offs

This is the part leaders rarely say out loud:

Government is a system of trade-offs.

You cannot simultaneously argue that:

  • The deficit demands restraint at home
  • Social programs must be cut or capped
  • And war spending should expand without limit

Those positions are not fiscally coherent. They are politically convenient.

The reality is simpler and harder: prioritizing war means deprioritizing something else. And historically, that “something else” has often been domestic investment in the very systems that make economic stability possible.

The Pattern Repeats

From the Vietnam War to the Iraq War, the United States has followed a familiar pattern: enter quickly, escalate decisively, and only later confront the full scope of the consequences.

What makes this moment different is not the pattern—but the context.

The country is more economically divided. Politically polarized. Institutionally strained.

And yet, once again, it is committing to a conflict that demands long-term focus, resources, and unity—without clearly securing any of them first.

The Question That Still Has No Answer

What is the endgame?

Not the immediate objective of weakening Iran. The actual outcome that defines success.

Without that answer, everything else—military gains, political messaging, even alliance management—rests on unstable ground.

And without that clarity, the risk is not just that the war expands abroad.

It’s that its consequences deepen at home—reshaping budgets, alliances, and democratic accountability in ways that will last far longer than the conflict itself. It is up to us dear friends to facilitate change now!

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com