I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today’s read: 16 minutes.

Corrections.

In Wednesday’s edition on the shootings in Minnesota, we wrote that Republicans had a one-vote majority in the state House prior to Rep. Melissa Hortman’s assassination. However, as several readers from Minnesota noted, the chamber was actually split 67–67 after a Democrat won a special election in March. 

Separately, as we were adding this correction to our running tally, we realized that we had inadvertently failed to publish a correction from our April 30 edition on Canada’s elections. In that edition, we wrote that in the country’s parliamentary system, “172 seats are required for a majority — and to elect a prime minister.” In reality, the leader of the winning party is normally invited by the Governor General to become prime minister, even if that party does not win a majority. 

These are our 136th and 137th corrections in Tangle's 307-week history and our first corrections since April 30. We track corrections and place them at the top of the newsletter in an effort to maximize transparency with readers.

Quick hits.

1. Iran launched more than 40 missiles toward Israel on Sunday, injuring 23 people in three cities. (The attacks) Separately, Israel’s defense ministry said it had carried out airstrikes that killed three Iranian commanders, including the head of the force that supports Hamas and other proxy militias around the Middle East. (The strikes)
2. A federal judge ordered Mahmoud Khalil’s release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention while his immigration trial proceeds. Khalil was released on Friday night and returned to New York City, where he took part in a protest against Israel’s war in Gaza. (The release) Separately, a U.S. judge ordered that Kilmar Abrego Garcia be released on bail during his criminal trial. (The order)
3. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s effort to tie federal funds for roads, bridges, and other infrastructure projects to cooperation with immigration enforcement operations. (The ruling)
4. The Supreme Court ruled that two lawsuits from U.S. victims of terrorist attacks in Israel against the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) can proceed in U.S. courts, rejecting the PA and PLO’s arguments that doing so violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. (The decision)
5. A gunman opened fire outside a suburban Detroit church, injuring a security guard. The gunman was killed after he was run over by a congregant in the parking lot and then shot by church staff. (The incident)

Today’s topic.

The U.S. strikes on Iran. On Saturday, President Donald Trump announced that the United States had carried out airstrikes on three nuclear sites in Iran: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Trump called the mission a “very successful attack” and said the aircraft involved in the strikes were all “safely on their way home.” The extent of the damage to the sites is currently unknown, though the Pentagon says its initial assessment found “extremely severe damage and destruction” at each facility. 

The operation, called Operation Midnight Hammer, brings the U.S. directly into the Israel–Iran conflict, which escalated on June 13 when Israel launched a series of strikes on Iranian military bases, military leaders, nuclear scientists, and nuclear enrichment facilities in what it called a “preemptive” attack to prevent Iran from assembling a nuclear weapon. “For 40 years, Iran has been saying ‘Death to America, death to Israel.’ They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs, with roadside bombs,” President Trump said on Saturday night. “I decided a long time ago that I would not let this happen. It will not continue.”

Saturday’s attack involved 125 aircraft, including B-2 bombers, fighter jets, and refueling tankers. One group flew west from Missouri over the Pacific as a decoy while another group flew east to carry out the attack. According to the Pentagon, this strategy aimed to confuse Iran and avoided landing to refuel before the strikes, allowing the bombers to reach Iran faster with a lower risk of detection. 

General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a U.S. submarine fired more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Isfahan site shortly before the B-2 bombers entered Iranian airspace. From there, the aircraft dropped a total of 14 “Massive Ordnance Penetrator” bombs on two target areas. The B-2 is the only aircraft configured to drop the 30,000-pound “bunker buster,” the only bomb believed to be capable of penetrating the fortifications protecting Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.

On Sunday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the U.S. was sending Iran “public and private” messages to engage in peace talks. President Trump also called on Iran to negotiate, warning that “there will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left… if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill.”

Also on Sunday, Vice President JD Vance rejected the notion that the United States was now at war with Iran, telling Meet the Press that “we’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program… What we did is we destroyed the Iranian nuclear program. I think we set that program back substantially, and we did it without endangering the lives of the American pilots.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called the U.S. strikes “a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the [International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty],” adding, “Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.” Separately, the Iranian Parliament voted in support of closing the Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and is a key access point in the global oil trade, though the country's Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have final say in the decision.

Today, we’ll break down the debate over Trump’s decision to strike Iran, with views from the left and right. Then, my take.

What the left is saying.

