Geraghty: Trump Surrenders to Iran

Sure does sound bad.

OTOH, col_phillip_s_brewster_iii writes, in the comments:

"The Iranian regime gets to stay in power and receive a whole host of dispensations from the United States..."
Does Geraghty care to venture a guess on the number of US maneuver brigades required to subdue Iran and impose a government? Does Geraghty know how many maneuver brigades the US has? (Geraghty just wrote a series of columns on the need to send more US brigades to the NATO Baltic. In Geraghty's worldview the US has unlimited brigades and a reporter is not obliged to count them). How many casualties does Geraghty think the Trump or any administration can politically absorb? Does Geraghty know where replacements for US casualties come from? The year is 2026 and not 1945.
Geraghty's entire column is strewn with the false premise that the one-half to one trillion dollars of damage inflicted on the Iranian military infrastructure (built over 50 years) is instantly repairable. Note to Geraghty: there are 1,000 billions in a trillion and 50 years is five decades.
Geraghty also dissembles on the destruction of Iranian missile launchers which is instantly verifiable by the decline in SRBM launches since 28 February.
The column is a good reflection on the current state of NR military analysis.

Another commenter wrote (summarizing): 

The MOU doesn't matter, because nothing Trump says matters. With Trump, only what actually happens matters.

A common general criticism of National Review: They're basically still unreconstructed neocons, rooting for another forever war.

shrug

I don't know.