Maine U.S. Senate race: Collins-Mills for the swing seat

 

Gordon L. Weil

Susan Collins now has her chance for her place in history. 

No, it wouldn’t be from being elected six times to the U.S. Senate.  It would arise from her taking a stand in favor of traditional American and Republican values.   She should show courage and principle even if it brings crude denunciation by President Trump.

Sen. Collins has prided herself on being a moderate Republican, true to the values of limited government, free enterprise with a commitment to equal rights and environmental protection. She comes from a Maine political family closely identified with that brand of Republicanism.

Donald Trump has stolen that party away from her.  The Trump GOP has crushed her ambition to become a major influence on public policy in the Senate, while reducing her power by using the functionally stunted Republican Senate to rubber stamp his policies.  The only use the GOP and its president have for Collins is her vote to maintain his unquestioned control of the Senate.

Collins has made political sacrifices to advance the interests of the nation and Maine and her political career.  When her integrity clashes with Trump’s excesses, she temporizes by cloaking her positions in expedience or dubious superior knowledge, as compared with the rest of us, of how the system really works.

She occasionally breaks with Trump and his demands for blind loyalty, and that is to be commended.  But she seldom either recruits support or casts the deciding vote.  This is leadership by gesture, not by consistent and assertive application of her principles.

Maine and the country may be shortchanged by her approach.  Now is the time that demands her vindicating the courage of her convictions as a moderate or being held accountable for having misled us about her principles.

She likes recalling the story of Sen. Margaret Chase Smith’s Declaration of Conscience, her public stand against Joe McCarthy, a Republican colleague intent on destroying political decency.  That took courage, yet she made a partisan speech, making clear her belief that real Republicanism could defeat the Democrats without McCarthy’s vitriol.

Margaret Chase Smith ultimately lost re-election.  But her electoral defeat is not what we remember.  Her assured place in history derives from that single statement of her principles in defiance of her party.

The nation needs a functioning two-party system, operating through compromise. The majority party should dominate decision making, but it should accommodate views of the minority to promote a sense of unity of purpose.

Instead, we have a nation divided.  The two sides appear beyond any hope of compromise. The war is on, not only for this presidential term, but for the indefinite future. 

The Democrats are dazed by finding themselves in this situation and remain unable to pull themselves together with a coherent policy under strong leadership.  While the times demand a bold alternative to Trump, they rely simply on the slim hope that opposition to him and his ego-based politics will produce their electoral victory. 

The country not only needs the Democrats to find themselves but the recovery of the traditional Republican Party.  If this is the great nation that we believe it is, that’s the result of the historical interaction of the two parties.  The nation needs two strong political parties; neither now qualifies.

Susan Collins can do more for her country by keeping the spark of Republicanism alive and giving it oxygen than by mere futile gestures.  She may not turn the Party around, but in the current crisis, she can play a strong, visible and independent role in preserving and promoting the traditional GOP.

 

Collins v. Democrats

The Trump Republican Party is likely to see Collin’s situation differently.  It wants to retain at least 51 seats in the U.S. Senate to ensure that the president can pursue his personal agenda without interference from Congress.  That’s the same reason for the Texas redistricting aimed at picking up five more GOP House seats, which otherwise might fall under Democratic control.

Collins is not loyal by Trump standards, though she has either backed him on critical matters or opposed him with meaningless opposition when he could prevail without her.  But she casts one critical vote – to keep the Trump Republicans in control of the Senate.  It is doubtful if Maine could find another person who could hold the seat for the GOP.

That means the Maine campaign could boil down to a single question: which party will control the Senate?  If it’s the GOP, Trump could have a blank check for his entire second term.  If it’s the Democrats, he may be held to account or face somewhat limited powers.   

The challenge for the Democrats is simple.  They need to find a candidate who can defeat Collins.  She successfully overwhelms lesser-known candidates.   Polls showing her popularity is fading are not a basis for Democratic optimism.

The best hope for the Democrats is Gov. Janet Mills.  She is widely known and is more favorably viewed by Maine voters than Collins.  She is a right-of-center Democrat, entitling her to be considered a moderate.  With the chance to defeat Collins, liberal Democrats would likely support her, despite past differences.

The problem with Mills is her age, now 77.  She would be the oldest new senator ever; she would begin when most senators retire.  With Sen. King at 80, Maine would probably have the most geriatric U.S. Senate duo ever.

The Democrats could elect the next governor at the same time as a Mills’ victory, who could appoint her replacement, if necessary.  To ensure their hold on the Senate seat, the Democrats would need the next governor to serve as their insurance policy.

No matter the governor’s affiliation, the Legislature could adopt a law requiring that any replacement must belong to the same party as a departing senator, as is done in 10 states. 

In either case, Mills could serve less than a full term, secure in the knowledge that her seat would go to another Democrat.  (The Legislature could also require a special election to fill a vacancy, as is done in five states.)

Dollar in danger as Trump creates new crisis

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump has been warned that his economic policies, including his high tariffs, will drive up costs, possibly leading to inflation.  He wants lower interest rates to reduce inflation and to lower the cost of paying off the immense federal debt that he and the GOP Congress have created.

The Federal Reserve, the agency that has the greatest influence on interest rates, has remained beyond his grasp.  But he aims to get the Fed.

The Supreme Court, usually supportive of his expansionist schemes, affirmed that he could remove members of regulatory agencies, but the Court exempted the Fed.   "The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States," it ruled. 

