What's the Deal with Iran

June 21st, 2026

I have been, as I suppose most of the folks in the US, reading a great deal about the “agreement” between the US and Iran. Opinions are all over the map. I heard one conservative pundit comment that we should’ve invaded Iran, that is, a large scale invasion, take over the country. Others said we shouldn’t have been there at all, the whole thing was a mistake, etc.

For those who would have liked an invasion, here is something I learned several decades ago, as I was working on one small section of the plan to invade Iraq. One of the guys who worked for me was a SAMS guy (the School of Advanced Military Studies, at the Army’s Command and Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth). He was very sharp (and like most of those guys was willing to work 25 hours per day to get things done). One of the things he told me was that there is a rule of thumb that helps you size a problem if you are going to invade a hostile country and actually take it over and run the place: it will take a force of 1% of the population; that is your starting point. Based on your strategic assessment you then add other capabilities - an aviation brigade, medical units, etc., etc. But, to just get a simple handle on the size of your problem, you start with 1% of the general population. Your intelligence assessment - and your goals - can make that number more or less relevant, but it’s a starting point to frame the magnitude of the problem.

So, Iran is a country of 95 million people, and an area of 636,000 square miles, or roughly the size of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma and Arkansas combined. Using the 1% rule of thumb, that would require an invasion force of 900,000 to 1 million men. The total number of troops currently in the US Army - Active Duty, Reserves and National Guard - is 946,000. That is every single body, from the Chief of Staff of the Army down to the newest buck private. So, no, we don't want to invade. 

Did we want to overthrow the government? The track record for successfully overthrowing governments and installing a friendly government is, at best, mixed. And the US - Iran angst began in 1953 with a coup orchestrated by Britain’s MI6, with support from the CIA. I’m not sure we want to repeat that, so no, we don't want to try to orchestrate a coup. If the people of Iran want to throw out the leadership, that is their issue. I’m sure we would support the idea, but it has to be their idea.

As for those who said we shouldn’t have been there, what this was really all about was nuclear weapons. And a government led by ideologues who are looking for an apocalypse.

We need to remember that nuclear weapons changed everything. 1945 is a very important year in world history because it makes certain wars - wars between great powers - incredibly dangerous events. And what is a great power? A nation with nuclear weapons. 

People don’t really talk about nuclear weapons all that much, as if somehow they went away after the USSR broke up. They didn’t. There are still lots of them around, and as Henry Kissinger observed, they "can’t be uninvented.” And it's worth noting that the technology is old. Fission weapons were first built 81 years ago, fusion weapons 74 years old. Any country that wants to spend billions of dollars can build their own… the science and engineering can be worked out. But, as Iran demonstrated, that can be detected.

Thankfully, they are complex devices and they are expensive devices; they are not easy to make, or even to simply assemble, not even if someone gave you all the parts. Imagine a Jaguar XKE V-12 in pieces on the floor of your garage; more complicated than that. Yes, the design of Little Boy is “simple,” once you have the enriched fuel and all that - very much a heavy industry problem. Little Boy was and is perhaps the simplest of all possible designs - but it weighed 9,700 pounds and still took a great deal of time and manpower to produce the fuel.

As for Iran, they had several hundred pounds of Uranium, enriched to perhaps 60% U-235 (U-235 is the particular isotope used in weapons); this per the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA estimated that there was enough U-235 to manufacture 10 - 12 weapons, once the 60% enriched material had been further enriched to perhaps 90%. The IAEA estimate was that Iran could have done that by the end of last summer, and thereafter make at least 1 more weapon per month on a continuous basis. That could not be allowed.

But other countries have nuclear weapons, so why the particular concern with Iran?

Very simply, the leadership of Iran, the Ayatollahs and the IRGC, view the culmination of of the world through a particular Shia Islam lens that requires an apocalyptic struggle, a tremendous war that destroys all but the believers. For them, this apocalypse is something to be sought, it is a necessary and desired event. Now, think about them with nuclear weapons. They must never be allowed to have nuclear weapons. 

Note, too, that Iran has already demonstrated the ability to put a satellite into orbit. That means they have the technology to put a weapon onto any city on the planet. If they had a nuclear weapon.

So, everything else, insane oil prices, and all the rest, would, in fact, be a small price to pay to keep them from getting nuclear weapons. That is why this war was necessary. Everything else is insignificant when placed against the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons. 

Last summer the facility at Fordow was destroyed as well as one or two other facilities. During the last few months more of their nuclear related facilities were also destroyed. Everything else, both good and bad, is darn near irrelevant when weighed against the idea of the government in Tehran, of the IRGC, having nuclear weapons. What is important is that their nuclear weapons program has been broken. It must remain broken. Everything else remains a distant second to that.