Foreign policy made simple: he backs the Saudis because they are really really rich and grateful, he backs Israel because the Jerusalem stunt was really dramatic, he disses our allies because he backs Russia, because they own him.
Really.
38
"...it’s still worth saying clearly that it would be a terrible idea for the United States to enter into a serious armed conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran."
That's almost exactly what I said about Vietnam and Iraq, but nobody listened. Clearly, parts of this nation's population is not immune to terrible ideas -- there always seems to be a domestic market.
39
Broad based objective analysis -nuanced thinking and general competence are bridges way to far for trump and his defective alpha male boot lickers.
" Make America Shallow Again" -That's trumpism
16
What is "Trump's Grand Strategy" in the subheading of the article?
It is almost always better to avoid war, if possible, but Mr. Douthat's title of the article reads like written by a supporter, and for the eyes, of what the French press calls Islamo-Leftist intellectuals.
So far I believed that most of the NYT readers were New York WASPish-Judaic leftist Democrats, worshiping the Golden Calf, while disguised in the fur of friends of the underprivileged.
4
Two thoughts:
(1) You speak of our President's "grand strategy." Aware (as you are) that Mr. Trump's "plans" are a bizarre tangle of whims and impulses.
Well sir--don't forget a chance remark dropped in the latest Economist. To the effect that Mr. Trump's "foreign policy" is a string of moves meant to bring that base of his leaping to their feet, cheering and applauding wildly.
Grand strategy? Overarching purpose? Is that all one word? Two? Four?
I have no hopes for any "grand strategy" Mr. Trump might devise for anything on earth.
(2) This man, Mr. Bolton. Does he remind you of anybody?
He reminds me of German diplomats and politicos during those long fraught years leading up to World War I. You know the drill.
Might makes right. God is on the side of heavy artillery. We've got an enormous, well-trained, well-equipped army--
--ergo, we have everything. What else would a country need?
Recognize Mr. Bolton in all this? All the big talk. The man's mind crowded with images of planes and bombers and warships and aircraft carriers and--
--no, Mr. Bolton. It ISN'T enough for a country.
It wasn't enough for the German Empire in 1914.
It isn't enough for the United States of America in 2019.
Humility, Mr. Bolton. It never hurts. Try it someday. You might like it.
So would we. So would everyone.
34
Our "Sunni allies" consist of a handful of dictators who would murder us all if they could, but for now find us useful. The majority of Sunnis hate us at least as much as the Iranian state. And Israel steadily moves toward being a normal middle eastern theocratic dictatorship.
29
The only problem with this Douthat theory on Trump's "grand strategy" is that it is not his strategy in north Korea, where that strategy can be summed up as "trust, but do not verify."
Also, can it be called a strategy when it is subject to events out of his control?
And I guess if you work in the MSM you must now toe the Trump line that chaos is a strategy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-risks-credibility-with-policy-that-veers-between-threats-and-inaction/2019/05/17/e6585d56-77fa-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.ed0de88e04e6
Mr Douhat: In what way is Trump practicing a "Realpolitik" that protects America's national interests when he (a) enables the agendas of Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and Mohammed bin-bone saw, while he (b) gratuitously alienates our historic friends and allies and (c) undermines NATO and other agreements that have preserved America's fundamental national interest in a stable world ? There is no coherent strategy or vision, just chaos. The Mad King is systematically undermining America's position in the world and our national interests.
24
There is no grand strategy. The strategy is to stay out of jail. As for who to fight, it doesn't matter because the wars are not about accomplishing some foreign policy goal, they are for feeding donors the money they paid the politicians for. So, sure, go to war with Iran.
13
After reading through many of these comments, there appears to be no rebuke of Douthat's casual dismissal of Obama's agreement with the Iranians. It was a good agreement and it was working. It was only one step, but a good one upon which more progress was possible.
Then the oaf in the white house singlehandedly abrogated it. If war begins, it will be our fault, not theirs.
26
@Paul
The reason there is no rebuke of Douthat's dismissal of Obama's Iran agreement is liberals do not believe in adopting the conservative tactic of fighting back, so they capitulate on the claims and compromise on the facts.
8
Let's be realistic.
First, Trump will never embrace Douthat's "back your friends" realpolitik. For one thing, he has no friends. He may smooch up to Putin, Kim, and other dictators but they will never consider him a friend, just a fool. And, Trump enjoys sticking his fingers in the eyes of our allies (NATO frequently, Britain over Brexit, numerous nasty trade actions, etc).
Second, fools who don't want wars have often caused them. World War I is an excellent example - Germany, France, Great Britain, and Russia all wanted brinksmanship, not (heaven forfend) a war. And history is replete with examples of countries which were intent on avoiding a two front war (eg Germany, more than once) yet stumbled into one anyway.
11
Yes war with Iran like so many wars before would not get us to the Promised Land, it never has so why fight it?
War with Iran is a war of choice, a war of choice not necessarily for the President but for Bolton Pompeo, Netanyahu and Mohammad Ben Salman. US have fought many wars for others, we have spent our blood sweat and tears for Israel many a times. Lastly was in Iraq and we all know how it turned out with so called slam dunk intelligence.
If Netanyahu and/or MBS is so gung-ho in going to war with Iran let them do it with their blood sweat and tears.
The maniacs in Iran are also not eager to fight as it is a very old civilization and have gone through many a transitions in their form of government. They feel history is on their side.
Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, regardless of their faith they all are Iranians/Persians first- they are nationalistic in nature; and according to Prof Levy of Tel Aviv University they are the only Nation State in that part of the world. If history is any guide a war would Iran would be very costly for us both in terms of lives and budget. The unforeseen domino effects that it would generate would be something we cannot fathom. Israel and Saudis would certainly move away (if they could) and we would be left holding the proverbial bag.
I am hopeful that in this case the US Congress would resist the pressure of the Israelis and help Trump resist Bolton, Bibi, Ben Salman, and others and avoid this impending catastrophe.
15
There won't be a war. Trump does not have the intestinal fortitude for any type of real conflict.
2
Trump absolutely HAS to fight Iran. It's the only way out for him. And the war with Iran WILL happen. That's a promise.
2
Of course Trump doesn't want war with Iran: he only wants the threat of war with Iran.
5
There are so many alternatives to rote memory type of hostile rhetoric and sanctions against Iran. (l) Recognize that Hezbollah in Lebanon was formed after the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon displaced 200,000 Shia of South Lebanon, and that Iran’s small influence in Iraq and Syria does not justify battering ram to a barn door type action. (2) Diminish risks by forming a Joint Iranian-U. S. Security Commission for the Persian Gulf. (3) Open talks limited to
airing grievances….and so much more.
9
Israel has wanted to strike Iran for decades and Bibi found Trump willing to do his dirty work. The Ultra-Orthodox in New York will sit back in the safety and comfort of the U.S. while American citizens do the fighting for them. We need to revoke the dual citizenship program with Israel and offer them a choice: Remain here and get vaccinated or return to your promised land. You can no longer have both!