Failing to harass Fed Chair Jerome Powell to quit, thus allowing him to appoint a rate-cutting replacement, Trump came up with a new ploy.  The president can remove a Fed Board governor “for cause,” leading Trump to hunt for a cause to be used against Powell.

The renovation of the Fed’s headquarters, running over budget, looked like a good target.  But Trump found there were good reasons for the cost run-up and no taxpayer money is involved.  Trump could find nothing to use against Powell.

Firing a person “for cause” means more than firing a person “at will.”  Legal experts may regard cause as requiring some failure in the performance of official duties, but some other issues, like a criminal conviction, might also qualify.  Courts have not ruled on the question.

Certain government officials, fired “for cause,” are likely entitled to due process of law.   If they have been confirmed by the Senate to their positions, they are considered to have a property right to their office.   They are expected to be given a formal opportunity to answer charges and have a third party judge their validity before they must leave office.

Trump has come to know that Powell is one vote among seven Fed governors and could not alone change interest rates.  He has set out to find a four-person majority.   He may fill one existing vacancy.  He counts on his two appointees to the Fed to rubber-stamp his rate cutting, though he may be overly optimistic in his hopes, based on their performance until now.

If he figures correctly, he needs another vacancy.   Bill Pulte, his top housing regulator, seeks ways to help him dump independent officials.  He claims that Lisa Cook, a Fed Board governor, cheated on at least one mortgage application. He has referred the matter to the Justice Department, which would decide if she should be charged.

Trump did not wait.  Pulte’s mere referral, by itself, is enough for him to find “sufficient cause” to remove Cook.  Cook was not given any kind of due process in which she could deny or explain.  And, in the absence of a judicial definition of “cause,” it’s unclear if such a minor, nonofficial matter rises to the level of justifying her removal.

But Trump made clear his focus is interest rates.  His removal letter states: “The Federal Reserve has tremendous responsibility for setting interest rates….  Cook’s alleged action “calls into question your competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.”   Trump might also believe that Cook, a Black woman, was an unqualified DEI appointee.

The Fed doesn’t set rates.  The Federal Open Market Committee, composed of the seven Fed governors and the presidents of five of the eleven regional Federal Reserve Banks, decides.  The bank heads are elected by regional banks, not by the president.  Each is independent, not subject to the president.

The firing will now face outside scrutiny.  She is suing Trump, a case that will almost certainly get to the Supreme Court, probably first over an injunction suspending his action.  The Court could give Trump an outright win if it denied an injunction, define “cause,” or tell the president he has gone too far.   This could take time.

Trump has erred in this move against Cook in ways that extend beyond the unproven charge.  The harm to the Fed, the U.S. and the world economic system could be considerable.

 

Here are my views on Trump’s moves against the Fed.

He has abused his power in trying to get the low interest rate he seeks by attacking Fed governors.

He attacks the intended independence of the Federal Reserve and its freedom from partisan considerations, the precise reason for its governors having 14-year terms.

He is undermining confidence in the Fed, endangering its support for a stable economy, which erodes confidence of the financial markets.

By politicizing the Fed’s monetary policy decisions, he has increased the risk of lost confidence in the U.S. dollar, now the world’s reserve currency, virtually as good as gold.

By undermining confidence in the dollar and American debt, he has caused the U.S. to lose influence and even power across the entire world.

Unless the system works quickly and effectively to halt Trump’s move, this damage has already been done.

Carney, Powell stand up to Trump

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump seems to convert almost all leaders into fans, mostly because they know he thrives on flattery.  He readily accepts their artificial praise.

The media likes to report how he forces skeptics or critics to appease him in pursuing their own interests.  They end up settling for less than his original demand and consider the deal a win or else helplessly let him take advantage of them.

But this week, two people have carefully stayed on their own course despite his pressure.  Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell stand out from crowd.

When Trump first sharply hiked tariffs, then Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promptly retaliated.  His countermove, rare among the early U.S. tariff victims, was designed to get the U.S. to retreat.  Tariffs between the two countries soared to the point that would harm both sides.

To his credit, Trump realized he had gone too far, depriving the U.S. of needed fuel and raw materials.  He eliminated tariffs on trade under USMCA, the trade agreement among the U.S., Mexico and Canada.  Major barriers remained on steel, aluminum, autos and softwood lumber. 

The Canadian government changed when Carney took office.  Politically, he could not quickly reciprocate for the Trump cut, though he recognized that its effect on essential imports was harming Canadian consumers and industry.   He also found that the overall effect of the USMCA preference gave Canada the lowest U.S. tariff at 5.6 percent.

Trade talks repeatedly missed deadlines as Canada held firm.  To negotiate with the U.S. and provide some relief to Canadians, Carney has just reciprocally reduced Canadian tariffs to the USMCA level.  Some in Canada erroneously saw this move as appeasement, ignoring the fact that the U.S. had moved first.

Before acting, he called Trump, who apparently accepts Canada’s independent policy and recognizes U.S. dependence on some Canadian imports.  The New York Times reported that Trump said that he and Carney “are working on something.”  He continued, “We want to be very good to Canada. I like Carney a lot. I think he’s a good, good person.”

Carney had been ready to seek other trading partners.   Now, a deal on autos is likely and accords on the other three products are possible.  The U.S. and Canada may also be finding areas of agreement on the upcoming revision of the USMCA, under which Mexico has gained the most benefit.

If Trump has kind words for Carney, despite the Canadian’s independent stance, he does not hold back when it comes to the Federal Reserve’s Powell, whom he calls a “numbskull” for refusing to cut interest rates.  He’s gradually realizing that Powell does not act alone and that the kind of deep cuts he wants aren’t likely, no matter who sits on the Fed’s Open Market Committee.

Powell, who clearly believes in the Fed’s independence from the politics of the day, appropriately refrains from answering Trump’s attacks.  To do so would plunge the Fed into politics.

The Fed’s missions are maintaining full employment and controlling inflation, striking a delicate balance with the entire world waiting to judge its actions.  In recent years, it has leaned toward the fight against inflation.  Now, Powell’s analysis suggests that the Fed can ease up on inflation and reduce the interest rate until it sees the impact of higher U.S. import tariffs.

The current Federal Funds interest rate, used for lending among banks and dominating short-term interest from credit cards to mortgages, is set between 4.25 and 4.5 percent.  In July, two Trump appointees favored a one quarter percent cut, hardly the three percent that Trump wants, while the majority left the rate unchanged.  The media exaggerated this small difference.

Trump and his economists could have sat with Powell and made the case that the inflation risk is less worrisome, avoiding the usual unrealistic demands and threats.  The president would have been playing, perhaps persuasively, on the Fed’s court, but that’s not his style.

Instead, Trump attacked.  Based only on an unsubstantiated charge that a Fed member had cheated on a mortgage application, he demanded her resignation.   Knowing that it was grandstanding, the Justice Department baited Powell by demanding he fire her, though he has no such power.

The U.S. and much of the world depend on a soundly managed American economy and dollar, still the international reserve currency.  Trump would willingly endanger both if he could claim before the next election that he had boosted the economy to new heights.  He expects his Fed appointees to be his foot soldiers in this effort.

There’s no doubt that higher tariffs will increase some costs and prices.  Trump cannot make Powell responsible for that, simply because he won’t lower interest rates.  Trump may not understand that, but Powell does and holds firm.  So far, that works. 

Trump could sacriifice Ukraine to win a Nobel Prize

 

Gordon L. Weil

Russia’s Vladimir Putin wants to destroy an independent Ukraine.

America’s Donald Trump wants to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump would give Putin what he wants, hoping that his role in ending hostilities would produce the Prize.

If the killing is halted, he believes he will have achieved “peace.”  It probably won’t be more than a dubious truce.  Ukraine would surrender, justifying Russia’s invasion.   The shooting would stop in time for him to win this year’s prize.  Then Russia could then resume its invasion, just as it has done twice before.

Trump tried to browbeat Ukraine into accepting a deal under which it gives up 20 percent of its territory and remains vulnerable to Putin’s expansionism.   Because Ukraine has depended on American military support, he implies that common sense will lead it to accept his deal rather than face outright defeat. 

He even gave Ukraine, the victim of aggression, a sample of life without the U.S. when he temporarily cut off arms supplies and intelligence to the beleaguered country.

Putin tries to rally support for his attempt to obliterate independent Ukraine by claiming that it is under Nazi rule.  Yet Russia, like Nazi Germany, is the invader.

Beginning in 1937, Nazi Germany pursued an almost identical policy, taking control of European areas with German-speaking populations.  Encountering little opposition from the major powers, it invaded more than ten other countries in its effort to dominate the entire Continent and beyond. 

Putin now demands from Ukraine its territory, its neutrality, having only a weak military and a change of leadership.  Ukraine would become a Russian satellite, an element of Putin’s effort to restore as much of the Soviet Union as possible.  It could serve as a platform for invading at least five more countries.

Trump’s hope and Putin’s plan have encountered Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his opposition to giving up sovereignty.  Another problem is Europe and other countries who back Zelenskyy because of their bitter memories of Nazi aggression.

After the war, NATO and the European Union were created to provide regional deterrence to any such move by Russia.   NATO relies heavily on American security guarantees.  Ukraine wants to join both groups.  Russia invaded to make that impossible and the U.S. acquiesces.

Facing the Russian invasion, the Europeans are joining together to reject it.  They back Ukraine for its sake and their own.  They count on the continued support of the U.S., their World War II ally, and the historical opponent of foreign takeovers of independent countries.   They are not yet ready to assume full responsibility themselves.

But, as usual, Trump has upset traditional expectations.  Unwilling to supply arms directly to Ukraine, the U.S. would sell them to the European nations who could give them to Ukraine.  Grossly exaggerating the previous amount of American aid, he will go no further.

His apparent agreement with Putin’s terms for a quick end to the war has awakened a strong European reaction.  Inadvertently, he may have helped boost European unity.  He refuses European requests for increased U.S. sanctions on Russia, but at least listens to their demands for an immediate truce.  Still, he does not press Russia to agree.

Experience has shown that any new Russian peace agreement would need to be policed.  Europe could provide a protective force, but the U.S. would go no further than conducting overflights and providing intelligence.  For the time being, even these assurances are shaky.

Before security arrangements are needed, there must be a truce.  Peace negotiations cannot take place while war rages.  Putin has convinced Trump that he is winning, so he will not negotiate directly with Zelenskyy.  Europeans believe that Trump must join them in forcing Putin to negotiate by applying tougher sanctions, which Trump threatens, but never deploys.

Trump’s Nobel ambition is hostage to Putin’s decision about a truce and peace talks.  The future of the Atlantic alliance and opposition to further aggression await Trump’s willingness to risk his hopes for a greater cause.  His current approach is likely neither to end the war nor win him the prize.

