Today is the first day Starlink has failed me in the year or so since I installed it. The rains were so heavy this morning, with clouds so thick, it must’ve obscured the link between the satellites and my dish.

While I can’t write you a brand-new column today, I want to make sure you read something Jim Rickards wrote two days ago. I’ve already covered it in the Rude, but it’s Jim’s critical commentary on the bombing attack on Iran. It’s something I think all American patriots should read.

To be clear, I cheer for The Donald. I want him to succeed. I want America to succeed.

But that doesn’t make him perfect, nor will I not call him out when I think he’s making the wrong move. I understand what he was trying to do on Liberation Day. I understand his strategy behind his beloved tariffs.

But his attacks on Thomas Massie and Elon Musk are absurd, especially in light of his refusal to call out chickenhawks Lindsay Graham and Mark Levin.

And as I’ve written unambiguously before, bombing Iran may be his biggest error.

Here’s what Jim wrote to his Strategic Intelligence subscribers on June 30th:

Why The Attack On Iran May Have Been A Massive Failure

Let’s get the headline out of the way first. When I describe the U.S. attack on Iran as a massive failure, I’m not referring to the execution of the kinetic attack, the bravery of the Air Force and Navy personnel involved or the intelligence and operational security that went into the planning. Those were all brilliant. Flying B-2 bombers from Missouri to Iran in a non-stop round trip with multiple mid-air refuelings and meeting F-22s and F-35s at an agreed rendezvous in the Middle East before launching a highly coordinated attack (that was further coordinated with Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from submarines) was breathtaking. The fact that details of the operation did not leak is equally amazing. So, there’s no criticism about how the attack was carried out.

Instead, my critique raises the issue of whether anything was accomplished and whether the U.S. is now worse off in terms of Iran’s nuclear bomb potential than before the attack. Consider the following all of which has been reported and confirmed: The targets in Iran were damaged but not destroyed. They may become operational again in the near future. The highly enriched uranium (HEU) that Iran possessed was not destroyed. It was moved to a new secret location before the B-2 bombers struck. There was no regime change in Iran and none seems likely soon. Israel is running low both on offensive missiles and anti-missile weapons that are part of the Iron Dome defensive system. Iran has over 20,000 offensive missiles in storage. Israel cannot hope to defend against more than a small number of them. Many of Iran’s centrifuges needed for uranium enrichment are still intact. Iran’s HEU is enriched to 60% U235. Weapons grade is considered to be 85% U235 or higher, but it does not take long to move from 60% to 85% if the centrifuges are working. (Uranium at 20% U235 is suitable for nuclear reactors but is not suitable for nuclear weapons).

To be clear, Iran is a threat to obtain nuclear weapons given its current posture. There’s no reason to enrich to the 60% level except to build nuclear weapons. Iran has killed thousands of Americans and others, is the chief sponsor of terrorism around the world, and has sponsored proxy armies such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Iran should not be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon.

The issue is whether our attack was the best way to stop Iran or whether further diplomacy (including help from Russia) would have been a better path. Iran may now dash for a nuclear weapon to join a club of nations including North Korea and Pakistan who are immune from attack because they actually have those weapons. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will not be far behind. The U.S. got good PR out of the attack. But they may have created a monster.

Wrap Up

Jim’s articulate, cogent, and substantiated opinion is also the correct one. Iran is clearly incentivized to nuke up, and that will come home to roost in the near future.

Hopefully, though, this will throw cold water on any chickenhawk who advocates the U.S. putting boots on the ground in an uninvadable country. If you thought invading Iraq was a failure, a war in Iran would be orders of magnitudes worse.

I’ll be back tomorrow with an original Rude, now that the skies are clearing.

Have a great day!