• The left is mixed on the decision to strike Iran, though many note Trump’s pivot from past anti-war messages.
• Some worry the U.S. has now been sucked into war at Israel’s behest.
• Others say Iran could still retaliate in consequential ways.

In Vox, Joshua Keating wrote “this time, it’s Trump’s war.”

“The president has repeatedly claimed that the wars in Gaza and Ukraine never would have happened had he been president when they broke out, rather than Joe Biden. That’s a counterfactual that is impossible to prove… but it’s fair to say that both are wars Trump inherited rather than chose. This time, it’s different. This time, it’s Trump’s war,” Keating said. “It’s hard to overstate just how fast the Trump administration’s policy has shifted. Just a month ago, Trump appeared to be giving Netanyahu’s government the cold shoulder, pursuing direct diplomacy with Israel’s staunchest enemies — including Iran… Now, Trump has not only endorsed Netanyahu’s war; he has joined it.”

“So far, this war has been characterized by stunning Israeli tactical successes, as well as the seeming impotence of Iran and its once vaunted network of regional proxies in its response,” Keating wrote. “This may have emboldened a president who has backed off of actions like this in the past, convincing him that striking Iran’s nuclear program now would be effective and that the blowback would be manageable. It’s quite a gamble — and this time he will have no one else to blame if it doesn’t go as planned.”

In MSNBC, Nayyera Haq called the strikes “a massive gamble.”

“This is bad. Trump is taking the bet that sending in the U.S. Air Force with ‘bunker buster’ bombs will once and for all end Iran’s nuclear threat. But anticipating U.S. military capabilities is very different from dealing with what the volatile leaders of Iran or Israel will choose next,” Haq said. “While world leaders agree that Iran is a hostile regime and that, in Netanyahu’s words, ‘we can’t have the world’s most dangerous regime have the world’s most dangerous weapons,’ the ongoing military escalation and retaliation were not the only path toward security and stability in the Middle East.

“Ten years ago, in 2015, Iran agreed to dismantle its nuclear program and allow United Nations weapons inspectors inside the country for regular monitoring and review. By all accounts, this worked to halt weapons-grade uranium enrichment, if not Iran’s other hostile activities,” Haq wrote. “Cooler heads are not prevailing. Netanyahu is poised to open hostilities on a third front, adding to the conflicts Israel is engaged in in Gaza and Lebanon, and his bravado is dragging the United States along: As the primary supplier and funder of the Israeli military, the United States is by default considered complicit in Israel’s actions.”

In The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof explored “three unknowns” after the strikes.

“Beyond doubts about the legal basis for bombing Iran, I see risks for America and the world ahead revolving around three fundamental unknowns. The first uncertainty is how Iran will strike back at the United States,” Kristof said. “Iran has many options, including attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq, Bahrain and elsewhere in the region. It could also mount cyberattacks, strike American embassies or support terrorist attacks. Another option would be to seek to close the Strait of Hormuz, fully or partly, by attacking shipping or by laying mines. That could be a blow to the world economy.”

“The second uncertainty is whether the Israeli and American strikes have ended Iran’s nuclear efforts or perhaps even accelerated them. That depends, in part, on whether the bombing of Fordo and other sites was as successful as Trump claimed, and that may take time to figure out,” Kristof wrote. “The third and final question is the largest: Is this the end of the conflict or the beginning?... Even if Iran’s enrichment capacity is gone, the expertise to enrich uranium is probably not possible to extinguish. So if the regime remains, this may be more of a setback than an end to the nuclear program.”

What the right is saying.

• The right mostly supports the strikes, with many suggesting that Iran left President Trump no choice.
• Some say the strikes appear successful but may not be the end of the conflict. 
• Others say Trump lacked the constitutional authority to carry out the attack. 

National Review’s editors said “Trump enforces his red line on Iran.”

“Trump tried to get Iranians to agree to a real nuclear deal. Not a rebranded version of the Obama deal, which allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and to develop ballistic missiles, but a true deal that ended the threat of enrichment and nuclear weapons,” the editors wrote. “But it became instantly clear that Iran was not willing to change its terms and had no intention of ever giving up enrichment. If Trump was to show he was serious about stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, he had no choice but to attack.”

“The prospect of Iran’s radical Islamist regime obtaining a nuclear bomb has haunted American foreign policy for decades. During that time, the regime has carried out terrorist attacks throughout the world via proxies and killed hundreds of U.S. servicemen serving in the Middle East,” the editors said. “If indeed the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities successfully destroyed the program, Trump’s decision will go down as historically important for eliminating a dire threat to the region and U.S. security.”

In The New York Post, Mark Dubowitz and Ben Cohen wrote “US dealt Iran’s nukes a major blow — but here’s why the cheers may be premature.”

“It’s tempting to react to the US strikes with unbridled euphoria — but that’s still premature. The next few hours and days will produce a sober battle damage assessment by both the United States and Israel, detailing the degree of destruction sustained at these facilities. That in turn will determine whether the badly bruised Iranian regime can embark on a reconstruction effort,” Dubowitz and Cohen said. “Speaking to reporters Sunday morning, [Defense Secretary] Hegseth said all three facilities had sustained ‘extremely severe damage and destruction.’ But neither the Americans nor the Israelis have yet confirmed that the Iranian nuclear program has been neutralized entirely.”

“Should Iran’s tottering regime reach a point of collapse, it could well decide to opt for martyrdom in a blaze of glory — with strikes against Israel, Sunni Arab nations whom it regards as ‘Zionist collaborators,’ as well as American, Jewish and Israeli targets in Europe, North America and beyond,” Dubowitz and Cohen wrote. “Yet the US strikes could herald the transformation of a region that has been synonymous with foreign-policy and national-security failure since the occupation of Iraq more than 22 years ago.”

In Reason, Eric Boehm argued “the attack on Iran is unlawful.”

“Hours after the U.S. bombed several sites in Iran, President Donald Trump called the operation a ‘spectacular military success.’ Whether or not that turns out to be true, the attack looks rather different as a legal matter. Trump appears to have significantly overstepped his authority, as the attack was not authorized by Congress and was not in response to an attack on American soil or American troops,” Boehm said. “The War Powers Act does not include a clause allowing presidents to bomb other countries just because. It also — despite the fact that the law is frequently discussed in political media in these terms — does not allow a window of 48 hours for the president to do whatever he pleases before alerting Congress and seeking further authorization.”

“But there are unlikely to be any direct political consequences for Trump as long as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R–La.) is willing to look the other way,” Boehm wrote. “The War Powers Act should not be treated as a series of suggestions that can be discarded when they seem inconvenient. Indeed, limits on executive power are most essential at the moments when they are inconvenient—otherwise, they are meaningless.”

My take.

Reminder: “My take” is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• Trump promised no new foreign wars, but one now looks inevitable.
• To me, the “good” outcomes of a direct confrontation with Iran seem more likely than the worst case scenarios.
• Cyberattacks on U.S. infrastructure are still likely, but what actually happens is anyone’s guess.

In his inaugural address in January, President Trump hit an applause line that invoked his view on foreign wars that he’s been campaigning on for years:

“Like in 2017, we will again build the strongest military the world has ever seen. We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end — and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into. My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and a unifier.”

That quote has been making the rounds since Saturday night, when the Trump administration ostensibly entered Israel’s war with Iran. The administration, naturally, is insisting that this isn’t what happened. Trump himself called for peace immediately after bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said repeatedly this was a targeted strike, not the opening of a new front. Vice President JD Vance flatly denied the U.S. was at war with Iran, telling NBC’s Kristen Welker that we’re “at war with Iran’s nuclear program.”

I’m not convinced. 

In the same NBC interview, Vance attempted to further reassure the country by explaining that the difference between present and past entanglements is that we don’t have a “dumb president” like we have had for 25 years. In the same breath that he promised the U.S. wasn’t going to get into “some long, drawn-out thing,” he also said that we are now going to work to permanently dismantle Iran’s nuclear program “over the coming years.” Vance and Hegseth each insisted throughout Sunday that they had no interest in regime change, and then that evening Trump came out and said regime change would be a good thing if the current regime can’t “make Iran great again.” 

Furthermore, the Pentagon’s official assessment is that these nuclear facilities were “severely damaged,” not permanently destroyed as the president initially insisted. New reporting seems to indicate Iran was able to prepare the facilities and move some of their equipment before the strikes, in part because Trump was broadcasting on social media during the week that an incoming strike was likely. Destroying Iran’s nuclear capacity without a ground invasion may be impossible, and at the least is incredibly dangerous and complicated. 

Absent confirmation that the enrichment program has been fully dismantled, and given the administration’s own assurances they won’t stop until it is, a follow-up strike is a logical and predictable next step. Meanwhile, the U.S. military is now briefing troops that the strikes “will likely result in counterstrikes on U.S. bases and facilities” in the Middle East and “likely activate Iran and other foreign terrorist organizations cells abroad including [in] the U.S. to conduct strikes against U.S. persons and facilities,” according to a briefing obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein. Reuters’s Phil Stewart also reported that U.S. officials expect Iran to retaliate against U.S. forces in the coming days.

Unfortunately, none of this seems to me like a recipe for a brief engagement. 

As I said after Israel’s initial strikes, a war with Iran could realistically produce some “good” outcomes. Israel has spent a lot of time fighting groups like Hamas and Hezbollah that are largely supported and radicalized by Tehran. If you want to take an optimistic view here, it’s that Israel and the U.S. are directly confronting the Iranian power center now — not just engaging their proxies. If Iran is severely weakened, or new leadership comes into power, that could cause a positive downstream impact in Iran and regionally — 90 million Iranians with free expression; fewer proxy wars across the Middle East; Hamas and Hezbollah without funding and weapons; and a new opening for a “grand deal” that brings Israel and its Arab neighbors into a lasting, sustained period of peace and economic development. 

Maybe it's pollyannaish to think this is even possible, but the regional snowglobe hasn't been shaken up like this in some time. I think it's totally plausible that the region will become better overall — less violent, more stable, and more free for Iranians — a year from now than it is today.

Frankly, a lot of the theorized worst cases feel less realistic than the more optimistic scenario I just described. Iran (to me) looks weak, isolated, and desperate; that might make them dangerous in the short term, but I think it also makes them less likely to attract the support of their purported allies. Maybe we just took the first steps towards World War III, but the next steps certainly haven’t come. I’ve seen no indication that China is interested in coming to Iran’s rescue. Russia is clearly occupied. India, another BRICS nation many fewer people are talking about, has strengthened ties with Israel and other developed democracies.

However, a lot of bad outcomes are still very likely. My primary fear, as I said before this weekend’s strikes, is that Iran conducts effective, coordinated, and targeted cyberattacks against U.S. businesses and infrastructure. This kind of low-cost, high-impact, non-military attack still seems far more realistic to me than kinetic warfare between Iranian and American soldiers. Although mainstream pundits seem focused on the latter response, intelligence experts are sounding the alarm that the former is an imminent threat.

Second, Iran seems prepared to disrupt shipping out of the Persian Gulf. If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz (which they are capable of), it could strangle the region’s ability to export oil from the gulf, which represents about a quarter of the entire globe’s seaborne oil trade. We had a surprisingly difficult time tangling with the Houthis when they were firing on ships in the Red Sea, and it’s not at all clear to me we’d be able to dislodge Iran from controlling the gulf. 

Third, Iran obviously has the capacity to strike U.S. bases across the Middle East. If it does, it’s hard to imagine that Trump wouldn’t respond with more attacks — which is exactly how long, drawn-out military engagements come to fruition.

Then, there are all the known unknowns: Are the rumors about Iranian sleeper cells across the U.S. legitimate? Will Iran continue to break through Israel’s air defenses? Would China get involved if its access to Iranian oil is disrupted? These are the kinds of questions that should keep Trump officials up at night, and none more so than this: Is Iran more likely to pursue a nuclear weapon now as a deterrent against future attacks? And if that is the case, how far back did these strikes set their program? Months? Years? Decades? 

A few weeks ago, I expected direct U.S. engagement in Iran to be a political disaster for Trump. But after watching how quickly the mainstream media, independent media, and dissenting voices within MAGA have fallen into line, I’m not so sure. It was rather alarming, frankly: Fox News ran a segment comparing the strikes to Top Gun and suggesting former President Joe Biden had allowed terrorists to cross the border who now posed a threat. CNN’s Jake Tapper referred to Iran’s (read: nuclear) “weapons programs,” despite CNN’s own reporting insisting that no such weapons program exists. Editors at independent outlets like The Free Press offered resounding, unambiguous praise for the strikes, describing Trump’s decision to carry them out as “presidential.”

Meanwhile, in a triumph of low expectations, Trump’s backers celebrated the lack of leaks before the attack (even though the plans did, actually, leak). And in a matter of four days, surrogates like Charlie Kirk went from tweeting “60% don’t want America involved with war with Iran” to “America stands with Trump.” Even Director of National Intelligence and anti-war voice Tulsi Gabbard, whom Trump has repeatedly undermined publicly, updated her own assessment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions to match President Trump’s.

And get this: Everyone falling in line might be minimizing any political damage. According to YouGov polling, support among Republicans for bombing Iran went from 25–53 approve–disapprove to 68–13 approve–disapprove in a week. 

What happens next is anyone’s guess. Democrats are now trying to mount opposition to the strikes by claiming Trump doesn’t have the authority to order them, which at the very least is not a straightforward claim. The president can issue limited strikes in response to direct threats, but no justification of the bombing comports with U.S. intelligence that has repeatedly said that Iran was not building a bomb. I’m sure Trump’s critics will continue to advance legal arguments, and I’d love to see Congress wrest its war powers back from the executive branch as much as anyone, but it’s funny seeing Obama/Biden cheerleaders act like they didn’t cross the same lines during their terms. 

This story produces a lot of tangled threads that makes it hard for any honest broker wrestling with the facts to stake a clear, ideological position. Trump pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (or JCPOA, or Iran Nuclear Deal), and many people (including Trump’s former Secretary of Defense James Mattis and President Obama) predicted that tearing up the deal could lead to a war. At the same time, Trump threatened consequences if Iran didn’t agree to a deal within 60 days, which they didn’t do, and he stuck to his word. Axios even reported that he made a last-ditch effort to avoid a strike, hoping to create a backchannel with Iranian officials — but the effort collapsed because Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was hiding from a potential Israeli assassintion and couldn’t be reached to authorize the meeting. 

Perhaps more to the point: The Iranian regime is an oppressive, radical group that is responsible for much of the violence across the region; yet any group rising to fill the power vacuum created by its absence could be even more destructive.

Wars are unpredictable, and violence often begets violence, but Iran appears incapable of controlling its own skies, let alone managing to do serious damage to U.S. bases or Israel. It seems just as likely that this regime collapses as it does that the U.S. pays any serious price for joining the fray, at which point a whole new set of unpredictable futures come into focus — for Iranians, and for the world, too. 

Take the survey: Do you think the U.S. will be involved in an ongoing conflict with Iran? Let us know!

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

We're skipping the reader question today to give our main story some extra space. Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is rapidly depleting its budget as it seeks to meet the White House’s goal of 3,000 arrests per day. According to one estimate, the agency is already $1 billion over budget with three months left in the fiscal year, raising the possibility that President Trump may declare a national emergency to redirect money from other parts of the federal budget to ICE. Without emergency funds — or the passage of “Big Beautiful Bill,” which increases the agency’s funding — ICE could run out of money next month. Axios has the story.

Numbers.

• 5,300. The weight, in pounds, of the explosive material in the 30,000-pound GBU-57.
• 200. The depth, in feet, that the GBU-57 is designed to penetrate before exploding. 
• 20. The number of GBU-57s the Air Force contracted Boeing to produce, as of 2015. 
• $2.2 billion. The cost per aircraft (in 2022 dollars) to manufacture the B-2 Spirit, the aircraft used in the strikes. 
• 6,900. The range (without refueling), in miles, of the B-2 Spirit. 
• 67% and 20%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say it is likely and unlikely, respectively, that the U.S. strikes will lead to a wider war between the U.S. and Iran, according to a June 22 YouGov poll.
• 81% and 51%. The percentage of Democrats and Republicans, respectively, who say it is likely that the U.S. strikes will lead to a wider war between the U.S. and Iran.

The extras.

• One year ago today we had just published a Friday edition on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s possible impact on the upcoming election.
• The most clicked link in Wednesday’s newsletter was a description of the contagion effect on high-profile shootings.
• Nothing to do with politics: The Great Egg Heist of 2025.
• Wednesday’s survey: 3,161 readers answered our survey on political violence with 80% saying it is getting more common. “Americans (all of us) are responsible for our culture of violence which includes language online and in the media. WE ARE THE CAVALRY if there is going to be an improvement,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

After changing course due to dangerous ice blocks, oceanographers piloting a remotely operated submersible from a research vessel in the Southern Ocean captured the first footage of a living Gonatus antarcticus squid. Prior to this encounter, the only specimens that people had seen of the deep sea squid were in the form of beak fragments found in marine animals’ stomachs or carcasses caught in fishing nets. “What are the odds?” researcher Manuel Novillo said. “We were not supposed to be there and not at that precise moment.” Popular Science has the story.

Don’t forget...

📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.

🎧 We have a podcast you can listen to here.