Trump yields to impulse, causes war

Trump yields to impulse, causes war

Expected patriotic reaction

Gordon L. Weil

The spreading effects of the U.S.-Israel war against Iran reveal both President Trump’s impulse and the reflexive reaction to it.

Trump became committed to the attack thanks to the false confidence he gained from his easy success in toppling Venezuela’s president and to unrelenting pressure from Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, who argued that Iran was ripe to end Ayatollah Khamenei’s theocratic rule and its regional terrorism.

By deploying a U.S. Navy armada to the region, Trump prepared to deliver a quick and devastating blow to Iran.  Not only could the anti-American regime be toppled, but the liberated people of Iran could install a more democratic government.

Enjoying almost unlimited power in the U.S., Trump would be able single-handedly to bring peace to the Middle East.  The Middle East would hail his efforts.   By deploying the American power at his disposal as commander in chief, he could gain a quick and positive outcome, bringing himself great credit.

It’s no secret that Trump covets the Nobel Peace Prize.  He defines peace as the absence of war, so that if he can halt battlefield deaths, he should qualify.  The creation of conditions to bring lasting peace, while desirable, is not essential to the achievement.   However, the Nobel Committee is unlikely to award the Prize to a person who bombed his way to it.

Acceding to Israel’s sense of urgency ended the prospects of a negotiated settlement with Iran, though its representatives said that an agreement was at hand.   While a negotiated peace might achieve immediate objectives, especially on Iran’s nuclear development, it would not bring regime change.  Better to destroy its theocracy now than to settle with it.

Trump’s impulse to build on Venezuela fed on itself.  Lacking any military experience, he is obviously impressed by the vast power at his disposal without understanding the limits of purely armed power, especially in relying exclusively on aerial attacks.  He favored air power, because he sought to avoid the political risks resulting from the direct deployment of ground troops.

But his simple impulse caused Trump to ignore the potential effects of his action within and beyond the borders of Iran.  If the U.S. prevailed quickly, there would be few downsides to his brief war.  But the war now drags on, and Trump makes no clear decision on what it will take to end it.  Israel keeps pushing for its continuation.

Impulse ignored inflation.  Endangering the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran can control, the war has driven up the price of oil.  Americans pay more at the gas pump and in the price of many goods.  Strategic petroleum reserves must be drawn down to deal with effects of an artificial emergency.  Improving affordability and reversing inflation are lost. Promises, promises.

Impulse ignored Iran’s ability to extend the war across the Middle East, resulting in deaths of U.S. service personnel, while blindsiding and harming the economies of friendly countries.   Iran was stronger than he thought and pursued a strategy that could deny American victory.

Impulse ignored the need for the help and support of European allies which had only recently been told that they did nothing for the U.S. and weren’t important to American interests.  They had stiffened their backs when he sought to grab Greenland.

Impulse ignored faltering trust and confidence in the U.S., boosting the power of China and Russia.  The Iran war has created opportunities for them with no offsetting American gains.

Trump claimed Iran posed a threat to the U.S.  If an Iranian attack might happen at any moment, instant action, without considering unintended consequences, might be justified.  No evidence was offered that this threat was imminent, requiring an immediate preemptive strike. 

By proclaiming an Iranian threat, the president asked Americans to “rally round the flag.”  The country will support the president when meeting a real threat or attack.  President G.W. Bush’s popularity had soared when he responded to the 9/11 attacks.  Trump might transcend current political issues by issuing his alarm.

The American reflex is to drop partisanship in favor of patriotism when faced with aggression.  Members of Congress feel they must show their loyalty to the country and to the commander in chief.  Their reflex can unify the nation behind its leader.  Their conformity matters, and presidents count on it.

Many Republicans reflexively backed Trump, while Democrats fumbled over a clear reaction, calling for more information and investigations.  That sounds like action, but produces nothing.

The U.S. finds itself in a costly war of questionable necessity.  If skepticism and doubts about the war keep growing, Trump may be held to account by the voters.  Worry about electoral blowback could end the war, but its effects would linger.