15
Here is the skinny: The Obama Administration made a determination that Iran getting a nuclear capability was inevitable and that the best way forward was to make friends with them ("detente") and cooperate with them. Trump and company have come to a different conclusion: we'll bomb them if we have to, but we are not going to allow them to have a nuclear capability. I don't know why but none of the pundits will come out and say this...
5
"Sometimes it’s important to write a column about something you’re pretty sure isn’t going to happen."
To which I reply, tune back in, in six to twelve months. The fact is, if Donald Trump believes his power is being threatened, he will wage a war with Iran in a heartbeat.
In the next year, we will see continuing investigations by the House that will continue to uncover Trump's criminal conduct.
But this is not what will be Trump's undoing, as he understands Congressional cowardice quite well. And he has five toadies on the Supreme Court who will shield him from House subpoenas.
So what will bring him down? His disastrous trade war with China will continue to hurt middle class Americans. And the fact that Joe Biden is polling incredibly well against Trump terrifies him.
Regardless of Trump's rabid voters, the majority of Americans are now tiring of seeing Trump tear down this once fine nation, tiring of seeing him destroy all of our international alliances, tiring of having our nation viewed as a laughing stock.
But understand this. Trump will leave office only at a time of his choosing, election or no. And he understands that starting a war with Iran shortly before November 2020 may well help him win re-election.
3
@DB Cooper
" And he understands that starting a war with Iran shortly before November 2020 may well help him win re-election."
Trump will win e-election on immigration. Too many liberals like me are tired of paying for, "undocumented immigrant workers." The myth that they, "do the jobs Americans don't want," needs to be tested.. Deport all of them and let's see what happens!
1
Iran is not a threat.
Russia is a threat.
Report those who want to reverse the narrative.
Now.
2
@Naples Right Mr. Ummm, McCarthy I believe?
Trump is totally incapable of a grand strategy of any sort. He does not possess even a small fraction of the mental competence necessary.
7
Like a bulldozer poised on the edge of a cliff, brinkmanship requires both great nerve and competence, to avoid it tipping over the edge. Put a child at the controls...
2
You forgot to mention that war kills lots of innocent people. Iranian citizens are human beings just like the rest of us. They don't deserve this madness.
13
I have never understood the psychology behind “regime change.”
Sanctions resulting in the wrecking of another country’s economy and /or starving its people always seems to start with alienating the same folks we are trying to recruit to carry out our plans.
Moreover, expecting “democracy” to be embraced and carried forward by people who have essentially no concept of all the institutions a functioning democracy demands is ludicrous. What they get is chaos and crime . Remember Russia? Iraq? Most of Africa?
I wonder how we would act if, say China, managed to take control of our country and forced us to accept their systems of thought and coercion after destroying most of our infrastructure judicial and financial systems.
7
Iran fought a savage four-year war with Iraq and was not reluctant to send schoolboys into minefields. They have a standing Army skilled in asymmetric warfare. We have a carrier that will be promptly sent to the bottom of the Strait of Hormuz by ship-to-ship missiles.
Bet on it, any war beyond 90 days will require a new draft. This may be one of the few positive unintended consequences of the Iran War: the kiddies on campus will finally have something real to complain about.
6
The campaign against Iran seems to be another instance of the Trump administration being puppets of the Saudis. They would love a US-Iran war because it would eliminate their biggest regional rival and eliminate any possibility of US pressure to change the Saudi power structure.
So, to please the country that gave us oil crises and Al Quaeda, the Trump administration is willing to risk America's standing by attacking and occupying a country with a population of over 80 million.
4
The solution is to dump Bolton. Trump voters aren't losing sleep over Iran, and Pompeo who is a little more sophisticated, can do the threat of war talk perpetuating the myth that Democrats don't care about terrorism. Besides, Bolton can continue his crusade for war(s) at Fox News. Everybody wins.
21
@JR Dumping John Bolton would be a very useful step, but it begs the question, "With whom would the president replace Bolton? " His equally culpable advocates of the Iraq War, men like Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, Douglas Feith, and, yes, Dick Cheney, would be equally dangerous. So would Senator Tom Cotton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Maybe somebody like Richard Haas.
1
@JR
Wrong! The solution is to dump Trump
2
I don't understand why the Iranians are so hostile to us. Just because we overthrew their democratically elected government in the last century, and just because we shot down a civilian airliner, and just because we have them surrounded by our military bases, why are they so edgy? Unhinge, guys. We are here to help you.
31
@Hector First and foremost, they hate us because the US backed Saddam Hussein in the horrific war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980's. Iran had a half-million casualties in this war. Every town in Iran has a large billboard with grainy photographs of that town's dead soldiers. Every family lost a son. And during this war, the US was providing critical intelligence to Iraq that Iraq had no way of obtaining by itself -- among other things, photos taken from satellites showing the location of the Iranian troops. That's why the Iranians hate us. The saddest thing of all is that almost nobody in the US even remembers this.
17
"In the past I have argued that there is a certain coherence to the Trump foreign policy".
Mr. Douthat is not foreign policy expert so why the policy advice?
The US has no business trying to spread democracy across the world since it hasn't been one for years with voter suppression, the GOP's suppression of the vote, McConnell making up rules as he goes in the Senate and an AG who is corrupt not to mention the Electoral College. We have had constant war somewhere in the World for 18 years wasting trillions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives.
21
@Jacquie: once again, George Orwell got it right in "1984". Certain governments always need a war, and it does not matter with whom. Just something to convince the sheeple that they have your back, and hang the expense, when in fact the only back they have is their own. I can't believe that this stale trick has been working for 18 years, but there you have it.
4
Let's tell it like it is. Trump and his insane "America First" obsessions is a disaster. May it be only short term. The repudiation of the Iran Deal (aimed at ensuring an Iran without nuclear weapons) and the Paris Accords (aimed at the survival of the planet) are both disastrous decisions. The sooner we can vote Trump and similar-thinking Republicans out, the sooner we can try to retake the leadership role that the world is relying on us to assume.
16
@C.L.S. -- It isn't enough to vote out. We must vote in something that is good leadership, leadership toward the America we want to build. That is not a return to 2008 or 2000, the neoliberal consensus inside the DC Bubble.
13
The argument against war with Iran, at least the argument based upon history and reason, is irrefutable. Unfortunately our Commander-in Chief is ignorant of history and immune to reason. He is also volatile, often very angry, and plainly not mentally stable. The characteristics which make Trump a deadly risk to be controlling the nuclear codes also mean that we can have no confidence about what he is capable of, no matter how disadvantageous or simply crazy.
15
If Saudi Arabia and Israel see Iran as an existential threat and want to go to war with Iran, let them do so risking the lives of their own soldiers. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel claim that Iran represents a mortal threat to their countries, so they should be at the front lines in defending their countries from Iran.