His self-promotion for the Nobel Prize is unprecedented and awkward.  His love of praise, including soliciting Nobel nominations, is often gratified, but he may not understand the depth of European concerns if Ukraine is placed in greater jeopardy.

At his White House meeting with European leaders, he managed to mention that he had already settled six conflicts, part of his Nobel campaign claims.  While history does not support him, the Europeans, mindful of his sensitivity, continued to avoid directly differing with him. 

Trump may be unconcerned about the loss of U.S. leadership in the world, the hallmark of his second term.  He rejects the concerns and interests of traditional allies.  The result may be American isolation, which awards no prize.

 

 

 

Trump backs down from ceasefire demand in Putin meeting

 

Gordon L. Weil

While waiting for the Trump-Putin Anchorage talks to end, workers tested microphones in the media conference room.  They were readied for questions from the large media corps assembled to learn about the discussions and to question the leaders.

It was a futile effort, because after two statements composed of great generalities, Trump and Putin promptly left the room. No questions. 

The immediate impression was that the two had performed a significant achievement in the field of physics: they created a perfect vacuum.  The journalistic air was totally drained from the room.  Feel sorry for Anchorage; its name will always be associated with a massive diplomatic flop.

There are four players in the Ukraine War – Ukraine, Russia, Europe and the U.S. 

Ukraine tossed out a pro-Russian president in favor of seeking to align with the EU and NATO.  It removed itself from the Russian sphere of influence that Putin had been trying to reassemble after the demise of the Soviet Union. 

Putin’s Russia could not accept an increased NATO on its border, though it knew that the defensive alliance had no designs on its territory.  But a Western economy and values could seep across the border, undermining his autocratic rule and Putin’s hopes for a greater Russia. To reverse the westernization of Ukraine, exploited by Russia for centuries, it went to war.

Nobody counted on Ukraine’s ability to resist and the sham state of the Russian military.  A supposed easy military victory turned into a multi-year war costing hundreds of thousands of lives.  Russia became dependent on China, Iran and North Korea.  Ukraine became dependent on the U.S.

Across Europe, the Russian invasion was seen as a push to reassert Soviet-style regimes on the Continent.  Hungary, betraying the EU’s values, was a prime example of the risk.  Europe steadily increased its resolve and support for Ukraine, but kept looking over its shoulder for U.S. leadership.

The instinctive American reaction was to back Ukraine, the victim of a foreign invasion by a traditional U.S. adversary.  But Biden was unwilling to risk American boots on the ground, making a NATO response impossible, and worried about nuclear-armed Russia.  The best Russian weapon remained America’s overblown fear of it.

After seeing Ukraine’s resistance, Biden stepped up critical military support.  Weapons flowed, creating more armaments jobs in the U.S.  Ukraine resisted Russian advances.

Then came Trump.  Ignorant of Russia-Ukraine history, he saw peace there as a matter of trading real estate for silent guns.  But Ukraine land would be gone, while the guns could again begin firing.  He and JD Vance tried to browbeat Ukraine into going along.  Not only did they fail, but they succeeded in convincing Europe it had to step up its efforts.

Frustrated, Trump was repeatedly disappointed in trying to convince Putin that he could get him a good deal if he ended his aggression.  When brotherly conversation did not work, he moved to the threat of tougher sanctions and weapons sales to Europe, which could pass them on to Ukraine.  This, he thought, was what brought Putin to the Alaska talks.

Contrast the red carpet, hand-clapping greeting of Trump to the aggressive abuse of Ukraine’s Zelenskyy at the White House.  Trump conceded Ukraine territory and NATO membership before even arriving in Alaska.  That’s the art of the deal?

Giving Putin the Invader an image boost, he gained nothing.  It was a classic case of TACO – Trump Always Chickens Out.  Arriving back at home, the incredible, shrinking Trump dropped his repeated demand for an immediate ceasefire, allowing Russia to war on, just as it wished, and directly against Ukraine’s interests. 

He meets with Zelenskyy, perhaps even civilly.  But he must understand that, just like Russia, Ukraine has specific demands about territory and other matters like its captive children in Russia.  He sees that Europe now openly backs Ukraine with less reliance on the U.S.  A good American answer to Putin would be a major and immediate weapons supply for Ukraine.

The U.S. should also be willing to guarantee, along with Europe, a Ukraine-Russia accord, even though many will have questionable confidence in it, given Trump’s meandering on NATO’s Article 5, governing mutual defense.

European nations, too, can do more.  They can send their own currently home-based weapons to Ukraine now.  If they truly believe that the attack on Ukraine is an attack on them, they should regard Ukraine as their front line in a real war.

In the end, so long as Ukraine is willing and able to fight on, Trump won’t be the dealmaker.  He is obviously biased toward Putin, who obligingly affirms his assertion that Russia did not try to influence the 2016 election, and readily envisages peace as merely a matter of real estate.  Approving aggression, he gave away America’s world leadership in Anchorage.

The phony economics of Trump's trade policy

 Gordon L. Weil

“You can’t put lipstick on a pig.”   But you can try.

Trump’s petulant trade policy lacks any underlying economic theory.  He wants to eliminate the U.S. trade deficit no matter the cost or effects.  If imports cost more or new domestic production is more expensive, the price will be paid by American customers unless foreign suppliers swallow them. 

But a loyal member of the Trump administration is trying hard to make that brutal trade policy appear to have a rational economic basis.   U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer asserts that Trump wants to almost instantly replace the entire world trade system that has grown up since the end of the Second World War.

International commerce is based on a division of labor under which each country exports the products and services resulting from its economic strengths and buys the output of foreign production that best serves the needs of its people.  Competition sometimes exists, improving choice and increasing value.

Under the system that came to be managed by the World Trade Organization, tariffs were set at low levels and nations freed their trade with one another, treating each as its most favored partner.  Some nations benefit more than others from the low, reciprocal tariffs.  But most prosper from it.

The system has worked reasonably well and, more importantly, nations have become accustomed to it.  It has major problems, the result of historic change and attempts at manipulation by countries.  It needs reform, but Trump is throwing it out, because it has not given the U.S., the world’s largest economy, enough advantages.

One problem is that the manufacturing potential of developing countries has been hindered, limiting them to the sale of their raw materials.  The vestiges of colonialism have survived.

The other problem results from countries with state-run economies rather than open markets. The biggest mistake the U.S. made was to allow China to become a member of the WTO, enabling it to prey on free market countries by manipulating the value of its currency and exports.

Clearly, it’s time for the world’s trading partners to reform outmoded rules to deal with these and other issues.  The U.S. might have taken the lead in such reform, but it has refrained, because it has enjoyed the low cost of imports from China.

Greer says that, more than simply trying to enrich American industry at the expense of others, Trump intends to replace the relatively free flow of trade with something like a cut-throat unmanaged market.  U.S. nationalism is dressed up to look like a serious trade plan.

While his theory might be offered as a bold and original alternative to the WTO, it has in fact previously been tested, and it failed disastrously.  In 1930, the U.S. adopted high tariffs that Trump now tries to surpass.  They were meant to protect the U.S. from the Great Depression, but they stymied world trade and did not spur domestic industries. 

In two of the hardest hit countries, the Depression brought the New Deal in America and the Nazis in Germany.  High tariffs worsened the economic crisis worldwide.  Greer obviously hopes for better this time, but he ignores history.

Trump daily demonstrates that he has no carefully conceived economic strategy behind his tariffs.  Federal courts now consider whether his policy is even legal.  He uses emergency powers in a situation that may not qualify as an emergency.  And his haphazard application of tariffs is hardly a consistent response to an emergency. 

He uses tariffs as a political weapon, not an economic tool, raising them on Brazilian imports, because he dislikes its judicial system treatment of a former president.  He lifts tariffs on trade from India to pressure it to stop buying Russian oil.  He hits Canada hard, well, because it is still Canada.  Many of his actions are based on blatantly false data, but he persists.

He claims to be making deals. The art of the deal is that all participants believe they have benefitted.  He usually does not propose a satisfactory deal; instead, he makes other countries keep making offers, hoping to get Trump tariff reductions.  This is not dealmaking; it is bullying.

The proof that there is no coherent economic policy, despite Greer’s valiant effort, is the frequent adjustments that Trump makes day by day.  No specific level has an economic basis.   It is simply a matter of getting as much as you can now, ignoring longer term economic or political effects.  America loses allies, needed because trade is not the only challenge the U.S. faces.

When other countries hold firm or fight back or Trump realizes the degree to which the U.S. is dependent on certain of their exports, he may back down.  That’s called TACO – Trump always chickens out.  Is that real economic policy, Mr. Greer?

 

Epstein case shows how conspiracies work

  

Gordon L. Weil

The Epstein affair, with Trump supporters attacking him for supposedly blocking the release of the damaging client files of the convicted sex offender, reveals the nature of political conspiracy theories.

A conspiracy theory begins with a premise, built on what its creators believe is logical.  It’s a theory that lacks evidence and rests on belief.  It’s also contagious; people in the MAGA world who believe in one conspiracy theory likely believe in several others as well. 

Here’s how conspiracies can work.

1. Premise: People providing sexual favors keep client lists of their clients and possible prospects.

2. Epstein provided sexual favors to the rich and famous.  See the case of Britain’s Prince Andrew.

3. Therefore, Epstein had a client list that contained embarrassing information or worse on the rich and famous.

Only point 2 is based on evidence.   Even if it’s logical that Epstein would keep a list, there is no evidence of it.  People often believe others have done what they would do in the same situation.  “Everybody keeps a list,” they say, meaning, “I would keep a list.”

If there is a list, it logically contains names, which if revealed, would embarrass people. Once again, this is a matter of something that seems logical being accepted as fact.  It it’s logical, it must be true.

Now, the next phase of the conspiracy theory.

4. The Epstein list is not being made public.

5. Some politicians could disclose the list, but resist doing so.

6. It is logical that the reason that they refuse to make the list public is that it will embarrass them or their allies.

Here, point 4 might be accurate if there were a list, but in point 5, we assume that Democrat Joe Biden was involved in blocking disclosure, while having the legal right to make the list public.  We lack evidence for either of these beliefs, but they seem logical.  Point 6 also seems to be the logical result, though there’s no evidence.

Before moving to the next phase, the conspiracy thus far is based on what the creators believe are inescapable logic and reasonable assumptions.  If another person does not share these views, we can assume that it’s only logical that they are defending the bad guys.

This train of reasoning is widely distributed.  It fits neatly with the idea that bureaucrats¸ known as the deep state, are running the government.  Nobody elected them, but they can withhold the Epstein list.  They must be protecting government leaders who are content to let them run the country.

People who believe that the government is corrupt and unresponsive latch onto this reasoning, because it confirms their own opinions.  Withholding the Epstein list is part of a broader conspiracy, backed by the deep state, to use the government for their own nefarious purposes.

Now, the next phase.

7. Trump ran for president, but had no personal agenda.  He sought the support of constituencies seeking change who wanted to oust the incumbent administration.  He adopted the agendas of these people to build his core support.

8. The Epstein list conspiracy believers are an available constituency.

9. He absorbed the Epstein conspiracy people and pledged that, if they get him elected, he would find and make public the list they seek.

Final phase: it works. With their ardent support, he was elected.  Promoting the conspiracy has made him president. Conspiracies work so well, Trump uses them repeatedly: international trade is a plot against the U.S., the 2020 election was stolen, Joe Biden was a robot.  He moved on, expecting the Epstein people to focus approvingly on how he is changing the country

The conspiracy believers still expect him to uncover the truth that they assume exists.  They want him to focus on the Epstein list, as promised.  Trump’s backers believe that the Democrats could have released it, but risked embarrassment, so now they must pay.  

In office, Trump’s aides find no list.  Maybe Epstein kept it in his head or destroyed it or maybe we already know all there is to know.  But Trump had to tell loyal backers that the promised list does not exist, producing the badly timed death of a false promise.

The conspiracists are furious, claiming Trump did not keep his promise, an essential reason that they backed him.  Maybe they believe he cynically used Epstein to gain their support.  Or is he hiding something?  His solution: blame the Democrats.  For what?

A political conspiracy is not based on provable facts.  If the charges could be proved, there would be evidence, not a theory based on false logic and questionable assumptions.  Conspiracy theory is a lie.

Telling lies is like walking on a tight rope.  You can easily fall off.

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?

 

 

 

  

America's secret police and 'shadow' court

Gordon L. Weil

1. Lt. Columbo, one of the most famous television police officers, always identified himself and showed his credentials.  There’s a reason that police officers wear badges, so it was routine for him and almost all officers to identify themselves.

The purpose of the Constitution is to protect people from an overzealous government that might trample on their “inalienable rights.”  The badge identifies the police to a person who they approach and gives that person a means to take action against an abuse of their authority.  It can limit arbitrary police action and promote accountability.

But agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement show no identification, even wearing no insignia on their uniforms.  This American secret police wears face masks.  It is impossible to know if a person is being accosted by an authorized law enforcement agent or a thug.  ICE says they need to be protected from illegal immigrants.  Children?  University graduate students? People asking who they are and risking arrest for impeding them?

This looks remarkably like a policy that says a national emergency allows the government to ignore the Constitution.  That document is not meant only for use on sunny days; it’s meant for any day.

2. President Trump is hailed for getting NATO allies to agree to match the American spending of five percent of GDP on defense.  The U.S. is a continental nation, unlike all NATO members except Canada.  It must maintain a two-ocean defense plus a presence elsewhere.  That’s not true for Belgium or Spain.  Maybe one size does not fit all.

Besides, five percent, like so many other rules, is based on the number of fingers on the human hand.  When Spain says it can meet the alliance’s obligations applying to it, but at a lower cost, the NATO Secretary General, a total Trump fan, flatly says they can’t.  That raises the question if member countries even have specific military obligations to the alliance or just a budget commitment to keep Trump satisfied and on board.  Maybe we don’t have to see them, but we need evidence they exist.

3. Maine Sen. Susan Collins was one of only three GOP senators to vote against the One Big Beautiful Bill.  Her risk-taking deserves credit.

Some of her Maine critics allege that she takes on the president when she knows it won’t influence the outcome.  Did she know that Alaska’s Murkowski, normally her ally, would vote for the bill?

Collins is proud to chair the once-powerful Appropriations Committee, a post which requires her to show GOP loyalty.  But her committee was entirely bypassed by the OBBB.  It had no visible say on any appropriations in the bill; Collins was just another face in the Republican crowd.

North Carolina’s GOP Sen. Thom Tillis was so unhappy with Washington events, that he chose not to run next year for a third term.  Collins seems to be moving toward seeking a sixth term, more than any senator from Maine has ever had.  Her place in history might be better if she showed more independence and either chose not to run or accepted the risk of defeat.  Margaret Chase Smith is well remembered, but she lost her last race for the Senate.

4. Trump likes to count people like the leaders of Russia, China and North Vietnam as his friends.  Maybe he thinks that will flatter them.  Maybe he thinks that, in his select group of friends, he will be respected and get results.  For him, world politics is personal.

He may be missing out on history.  The other chiefs are not wheeling and dealing; they are pursuing centuries-old goals and relationships.  Trump simply does not have the educational background to know where they are coming from.  He does not get results as he might in a purely business deal.

Maybe the authoritarians think they can string him along so that they can pursue their ambitions without his interference?  We’ve heard of the “fog of war.”  How about their “fog of false friendship?”

5. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a select group of five Norwegians.  Often, the Prize reflects the idealism of Alfred Nobel or the political values of Norway.  For example, the 1935 Prize went to an imprisoned German journalist who had been critical of illegal Nazi rearmament.  And it doesn’t usually go to peace mediators, but rather to the parties that have agreed to make peace.  Negotiations are rewarded more often than surrenders after being bombed.

Trump has been nominated for the Prize by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for whom the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant to face charges of responsibility for war crimes.

Taking this all together, it’s doubtful Trump will be invited to Oslo in December.

6. A Supreme Court “shadow docket” decision just allowed Trump to reorganize the federal government and lay off thousands of workers until such time as the Court decides if what he has done was allowed by law.  By that time, Trump will have reshaped the government without congressional approval, in effect overriding its decisions.

Thus, what is served up as a procedural decision, overriding the detailed analysis by a district court without providing any substance, has the effect of a major ruling.  In the unlikely case that the Supreme Court were persuaded by the lower court’s ultimate ruling, its decision would amount to locking the barn door after the horse is stolen.

Either it should have taken the case, heard arguments, and made a reasoned decision or it should have left the temporary stay in place until the district court did its job.  That court could have been given a limited time to produce an appealable decision. Instead, the Supreme Court continued rubberstamping presidential actions without any sign of serious consideration.

The shadow docket – decisions without reasons – are a cause for public losing confidence in the Court.

Biden, if he had determined that he was retiring after one term, might have tried to restore some balance to the Court by “packing” it?  Instead, he was sure he would win, so did nothing to undermine what he thought was his popularity. 

U.S. under one-person rule

 

Gordon L. Weil

On July 4, 1776, a group of representatives of a new country they called the United States declared that all men (not only citizens or a subset of them) are equal and have the same human rights.  And it’s up to democratic governments to ensure these rights.  (Of course, “men” would come to mean “people.”)

Now, 249 years later, the United States obviously remains a work in progress. Some may believe it is reverting to the political system that existed before the Declaration was published.  Earlier, I compared the actions of President Trump to King George III, as listed in the Declaration of Independence. 

With the federal government under the control of Trump and Congress, which is entirely dominated by his supporters, only the judiciary, the third branch of the government, could give hope to doubters about the Republican regime.  But that looks to be a false hope.

Trump ordered that, despite express constitutional language and Supreme Court precedent, not all people born in the U.S. are citizens.  He wants to exclude children of illegal residents.  Asked to rule on Trump’s order, the Court avoided making a decision.  After a delay of 30 days, it left him the ability to strip people of their citizenship.

The Court failed to rule on birthright citizenship, and it may not issue a decision for many months, possibly even a year.  Instead, it focused on banning any U.S. district court from issuing a “universal injunction” that suspends an executive action nationwide, while the federal courts consider its legality.  Now, only the Supreme Court itself may issue such an injunction.

Such cases may take weeks or months to get to the Supreme Court and, meanwhile, the president can apply his edict.  People will be harmed, perhaps permanently.  Children will be born in the U.S. who may be stateless.  In some states, injunctions will remain, so there will be a patchwork instead of a single federal birthright standard.

The Court’s decision produced a scholarly study of universal injunctions in the 18th Century.  That does not sound political, though the result favored Trump.  When such injunctions were used against then-President Biden’s executive orders, the Court never gave them a second thought.

One door was left open for the federal district courts.  If a court certified a complaint as a class action – raising the same issue for people in the same situation as the plaintiff – then the court might issue a universal injunction.  Of course, a court’s approval of a class action would be challenged by the president, potentially adding to the delay before a final decision.

If all requests for a universal injunction in a major case must be decided by the Supreme Court, it could be quite busy.  Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion reassuringly said that the Court could handle its increased workload.  Interestingly, no other justices said they agreed with him.  Delays seem inevitable.

The Court was preoccupied by the injunction question.  It skipped the real focus of the case: can Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship be squared with the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent?  It dodged the question that demanded an answer.  The result was Trump’s unchecked view could apply in many parts of the country.

This week also brought the passage of a destructive and costly budget bill, ardently sought by Trump so he could congratulate himself on July Fourth.  He offered administrative concessions to wavering GOP House members and eked out barely enough votes to accompany the tie- breaking Senate vote of the Vice President.  He did it without a single Democratic vote.

Any civics lesson on government teaches about the three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. Today, all three are under the control or influence of one person.

Though public opinion polls are questionable, they broadly show that a majority of Americans do not agree with or even respect the three branches of their government.  By manipulating historic understandings about constitutional government, a minority has gained control.   That minority is trying to reshape the system to entrench itself.

The three branches act on behalf of the ultimate authority in the American government.  The Constitution’s first words name it – “We, the people.”

The United States is a democracy; the people rule.  Trump may believe that he can dazzle people with his showmanship, but the nation depends on their taking charge.  The key is participation and the time is now, as the 2026 elections come into view.

My long-time readers may recall I have a favorite saying from a cartoon character who reshaped an 1813 American battle report.  Pogo Possum proclaimed, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

If you don’t like what’s happening and do nothing, it’s your fault.

Happy Independence Day.

Big Beautiful Bill opponents: right thing for right reason

 

Gordon L. Weil

If you oppose him, it isn’t like swimming against the tide.  It’s like swimming against a tsunami.

The One Big Beautiful Bill, President’s Trumps hoped-for legislative triumph, will happen in some form.  He probably doesn’t care what form, so long as it happens.  If you get in his way, you may be drowned.

Two senators opposed the bill for the right reason.  It would deprive hundreds of thousands of people in both of their states of Medicaid, health care for people who otherwise cannot afford it.  Trump has promised to protect Medicaid, but the only way he could get the tax cuts he wanted had to come at its expense.

Thom Tillis, the Republican senator from North Carolina, could not accept that 663,000 people from his state would lose health care coverage.  Trump’s response was to attack him and threaten to have a MAGA candidate challenge him in the GOP primary next year.

Tillis stuck to his position and said he would not run for reelection.  His move might be interpreted as giving in to threats, but he made it clear that he was tired of the loss of bipartisanship in Congress.  He preferred to walk away from political extremism, just as had Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe.  There must be more to life than constant conflict.

That made Tillis’ decision the right thing to do and for the right reason.

He will leave after serving two terms in the Senate.  If time in government is meant to be public service rather than building a career in politics, his decision amounted to a self-imposed term limit. 

Susan Collins, Maine’s Republican senator, voted against the OBBB, mainly because of its harmful effect on 400,000 Maine people.  She tried to amend the bill to deal with the problem, but was soundly defeated with only a few poor states helping her.   After that, because she’s up for re-election next year, her vote in opposition was a good political move.

Trump had little chance of opposing Collins, so she could afford to take a stand against him. At 72, she should be retiring after five terms, but, unlike Tillis, she wants to stay.  Supporting him would have made her more vulnerable to a Democratic challenger.    

Tillis did the right thing for the right reason.  While hoping for a political reward, Collins also did the right thing.  Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, usually a Collins ally, was bought off by adding even more debt to the deal.

A word must be written about Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the third GOP senator to break with the president.  He opposes increasing the federal debt, which the OBBB not only did, but used dishonest accounting.  He stuck to principles closely identified with him and refused to be swept under by Trump’s tidal wave.  He showed integrity.

In the end, that’s what it boils down to.  The disastrous and dishonest OBBB, a jumble of conservative causes piling up more debt, led some members of Congress who could have resisted Trump and forced through a better bill to abandon their integrity.

Trump’s unchecked power ending ‘the normal balance’

 

Gordon L. Weil

The president of the United States announced that, facing a “national emergency,” he needed “broad Executive power,” departing from “the normal balance between the executive and legislative authority.”

“The people of the United States … have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action,” he said, asserting that they had picked him for task.

These words reflect the thinking of Donald Trump, though not his speaking style.  For good reason. These are the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt in his first inaugural address in 1933. 

Trump may have an influence on national and world events that we have not seen exercised by any one person since FDR.

Though their policies would be enormously different, both changed the nation and the world, overthrowing conventional wisdom and practice.  And both acted boldly and swiftly.

In three elections, Trump has never won a majority of the popular vote, while FDR gained big popular majorities in four elections.  FDR drew power from his big victories and good, if sometimes fractured, support from a Democratic Congress.  Trump draws his power from an intensely loyal Republican Congress and a claimed strong electoral mandate.

His power stems from his extraordinary public outreach and from a Supreme Court decision recognizing almost unlimited presidential powers.  Using the Court’s broad grant of powers, Trump has reshaped the American political system and international affairs.  Trump continually pushes to see if any limits remain on his power.

“To prove this, let facts be submitted.”

He has reduced the size of government, and has virtually eliminated entire agencies. Programs, like foreign aid and consumer credit protection, are almost gone, contrary to the law and without congressional approval.  In effect, he has established the dominant role of the president over the Congress.

He is ending independent regulation, in existence since the 19th Century, by revoking rules and firing regulators.  Courts have approved his departure from longstanding precedents and practices.

He has ignored constitutional due process protections applying to non-citizens so that a daily target of 3,000 expulsions of illegal foreign residents could become possible.  His agencies have uprooted peaceful and productive people, going well beyond his promise to deport criminals first. 

He has also imposed his values and beliefs without regard for traditions and the views of others.  His opposition to recognizing racism and to diversity in hiring and public speech, even in the private sector and universities, and his watering down of Civil War history has opened old wounds.

He has used his office for personal gain from his business interests to a greater extent than any other president.  In the process, he has modified the accepted standards controlling political corruption.

He uses tariffs as a readily available tool to force others to reduce their exports, promoting increased U.S. production.  Though excessive tariffs punish both the exporter and the importer, Trump believes the U.S. trade deficit results from other countries taking unfair advantage. 

He claims to raise tariffs in response to a national emergency, but his frequent and impulsive adjustments show they are a bargaining tool rather than a way to meet an existing crisis.  He has reshaped world trade, forcing other countries to replace U.S. ties with new relationships and to buttress their own self-sufficiency.

He has forced friendly countries to reduce their defense reliance on the U.S., sometimes demeaning them and their leaders.  At his urging, they increase both their military budgets and their independence from the U.S., eroding American influence.  The split between the U.S. and Europe in dealing with Russia’s war on Ukraine is a sign of future divergence.

He is also changing the role of the military.  Despite laws and traditions to the contrary, it has begun to take on law enforcement responsibilities.  This allows him to bypass state authority.

He has stunningly transformed the American system of government by exploiting popular sentiment that can be led to abandon policies and values of FDR’s New Deal and post-World War II liberalism.  In serving his ambition, his authoritarianism eats away at democracy.

He has ignored constitutional norms so that he may be creating a new originalism from which the country must restart its political evolution.  This effort must yet be tested by courts, subjected to the political process and influenced by other nations.

This list of his unchecked actions directly parallels the list of “usurpations” composing the indictment of the British king in the Declaration of Independence, whose 249th anniversary the nation is about to observe.

The Declaration was the voice of strong and united opposition to unlimited executive rule.  The new Americans took great risks, personal and political, to resist.  They compromised their differences to reach unity on a common goal.

Today, simply proclaiming “No Kings” is not enough.  On the Fourth of July, the Founders offered a bold and coherent alternative.  That’s what is missing now.

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.