Perhaps the answer is TACO – Trump always chickens out.   His overheated impulse could give way to cold reality, repackaged as victory.

 

 

 

Congress caves on Iran

 Congress caves on Iran

Gordon L. Weil

Maine Sen. Susan Collins demonstrated last week how she maintains her reputation as a Republican moderate.  Her statements are evidence of the decline of Congress.

As President Trump geared up for the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, Collins cautioned that war should only be a “last resort.”  This remark was constructive, because Iran’s representatives still held out the hope of a negotiated settlement on their nuclear development.  But, like the rest of Congress and America’s allies, Collins did not know that Trump had already decided on war. 

War came, and questions were promptly raised about the absence of congressional authorization.  The War Powers Resolution, intended to limit a president’s ability to take the U.S. to war, might be used to put on the brakes.  Under that Resolution, the president is required to brief Congress within 48 hours and needs congressional authorization to continue the war beyond 60 days.

Collins opposed mandating an earlier end of the Iran war.  Her stated rationale was that Trump had provided the required briefing and therefore could legally proceed.  Collins and all Republican senators but one refused to deauthorize the action.

The impression left by Collins was that Trump had acted legally, so no further action was needed.  What happened to her “last resort?”   The GOP attitude ignored the purpose of the 48-hour notice.  Congress does not have to wait 60 days to halt the war.  By their action, the GOP senators and later the House approved the war.

Their action recalled the congressional vote supporting President G.W. Bush’s Iraq War. Members don’t want to look weak after the president has proclaimed that he acted to protect Americans.  In the Iraq case, the supposed threat from “weapons of mass destruction” did not exist.  In the Iran case, Trump has offered nothing more about a threat than his opinion.

After Iraq, some senators and representatives regretted having gone along with the vote.  Similarly, after the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, members expressed regret about having authorized the Vietnam War, relying on false reports about an alleged attack on a U.S. submarine.

The past votes were not as openly partisan as was the Iran vote, which took on the character of an expression of GOP support for the MAGA president.  It did not appear to be an individually considered decision about sending U.S. armed forces into combat with the attendant loss of life by citizens of the U.S. and other nations.

It’s now argued that the world has changed since the Constitution was written, and Congress would move too slowly to declare war in modern times.  It is sensible to leave the decision on war to the president, some analysts say, because presidents control foreign affairs and serve as commander-in-chief.

The prime power left to Congress is to enact legislation to block funding for a war, though it would have to withstand a presidential veto.  That would make it almost certain to fail.

As with the earlier authorizations, senators and representatives may yet have to justify their votes.  They may apologize, as have some of their predecessors.  But, when the vote was taken, there seemed to be no thought of their personal accountability to the voters.

Congress cannot “make” war.  A legislative body cannot control military action, beyond authorizing it or not.  But making war is distinct from “declaring” war, which is an essential function of an elected legislature. 

The issue is particularly complicated because the Constitution makes the president, the chief civil official, also the chief military officer.   What worked for George Washington did not work for many of his successors. 

Congress must make the policy decision committing the country on a course that will cost the lives of Americans and others.  While generals must inevitably issue orders resulting in the death of some of their troops, their actions must be authorized by agencies responsible to the people in whose name they act.

In the U.S., the responsible agency is Congress and not the lone chief executive.  The president may order actions costing lives, but they should have congressional authorization.  The power over life and death is too great an authority to accord to a single person, one who may never again face voter scrutiny.

The current War Powers Resolution does not work well.  The Resolution applies after the fact, which is too late.  Going through the motions of following it allowed Sen. Collins to abandon her moderate “last resort” statement for GOP partisanship.

If Congress values its authority and believes the constitutional war power needs updating, it should adopt a Resolution that its funding approval for any future war requires it receiving advance notice, except in case of a direct attack on the U.S. 

Without some role for Congress, the president’s surprise attack on an adversary is also a surprise attack on his own country.

This means war! U.S. starts Middle East conflict

 

Gordon L. Weil

Here’s the classic dictionary definition of war.  “War is a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between political units.”

