In Iran, Donald Trump is making history
Too bad he has so little appreciation for its lessons
Go ahead, you long-suffering critic of Donald Trump, and name the hypocrisy that most infuriates you.
Yes, Mr Trump once warned that Barack Obama would attack Iran because of “his inability to negotiate properly”.
Yes, as recently as last May Mr Trump derided “interventionalists” for “intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves”.
And, granted, there’s all that recent “president of peace” hooey.
While you’re getting that off your chest, you might also describe how he has tied himself in knots while unspooling his many rationales for waging war together with Israel on Iran.
How can he fear a nuclear programme he “obliterated” a few months back?
How can he warn that Iran might soon rain intercontinental ballistic missiles on America when the Defence Intelligence Agency has said such weapons were ten years away, provided Iran actually decided to build them?
And can this really be the same Donald Trump who used to ridicule the regime-changing, democracy-building visions of “neocons”—and now tells the Washington Post, “All I want is freedom for the people”?
It is the same Mr Trump, so steel yourself.
While you can await contortions from lesser America Firsters, such as poor J.D. Vance, do not expect Mr Trump to bother trying to reconcile present practice with past positions.
He has always been the most opportunistic of men.
He did not become a crypto billionaire by hewing to his public contempt for cryptocurrencies as scams “built on thin air”, just as he did not achieve his astounding political comeback, after trying to thwart the transfer of power in 2021, by following any rule book or, indeed, adhering to any principle—no principle, that is, beyond winning, as he defined it.
Consider, critic, that this war on Iran may succeed.
Maybe Mr Trump will end its nuclear threat for ever, eliminate America’s most vicious adversary, even set Iranians free at last.
What will you say then?
Probably that you do not mind what he did, just the way he did it.
That is usually the last redoubt of the process-driven and the timid, also known as Democrats.
Fear not: chances are the war will leave a mess.
But that only sharpens the question of why Mr Trump would risk sending American forces back into combat in the Middle East.
First, Mr Trump is acting, as in Venezuela, not because the adversary is strong—bristling with ballistic missiles and tingling with enriched uranium—but because it is weak.
(Cuba: take note.)
Since the Hamas attack of October 7th 2023, Israel’s fearsome campaign against Iran’s proxies has vitiated its capacity to sow mayhem in the region.
The Israeli and American strikes last year degraded Iran’s own defences.
Against that backdrop, Mr Trump saw a chance of a swift knockout.
The president is also acting because he has learned from his first term.
Then, he dithered.
Insisting he could make a deal “in a day”, he dispatched one emissary after another to negotiate, fruitlessly.
He ordered a reprisal strike, then cancelled it at the last minute for fear of Iranian casualties.
His chief advisers were divided.
Mr Trump’s four-year interregnum gave him time to brood, plan and accumulate acolytes.
This time, for better or, probably, for worse, he is certain of his judgment, and his aides do not argue back.
Rather than keep negotiating, he appears to have concluded he could not reach a better deal than one Mr Obama achieved—and which Mr Trump recklessly abandoned in his first term.
Mr Trump is acting, as well, because of ways in which he has not changed.
His worldview was forged in the 1970s, years of oil shocks, inflation and humiliation when Iranian revolutionaries stormed the embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage.
Mr Trump cited that episode in announcing his air war on February 28th.
In an interview in 1980, he called the hostage-taking “a horror”; he said America should have invaded Iran and made itself “oil-rich”.
Years later he would say America should have kept Iraq’s oil and Syria’s oil after sending troops to those countries; he has now secured some of Venezuela’s oil.
By contrast, his silence about Iran’s oil, despite his many other rationales for this war, has been conspicuous.
One might almost suspect someone persuaded him to shut up about it.
It would break an old pattern if he did not hope for an eventual drop in the price of oil and even enhanced American leverage over global supply.
The orange and the grey
Last, Mr Trump is an old man in a hurry.
He has been worrying publicly not only over how a Democratic wave in the coming midterms might constrain his administration, but also over whether he will make it to heaven.
He is transforming the White House, planning a giant arch in Washington and renaming institutions after himself.
Just as he capriciously levied tariffs on adversary and ally alike, extracting short-term benefits without regard for long-term damage to America’s alliances and global standing, he is flouting international law and norms to make his mark, asserting American might in its interests as he sees them.
He is resurrecting the idea of America as the global policeman, while also appointing himself sole judge and executioner.
One can respect Mr Trump’s audacity in identifying ossified problems, whether government inefficiency, overregulation, or the Iranian regime, while lamenting his lack of strategy and follow-through.
After attacking Iran, the president mused publicly over what his end-game might turn out to be.
Maybe he would “take over the whole thing”, he told Axios, or just stop fighting and attack again if necessary.
He is a most consequential president, to be sure, but, beyond his next glorious victory in tomorrow’s fight, he is strangely lacking interest in what the consequences might ultimately be.
Mr Trump has made himself a world-historical figure, yet with no appreciation for history’s tragic lessons.
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario