America has been “emasculated,” writes The Bulwark’s Jonathan V. Last, who argues that Iran has emerged victorious in President Donald Trump’s war — and that America has lost — as he examines the scope of our defeat.

“When this war ends in ‘two or three weeks’ the Iranian regime will be more securely in power than it was before the war and it will have demonstrated the power of a strategic weapon,” Last declares.

Trump started the war more than 30 days ago without stating any clear goals. Over that time, the president and his administration officials have suggested several goals, as Last writes:

“Topple the Islamic Republic and install a new regime.”

“Leave the regime in place, but decapitate it and exercise control over the choice of its next leader.”

“Destroy the Iranian nuclear program, which had been destroyed in June, but had regrown to become an imminent threat.”

READ MORE: Is Tulsi Gabbard Next to Go?

Also, destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles, suicide drones, and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

During his prime-time White House address Wednesday night, Trump “abandoned every single one of these objectives.”

Instead, the Islamic Republic still controls Iran, and its supreme leader was chosen without Trump’s input. There’s been no change to the status of its nuclear program, its drones continue to fly, and the military has no idea what Iran’s stock of ballistic missiles looks like.

“Trump concedes that America is willing to end operations with the strait still closed and has punted responsibility for achieving that objective to other nations,” Last observes. He concludes: “If, in February, you had told Iran that they could trade all of the above outcomes for the destruction of their navy and air force, they would have taken that deal in a heartbeat.”

Last highlights the dire situation:

“By abdicating responsibility for the strait and saying it should be someone else’s problem, America is inviting into existence a rival economic and military alliance.”

Calling it “absolute madness,” Last warns that China will step in.

“If America isn’t going to lead, someone else will—not just in the Strait of Hormuz but around the world. Trump is giving China the green light to exert its influence in the Indo-Pacific. He is opening the door for Chinese cooperation with Europe. He is putting Taiwan—and hence the global supply of semiconductors—at China’s mercy. He is prompting the rest of the world to organize a new global order according to their interests.”

READ MORE: ‘Worst of All the Bad Ideas’: Trump’s High-Risk Iran Commando Raid Plan Scorched

Image via Reuters 

Tulsi Gabbard‘s rocky tenure as Director of National Intelligence may be in jeopardy after her controversial congressional testimony last month attracted the ire of President Donald Trump.

The president has casually begun a process that could lead to her being replaced, The Guardian reports, noting that he has been polling Cabinet members about Gabbard.

At issue currently is her shielding of a former deputy who resigned in protest of the Iran war, just before Gabbard’s scheduled testimony at a Congressional hearing.

“It is not clear that Trump will actually fire Gabbard over the episode,” The Guardian reports. “Currently, there is no standout candidate to take the job, and advisers have cautioned that creating a high-profile vacancy before a successor is ready could cause unhelpful political distractions.”

A decision to fire the Director of National Intelligence now would come in the middle of a war with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, as the Department of Homeland Security remains partially shut down and FBI investigators responsible for monitoring threats from Iran have been fired.

READ MORE: ‘Worst of All the Bad Ideas’: Trump’s High-Risk Iran Commando Raid Plan Scorched

Trump’s discussions are “an ominous development for Gabbard, given the president tends to poll his advisers when he starts to seriously consider whether a personnel change is necessary,” The Guardian notes. “Trump’s doubts about Gabbard followed her testimony at the world wide threats hearing on Capitol Hill last month where she declined to condemn Joe Kent, who had resigned days earlier after arguing that Iran did not pose an imminent threat to the United States.”

The president over the weekend delivered a tepid endorsement of Gabbard when asked by reporters if he still has confidence in her leadership.

“Yeah, sure,” he said. “I mean, she’s a little bit different in her thought process than me, but that doesn’t make somebody not available to serve.”

White House spokesperson Steven Cheung delivered a stronger defense of Gabbard.

“As President Trump just said in his remarks, he has confidence in Director Gabbard and the tireless work she is doing. He has assembled the most talented and impactful cabinet ever, and they have collectively delivered historic victories on behalf of the American people,” Cheung said.

Award-winning journalist Kevin Baron weighed in, writing: “Gabbard is a devout anti-interventionist. But he’s the president. As generals would say, either salute smart or walk with your feet. She has a choice, too.”

READ MORE: ‘Feckless’: Political Scientist Torches Trump’s ‘Stunningly Incompetent’ War Effort

Image via Reuters 

A “high-risk” commando raid plan requested by President Donald Trump, which involves building a runway in Iran to seize Iran’s nuclear stockpile, is being blasted by experts.

“The U.S. military has given the president a plan to seize nearly 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium in Iran that would involve flying in excavation equipment and building a runway for cargo planes to take the radioactive material out,” the Washington Post, citing two sources, reported in an exclusive. “The complex plan was briefed to the president in the past week after he asked for a proposal, they said, as were its significant operational risks.”

“This would be one of, if not the largest, most complicated special operations in history,” Mick Mulroy, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense and retired CIA and Marine officer, told the Post. “It’s a major risk to the force.”

The operation, never before attempted during wartime, would take weeks and “would require the airlift of potentially hundreds or thousands of troops and heavy equipment to support the excavation and recovery of radioactive material.” Those troops would be subject to being under fire inside Iran.

READ MORE: ‘Feckless’: Political Scientist Torches Trump’s ‘Stunningly Incompetent’ War Effort

Asked about the plan, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt did not appear to deny the Post’s reporting, stating: “It’s the job of the Pentagon to make preparations in order to give the Commander in Chief maximum optionality. It does not mean the President has made a decision.”

Last month, Brendan P. Buck at The Cato Institute wrote of an apparently similar idea, stating that in “reality, the so-called ‘commando option,’ while perhaps technically feasible, would be extraordinarily risky, operationally complex, and unlikely to accomplish its stated mission.”

The Trump plan was quickly denounced.

Foreign policy and defense expert Ilan Goldenberg, who has extensive government experience covering Iran’s nuclear program according to his bio, slammed the plan.

“An operation to seize Iran’s HEU [Highly Enriched Uranium] by force is the worst of all the bad ideas that are on the table right now,” wrote Goldenberg, a former advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris. “I cannot see this being a realistic military option.”

READ MORE: How Trump’s TACO Set the Stage for Our Current ‘Catastrophe’: Columnist

“Every single thing about this idea screams disaster, to the point where I wonder whether even Trump could be this dumb,” wrote Toronto Star columnist Bruce Arthur.

“If Trump goes ahead with this and it’s a high-casualty debacle what do you think he’d do then?” asked Mike Prysner, executive director at the Center on Conscience & War. “Take the L and deescalate? A ‘commando raid’ would only remain as such if it was a huge success.”

“This zero dark thirty: uranium plan is so goofy,” declared author Adam Johnson. “Everyone knows they cant possibly get it all. At best it’s a delusion / distraction for our idiot president, at worst it’s a pretext for a regime change invasion designed to create hostages and deaths to rally public sentiment.”

“Feels like Trump wants his version of the Bin Laden raid, and he’ll take on enormous risk–or, more accurately, he’ll place that risk onto U.S. military forces–to get it,” noted Jacob Stokes of the Center for a New American Security.

READ MORE: ‘Nothing but Lie’: Trump Ripped for Iran Rhetoric as He Preps Prime-Time Address

Image via Reuters