Can Donald Trump Win a War with Iran If He Can’t Explain Why He Started It?
When the president, in his first public remarks on the military campaign, appeared at the White House on Monday, he said not a word about regime change, ambitious or otherwise, or even nodded to the courageous protesters he had so recently urged to rise up against their leaders. Nor did he address the consequences — from soaring oil prices to possible terrorist retaliations in the United States — that Americans can expect as the war unfolds. Nor did he mention America’s partner in the war, Israel, or the rapid spread of the conflict: Iran has already launched retaliatory strikes against Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, making this the largest war in the Middle East in decades.
But you wouldn’t have known it from Trump’s few boastful phrases. He provided no evidence other than a simple assertion that Iran posed an “intolerable threat” to the region and the American people. Nor has he explained why he launched this war without congressional authorization or a more forceful effort to win approval from the public, who, according to polls taken since the strikes began, are not supportive of Trump’s action. Perhaps most notable is that, as a politician who spent years promising his supporters “no new wars” and an end to the madness of endless U.S. military involvement in the Middle East quagmire, he didn’t even bother to address his epic about-face from war hater to warmonger.
He vowed, however, to remain intensely focused on defeating Iran for as long as it took, even if it turned out to be “much longer” than four to five weeks, which he said was the duration of the war. “I’m not bored,” he insisted. “There’s nothing boring about it.” Forty-six seconds later, he began talking about the “very, very beautiful” new White House ballroom he is building, which he says will be “the most beautiful ballroom in the world.”
If there has ever been a more politically tone-deaf pivot from an American president, I don’t think of one. In fact, until Trump came along, I’m pretty sure there was never a White House speech that moved from the somber issues of war and peace to our commander in chief’s brilliant interior design decisions. So far, six U.S. service members have died in this war, and Trump acknowledged there would “probably” be more. But what really seems to interest him is the color of the White House curtains.
There is, of course, some method to this madness. As Robert Satloff, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, pointed out to me Monday, Trump, by presenting a “Chinese menu of possible goals,” ranging from “everything from total regime change to eliminating the nuclear program and every variation in between,” leaves open the possibility of claiming victory no matter what. Ultimately, “it will be what Trump says in retrospect is the goal.”
The question of why Trump did this might be almost as difficult to answer as what he hopes to achieve. During his first term, Trump repeatedly considered the possibility of large-scale action against Iran but backed away, siding with his military advisers who advised caution, such as his first Defense Secretary, Jim Mattis, over his more hawkish aides, including National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who had long been advocates of a strike against Iran. “His risk tolerance was lower then,” recalls one of Trump’s top national security officials during his first term. “His idea was more about getting out of things rather than getting into them. »
