War Over?

America had two alternate objectives at the start of the war. Regime change or pounding down Iran to buy time. The means to achieve either were the same for a while. We've apparently decided the larger objective is no longer worth pursuing. For now.

It was apparent from the start that America had two potential objectives for the Iran War of 2026, per the president:

“When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations,” he said.

As I noted when the war started after hearing Trump's intent, America has a maximalist objective and a Plan B:

Trump strongly implies that the campaign is a drive-by attack that he hopes Iran’s opposition can exploit—but it is up to them to win the fight.

Plan A was the more expansive regime change plan that Israel was mostly working on. Plan B was settling for striking Iran enough to weaken their nuclear industry, their military, their defense industry, their leadership, and their economy. 

Then we shifted focus to a blockade instead of kinetic efforts to squeeze Iran into negotiating what amounts to a surrender deal that prevents Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And maybe regime change is made more likely.

Has America has decided to take the exit to collect an interim Plan B victory?

The Trump administration is arguing that the war in Iran has already ended because of the ceasefire that began in early April, an interpretation that would allow the White House to avoid the need to seek congressional approval.

The statement furthers an argument laid out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during testimony in the Senate earlier Thursday, when he said the ceasefire effectively paused the war. Under that rationale, the administration has not yet met the requirement mandated by a 1973 law to seek formal approval from Congress for military action that extends beyond 60 days.

This interpretation poses a dilemma for war opponents. No president of either party has ever accepted the validity of the War Powers Resolution. Even when presidents have reported to Congress, the wording "consistent with" rather than "pursuant to" was used to reject the idea that the president must report. If the administration's interpretation is challenged, it risks a trip through the courts that ends in declaring the 1973 law unconstitutional. As it likely is.

And consider that by Friday when I read about that war power act interpretation, Trump had a briefing on military options going forward:

Top U.S. military leaders including Adm. Brad Cooper, the head of U.S. Central Command, will brief President Donald Trump later on Thursday on potential military action against Iran, a U.S. official told Reuters. 

Did the president decide no bombardment or landing option is worth the effort at this point? Did he decide we already got the most bang for the buck already? Both against Iran and in a political context?

Will the momentum of declaring the war over for purposes of dealing with Congress expand to define the ongoing war (47+ years and still going)? Domestic needs could thicken that linkage. Is the blockade going to be an aggressive form of sanctions enforcement that doesn't rise to the legal level of war?

Will CENTCOM then be on a hair trigger if Iran opens fire anywhere to launch large retaliatory attacks to "mow the grass" inside Iran? Such defensive actions would not trigger the war powers resolution.

If this is the decision and not a pause before resuming the kinetic campaign, this is a military victory. Iran's military, nuclear program, and regime have been hammered. 

But it is not a war-winning victory that replaces the mullah regime. Iran's rulers, after reviewing the results, still insist it endured but a flesh wound. And if we're nice and accept their demands they will admit the war was a draw:

Do not become confused. The 47-year war that Iran started continues. Do not forget that. Iran's mullahs will try to regenerate their missing limbs if we let them. Just as they did after Israel smashed Iran's proxies and after Midnight Hammer that complemented Israel's strike campaign.

So as we go forward in the long war against Iran's mullah regime, don't focus on your worry. Focus on causing worry in Tehran. 

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

Britain's Naval Strategy Gets Inverted

Russia's revived military antagonism has reversed the post-Soviet Royal Navy mission.

The problem Britain has defending waters in Europe from a revived Russian threat has left the defense of British interests and possessions around the globe short of naval assets. Britain can't afford to spare its more capable ships and subs for a global role. 

Britain must build new ships not fit for the line of battle in home waters but capable of flying the British flag around the globe:

Given limited resources, HM Government should therefore procure smaller, cheaper ships to provide greater global presence and better protection of British interests[.]

Before Russia went all "death or glory" to revive its empire in Europe by invading Ukraine, Britain was planning to use its high-end fleet globally:

As Britain moves to an off-shore military role around the globe, Britain stands up Vanguard Strike Companies. ...

It sounds like these units are the means of calling down the lightning bolts from Britain's carrier-centric fleet and possibly land-based air power to support a Thin Red Line ashore in support of allies.

But just as the rise of the Kaiser's navy forced Britain to concentrate naval power in home waters, the sociopath Russians have made British homeland defense something that can't be assumed. Yet global interests remain. And there is no global fleet to call home.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

NOTE: Painting of Scapa Flow from Pinterest.

