Did they goad him with "Real Men Go To Tehran?"
Ever since Trump started running for president I've been convinced that the idea he wouldn't start a war seemed ludicrous. The man's personality is obvious. If he can be convinced that he will "win" he can't wait to do it.
A man like him is dying to play with all those expensive military toys and be seen as a Big Tough Leader. It's just that he's a bit of a coward and he knows on some level that he's in over his head. So he's been reluctant to unleash the beast.
But now, under pressure from the impeachment and the upcoming election he's acting reckless and a little desperate. He gave the order to assassinate the most revered General in Iran and a popular Shiite militia leader. It will be a miracle if this doesn't escalate in the worst way imaginable.
I wrote about the "Trump Doctrine" (such as it is) many times over the past few years. Back in 2018, when Trump backed out of the Iran deal I wrote this piece, worrying that we were entering a new and even more unstable era in the region.
And last May when the New York Times reported that he had been presented with plans to send 120,000 troops there if necessary I grew even more concerned. After the aborted attack last June I wrote this:
Trump's credibility is nonexistent around the globe so nobody believes him no matter what he says. Russia, North Korea, China and Iran are all starting to circle, flex their muscles and poke at the beast to see what it will do. And here we are.
Jacob Heilbrun, writing in the Spectator USA, points out that Trump really doesn't want war with Iran but observes that he's unknowingly assembled a war Cabinet:
If Trump stumbled into war, he would resemble Kaiser Wilhelm during World War I, who backed Austria, only to be sidelined by his generals once the conflict began. Trump would be utterly at sea in trying to preside over a war in the Persian Gulf that could easily spiral out of control. If Trump can’t even appoint a permanent defense secretary, why would anyone imagine he has the competence to conduct a war against Tehran?
It's very unclear if his war hawks are any more competent than he is. Heilbrun notes that Pompeo has even been advancing "loopy theories, reminiscent of the George W. Bush administration’s folderol on the eve of the second Gulf War, that the Iranians are in cahoots with al-Qaeda."
In response to that fatuous argument, which was clearly designed to make the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force against al-Qaida apply to these planned military strikes, the House voted to end the AUMF. (That legislation will die in the Senate, of course.) But Pompeo should have checked with the fourth horseman of the apocalypse, Attorney General William Barr, who would have told him there's never any need for congressional authorization for military action. That's what he told President George H.W. Bush when he was contemplating launching the first Gulf War. (In Bush's defense, he didn't buy it, asked the Congress and the UN for a vote and pulled together a global coalition.)
As many of you no doubt remember, back during the crazed days after the terrorist attacks on 9/11, these arguments were flying all over the place. George W. Bush got a vote in Congress with no problem but couldn't get global buy-in because his rationale for invading Iraq was nonsensical and everyone knew it. It was well known that certain hard-right war hawks were hoping that it would be just the first step. As Paul Krugman noted at the time:
It's a matter of public record that this war with Iraq is largely the brainchild of a group of neoconservative intellectuals, who view it as a pilot project. In August a British official close to the Bush team told Newsweek: ''Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.'' In February 2003, according to Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper, Under Secretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq the United States would ''deal with'' Iran, Syria and North Korea.
Remember, allegedly reluctant warrior Donald Trump is the one who hired that guy to be his national security adviser. He also hired Pompeo. And he is almost certainly listening to his good buddy, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who's been advising him that he needs to get "points on the board," meaning he must use military force somewhere in order to be taken seriously. (Graham was pushing for a Venezuela invasion, but Trump has lost interest in that one, so Iran will have to do.)
I suspect that argument carries some weight. But Trump really only cares about one thing: re-election. If they want to convince him to let the bombs fly to prove he's got brass, his hawks are going to have to convince him that his base will love it. They will, of course. They are America's most fervent supporters of military action and if Trump does it they'll love him all the more.
Shh. Don't anybody tell him about Republican voters' love of war. His ignorance of that fact is the only thing keeping the peace.
It looks like someone told him. And they are reacting exactly as we knew they would.
I don't know what comes next. But I'm pretty sure that the White House is even more clueless. Everything may end up staying status quo for the time being but Americans are going to be in much more danger in the middle east and around the world because of this even if we avoid all-out war.
Trump just radicalized a whole bunch of new would be terrorists for what it likely to be very little return if any at all. Terrorism is cheap and it has a life of its own.
.
