Ken Klippenstein's "Iran War"
Spoiler: we're not at war with Iran, and the empire is doing nothing new... yet anyway
In a previous article ”Liberal disdain for context enables Trump” I laid out a critique against contextless journalism replete with examples. Here I will apply that critique to Ken Klippenstein.1
I will focus on three articles as a body of work and argue that they create a false sensationalist narrative that can only exist in a vacuum devoid of context.
Trump Is Now at War With Iran: Let's call this what it is (2025-03-17)
The Iran War Plan: Pentagon gears up for “major” war with Iran (2025-03-19)
The Nuclear War Plan for Iran: Trump’s threats to Tehran are alarming. Here’s what they mean (2025-03-19)
Klip and The Iran War
What I see in the above three articles is a desire to conflate being at war, undergoing special preparations for war, and the Empire’s routine bellicose statecraft. This gives readers a near existential-threat which widens the window of acceptable non-war responses, and distracts from other material issues.
Now let’s look at the articles in depth.
Article One: Trump Is Now at War With Iran
Right off the get go, it’s hard not get distracted in critiquing this title. This just screams BuzzFeed. We’re “at war” without a single shot fired? Come on. Is a joint training exercise consistent with the statement that you’re at actual war? Absolutely not. The article continues,
Without the American press even noticing, Donald Trump has started a war with Iran.
The rhetoric here is just pure Blue MAGA. But the core assertion of the article is
On February 28, the U.S. military announced that two B-52 heavy bombers flying from an “undisclosed location” in the Middle East (which I can report is the country of Qatar) dropped bombs on another “undisclosed location” (Iraq). The message wasn’t lost on neighboring Iran, whose state media warned that the B-52s are “nuclear-capable bombers” carrying a message whose recipient “was clear as day; The Islamic Republic of Iran.”
The elements are,
A joint training operation between Israel and the USA occurred
It involved B-52s
Iran’s framing of them as “nuclear-capable bombers”
Using the same framework I laid out earlier let’s now ask, “Has this event happened before? If so, what’s different?” Answering this provides historical context and eliminates the illusion of substance.
Feb 2021: Joint practice with Israel (virtual)
March 2018: Joint IDF/USA ballistic missile defense exercised
None of this is to defend American hawkishness. It’s just to leave the reader with an understanding that the Empire’s bellicose actions are par for the course. Not something unique to Trump.
B-52? So what.
How threatening is a B-52, anyway? They were made in 1955. In one operation lasting 11 days in 1972, North Vietnam shot down 15 of them; 34 according to North Vietnam. And then the B-52 was only 17 years old. Now it’s 70 years old.
Yes, the B-52 can carry nukes, but so can the stealth F-35. In fact, the F-35 can carry the B61-12 which has 50 kiloton yield — substantially more than the combined yield of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima (15 kiloton) and Nagasaki (25 kiloton).
Iran’s response
When it comes to Iran’s response and rhetoric, if that’s the story the headline should be less “Trump is at war with Iran” and more “Iran claims they’re at war with Trump.” It would be Iran framing the USA as an existential threat (which it is and always has been). Re: historic context, how often does Iran adopt this rhetoric? A lot.
I don’t think Iran’s framing is material to Klippenstein’s point. But even the Iranian framing is routine. Iran claims the USA is an existential threat (it is) to unify the nation under common defense and to empower hardliners.
Article Two: The Iran War Plan
Despite coming literally the day after the article that declared we were already at war with Iran, this one walks that back a bit
President Trump’s menu of options for dealing with Tehran now includes one he didn’t have in his first term: full-scale war.
One thing in this article that I do believe is newsworthy is the statement that the US will interpret Houthi attacks as an attack from Iran. That’s strong rhetoric, but fear not! It’s easy to contextualize that: 75% of ships are still going around the coast of Africa and avoiding the Gulf of Aden. Does anyone think Trump is actually holding Iran responsible in kind for this? See through the propaganda! If Iran forced 75% of ships around the Gulf of Aden for just one day using direct attacks from Iranian flagged vessels, we can all agree whatever the United States is doing now, would not be the same reaction. This is Trump’s propaganda targeted towards naive Americans.
Some of this article is just blatantly wrong. For example,
REPORTER: Is the U.S. military considering a military option for Iran?
PARNELL: … all options are on the table at this time.
For the Pentagon, “all options” is a bit of a boilerplate answer (though it is certainly more belligerent than the messaging of the Biden era).
Is it though? Really? Maybe Klippenstein is just less attentive to the Biden administration which has made the same statement,
He cautioned against the potentially catastrophic implications of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, with Iran’s pattern of hostile behavior illuminating a clear imperative to prevent this from occurring. To this end, Blinken echoed President Biden’s firm stance, stating that “all options are on the table to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.” This unequivocal statement highlights the U.S.’s readiness to take any necessary measures to inhibit Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state.
That’s from Blinken too. Parnell is a mere spokesperson. Blinken was the Secretary of State. Removed from context “all options are on the table” is a horrible thing to say regarding war. But we need to properly contextualize it, not just fabricate a context.
Where there was overlap between article two and three, the claims are addressed in Article Three below.
Article Three: The Nuclear War Plan for Iran
In this article Klippenstein basically claims the War Plan for Iran which always existed now includes “new nuclear options.”
He’s been vague about what these consequences might include, but I can now report specifics that are as severe as you can imagine.
“We can't let them have a nuclear weapon,” Trump says. “I would rather have a peace deal than the other option but the other option will solve the problem.”
Yes, Trump said that. And in 2018 he Tweeted this,
To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
Wonder what that was in reference too… And again in 2019,
If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!
But aside from Trump’s consistently insane rhetoric, the evidence provided is the testimony of a “retired senior military officer.” The claim is that we’re “reintroducing nuclear deterrence.” However, for this to have any weight there must be a point in time where nuclear deterrence was off the table. When was that? I’m confused as to what makes this special.
Single Integrated Operational Plan existed from 1961-2003 included targets in Iran.
CONPLAN-8022 was a top-secret Donald Rumsfeld plan created during the Bush administration that included a nuclear attack on Iran.
In 2012 there was a leaked plan for a conventional Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities
The rest of the article vaguely touches on “highly classified nuclear planning effort.” But what are we learning here? The United States, as far as I know, has never not planned to invade Iran. Nor has it ever lacked nuclear threats, or deterrents. Does anyone doubt that the USA has a regime-change plan and counter-attack plan for every threat with both nuclear and non-nuclear options?
And if Wesley Clark, a 4-star general, isn’t reason enough to believe that we’ve always been threatening, planning, and scheming about Iran, here’s a flashback
Conclusion
I’ve provided context to balance one emerging narrative that I think is absurd. The goal here isn’t to defend Trump. It’s to refocus liberals that I feel would otherwise run around pretending like they’re hippie pacifists, all while defending a genocide in Palestine. If you don’t want a War with Iran, and you want an explicit and principled anti-war peace ticket, you need to look at least as far left as the Green Party. Rest assured, the GOP’s rhetoric is always going to be threats and chest pounding. The Democratic rhetoric is always going to trail the GOP by a single hair.
This USA is in bed with Israel and Saudi Arabia both of which view Iran as an existential threat. If The Empire continues to exist in its current form, war will never be off the table and there will always be well maintained plans for a nuclear strike on Iran. A strike which will result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands with an invasion that will easily kill a million. At least until a Mullah figures out how to refine enough Uranium to secure the regime.
If you think Trump is the worst president ever, you’re wrong. George W. Bush ran circles around Trump. I remember George W. Bush. When we’re seriously considering a war with Iran, they’ll bring back Section 9528 of No Child Left Behind (2002) or some similar Obama-era nonsense with a nicer veneer. Then we will again have military recruiters at our high school lunch tables. I remember those days. Iran won’t be a cake walk. If and when we get serious, we’ll give high school kids invitations to the imperial meat grinder.
Nothing about this critique is unique to Klippenstein. I’m not prescribing intent. While the product is poor journalism that misleads, the intent may just be “the grind.”
Really solid analysis. Having flashbacks to the recruiting table at my high school in the 90s.
There appears to be a new doctrine emerging and I think Iran is very much at risk. The B-52 can be fitted to carry two of the GBU-43 to declutter a the surface of life, while the B-2 complements with the GBU-57 for ground penetrating effect. Air superiority and massive asymmetry without the expense of a missile force. Advance F-35s set up for beyond S-3/4/500 engagement is likely to pave the way. The C30E single GBU-43 Talon II Herc is near disposable and can be deployed later to clear most life of the surface of built up areas one the Advance teams have disabled the bulk of military infrastructure.
The cost of these precision guided bombs is a magnitude lower (and then some) for most missiles performing the same tasks). Air dominance is the key and is easily attainable. Israel has its own nuclear force anyway and doesn't need U.S. assets (only their defenses) to safely achieve a strike.
The low cost approach for maximal effect seems to alluring for them NOT to use it.
This maximal conventional approach has the added benefit of allowing the offensive force to instantly Occupy or launch a ground assault without risk of radiation exposure. There is almost zero chance nuclear weapons will be used in this occupation of the Middle East, now. But I'm nearly certain that a full scale attack on Iran will occur soon.
It can also be used in Gaza and Lebanon.
Mitigation means spreading out: Resistance forces, assets, civilians.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ijiraq/p/us-hiding-gbu-43b-thermobaric-mass?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=jwa6q