The U.S. and Israel, its ally, attacked Iran, a nation state, and Iran counterattacked. This met the definition of war, and the conflict quickly spread to other countries in the Middle East.

The war is probably not “legal” under the Constitution or international law.  So what?  Its legality may be a matter of debate, U.S. politics or international law – none of it enforceable.  But it is taking place, legal or not.  To harp on its illegality is impractical self-righteousness.

The U.S. was not attacked, so President Trump launched a preemptive war.  Get them before they get you.  To merit war, the threat must have been imminent, despite Trump having recently claimed that the U.S. had “obliterated” the Iranian nuclear capability. 

Israel may have forced Trump to act by its own intention to strike militarily, which could bring Iranian attacks on U.S. forces, but the president has a hard case to make that Iran directly threatened the U.S.

For good reason, the U.S. and Europe, to say nothing of Israel, have worried about Iran’s nuclear development.  If Iran’s intentions were not aggressive, it surely let its threatening rhetoric get beyond what was acceptable.  If war came, Iran seems to have strategized that it could create chaos throughout the region.  It would not prevail, but it could keep the U.S. from winning.

Iran bothers Trump.  Contrast it with North Korea, Russia’s troops-on-the-ground ally in the Ukraine war.  It is openly aggressive and, like Iran, has medium-range missiles.  But Trump was willing to travel to meet with its leader and even to say he loved America’s avowed enemy.  He has launched no preemptive war there.  In Asia, there is no oil and no Israel, but there is China.

Trump apparently believed that he could bomb Iran into submission quickly.  Israel would eliminate the Supreme Leader, just as the U.S. had toppled the Venezuelan president, making it possible to gain Iran’s submission.  As a result of his assumption, he did not pay sufficient attention to Iran’s ability to launch a missile response and extend the war.

He admitted that he was “surprised” by Iran’s response.  His statement was a direct admission of the failure of American intelligence or of his having ignored the CIA, consistent with his past low regard for its reliability regarding Russia.

The war quickly involved about a dozen countries, led to the deaths of American service personnel and the possibility of more, caused the closure of an essential waterway for oil exports to Japan and left many Americans and others under fire across the Middle East.  The price of oil immediately increased and financial markets, his favorite indicator, suffered losses.

In a nation preoccupied by affordability, Trump undertook a war sure to drive up prices.  Perhaps he recognized that he could not win the pocketbook argument, but it might be explained away by a war that people could be made to believe was necessary.  And Epstein could be forgotten.

In preparing to launch the war, the U.S. had repositioned major naval assets in the area.  This stripped the South China Sea of forces impeding Chinese control and endangered Taiwan.  The Venezuela blockade was almost forgotten.

It looks like what may have been impulsive and poorly planned actions had been undertaken without adequate consideration of their broader implications.  Solo policy making, without the benefit of congressional input, the views of experienced, long-time allies, reliable intelligence and defined goals, results in high human cost and a possibly prolonged impact.

For about a century, the United States has been the leading world power.  World War II made it both the principal instrument of victory and the potential guarantor of world peace.  Cognizant of its great power, but changing its role, Trump chose to deploy its armed forces in the hope of quick military results, preferable to difficult, long and complex negotiations.

As a candidate, Trump promised to keep the country out of war.  Many voters saw armed conflict as a waste of American lives for pointless results, and they supported him.  His America First had the merit of leaving foreign wars to others, while focusing on domestic economic growth.  Then, he abandoned this key promise.

He turned the Department of Defense into the Department of War.  While deterrence kept America out of war and influenced other nations to negotiate, having vast U.S. military power under his exclusive command was too tempting.  The models of Putin and Netanyahu, unchecked in their ambitions, were appealing.

The prize of victory that he thought he could gain quickly was better than the Nobel Peace Prize that he might never gain.

Peacemaking: Trump’s empty promise

Gordon L. Weil

“My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier,” declared Donald Trump at his January 2025 inauguration.  His statement was not a hope, but a promise.