Israel says that Hamas (group they nurtured from 1967 to mid-1980’s as counterweight to PLO) and Hezbollah (group that was created after Israel’s 1982 invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon to drive PLO out of southern Lebanon, when Lebanese Shi’a first welcomed Israel as liberators from PLO menace and then turned against Israel after brutal occupation) are mortal terrorist threat to Israel (Israel is right to say so). So why doesn’t Israel ever defeat them? In 2006 Israel Lebanon War, tens of thousands of Israeli troops refused to, were too scared to, engage few hundred Hezbollah fighters. Israel will not only not fight Iran, Israel is scared to fight Hezbollah. Repeated wars and military engagement in Gaza leads to thousands of Palestinian civilians dying, but Hamas stays in power and keeps firing rockets at Israel. Israel is a vaunted military power? And we give $4 billion/year military assistance to Israel, one of the richest countries in the world by GDP per capita.
Saudi Arabia is a complete military joke - killing Yemeni civilians and unable to defeat Houthis in neighboring Yemen. While Saudi Wahhabism is ideological foundation for Al Qaeda and ISIS.
20
@MC -- THANK YOU!
Yours is the best, most enlightened comment I've read in months.
3
Perhaps the answer is the obvious one staring the author in the face, but he can't reach it out of bias. We should never have left the nuclear deal in the first place.
Iran with no nukes can be deterred conventionally by our regional allies. Leaving the deal has achieved nothing, and was a strategic blunder driven by partisan rage. There is literally no achievement of Obama's that Republicans can let stand. Fox news will whip them into a frenzy of wrathful ignorance and our country will be the lesser for it.
18
How would we fight a War with Iran? It is as big as Alaska. There are 60 million of them. We would be without allies willing to put serious numbers of troops in the field. We do not have. A base from which we could attack across gather border. Iran has large numbers of cruise missles it could use to attack and sink assault ships like the Iwo Jima.
In short, it is entirely possible that an operation against Iran would fail.
6
@Lefthalfbach -- The current estimate for Iran is 106,676,000 by next year. That is roughly 1/3 of the entire US population. It is about as big as Britain and France put together. http://www.populstat.info/
The US government puts Iran's land area at 1,531,595 sq km, all mountains and plateau in a nest of mountains. There is a reason Rome failed to conquer them on multiple tries. That is roughly four times (4x) the size of the whole American Northeast.
It's big. It is complex terrain. It is industrialized. It makes its own weapons, and for example has made a million cars per year. It is oil rich, and also rich in metals and other natural resources. It was in the forefront of civilization into the Bronze Age and then the Iron Age, because it then already had resources and the ability to use them.
Remember the threat of world conquest come to Greece in Ancient times? That was Iran. They were those Persians.
The world's oil supply flows for a couple hundred miles within sight of Iran's coastal mountains, and those mountains the US says are lined with anti-ship missiles fortified in caves. If the US has its own oil, the rest of the world doesn't.
This is not Iraq nor Afghanistan.
8
As soon as Bolton and Pompeo were brought into Trumpworld, it seemed clear to me that war with Iran was being planned.
Why?
Ever hear of "wag the dog?
Nov 2020 is coming. Trump knows that he is probably not going to be able to stop the various the various state AGs, including NY, VA and DC from indicting him as soon as he leaves office.
Therefore, he will do anything, that is anything whatsoever, including whipping up a frenzy in this country against Iran.
His non-discerning followers will believe him as he then holds rallies around the country to gin up support as he tells them that America is somehow under threat from Iran.
And, if he takes us to the brink and is (possibly) stopped by Congress which will refuse him the funds, he will still spin this artificial crisis in his direction.
It's all about Nov 2020 and protecting his own hide.
14
You really do have to ask this pundit: how in the world did he convince himself that he knows enough about the region to offer foreign policy advice -- and with all the assurance of an exasperated soccer dad yelling instructions at his daughter's middle-school coach?
Is Douthat a respected historian and prophet, proven right where others were wrong? Is he a specialist, moving effortlessly through these many cultures and reading fluently from the original sources? Is his record redeemed by actual events?
If only running the world was as easy and free of consequence as writing for this page.
13
No one can predict what Trump will do. If impeachment becomes imminent, there's a risk that T will choose to attack Iran to distract voters' attention. We should be fearful. He often perversely does the opposite of what is advised. Playing the role of commander in chief is alluring. He is probably being fitted in advance of the 4th of July parade and gala for a uniform that will be embellished with gold braid and buttons and fancy ribbons and medals. We should be fearful! His ego, perversity, impulsivity, Pompeo and Bolton and his Saudi and Israel friends can easily trip Trump into declaring war. Wake up voters and legislators! Our Commander in Chief is mentally unbalanced. We need to stop him now before it's too late!
11
Just curious, since you position yourself as a "hawk": what branch of service were YOU in?
11
@Fast Marty
If they ever have a war
Without blood or gore
[He]'ll be the first to go!
2
"Whenever possible, one war [sic] a time"
Ross sounds like Brooks today, jumbled narrative that says confusing things about something, that the author erroneously believes people want to read. Ross clearly fancies himself the scholar.
Perhaps writing about the gibberish presidency of the traitor causes this malaise, but Ross usually produces birdcage material anyway.
12
Is the primary driver of war talk Bolton reprising Iraq by claiming secret intelligence that few else can verify? Perhaps an interesting angle for a future article by a writer like Mr Douthat.
4
I could be wrong, but i don't think the columnist writes the title or subtitle.
I don't know if this was intentional, but the writer of this definitely has a sense of humor:
"How a war in the Middle East would Wreck Trump's Grand Strategy."
Putting the word "Trump" in proximity of "Grand Strategy" puts the moron back into oxymoronic.
17
I agree with this, except for the part about backing our Sunni and Israeli allies. We are backing our Sunni allies as they commit genocide in Yemen. We back Israeli apartheid. I don’t think we should be doing either. We can pull the plug on the Saudi war in Yemen. I don’t know what tge US government can do about Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, but there is no reason why we should support it.
6
@Donald Sunni allies like al Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram. Yeah.
2
Saying Trump has a "grand strategy" is obviously a joke, right? The bloviating buffoon in the White House never had a strategy other than turning what he thought would be a failed presidential bid into a grand infomercial for his brand. To his surprise, he found enough MAGA-hatted morons to vote him into office where he set about dismantling Obama's legacy in revenge for that humiliating White House Correspondents dinner where he was teased about his birtherism. Having torn up every treaty, trade pact and policy enacted by his predecessor, Trump now serves as a useful idiot for Russia's Putin, China's Xi, North Korea's Kim, Israel's Netanyahu, the Federalist Society, neocons like Bolton and Pompeo, hard-right evangelicals and anti-abortionists. He may start a war with Iran just because he thinks it will make him look strong and thus re-electable, unaware of the fact that it will be long, bloody, disastrous for both sides and play right into the hands of our enemies, as he has done so many times before.
11
"So he should return to that campaign-season wisdom, and to the maxim it suggested: Whenever possible, one war a time."
If Trump is wanting to avoid war with Iran, why did he bring super hawk John Bolton into his administration?
5
I haven't read a word of the article itself yet, but the title says it all and I wholeheartedly agree.
