But there are times when we think we have a good reason to start a war but find ourselves bogged down long past the time our initial goals were achieved and have even seen the mission morph to the point that we have no idea what winning looks like. Afghanistan is a fresh example. We went into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban who had given sanctuary to Al Qaeda and allowed their country to be a haven for worldwide terrorism. We did that pretty quickly but ended up staying for twenty years, propping up corrupt leaders, fighting regional warlords whose loyalty shifted on a weekly basis. We paid the salaries of thousands of Afghan soldiers who didn't actually exist. We pulled out amid chaos and the result was that the Taliban were back in charge.
Trump campaigned on the promise of ending "forever wars". That was one of the few things where I agreed with him. But once he got back in the White House he started acting much more belligerent toward enemies (and allies). An argument can be made that not every use of the military is a war. I thought that he was justified in bombing the Houthis in Yemen when they were attacking shipping. I was less sanguine about his attacks on supposed terrorists in Syria, Nigeria, and Somalia. None of these were "war" in my opinion. He crossed a line with his abduction of a foreign head of state, Venezuelan President Maduro. He crossed a line with the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities in June 2025. But there's no question that what's happening in Iran is a war.
There's no question regarding whether or not Iran is a destabilizing force in the Middle East. They have funded militias in Yemen, Israel, Iraq, and Lebanon. They have brutally suppressed their own people. They are emphatically not the good guys. Degrading Iran's ability to support regional terrorism is a legitimate goal for our allies. Preventing them from developing a nuclear weapon is a valid objective as well. The problem with trying to achieve this with military might is that military might is insufficient. Military leaders and intelligence analysts have long known this. The Iranians don't fold that easily. Our aims needed to be reached with diplomacy, not bombs. Great idea! We should do that!
We did.
In cooperation with Russia, China, France, The United Kingdom, Germany and the European Union an agreement was reached that limited Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons and reduced or eliminated economic sanctions. It wasn't perfect, but it was working. Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the agreement and imposed maximum economic sanctions, complaining that the agreement was "weak". Iran immediately resumed its nuclear research and development and ramped up it's support of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others, especially after Israel's response to the October Seventh attacks resulted in devastation of the Gaza enclave. Trump created the problem that he was now vowing to solve.
One of the pillars of Trumpism is "America First". It's not something you can really argue with, despite it being a motto of the early Ku Klux Klan and mid 1900's Nazi sympathizers. Our leaders should put America first. Part of that would logically include strong relationships with our allies, both military and economic. Trump has made it clear that if we aren't making a buck from our alliances, then they are worthless. From imposing insane tariffs and insulting foreign leaders, he's made it clear that he doesn't value our alliances. Israel and the Gulf states are exceptions. The antisemites among us would propose some variation on "The Jews Run The World" to explain our alliance with Israel, throwing in a dollop of Epstein, George Soros, and whichever Rothchild is hanging around, to flesh out their conspiracy theory. Attempting to win the votes of American Jews, as well as the Evangelical Christians who believe that Armageddon is nigh, in addition to large checks from Israel-affiliated political action committees, is more likely. Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates and other rich Gulf States are also big contributors, not only to the Republican Party, but directly to the Trump family. Unlike Israel, they prefer that the United States do all their fighting. I'm not convinced that Trump is mesmerized by Netanyahu, or the World Jewish Cabal, but has acted on his invented competition with Obama.
Trump, who is proudly ignorant of how anything works, and won't listen to the people who do know how things work was convinced that we would bomb Iran, kill some of their top leaders, and they would meekly agree to all his demands. Iran hasn't surrendered yet, unconditionally or otherwise. Their military has been severally reduced but they're still attacking (until the recent ceasefire anyway) with drones and missiles. They still have all the means for constructing a nuclear weapon that they had two months ago. Their top tier of leaders have been killed, but new ones have replaced them. The Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the war, is open sporadically, with Iran charging tolls and the United States blockading it. What have we accomplished so far? Not much.
Trump doesn't understand the existence of true believers, of fanatics, and how they will stick to their beliefs no matter what. He has been dealing with politicians and businessmen in the United States who are transactional — they will alter their ideology when it benefits them financially or politically. His followers among the electorate will change their priorities whenever he changes his — look at how the Trump voters who were up in arms about inflation and gas prices in 2024 and were against foreign wars are now cheerleaders for the Iran War and think high prices are worth it. The Iranian ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guard generals are true believers. They are religious zealots and Iranian patriots who will not give in to American demands. They would rather rule from the rubble than bow down to America. They will, however, negotiate. They have done so in the past, but they will not be bullied.
Trump has never understood diplomacy. In his world view, a negotiation is a discussion wherein the other party simply accedes to his demands. The concept of win-win, or anything other than a zero sum scenario is foreign to him. Consensus and compromise is for losers in Trump's world. His so-called negotiations prior to the attack on Iran were his usual clumsy ultimatums. Iran's refusal to acquiesce was his casus belli. Diplomatic negotiations should be conducted by diplomats, people who are trained as negotiators, who know what they're doing, and realize that compromise is often the best you're going to get. Trump, on the other hand has sent in a real estate guy, his son-in-law, and JD Vance (or whatever his name is). None of these guys knows what they're doing other than repeating Trump's ultimatums.
But what is he trying to do? Is it regime change? Is it obliteration of their nuclear facilities? (re-obliteration?) Is it degradation of their military? Is it opening the Strait of Hormuz, which already was open before the war? Who knows? Trump apparently doesn't, since his rationale has changed more often than I change my socks. His kaleidoscopic objective shifting isn't helped by his minions, who give conflicting information, all the while bellowing Holy War rhetoric, including pseudo-Biblical quotes from Pulp Fiction. Oh yeah, and the Pope is weak on crime.
The Constitutional requirement that it be Congress who declares war has been weakening for generations. Presidents before Trump have made use of the military without a declaration of war. But now, even the War Powers Act, which allows the president to conduct military operations for up to 60 days before getting permission from Congress has been sidestepped. They were calling it anything other than a war, unless Trump slipped up and called it a war. It was a war, but now it's over and the blockading of the Strait of Hormuz is a new operation. The ceasefire "paused the clock". And is it a ceasefire if we and the Iranians are still shooting at each other?
Meanwhile, the president who promised to stop inflation and lower prices on "Day One", who vowed to cut energy costs in half (also on Day One) has made matters worse, while mocking "affordability" as "bullshit".
No comments:
Post a Comment