On Strikes (June 13, 2025)

Welcome to Home & Away. Israel has attacked and reportedly killed senior Iranian military leaders as well as prominent figures in its nuclear program. It seems, too, that Israel further degraded Iranian air defenses, struck additional military targets, and attacked at least one—and possibly more—nuclear-related installation.

Despite Israel’s claim that it was acting preemptively, last night’s attacks constitute classic preventive action, one mounted against a gathering threat, rather than a preemptive strike against an imminent danger. Why Israel chose to conduct this operation now remains to be seen. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has claimed that “In recent months, Iran has taken steps that it has never taken before, steps to weaponize this enriched uranium,” but it will be important to see if the Israeli government had new intelligence or put together a new assessment of Iranian capabilities and intentions. We do know from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran was busy producing highly enriched uranium at multiple locations, but even as late as last night, U.S. intelligence officials confirmed their assessment was that Iran had not yet decided to produce a nuclear weapon.

According to reports, largely based on statements from Israeli officials, the United States knew about the intended attack in advance and did not attempt to talk Israel out of proceeding. We will likely learn whether it truly flashed a green as opposed to yellow light, but what seems all but certain is that it did not put up a red light as it has at other times over the years. Still, Washington has sought to disassociate itself from the Israeli action, stating Israel acted unilaterally and making it clear that Iran should not attack U.S. forces in response. Prospects for reviving U.S.-Iran negotiations, something President Trump has suggested should continue, seem remote.

It is too early to make a definitive assessment of the success of what has occurred. This will depend on a number of factors: the extent and consequences of the damage and disruption, future Iranian retaliation (thus far modest), additional Israeli military actions, which Netanyahu and Trump have warned are coming, and Iranian efforts to reconstitute its nuclear program in more difficult to destroy facilities. We will also need to know more about what could have been negotiated and verified before knowing if what has taken place militarily was the best available policy. In short, this needs to play out before we will be able to offer up an informed take.

Souls on ICE

Here at Home, the big news this week was President Trump’s decision to escalate the crackdown on illegal immigration. Raids were carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel not against suspected violent criminals, as originally signaled, but instead targeting areas because they are known to employ many immigrants—apparently in furtherance of the administration’s goal to sharply increase the number of daily immigration arrests to three thousand.

Unsurprisingly, protests resulted, leading Trump to federalize two thousand members of the California National Guard. As protests continued, and in some instances turned violent, Trump escalated by federalizing another two thousand California Guardsmen and deploying some 700 Marines to protect federal personnel and buildings. The potential for all this to be repeated in cities across the country is real, as Trump’s order to mobilize the National Guard is not limited to California and could apply to other states.

What makes this development so consequential is that it was undertaken without a request from the governor of the state, who in fact opposed the decision. The last time the National Guard was federalized without the consent of the governor in question was sixty years ago during the civil rights era, when President Johnson deployed the National Guard to Alabama to protect protesters marching from Selma to Montgomery.

One reason for Governor Newsom’s opposition is that, in his view, the troops were, and are, not needed and are more likely to provoke unrest than bring it to an end. He maintains that current conditions do not constitute a rebellion or insurrection, the administration’s stated basis for the deployment. He is correct, but working against the political appeal of his stance are the viral images of violence, looting, and the waving of Mexican flags while burning American ones. Those engaged in such behavior are doing themselves, the communities they claim to be acting on behalf of, and American democracy no favor.

Democratic leaders, in addition to denouncing any violence of any sort at the same time they back the right to protest, also need to settle on a comprehensive approach to immigration, one that deals not just with the border but with what to do with the millions of individuals who are already here illegally. This is essential if they are to persuade a majority of Americans that they are prepared to govern responsibly on this issue if given the chance. David Ignatius wrote a thought piece on just this for the Washington Post that is well worth reading.

It is difficult to escape the hypocrisy on display here. President Trump’s commitment to law and order is selective, to say the least, as it did not lead him to stop the violence of January 6, 2021 during his first term. (Actually, what took place that day more neatly fits the criteria of the authority being cited for the federalizing of the National Guard than does the current situation.) Nor did it stop him from pardoning just about everyone associated with January 6 when he returned to the Oval Office.

Still, the issue appeared to be perfect for Donald Trump from an optics standpoint, allowing him to stand on the side of order and against both violence and immigration, areas where the public has moved sharply away from the Democrats. It also offers up a distraction from the economy, Elon Musk, you name it. But as Trump belatedly has come to recognize, it is one thing to deal with immigration as a political issue, but something else to manage its economic implications. This country, across red and blue states alike, currently relies on immigrants to work in multiple industries, including agriculture and construction. I expect this realization will moderate the zeal with which deportations are currently being pursued.

That said, things could get worse. I take it as no coincidence that Stephen Miller, who seems to be the most powerful aide in this administration, and now the president are using the word “insurrection” to describe what is taking place in California. From there it would only be a small leap to order the use of American troops to enforce federal law under the Insurrection Act of 1807. Such a development would threaten both American democracy and the unit cohesion and readiness of our armed forces to carry out their roles overseas at a time when this country faces serious threats. That this Saturday will see a military parade in Washington is another reminder of just how close we are to seeing the domestic use of the military normalized.

I have always considered using the U.S. military in this manner as one of the lines that would be crossed if this democracy was in existential danger. Other such lines would be a refusal of a sitting president to accept a Supreme Court decision or an electoral outcome—or to allow a free and fair election to take place. This has all become too imaginable for comfort. It is a frightening reminder of the extent to which American democracy depends not only on the rule of law but just as much on the role of character and the adherence to norms.

Experts Exported

I want to highlight an article in the New York Times by my friend David Sanger, “It’s a Really Bad Time to be an Expert in Washington.” The piece charts the hollowing out of the National Security Council (NSC) staff, the dismantling of numerous advisory boards, and the reality that experts in and out of government are largely being ignored by senior officials in this administration.

Don’t get me wrong. The NSC staff had become seriously bloated and in need of a diet. In recent administrations, the staff had grown between five and ten times what it was under Brent Scowcroft, widely seen as the most successful of national security advisors. That increase in personnel meant the NSC staff was doing too much of what other departments and agencies were meant to do and not doing enough coordination and oversight, their nominal, and much needed, responsibility.

But there is a difference between a diet and starvation. The NSC is being hollowed out and ignored by the Trump administration. This reflects many things, including the reality that this administration, more than any other in recent times, operates from the top-down. The role of staff is now more to carry out the president’s dictums than to develop a full range of vetted options for him. This dramatically increases the odds that policy will be introduced only to be met with unexpected, undesirable results that could have been anticipated and prevented by empowered experts. The tariff fiasco is a case study, as the tariffs work against even the president’s own agenda, whether it’s his economic goals—to add to growth and bring inflation down—or his energy goals—energy dominance is incompatible with a slowing economy which reduces demand for oil, thereby lowering its price and discouraging investment in new production. Russia’s repeated rejection of peace overtures in the absence of a U.S. commitment to support Ukraine is another example of predictable policy failure.

Those experts who do offer up findings that conflict with what the administration desires are not just ignored but punished, which is what happened to those on the National Intelligence Council, a body of experienced analysts that reports to the Director of National Intelligence and produces intelligence estimates and analyses for the entire government, when they issued the judgment that the Tren de Aragua, a criminal gang operating in the United States, was not being directed by the Venezuelan government, a claim cited by the administration to justify the deportation of gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. In this case, those involved lost their jobs. This shooting of the messenger constitutes the politicization of intelligence at its worst, a danger to all Americans.

One of the worst offenders of ignoring, or eliminating, experts is Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. His most recent egregious decision was to fire all 17 members of the advisory committee on immunization at the CDC, after pledging during his confirmation process that he would not do so. At best, this will slow approval of new vaccines; at worst, and as is all too likely, it will cost lives as the new advisory committee will be stocked by vaccine skeptics who will weaken guidelines for recommended or required vaccinations (possibly limiting insurance coverage), slow approvals, or both.

I’ve been thinking a lot about how we got to this point. Yes, the moment reflects the arrogance of this president, who thinks he knows best regardless of the topic at hand. It also suggests a desire not to let facts interfere with the politically expedient. But I would argue it too reflects something much deeper, namely, that expertise is now suspect, and that experts are increasingly perceived as elitists telling people what they should believe. We have seen this dynamic with climate change and during Covid in the opposition to vaccines and masks. It all appeals to Trump’s populist-fueled base and helps, among other things, to explain the appeal and support for the culture war on Harvard and other Ivy League schools. As with a balloon mortgage, the cost will be delayed but, in the end, large.

Deep State-ski

There was a curious piece in the New York Times this week based on a secret Russian document suggesting Russia’s “Deep State”—particularly its intelligence services—harbors deep suspicion of China.

The finding is not all that surprising when you stop to think about it. Tensions between the Soviet Union and China in the late 1960s led to armed clashes reflecting territorial and ideological differences. It was this very breach that created the diplomatic opening for Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger to exploit to the United States’ advantage.

Today, and despite the public expression of their “no limits” partnership, there remain differences, and understandably so. China’s population is nearly ten times that of Russia, which fuels Russian fears of Chinese designs on its large expanse of under-populated territory along its border with China. Beijing is also in a different league economically, leading to resentment among Russians that the country exports commodities such as oil and gas to China but imports manufactured, finished goods in return. The two countries are competitors to some extent, be it in the Arctic over resources, or with North Korea or Central Asia over influence. I expect many Russians resent being seen as the junior partner in the relationship. Russian and Chinese nationalisms cannot easily co-exist.

All that said, there is the continued close overlap and collaboration between the two authoritarian countries in the economic, diplomatic, and military realms, collaboration that far outweighs any urge to go their own ways, much less to go at one another. Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are more than willing to set aside any differences to work together to undermine U.S. power and weaken the U.S.-led world order, which they both see as the principal threat to their countries. As a result, talk of the United States exploiting what tensions there are to carry out a “reverse Kissinger” and lure Russia to our side so that we can take on China together is silly. We have all the partners and leverage we need toward both Moscow and Beijing if we remain the most innovative economy and the most attractive place to invest, rebuild our defense industrial base, and treat our allies as allies.

Trading Places

The United States and China announced a trade deal Wednesday, but in reality, it is more a trade truce of uncertain content and duration. The two countries are sparring on two fronts: tariffs, linked to an overall trade imbalance in which China exports to the United States far more than it imports, and export controls, in which China has put on hold export licenses for rare earth minerals (critical, among other things, for advanced magnets used in all sorts of military, industrial, and consumer items) and the United States has been holding off exports of advanced technology such as that used to manufacture semiconductors.

Under the reported “deal,” tariffs will come down substantially from levels that essentially shut down bilateral trade. This new situation level will, however, probably still significantly reduce trade in both directions. On export controls, China is reportedly licensing the export of rare earth minerals for six months, at which point it can extend licenses if it so chooses. Presumably U.S. export controls will be similarly structured.

This all merits a comment. China is by far the world leader in producing and processing rare earth minerals. (For background on rare earths, I suggest you listen to this informative episode of The Daily.) The United States has allowed itself to become heavily dependent on China. How this dependence came about reflects out-of-control environmental regulation here (which years ago forced the closure of the one American mining site) and a lack of industrial policy. We ought to have a rare earth minerals reserve where essential minerals are stockpiled much as we have a strategic petroleum reserve. This should be something Congress and the executive, Democrats and Republicans alike, can rally behind. That we are compromising export controls that many consider essential to slowing China’s military and industrial advance reveals just how much this country has put itself in a position of dependence on China. And don’t say we weren’t warned: China weaponized rare earths against Japan in 2010, and yet the United States did almost nothing to wean itself off China for these critical inputs over the past fifteen years.

This Weekend

I realize what you have just read has been something less than an uplifting edition of this newsletter. Sorry, but it is what it is. All that said, I hope you get to celebrate the dads in your life this weekend…and hope the dads get to watch the U.S. Open or, better yet, get in a round or two of their own.

As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.

---

Richard Haass in the news

Wednesday, June 11: Squawk Box (“Richard Haass on U.S.-China Trade Agreement: It’s a Truce, Not a Treaty”)

Friday, June 13: Morning Joe (“Israel Launches Major Attack on Iran, Striking Nuclear Sites and Killing Top Commanders”)

Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens