| There are many things I could ask at the beginning of this newsletter. Why is President Donald Trump ranting about the “N word”? How come my TikTok feed is flooded with absurd World War 3 videos? Should we be worried that there’s an Instagram account dedicated to the eyebrow of Trump’s 22-year-old anti terrorism chief? But I’ll start with the most obvious question: How is Iran responding to Trump’s Operation Midnight Hammer? Our columnists — and every other foreign policy expert on the planet — spent the past 48 hours gaming out Tehran’s next moves. Now, we have a better idea of what the initial reaction looks like. While James Stavridis was holding out hope for an unconditional surrender — what he called “Option #1” — that scenario went from “highly unlikely” to “impossible” when Iran fired several missiles at a US air base in Qatar. At first blush, the actions Iran took on Monday sound a lot like James’ “Option #2”: The country conducts “a series of face-saving strikes against the US and Israel” and secretly hides whatever it can salvage of its nuclear program. Bloomberg Economics’ chief emerging-market economist Ziad Daoud said Iran’s movements — which did not harm any Americans — appeared “largely symbolic,” and retired US Air Force Lt. General David Deptula called it “theater,” since reports indicate Iran gave Qatar and the US a heads up about the missiles. “Option #3,” where Iran “goes big” and launches cyberattacks on global energy systems, targets US citizens abroad and shuts the Strait of Hormuz — which John Authers says is responsible for a fifth of the world’s oil supply — is still a risk, but not nearly as high as it was over the weekend: The strength of Iran’s remaining cards is very dependent on the whereabouts of 400 kilograms of missing uranium and the status of the country’s nuclear facilities. As Marc Champion says, if Iran’s nuclear program has indeed been “totally obliterated,” as Trump claimed, it “would require years and fortunes to rebuild.” But satellite images put that language into question and security officials say it’s still too early to know the extent of the damage. The question now is whether Tehran is done or just beginning its retaliation. Trump, who Andreas Kluth says chose to go after Iran only after “he saw the Israeli strikes succeeding so photogenically” on Fox News, is hoping the conflict de-escalates. Yet Andreas hears “ominous echoes from previous American presidents prematurely proclaiming ‘Mission Accomplished.’ In Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and other places, the first part — involving not soft power or diplomacy but hardware and bombs, where America is unmatched — proved to be the easiest … It’s what follows — and not just in the subsequent weeks, but over years — that poses the problems.” Bonus Wartime Reading: Europe’s defense industry remains far too fragmented for rearmament to be accomplished swiftly. — Lionel Laurent Of all the things that President Trump has done during the first six months of his second presidency — sending ICE to LA, feuding with a certain space-age billionaire, even engaging in the Middle East — Matthew Yglesias says “one story stands out for its unrivaled potential to damage the president’s political standing: the Republican effort to pass a huge budget bill that, among other things, would kick millions of people off Medicaid.” Including, unfortunately, millions of kids: So much for being the party of “family values.” Lisa Jarvis says nearly half of all American children — including the “Little Lobbyists” who took to Capitol Hill last week to protest these cuts — could be impacted by the GOP’s plan: “Perhaps they can’t obtain mental health services because fewer providers accept Medicaid. Or maybe the pediatric dialysis clinic they use is forced to close. Or their caregiver loses coverage, and a medical emergency plunges their family into financial crisis,” she writes. To state the obvious: Children can’t vote! And yet they risk losing a program that Lisa says — and I quote — “improves their health and economic well-being into adulthood.” To add insult to injury, Matt says the bill keeps getting worse with each pass through the legislative meat grinder: “The Senate’s version, which is expected to be finalized this week has even larger cuts to Medicaid than the House version, especially in Medicaid expansion states,” he writes. Lisa agrees, saying “the potential consequences for children grow more dire with each revision.” But what about the potential consequences for the economy? “If enacted, it will give a tiny boost to the nation’s economic output — and add so much to the national debt,” says Kathryn Anne Edwards. “It is also a transfer to the richest households from the poorest, resulting in a 3.9% reduction in resources (income and public benefits) for the lowest income households in exchange for a 2.3% increase in resources for the highest income.” No wonder this bill is so unpopular.  I’ll leave you with a damning picture painted by Kathryn: “Historians will view the first 25 years of the 21st century as an era of fiscal irresponsibility. It will have to come to an end eventually. Whether it does before or after this bill, or with or without a crisis, remains to be seen. But watching congressional Republicans carry on undeterred and unbothered by this fiscal reality is like seeing the holdouts at the end of a concert. The lights are on and the music has stopped, but they’re awkwardly dancing in the bright silence, insisting the party can go on forever.” | 
