Well, the long-dreaded moment has finally arrived. We have a deadly foreign policy crisis, with Donald Trump – of all people – at the helm.
The grifter who couldn’t successfully run a casino or an airline or a steak business is now supposedly qualified to make life-or-death decisions with potentially global repercussions. Forgive me for feeling less than bullish that all will be well.
It was inevitable, of course, that Trump at some point would take us to the cusp of war (or beyond) in order to distract attention from his serial corruption. Perhaps it’s just a miraculous fluke of timing that he has radically escalated hostilities with Iran on the very eve of his Senate impeachment trial, in the same week that his impeachable offenses have been buttressed by devastating new evidence. But if you buy that, I have a case of Trump vodka for you.
More likely, you’re familiar with the term wag the dog, which refers to presidents who seek to steer attention away from scandal, often through military action. Granted, Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, was a very bad guy. But how confident do you feel that Trump, who ordered the hit, has prudently gamed out the potential consequences?
And if indeed it turns out that Trump poured gasoline on the inflamed Middle East, how long it will take for his GOP toadies to declare that this is no time for our warrior-in-chief to be put on trial in the U.S. Senate?
Trump has suddenly yanked us onto a war footing without any congressional debate or authorization, without any apparent effort to enlist global allies (a high bar, since most allies detest him and dismiss him as a laughingstock), without any U.N. or NATO support, without any effort at building public support (beyond his acolyte base, which will support anything), without any urgent address to the nation. The latter would be waste of time anyway, given his dearth of credibility.
His secretary of state (who needs to testify in Trump’s impeachment trial), claimed on CNN this morning that Soleimani was whacked because he was planning “imminent” attacks on Americans abroad, and perhaps that’s true. But given Trump’s serial fakery – more than 15,000 false or misleading claims, at least count – and his feral instinct to say or do anything to advance his sole interest (himself), why should we believe anything that he or his minions say? That was always going to be a major problem, if or when the moment of deadly crisis finally arrived.
Speaking of credibility: Not so long ago, we were forced to endure an administration that sucked us into war in Iraq based on phony claims of an “imminent threat” from non-existent “weapons of mass destruction.” Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but he was also a fervent foe of Iran. George W. Bush’s falsehood-driven war toppled him from power – and wound up strengthening Iran’s influence in Iraq and the region. Any American tempted to march with Trump needs to know that disastrous recent history. And any American tempted to march with Trump needs to understand that his withdrawal from President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal has trashed the framework that at least managed and contained American-Iranian tensions.
But Trump’s followers can’t connect any of those dots; their knowledge of foreign policy nuance is even lower than his. They’re simply happy that he kicked some ass – how dare the Democrats impeach and seek to remove such a person! – and they don’t have a clue about the ripple effects. As Julia Ioffe, the prominent Russian-born American journalist, tweeted last night, “Everyone’s asking if the U.S. government has a plan (for what happens next with Iran). Trump has spent the last 3 years hollowing out our diplomatic corps, undermining military commanders, and denigrating intelligence agencies. His supporters like it. They believe he was sent by god. They don’t need him to have a plan.”
They’re the only constituency that Trump cares about, and, fortunately for him, they won’t bother to scroll back to his old tweets. Here are three gems, from Trump’s heyday as a beauty pageant maestro:
Nov. 11, 2011: “In order to get (re-)elected, Obama will start a war with Iran.”
Sept. 16, 2013: “I predict that at some point President Obama will attack Iran in order to save face!”
Nov. 10, 2013: “Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly – not skilled!”
Remember those tweets, while the impeached president on the eve of trial wields his weapons of mass distraction.
—
Public service announcement!
Tomorrow, I’m launching a new feature on this site – a Saturday guest column, to be authored by former colleague Chris Satullo. Many of you may be familiar with his fine work. Chris was a longtime editorial page editor and columnist at The Philadelphia Inquirer (where we worked together) and the vice president of news and civic dialogue at WHYY, the Philadelphia public media outlet (where we worked together). I could describe his point of view as more centrist than mine, but that’s probably too facile. Suffice it to say that his voice and angle of approach are different than mine, and that his contributions will broaden the parameters of opinion on National Interest. So please click on him tomorrow, and you’ll see how.