Kurt Mills

I mean, say what you will for the Iranians, but the president is negotiating

a number of world conflicts right now and likes to be part of the conversation.

And supporting a military action led by Israel on Iran isn't exactly the act of an interested party.

So I think the Iranians would discontinue it.

And then additionally, I'm not sure there's full trust from the Israelis, actually, that if the Israelis led the attack, number one, that they could decapitate the regime.

All the reporting since the beginning of the administration is that they feel that they can't.

They couldn't bomb Ferdow and they can't even do a lot of these special operations without U.S.

air support.

That's all the reporting and that's all the military understanding that I have on that front.

And then secondarily, there is the precedent.

It's a small precedent comparatively of Yemen.

So the president got into a new war in Yemen with the Houthis last spring, and then he left it.

He cut bait.

He cut a separate deal with the Houthi leadership, and he said this is basically an Israeli problem.

Now, Yemen and the Houthis are much smaller potatoes than the Iranians, but the Israelis must have to fear that contingency, and they should fear it.

That if the war got really nasty and the Iranians put up much more of a fight this time, which I

deeply suspect they will, that Trump and the U.S.

will just get out and then the Israelis will have a war that they can't finish.

Well, it's hard to make the argument that you're focused on the economy if you're starting new foreign wars.

And then additionally, this is a foreign war, unlike some of the other of the adventures that Trump has flirted with that actually could really spiral the economy.