Battle Management

Ukraine has a constantly evolving list of who is naughty and who is nice on the battlefield. But is it really useful for NATO? Or for Ukraine in a different type of war?

Ukraine has a system to identify units on the battlefield to strike them quickly:

Ukraine has developed the Delta digital battle management system. With Delta, Ukrainian soldiers can detect a target and pass that data to an attack drone operator, who then destroys the target. The Delta system software dramatically reduces the time between detection and attack. ...

Using an AI/Artificial Intelligence system the Ukrainians can track over 10,000 Russian weapons systems, troop positions and drone operators each week. The map of these contacts is continually updated as the Russians move or are destroyed. At the same time Ukrainian commanders can also see the positions and movements of their own troops. This has dramatically reduced the incidents of friendly fire when Ukrainian soldiers are hit by Ukrainian drones or artillery fire.

That sounds great. NATO forces should be able to operate with that kind of speed. But is it just using recon drone data? Or can it use manned aircraft, satellites, signals intelligence, and even troop reports from the front?

Is the system optimized for--or just reliant on--Ukraine's static war? Could it function in a moving battle? Especially the ability to track friendly forces to avoid friendly fire.

I'm asking because while I want to learn from the Winter War of 2022 I do not want to simply copy the Winter War of 2022's lessons for Ukraine and for Russia from the conditions they face in the war right now. 

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

NOTE: Photo from here.

Undermining Deterrence

Our freedom undermines the success of our military in demonstrating reasons not to test us in battle. Nothing we can do about that--our freedom is what we defend, after all--but it is a real problem with trying to measure deterrence.

Via Instapundit we have this cold bucket of water on our demonstrated military capabilities against mullah-run Iran:

It’s almost impossible to win a war any more given the disgustingness of today’s information space between American grifters, social media incentives for disinformation-fueled clicks and nefarious foreign influences posing as America First.

Sadly, even when we win on the battlefield our enemies know that we are vulnerable at home to losing. Which is a truth known since the Athenians defeated the Persians at Marathon. Iran--and China--will exploit our weakness.

Again, I would never suggest that we suppress freedom of speech to prevent this problem. That would cause more problems. Even communist scum in America have freedom of speech. I just hope shame may eventually constrain the, ah ... enthusiastic .. expression of the right of dissent. A right that oddly is not met with mass arrests from our Orange Hitler regime.

Nor can I imagine the Iranian fanatics not drawing hope from the Saturday night assassination attempt against the president and whoever else would have gotten in the way (which included an officer who was hit but protected by his body armor) had he not been stopped outside the ballroom. 

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

NOTE: Photo from AFP.

When All You Have is a Drone

Ukraine and Russia to a lesser extent rely on battlefield drones as their primary tactical hammers. And so see every problem as a nail that must be pounded into the ground no matter how many blows it takes. What if either used another tool?

This is interesting:

An up-armored Leopard 1A5 tank belonging to the Ukrainian army’s 5th Heavy Mechanized Brigade shrugged off 52 first-person-view drones in a daylong bombardment, according to a new report from Ukrainian publication Defense Industry.

Every time I read about one of these mass FPV suicide drone attacks I wonder why an anti-tank gun or anti-tank missile wasn't used. With a tank optimized to stop small drones, wouldn't a direct-fire anti-tank weapon drill through the drone protection? The basic Leopard I is a very thinly armored tank. Even well-armored tanks are weaker away from the frontal arc.

I understand that if the tank is being attacked well behind the front "line" that direct-fire weapons can't be used. But I just get the impression that Ukraine and Russia use the FPV drones because that's what they have and not because it is the best weapon in the combined arms kit for the particular mission. 

Without a static front line with a very wide No-Man's Land, how could armies rely on firing so many drones at a single armored vehicle? Shouldn't direct fire be more in the mix?

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

NOTE: Photo from the essay. 

The Winter War of 2022 Asks Oligarchs What They Can Do For Putin

Sh*t got real in Russia. Putin is asking for "voluntary" contributions to the war effort from Russia's wealthy class. Once powerful centers of power, these rich people are now just cows to be milked. Is revenue a secondary objective to destroying the potential of oligarchs to fund rival centers of power to oppose Putin?

The war goes on. Ukraine's strategic air campaign seems to be working better than Russia's air campaign. And the battlefield seems to have shifted perceptibly in Ukraine's favor.

And the war must be funded. Ukraine gets money:

The European Council (EC) adopted on April 23 the final piece of legislation underpinning the EU’s 90 billion euro (roughly $105 billion) interest-free loan to Ukraine, which the EC initially approved in December 2025. 

And Ukraine only has to repay it if it gets reparations from Russia. 

Putin, on the other hand, is scrounging for kopecks in the couch cushion. Putin made an offer that Russia's wealthy can't refuse: 

Even as he promised to take all of Ukraine’s Donbas region, he invited the assembled gathering of wealthy businessmen to contribute voluntary aid to the war effort.

The notion of shaking down business in a problematic time for the country originated with the Rosneft director, who proposed the issuance of war bonds as the fundraising process. Since he was not a major shareholder in the company he runs, he will be spared the questionable honor of contributing his own money.

Others, though, responded immediately, offering $1.1 billion. Another sanctioned businessman agreed to contribute when asked.

These men had little choice. It is beyond belief that Russia’s major billionaires would refuse, and that’s closely linked to why these men should no longer be called oligarchs. Decades ago, they could impose their will on Russia, manipulate the legislature, and bend or subvert the law: they were oligarchs in the true sense of the word.

Ask not what Putin can do for the rich men formerly known as oligarchs--ask where the money is.

That’s certainly interesting. Just before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 I read that Putin got financing for military efforts from oligarchs and repaid them with contracts resulting from gains in the military action:

How ... feudal: "[Russia's small wars] are financed by members of Putin’s inner circle. They don’t come directly out of state budgets. ... The oligarchs who funded the annexation of Crimea, for example, received a multibillion-dollar contract to build a bridge connecting that peninsula over the Kerch Strait to Russia." This means of finance requires short and/or small victorious wars. Which the Russians hope their nuclear weapons can enforce after achieving gains.

It was all very feudal, no? And while Putin could have success in short and glorious special military operations, that method can't possibly scale up to sustain a war of attrition.

Yet the oligarchs lack the power to resist Putin's invitation to help. Will Putin squeeze these former supporters until they are impoverished? Will they seek new champions outside of Putin's orbit to survive this war?

Interesting times, indeed, for Russia. Could Putin be trying to destroy these men to prevent them from conspiring against him?

UPDATE (Tuesday): The rise and fall (sometimes out of windows) of Russia's oligarchs. 

NOTE: ISW updates continue here. 

NOTE: Also, I put war-related links and commentary in the Weekend Data Dump on Substack. You may read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved.

NOTE: Image obviously from JFK speech, with modifications.

Weekend Data Dump

The Weekend Data Dump is a compilation of short entries about the previous week’s defense and national security news that I found interesting. I couldn’t possibly comment on everything in my news flow or delve into everything that interests me. So most news that interests me doesn’t make the cut for a post. The rest go in the data dump. Enjoy!

HOP ON OVER AND READ IT! On the bright side, you can comment on Substack!

In case you missed it on Substack: Creating Good Jihadis

In case you missed it on Substack: The Taiwan Question

In case you missed it on Substack: Looking at Small Drone Dominance Through a Different Lens

In case you missed it on Substack: America Should Remain in NATO

Help me out by subscribing on Substack and by liking and sharing posts. I occasionally post short data dump-type items (or not-so-short) on my Substack "Notes" section.

Lebanon is Trapped in Its Fragility

I'm skeptical that the Lebanese government has the interest or capability to suppress Hezbollah, no matter how much Western help it gets.

Could Lebanon ask for Western help to defeat Hezbollah?

If Lebanon makes such a request, the West must answer.

For the U.S., Europe, and key Arab states — above all for NATO — this would present a clear and consequential choice to help a sovereign government restore control over its own territory. It is precisely the kind of international engagement that would be both justified and effective.

The Lebanese government has had the support of UNIFIL for decades without leveraging that to weaken Hezbollah--which reflects the force's role to shield Hezbollah from Israel. Western states have armed and trained the Lebanese military for decades and it remains incapable of remaining intact if it must fight internal enemies.

Sadly, no level of outside support can help the Lebanese government disband Hezbollah because the government is a fragile coalition of frenemies that includes Hezbollah.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

NOTE: Image from the article.

UPDATE: Forgive the apostrophe in the title. Why that wasn't a screeching alarm until I looked at it later Sunday is beyond me.