On that day, the world witnessed two major wars with other conflicts coming close to hostilities.  Wielding the power of the United States, Trump had the possibility of earning the title of peacemaker.

Russia had invaded neighboring Ukraine three years earlier.  It sought to nullify Ukraine’s pro-West leanings and return it to the orbit of Russian influence, just as it had been under the Soviet Union.  Russians viewed Ukrainians as inferior and had historically exploited them.  The invasion was expected to amount to a restoration of Russian dominance.

But the self-awareness of Ukrainians had grown, and they did not wish to again be subservient to Russia. To the world’s amazement, they resisted the Russian invasion, despite losing some territory.  President Biden sent them help.

Trump believed he had a good personal relationship with Russian President Putin.  He could deal with him over the head of Ukraine, heavily dependent on the U.S. for its defensive arms. Offering sanctions relief and help in ending a costly war, Trump thought he could induce Putin to accept Russia’s territorial gains and end his invasion.

For Putin, the historical need to conquer Ukraine required him to press on.  Trump did not understand Putin and was disappointed. He told Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy that Putin had all the cards. He was right, because he himself did not play his cards.  He avoided new sanctions on Russia and only reluctantly supported Ukraine.  Not a peacemaker.

In the Middle East, Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu turns his country’s response to the Hamas attack into a drive to raze Gaza and dominate the region.

Trump proposed to turn Gaza into a new Riviera, after the removal of its Palestinian residents. That idea may appear entirely out of historical context, but it fits right-wing Israeli views that their country should rule Gaza and deport its Arab inhabitants.  Neighboring Arab countries are not enthusiastic.

Despite increased doubts, both in Israel and the U.S., about the destructive way Netanyahu is pursuing military action in Gaza, Trump has put no effective pressure on him.  The U.S. remained the essential military supplier of Israel.  Trump must have known what the New York Times has just revealed about how Netanyahu has repeatedly prolonged the conflict.

Trump set aside hopes of expanding cooperation between Israel and its Arab neighbors, extending the Abraham Accords, in favor of backing Israel.  Trump allowed Netanyahu to guide his policy.  Ceasefire negotiations are fruitless, but the U.S. does not use its relationships with key parties to convene full scale peace talks.   No room for peacemaking.

After exiting an earlier agreement on Iran’s nuclear development, Trump tried to negotiate a new deal.  But he was under Israeli pressure that amounted to an ultimatum.  The message was that the U.S. should reach an agreement with Tehran soon or Israel would bomb Iran.  Israeli pressure would overcome U.S. patience.

Time ran out, and Israel attacked, and the U.S. engaged in massive bombing as well.  From an effort to negotiate and avoid armed conflict, the U.S. became a combatant.  Once again, Trump’s potential role as a peacemaker, deploying the power and influence of the U.S., was absent.

Other menaces grow.  China continues using its fleet to push its claims to the South China Sea.  It has also sent clear signals that it would move on Taiwan.  The U.S. mobilized opposition from Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and the Philippines.  By a persistent and increased show of force, the U.S. and its allies would try to force China to lower tensions.

This was a clear case of Trump using American power, together with allies, to reduce the risk of greater conflict by deterrence and opening the possibility of negotiations with China from a position of strength.  But the U.S. then moved one aircraft carrier from the South China Sea to the Mediterranean to defend Israel from Iran’s counterattacks.

The president also undermined his own policy by launching trade attacks on his most valuable allies in the Pacific region.  Instead of strengthening relations with countries sharing a common interest, he menaced them with trade policies that would weaken their economies.  They could come to see the U.S. more as an adversary than as an ally.

Whatever the merits of Trump’s trade measures, their arbitrary and inconsistent application has created uncertainty.  Unpredictable American policy raises international tensions, reducing the opportunity for the U.S., as the dominant nation, to lead the way to settling conflicts.

“Our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent, and totally unpredictable,” Trump promised in his inaugural address.

When?  How?

 

 

 

  

Will U.S. bombing of Iran pay off?

 

Gordon L. Weil

When the B-2 bombers took off from Missouri on their way to bomb nuclear sites in Iran, that was not the beginning of the direct conflict between the two countries.

It began in August 1953 and continues.  President Trump may have seen the bombing only as an attempt to end Iran’s nuclear weapons development, but it was part of an historic confrontation. 

In 1953, the CIA led an effort that toppled the Iranian government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh.  He had nationalized the oil industry, stripping British and American interests of their control, and was also seen as a threat to the stability imposed upon the Middle East following World War II.  

The Shah, the country’s nominal ruler, had American backing to take control of the government in Tehran.  But the coup brought deep Iranian resentment of the U.S., which falsely denied the CIA’s role.  Iranian militants opposed the Shah who had appropriated some of the nation’s wealth for his own use.

Eventually, the Shah was forced into exile and fell ill.  The Iranian opposition sought his return to face judgment, but he was granted access to health care in the U.S.  Infuriated, in 1979 militants turned a street demonstration into the occupation of the U.S. Embassy.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile, became Supreme Leader of Iran’s refashioned Islamic State, and approved the occupation.  The new regime labelled the U.S. as the “Great Satan.”  Even after Iran freed the embassy hostages, its conflict with the U.S. intensified.

Iran detested American backing of Israel.  It saw Israel as gaining power in the Middle East, at the expense of fellow Muslims and undercutting its own plans for power in the region.  Israel saw Iran as its major regional threat.  Iran considered the U.S. and Israel as a common enemy.

Iran extended its war against Israel by arming and supporting hostile forces all around it: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthi in Yemen.  Its growing power moved it toward regional domination.

Iran’s economic strength comes from its oil exports.  It claimed that it would develop nuclear power to free up more oil for export.  As a non-weapons state, it subscribed to the Nonproliferation Treaty and accepted inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

But Iran enriched uranium to levels that could be used in nuclear weapons to threaten Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East.  Under pressure, it agreed with leading world powers to limit its enrichment for a fixed period but could continue to develop missiles capable of delivering atomic devices.

Trump condemned that accord and in 2018 withdrew the U.S. from it.  Iran stepped up enrichment, getting close to weapons grade.  IAEA inspections were hampered and, at last, it formally voted that Iran was not obeying its treaty obligations.

Soon after Russia failed to win rapid victory over Ukraine in 2023, Iran supplied it with drones and even technical help on the ground.  The Russian attack sought to regain control over Ukraine to prevent it from joining with the West, which aligned with Iran’s anti-American objectives.

Trying to reduce nuclear threats, Trump tried to coax North Korea, also long hostile to the U.S., to give up its nuclear weapons, but failed to charm Kim Jong-Un..  Like Iran, North Korea drew closer to Russia and assists it in the Ukraine War. 

European nations and Canada joined in Trump’s determination not to allow the emergence of Iran as another nuclear state.

Some foreign leaders preferred more negotiations, despite a dismal record, instead of the bombing and its unknowable consequences.  But if unproductive talks went on, the closer Iran might come to being a nuclear power.  And Iran had not shown itself to be negotiating either realistically or in good faith.  So, Trump chose to act.

Given Iran’s ongoing hostility to the U.S, its enmity toward Israel, its growing relationship with Russia and its deceit about its intentions, Trump’s move to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites is understandable, though opposed by many Americans who are wary of war.  Arguing about the effectiveness of the bombing is pointless; the result will become apparent enough. 

What comes next?  Will Iran finally recognize that it must abandon any possibility of having nuclear weapons, perhaps only possible after a regime change, or will it continue to threaten Middle East stability.  If Iran persists in denying that its territory and nuclear development are vulnerable, Trump faces a choice.  

Negotiations might lead to a new agreement like the one he rejected, with enrichment limited indefinitely and limits placed on missiles.  In return, Iran would get eased economic sanctions and new foreign investment.

Without a negotiated deal, the alternative would be an unpopular, prolonged American military confrontation with Iran, perhaps even in a wider conflict.