The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps confirmed the attack that reportedly killed and wounded several people, but did not provide further details.
Page A4From§Eachthe wee small hours edition — 31 August 2026
NYT asks why US can't quit its wars; US opens new strikes on Iran the same week
As it ran on the front
You ever notice how the newspaper of record can run a headline asking a rhetorical question, and the answer shows up on the same news day, like it was waiting in the wings the whole time? 'Why the United States Can't Quit Its Wars,' the Times wants to know, real thoughtful, real hand-wringing, and meanwhile, same week, the United States launches its first strikes on Iran in weeks. That's not an answer to the question. That's the question laughing at you.
Here's the racket, and it's not complicated once you stop pretending it is: you don't quit a war the way you quit smoking, with a patch and a support group. You quit a war the way a casino quits taking your money — never, not on its own, not without somebody physically closing the doors. The strikes on Iran aren't new; they're the same lever pulled again, because the lever works, because pulling it doesn't cost the people pulling it anything they'll ever have to explain to a kid who has to go live with what comes after. The regime vows revenge. Of course it does. That's the other half of the machine — you hit, they vow, the vowing becomes the justification for the next hit, and around it goes, and nobody in the loop is elected to a job called 'end this.'…
…(cont) And notice what never gets asked in either headline: what's it for, this time? Not what's the strategic rationale, they've always got three of those laminated and ready. What's it FOR. Who's better off tomorrow than they were the day before the missiles went. I'll wait.
The part that should sit with you after last call isn't the strike. It's the shrug. A first strike in weeks lands with about the same news weight as a rate hike. That's not peace, that's just a war so old it stopped registering as one — and the guy who ordered it, whoever he is this week, still has the only phone in the country wired straight to the nuclear codes. That part isn't rhetoric. That's just where the button lives. Drink up.
“The Times asks why we can't quit the wars, and the same week we open a new front on Iran, like the question answered itself out loud. Nobody voted for perpetual; it just never stops getting funded.”
“These strikes were measured, proportional, and necessary given the regime's own provocations, and this has nothing to do with any pattern of engagement — okay, it's the same pattern as last time, and the time before, but this one's necessary.”
The receipts
The country’s longest war came to an end exactly five years ago. Today it offers lessons for policymakers seeking to avoid an endless war in Iran.
This page is a back-issue: the story as it ran, receipts as they were. The current edition is at the front.