Nice for Ross to write a reasonable piece on why we shouldn't get into yet another Middle Eastern war—this time with a country that is near to having nukes.
However, it's all useless as long as we have a president who acts out of impulse and has no tactics except bullying and insulting.
Save your breath on reasoning, Ross. Call out the members of your party who don't even seem to have the reading comprehension skills to absorb the Mueller report.
That's the only way to make sure the US acts with common sense.
2
Asian wars generate profits for our military-industrial-complex.
I am unaware of their accomplishing anything else of benefit to Americans.
3
What is the correct procedure for dealing with a "bully"? Do you go to the principal and complain? Do you form your own gang to deal with the "bully"? Do you sucker punch the "bully"? How much bullying does one tolerate before lashing out.
That is what Iran has to deal with, the US and its allies in the Middle East who seem intent on bullying Iran to no end.
6
If you think Iraq was rough a war with Iran would wreck the global economy. It would generate casualties triple the amount of the last war in the middle east.The Iranians are a more advanced country and they have assets well beyond its borders.The Persian Empire at one time ruled vast territories and its people are well educated to this day.Once again Trump misses the mark,N. Korea still has its nukes and long range missiles.
5
Columnist Ross Douthat seems to suggest in this article that president Trump should return to his "campaign wisdom" of "One war at a time"
I am looking for a candidate with the wisdom to tell us that we have been in too many unnecessary wars since the year 1945.
I'm looking for a candidate who will tell us "Let's stay away from wars like Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan,Libya"
Countries should free themselves of their own ills as we did in our own civil war.
When borders are crossed by war,that is to be addressed by
The United Nations rather than The United States.
Trump's campaign "wisdom" of one war at a time" is not for me
I'm looking for the new leader who will tell me " No wars,if at all possible"
8
Add Korea to your tragic list. And the fun little war games we've played in our own hemisphere.
1
"How a war in the Middle East would wreck Trump’s grand strategy."
Did I miss something? Does Trump have a grand strategy? Or is chaos the grand strategy?
6
In most of Mr. Douthat's contributions he only sees mistakes and missteps owned by Trump. Iran has a history of threatening action Israel and the United Sates. They have threatened shipping and sent small boats towards our ships and bragged about how their misses would defeat us. But their history tells of a disastrous war with Iraq. Over eight years the only thing the two sides accomplished was together kill five hundred thousand men. We are not Iraq. It took us all of three days for out tanks to roll into Baghdad. Imagine if one of their missiles destroyed a ship of ours what the response would be. Plus, Israel and Saudi Arabia would want to be in on the action. Trump did the right thing to increase our military there after some of Iran’s threats. It sends a message. Since the war with Iraq, Iran has chosen other pathways. They support military and terrorist action by other groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. They are involved in Yemen and Syria where they are building a missile factory. It bleeds us and Saudis Arabia of resources. When Trumps ups our military presence there, Iran must think of what would happen if they actually sank one of our ships. They know that Trump holds the trigger. They have to be careful so why not just stay with what's working for them, rhetoric and threats. Let others do the fighting. Message received.
1
@Ron
Oh, for God's sake.
Iran has far more reason to distrust and dislike the US than vice versa.
Iran was well on its way to a stable democracy when the U.S., at the behest of American oil companies, deposed its elected government, replacing it with the cruel Shah.
It supplied its sworn enemy, Iraq, with poison gas, which Saddam used as it launched a war against Tehran.
Then there was the unprovoked and deadly attack on an Iranian airliner. Provocation after provocation.
Then, after the U.S. and European countries crafted a hard-fought nuclear agreement with Iran, the nihilist Trump decided anything associated with Obama had be wiped off the face of the Earth, a moronic decision. More pointless provocation.
In any event, it's rather ludicrous that the U.S., which has done so much to destabilize the Middle East, thinks it has more right to influence the area than a major nation that has occupied the region for millennia.
14
@Lew Fournier "Oh, For God's sake" most americans won't agree with you but Oh, for
God's sake, you are correct.
Most people agree with their country.
You agree with your country only when you feel your country is right. For God's sake and ours, you are correct and we need more like you.
5
One war at a time is an irresponsible and frankly in the 21st-century , a ridiculously ignorant statement to make . Mr. Douthat may be a bit too much influenced by the cold warriors of the past which carried through to the George W. Bush administration, courtesy of Dick Cheney .
Furthermore, for someone as thoughtful and intelligent as Mr. Douthat is , it would behoove him to do a little more research about the mentality of Iranians as well as the mind set of the theocratic regime that runs the country today. The people as a whole are not interested in bloodshed , but the mullahs who now run Iran will do anything not to relinquish their hold on power . One does not have to be a Secretary of State to understand the implications of this .
2
Don't ever lose sight of the fact that Iran's goal is to acquire the bomb.
1
@Ed Wasil, and apparently the Saudis have the same goal, with Trump's blessing of course, since he is the one trying to sell nuclear technology to the Saudis. The Saudis with their Wahabist fundamentalist religion and propensity to support the worst of the worst jihadi terrorists (ISIS, al Qeda, Taliban, Boko Haram) worry me far more than the Iranians.
6
@Ed Wasil -- Says who? Israel?
If Iran wanted The Bomb it would have it by now. Witness North Korea, which is far less capable than Iran. Witness Pakistan next door to it.
Iran says it wants the capability without the bomb itself, for the sake of a long view of deterrence.
President Trump is a marketing huckster who tests and refines ideas to see how well they play with his audience. his concerns pretty much end there - what's in it for him in the short term? will sabre rattling ensure more votes in the flyover states, or reduce the percentage of his hoodwinked supporters who will abandon him in 20? his employees, like Bolton the model warmonger, are not elected, serve at the President's whim, and can be fired, as history shows, if their light threatens to dim his own.
3
Wreck his strategy? No, it will prevent you from seeing his taxes. He will do ANYTHING to ensure that doesn’t happen.
3
Grand strategy and Trump should never be in the same sentence.
4
Heh. You lost me at "Trump's grand strategy."
6
I’m afraid I gave up right at, “which Donald Trump clearly doesn’t want,” what with having had quite enough with these rightist fantasies that Trump is thinking about anything at all that isn’t getting his strokes and his cash.
I was right, too, because I felt guilty enough about this to skim down some, only to meet the same old, “that feckless Obama,” horsepuckey.
Anyway, simple lesson, Mr. Douthat: Trump doesn’t know anything and isn’t gonna learn, and simply follows his tropisms like any other flatworm. If he gets it into his head that bombing Iran would advantage him, off go the jets. That’s all there is to it, as with everything else he does.
So please stop “criticizing Trump,” if all it’s gonna be is a recitative of right-wing approvals. Own it; do what every decently-hypocritical evangelical does, and just come out and say, “Can’t stand that King Cyrus, but the Lord is using him to do what I want, so where’s the harm?”
2
netanayu/trump menacing truculence will produce short term achievement. Bullying usually does, until it either oversteps or produces a backlash, or both. Then when the tables are turned, they find they have no friends and no one willing to help. That has already happened to the right-wing Israeli government. Trump is fast putting the us in the same sad sunken place.
2
Has the time come for an old-fashioned Soviet style purge of Trump advisers? A show-trial for Bolton? A mysterious disappearance for Limbaugh, or Larson, or Coulter? At least exile them to Siberia, or Wasilla.
If it was good enough for Uncle Joe...
2
Don't you know, Mr. Douthat, that 'one war at a time' is one war too many. As far as the spreading of 'democracy' goes let's just clear the air right now: the U.S. with it's undemocratic institution called the Electoral College, an undemocratic Senate by nature and design, and the abhorrent machinations of the GOP to suppress voter turnout, we are hardly a paragon of democracy in action. What makes you or anybody else think this is worth spreading to cultures as diverse as those in the M.E.
114
@james33 That quote follows a discussion of a "trade war" -- the context is not solely military.
1
@james33
Yep. And add to that the theft of a SCOTUS seat - to help safeguard those abominations - and we can see how deeply flawed our revered Constitution truly is. How much longer can minority-rule reign supreme before this country blows itself apart?
5
Russ Douthat gives more credence to a "grand strategy" than is visible to most people. Mr. Trumps policies are not driven by any deep understanding of history or any grand transnational or civilizational narratives - they are simply gut feels. He perceives an unfriendly Iran and sits on massive American military power. His friends in Saudi and Israel would like to eliminate this threat. Ergo the policy. Come on now, suddenly with the elections coming up, we are building this big strategic thinker view of Mr. Trump. Most of us still see the petty, vengeful, narcissistic, self-enriching, chaotic and unpresidential Trump that has been visible for the last two years now.
100
The subtitle includes the words, ".....wreck Trump's grand strategy."
Most observers would not credit Trump with any strategy whatsoever, much less a grand one.
117
@Ned
45's "strategy" for life includes only 2 tenets:
Make money for 45.
Keep 45 out of jail.
If 45 decides he is going to lose in the next election I don't think he'll hesitate to start some conflict somewhere in the hopes it will increase support for him as a "war president".
69
I rarely agree with Mr. Douthat's pieces, but here I find myself in complete accord with his most of his central argument.
A war with Iran would be worse than war with Iraq, and it's almost comical how similar this is to 2003. From the "photographs of Iranian missiles" to John Bolton's role in escalating the tensions, it is unbelievable that this could happen tomorrow. I am also more pessimistic than Douthat; Trump has never missed an opportunity to set things wrong. Had we not withdrawn from the JCPOA, set aircraft carriers to the Gulf, and publicly threatened Iran, we would be in a much different place now. However, our government has consistently escalated with Iran, and there is no reason to believe that this will stop any time soon, to the horror of all mankind. This will be bad, if it comes to fruition. Very bad, like so unimaginably hellish. We better pray that Rouhani has sense more than Trump or Trump has the courage to deny Bolton his dear dream of invasion, which may just be wishful thinking.
135
@Jarrod
If Bolton wants this, send him and his relatives into Iran first. Then as a country, we can readjust whether or not we want to be at war with Iran.
25
@Jarrod
Call me cynical but it is much too soon to go to war with Iran---needs to be closer to the election in 2020...which by then Ross will think war with Iran is a great idea.
20
@Jarrod
It’s as if we’re right back to the “Axis of Evil” agenda. And Iran is still the next target...
16
Trump's overall foreign policy seems to be to overthrow the world order set up by the US after WWII which is based on liberal democracies trying to keep the peace. The new world order which he seems to be working toward would be led by authoritarian states such as Russia and if Trump has his way the US and serve as a bulwark against authoritarian China. In the Middle East his strategy seems to be to side with the Sunnis against the Shiites which basically means backing the Saudis against Iran. It is hard to explain this policy other that he identifies more with the authoritarian Saudis than with Iran which is also authoritarian but is not ruled by a royal family and does elect presidents. Trump's foreign policy does not seem to have any room for democracies. Any democracies would be minor players. A big difference between Trump and previous presidents is that they supported democracies while he supports authoritarian rule.
7
you could say Trump understands and respects authoritarian rule but does not understand or trust democracy. you could also say he thinks dictatorships are better for business.
2
"Whenever possible, one war a time."
I wonder if nations, particularly the U.S.A., continue to go to war because of their military bureaucracy and industry more than anything else. For most of human history, the point of war was to obtain land, riches or to monopolize trade over colonies. Of course, that includes nations going to war to prevent others from achieving the above.
With the trillions expended on wars post WWII by the U.S. almost no benefit has occured for anyone beyond the manufacturers and investors of military supplies and the careers of soldiers, especially the ones high enough in rank not to have to face the horrors of these wars.
It is a shame that the U.S. is so dominated by the interests and opaque power of capitalism that the true motives for sending our sons and daughters to war are kept hidden from voters.
If their is any segment of our economy that should be barred from any form of lobbying our government, it is industries deeply involved with making profits from war. The next one down is those involved in the prison industry.
Campaign finance reform is the only adequate remedy and should be ultimately tied to a constitutional amendment- even if it takes 50 more years to accomplish.
315
@alan haigh
Wonderful summary of what I consider the worst part of all - the total waste of lives, resources and opportunity for us to have a more healthy and sustainable future, instead of submitting to institutional selfishness and some base urge to have a fight just for the sake of having a fight with someone. We are in this pretty deep and I believe we will need a total vast disaster to turn this and ourselves around.
Way past time for this obsolete behavior and now is the time time to start by voting enough Progressives to eliminate the campaign finance outrage and for Petes sake restore the Fairness Doctrine. Education and a thorough Civics Class would be the next step to stopping this wholesale theft of the Wealth of Our Nation.
31
@alan haigh
Let's draw inspiration from the Progressives of the 1920s. They were unafraid to call out the "Merchants of Death." Where is the Progressive voice of today who will boldly and persistently challenge the military-industrial complex (that none other than a conservative Republican president warned us about 60 years ago)?
22
@alan haigh Speaking of the corruption that spurs terrible and stupid wars, the greatest example is Dick Cheney's influence on launching the Iraq War.
How on earth he was allowed to push for this war after having been CEO of Halliburton and leaving with a 38 million dollar parachute to become VP and number one salesmen for that war makes the Trump presidency just seem normally corrupt by comparison. Overall Haliburton received almost 40 billion in contracts during this war.
https://www.ft.com/content/7f435f04-8c05-11e2-b001-00144feabdc0
Cheney continued to receive huge money from Haliburton after becoming VP and refused to let congress see communications he had with the company leading into and after the war.
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/us/a-closer-look-at-cheney-and-halliburton.html
When will America wake up and heed the warning of Eisenhower to beware of the military industrial complex! Probably when they are clearly able to see its influence over our politicians.
45
So far, I've read the first paragraph right under the headline. I'll work on the rest later.
A war with Iran would wreck a lot more than whatever grand strategy Trump might have. It would be bloody, expensive, and terrible for America's status in the world, even if we somehow managed to win.
It could also complete the process of making America a worldwide pariah. We brokered a deal with Iran, dropped out of it, and picked a fight with them.
I don't think the words Trump and "grand strategy" belong in the same sentence.
8
Where is the coherence in this? - Trump has threatened our NATO allies, with whom we have actual mutual defense treaties, with not coming to their aid unless they pay what Trump says they owe. Yet, he seems happy to commit massive and costly amounts of American firepower and put scores of thousands of American troops in harm's way to please Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Israel, with whom we have no defense treaties and from whom Trump has not asked for a dime.
7
pay respectful tribute to Trump as he prepares to go to the mattesses.
We've done regime change in Iran before, back when the CIA overthrew the first democratically elected government in the country's history and reinstalled the Shah. It did not work out well and is why Iran has the government they have today. Now, we pull out of the nuclear deal Iran was honoring and try to close their access to world oil markets. Sound like we're going for a second round of regime change, but I don't think we'll get away with it again. Regardless of what Iran is trying to do in countries on their borders, we're the aggressors here, and a war would be even dumber than the Bush idiocy that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan.
7
Some excellent comments today.
It boils down that this is an Internal American dysfunctional
Trump administration.
Has anyone seem any coordinated foreign policy Yet from
Trump? He goes from whim to whim and his greatest single failure, and there are legions of them, is his complete lack of follow- through.
He rants and raves and tries to blow down the doors of all enemies, and when they don’t answer the doorbell, he just turns and goes back to his office and starts raving on an entirely different rant.
6
Trump has navigated through life relying on turning his misfortunes and the misdeeds he caused into being the victim in his professional life. Just think of the primaries forward: victim of the Republican establishment, victim of the press, the enemies of the people, victim of the Democrats. victim of spying on the campaign while they scurried like mice for Russian cheese, victim of all Security agencies despite proof of Russian interference. Today we are on the precipice of a war with Iran which his actions have instigated. Should that come to fruition he is presently setting himself to be the victim of Bolton and Pompeo's hawkish behaviors while he is a dove. Trump has absolutely no credibility. It is foolish, dangerous and naive to think he is any different from them. He is an active participant. I expect rage from Congress and the press in order for the world to know America does not support another war anywhere in the globe, including Yemen.
6
The US should work to make Iran into an ally.
It is that simple.
8
Sober points about the perils of military interventions...when fabricated by egotistical warmongers with no real idea of the awful ravages of an all-out war, with plenty of global pain and suffering, unnecessary blood spill and a huge waste in resources... only advantageous to a thoughtless military-industrial complex seeking profits at our expense. If we try to corral a wild animal, if seeing no escape, it will fight for it's life with 'tooth and nail', such is the dire position of Iran now that these United States is imposing maximum strangling maneuvers on it's economy and dignity. Have we forgotten that, before Iran became a theistic 'dictatorship' (1979), it was a democracy with a duly elected president...until we toppled it in 1953, placing a puppet (the Shah) to do our bidding for the free flow of oil? Some humility is called for, if not repentance; and now, arrogant Bolton is at it again. Can't we learn from our blunders? Iran's imperialist dreams in the Middle East are what we (Great Britain, another 'villain') used to do. Remeber Santayana? "Those that cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". And that would be a disgrace.
4
Too bad that Trump and Bolton are ignorant of history. Since WWII, when has any regime change initiated by the United States ever resulted in a sustained and beneficial outcome, either for this country or the other? We seem to repeatedly fall back on a rationale of "this time it will be different."
It never is.
7
Speculating what Trump thinks seems a particularly sad kind of fool's errand that begins by assuming the existence, all evidence to the contrary, of the landscape it would venture forth to describe.
2
@RRI Well said!
Ross do this, do that.
Trump’s grand strategy, really!
2
Don't fight Iran is a solid strategy. And, if Iran can reign in all of the terror groups they control, that's a two-fer. The mystery is, how does that square with Iran's oft said goal, "We will wipe Israel off the face of the Earth."
It's easier to attack a straw man, "Trump wants to start a war with Iran", than deal with facts: Trump's decisions to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal and then put maximum economic pressure on Iran are the most successful foreign policy decisions of my lifetime.
The Nuclear Deal was based on the premise that Israelis murdered by a ballistic missile would be better off than Israelis murdered by a nuclear weapon. The Deal did nothing to stop the Iranian ballistic missile program, and in case there were any doubts regarding Iran's intentions they wrote, "we will destroy Israel" on their missiles in Hebrew. Pledges to destroy another nation constitute genocide and a violation of the UN Charter, therefore making it everyone's obligation to intervene. No one did.
Instead Kerry and Obama signed a deal which left not just the ballistic missile program unimpeded but all of Iran's nefarious actions: destabilizing Lebanon and Gaza, horrific human rights violations in Syria (and their own country), drug trafficking in South America, and intelligence support for Maduro's thugs were not just free to proceed but were financially supported by the free world. We traded with Iran and delivered millions in cash in the middle of the night. And we only impeded their nuclear program for 10 years!
Trump deprived Iran of money and its economy is in a tailspin. Iran has no money to support terrorists. They will try to attack our interests. Trump's actions are prudent.
Godspeed Donald!
4
None of this is very difficult to say and be correct.
Exactly what danger are we facing from Iran?
In my mind, none that we don't face from multiple countries or individuals on a daily basis. Yet we don't (should not) strap on the boots for those conflicts either.
People (mostly? Saudi Arabians) got on planes, flew over here, got on our planes and kamikazied them into buildings full of people. When we all wake up to the reality of our new age, columns like these should not be necessary at all.
5
@M There were 16 hijackers on the four planes, two aimed at the WTC, one at the Pentagon and the 4th taken down over Pennsylvania while apparently heading for the U.S. Capitol.
Of the 16, 15 were Saudis.
4
Ross ended his column with, "Whenever possible, one war at a time." Is he implying, "But always one," as if to say one war is more manageable than the 3 or 4 we have on our hands now, but also better than no war at all?
Trump, if asked, could not probably identify Iran on a map. He can't write a coherent sentence, he cannot spell, he spends more time playing golf than governing. Yet you still strain to honor him with gravitas?
He is the latest President to fool around with the Middle East which conservatives like me understand as a place with a very simple set of rules: whoever is in power can kill whoever is not.
It doesn't matter what country you are speaking of, they all want to undermine each other so Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Qatar, none of them are trustworthy, or have any other plan than keeping power and using lethal Islam and lethal weapons to guard their rulers.
4
War with Babylon wouldn't "wreck Trump's grand strategy" but is an integral part of it. People aren't paying attention to the apocalyptic, theocratic under(over)tones to Trump's foreign policy. Pompeo, et al, are using Trump's foreign policy initiatives to advance a dominionist agenda. Babylon must fall so that Jesus can reign. Pompeo, et al, aren't hiding the ball here. They're on the record supporting this. View some old Pompeo videos. Trump's their one and only chance at making this happen.
4
Stop. Just stop with the tired old pretence of "democratization". Firstly, the USA itself is currently considered a failed democracy. Secondly, the US cares nothing about democracy in the Middle East. Its continued full backing of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - whose human rights abuses increase by the day - shows just how important "democracy" is to the US. Khashoggi's murder has effectively been swept under the rug, with full US acceptance.
What the US is interested in is handing over oil fields to American Interests. That's what Iraq accomplished. And that's what the current pressures against Iran seek to accomplish as well. For the time being, the idea is to reduce flow from Iran in order to increase demand elsewhere. Then it'll be to gain outright control of that oil in Iran.
You can decide for yourselves whether or not you want US lives to be sacrificed to these ends - but stop pretending democratization has anything to do with it. This word shouldn't even be used when discussing US foreign policy. That dog don't hunt no more.
3
Trump doesn't want war with Iran, you say? Trump has led our country down this path. It is his policy, and his alone (Bolton et al. were appointed by him). Any claims he makes now to be saving us from war are thoroughly risible. The GOP owns this ridiculous mess. It and its clownish president are entirely and exclusively responsible for it.
3
To sum up the article, let’s all believe Trump’s 2016 campaign rhetoric.
Aside from suggesting war is a bad thing -- who knew? -- this column is more Ross Douthat wrestling with his own bizarre notion that "an accidental synthesis of a chaotic White House’s competing impulses" might constitute a Trumpian "grand strategy" than any wrestling with the reality before us. That reality is that the world is a changing, complex place and we have a confused, fundamentally ignorant, manifestly incompetent Commander-In-Chief, who changes position based on that of the last person to speak to him on any matter (typically, through his tv), because his only compass is a native white nationalism and an instinct for pandering to his base within the horizon of the current news cycle that demarcates all the attention span either he or his base voters -- his marks -- have. When you have a con man in the White House, that's what you get: a series of contradictory hustles leaping erratically to stay one step ahead of the reality upon they must wreck themselves sooner or later. When you have a conservative intellectual undertaking apologetics for said con man in the White House, what you get is a column like this that concludes leaving everyone wondering what was just said.
6
"How a war in the Middle East would wreck Trump’s grand strategy."
trump has a "grand strategy"?
Who knew???
1
Ross- Are you ignoring the fact that Iran has already declared war on us in the Middle East with its proxy armies fighting our allies. We can either let this continue, get bigger, or surrender now. Or we can force them to a new negotiated settlement with bad cop good cop negotiations that Obama forgot about from his Chicago experiences.
3
Like all of Trump’s policy, they all fit fit the caricature of the dog who chases the bus and finally catches it. Foreign policy, healthcare, immigration, trade, it’s all the same.
You can throw the GOP into the same caricature - just look at Obamacare.
2
The last thing we need is to start war with Iran. Such a war will be seen by many as a preemptive strike on behalf of Israel and by many others as a preemptive strike on behalf of Saudi Arabia. Such a war will be branded just another Christian Crusade against Muslims.
4
This assumes that there is a "grand strategy" at play here or even "... just an accidental synthesis of a chaotic White House’s competing impulses." With a president who is a serial liar, whose every utterance is a self-protective pose, there is simply no way to evaluate the potential impact of his ever-evolving and never-sustaining positions. One thing seems certain, though: he does not listen to anyone who disagrees with him, including foreign policy experts, military brass, religious leaders, and pundits.
1
Trump is a fool who has no idea what he is doing, or how perilously close to war he is getting with Iran. Bolton is a war mongering iconoclast who has been wrong on almost everything that he has ever said about national security.
With the Republican Senate on a four year holiday there will be no oversight from them, regardless of what the Constitution says.
So we are down to the dream team that we have in the White House to provide calm and rational leadership. How could this possibly go wrong?
2
To paraphrase Ulysses Everett McGill: "Ross, it's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of Trump's policy."
1
"...war with Iran would recapitulate our Iraq blunders on “a much bigger scale, without allies, without justification, and without any plan at all for what comes next.”
Yup -- that about captures Blondie's plan in one sentence. Bolton, Pompeo, Miller, the huge cadre of egregiously sycophantic quislings in the administration, the nauseous Fox News (sic) propaganda machine and the cabal of send-your-kids-to-my-war congressional profiteers will easily convince Blondie that war is good for his business and will divide and obliterate the opposition still quaintly concerned with minor annoyances like Truth, Law and Democracy.
2
I have a refreshing idea: Why not just leave Iran alone, let them have their rightful influence in their own region of the world and buy oil from them. As a taxpayer I am tired of paying for our adventures in the Middle East. We threaten other countries while China build roads and schools for them and trades with them. Whatsmore destroying the world heritage of the true cradle of civilization would be a cultural catastrophe. We have much to learn from Iran’s Zoroastrian based values of positive building of society and care for the earth. Let them be and learn from them!!!
5
The U.S. has the wrong allies, in the Middle East, in my humble opinion. The dotard-in-chief has no idea about "allies," nor do any of his "advisors."
4
Dropping out of the Iran deal was probably the most stupid idea in this Administration, which is not lacking in stupid ideas. More than restraining Iran its importance was that it was backed by all US allies and included Russia and China as signatories. In that alone it was a remarkable achievement and one to build on, not to shred. With this move and the abandoning of TTP the US has lost all credibility when it comes to international deals. Why would any other country sign to a denuclearization deal with the US and why would China and Russia ever consider partnering with the US to pressure either Iran or North Korea? US diplomacy has gone from being occasionally clumsy to full hammhanded idiocy.
2
I had a hard time getting past the title of this article:
"Trump's Grand Strategy"
1
Putting aside all evidence, let's suppose there is a plan in Trump's head. He's pleased with how our relationship with North Korea has gone (nowhere) because he got a lot of press and broke new ground (of capitulation). He thinks his hysterical pressure, on/again/off again, chaotic policy will work again.
With NK, there was no one, and I mean no one, who wanted things to go badly. With Iran, in the Middle East, there are dozens of potential bad actors who would like nothing more than war, and I don't mean just governments. The idiot is playing with fire and there is no shortage of matches.
2
Must be like Bush, the younger, and “ strategery “.
Sad.
3
Ross Douthat is still beating around the bush. Unlike Iraq, The topography of Iran is mountainous, like we found in Korea. The society of Iran is far more civilized and modern than either Iraq or Korea. Iran has extensive political and trading relationships with India, China and Russia. It also has military technology transfer relationships with Korea, in addition to the 3 aforementioned countries.
Trump chose to back Iran into a corner when he pulled the US out of the JCPOA. Iran is now free to resume the pursuit of nuclear fuel enrichment, if not full weaponry.
There is no Grand Strategy to our foreign policy to Iran. It is impulsive, reckless and not in our best interests.
3
Trump's grand strategy? There is no "grand" in Trump. There is his strategy of creating chaos around the world to keep his perceived enemies off balance and guessing as to what Trump may do next. But by its nature this approach changes from moment to moment. Putin plays chess using a grand strategy. Trump plays a game similar to Chutes and Ladders.
9
The words "Strategy" and Trump should never appear even close to each other. Why are the US bombing Afghanistan right now? The military industry, a thing a previous ex General President said,"Don't let the military community run you, . Not necssarily the correct words but it was his position.
AS long as the US President surrounds himself with war hawks, and he seems to listen to the last person he talks to, or fawns over him, the world is in a unsafe position. No money for health care but lots of cash for more weapon systems. With the Dotard in position, it's about time folks start building bomb shelters again
11
In reading through this piece, I kept wondering: Why do we still seem to think we're the only sovereign nation in this world, the almighty to which the rest of the world must know-tow? Are we totally incapable of any degree of humility?
26
@Jody
I'd say you nailed it.
4
When you ask how a war with Iran would “wreck Trump’s grand strategy”, my immediate reaction was that you were using sarcasm to make a point. But further reading makes me think that you believe Trump has a foreign policy strategy.
Trump has only one grand strategy, and it’s his willingness to do or say anything to get re-elected. I don’t doubt for a moment that his “strategy” for Iran is based on political, not ideological, wins. North Korea? Trade wars? Health care? National emergency at the border? Shut down the government? His strategy changes based on what he’s heard on Fox and Friends earlier in the day.
As others have noted before, Trump’s decisions are transactional—based on gaining advantage for the moment. There is no stronger motivator or strategy.
22
This op-ed misses a couple of important points, perhaps rather deliberately, which have seemingly driven our foreign policy in the region leading to the US-Iran imbroglio.
1. The game of chess called "Destroy Iran" has been played since the 1950s by the US and Britain primarily to maintain an influence over the price of oil. It started with the publicly acknowledged role of the CIA and the British govt. to overthrow Mossadegh and continue to this day albeit with weakening support from our European cousin. Part of our tolerance of Saudi Arabia also needs to be viewed from this angle. SA and its dictatorship has always been more compliant than Iran when it comes to supporting the Western worlds consumption economy.
2. A desire to play the role of protector to Israel. The Jewish-Iranian antipathy for each other reaches back to more than 1000 years and far predates the notion of the United States, leeching into the current situation. The reluctance of those two countries to make peace with each other is degraded by the Shia - Sunni conflict driving the Iran-SA hatred for each other and the US desire to use Saudi Arabian influence to counter the Iranian threat to Israel.
All the other items mentioned in this article, i.e. to contain the threat of Russia, China, etc. are just mere accompaniments to the above.
History predates the last two generations. Let us make an attempt to understand the root cause before arbitrary assignments.
7
@Plato "The Jewish-Iranian" antipathy? Iran was home to hundreds of thousands of Jews until 1948 when they were thrown out after the establishment of Israel. The Shah continued to do business with Israel until he was overthrown in 1979. The hatred for Israel by Iran is 50% motivated by hatred for the US and the other half by the old anti-semitic and anti-zionist ideology that infects the Middle East. Think about what would happen if Iran actually made peace with Israel. The whole world would be safer, and Iran might actually graduate into prosperity and some greater measure of freedom.
2
@Harding Dawson, The pre 1948 Iran-Jew relationship, justifiably or otherwise, has been historically compared by many to that of a master-slave relationship. Antipathy does not always mean that people get chucked out of a certain boundary. It could mean that they are harbored inside certain jurisdictions albeit with a level of suspicion that can leech very quickly into open dislike and hatred. Think of the current US-Muslim situation. We "tolerate" Muslims as opposed to viewing them as a necessary element of a diverse diaspora.
I think it's clear to the world that Trump's strategy is to talk a big game and then retreat. Nothing is going to change with Iran. At some point Trump will meet with someone from Iran and declare that he's solved the problem. But into the election he will need to keep this bogeyman alive for his domestic audience. For Republicans, this fake war approach to rally the base is much better than neocon real war approach.
8
But realpolitik is not "kill-your-enemies, back-your-friends." It rests on the idea that no one is a permanent enemy or friend, that nations have long and short-term interests and form alliances as needed to fit the circumstances to advance those interests. A binary choice between war and diplomacy is a false one. They are bound up together and policymakers do their best to calibrate them appropriately. "Appropriate" is not a word that goes with Donald Trump, but it should be one the rest of us are clear on.
4
I don't think it's that complicated. I have said the single consistent thread with all of Trump's actions are to benefit Russia first, and then maybe Saudi Arabia and the Koch brothers tied for second. All of the hubris leads to higher oil prices as risk gets priced into every drop of oil. Iran and all other oil producers like Russia gain from such reality games in diplomacy with all the media trimmings as a side show. There is no concern for strategy about war or its aftermath because that is not the goal. Rising gas prices at the pump just in time for summer is all that matters to a privileged few. So my predictions, nothing will happen other than those poor Trump supporters will be shaking their heads every time they fill up the gas tank. And should I be wrong and war does breakout, we get a waste of American treasure much larger than Iraq, massive debt from military spending, much higher gas prices and a nice recession. But remember, we are "winning"! Not.
7
@Mark: They might hole another tanker or two just to jack up the tension levels so that the prices follow.
People who scoffed at my Prius are starting to look a bit envious now. Gas is up to $4.00 a gallon, and likely to go higher still.
2
Mr. Douthat skips over the focal point of the rising tension between Iran and America: oil. As Donald Trump tries to choke off Iran's oil sales, Teheran is much more likely to try to prevent Saudi and other Sunni oil tanker transportation. When Iran exerts real military pressure on the shipping lanes for Saudi oil, as they almost certainly will, the American military forces, now being sent to prevent just that, will come under tremendous pressure to act. How Donald Trump intends to contain this, near inevitability, remains to be seen.
6
@Michae
You’ve nailed it, sir.
Our policy of maximum pressure and military reinforcement opens another opportunity for our "allies." The Saudi (and possibly Netanyahu) regime would like Iran beaten in a war, and like it even better if they did not have to do it themselves. This gives them an opportunity to create some provocation that we would have to respond to, and make it look like Iran did it. Maybe something along the lines of damage to tankers above the water line; maybe those incidents were rehearsals, and a test to see if they could get away with it undetected.
Just a thought.
16
Trump has no ideology, no grand scheme, and no capacity for any original thought. Even his tweets are, by and large, plagiarized. What we have may not be war in the true sense, but nonetheless war is still our national glue of collective identity. It’s only a matter of time. The depressing truth is that since 1776, there has been only very few years we have not been at war. The author’s essay doesn’t change anything.
8
Several of Mr. Douthat's articles infer a level of rationality to Trump's foreign and domestic policy wanderings. To define decision making as rational requires a purposeful process of problem solving and in depth knowledge or experience with the decisions you are making. What we see coming out of the Oval Office are decisions made solely on the basis of their level of disruption---the more the better--and warmed over prejudices Trump has been carrying around for years---by definition--these criteria for decision making does not justify the label of rational.
18
@Amanda Jones
Actually he doesn't project "rationality" onto the Trump regime and policy, suggesting instead, a kind of emergent pattern resulting from contending forces. He was very clear on this, and at the outset of the article.
1
@Amanda Jones
A broken clock is right 2 times every day.
2
@Amanda Jones I was just about to write the same thing! Any piece that assumes any sort of disciplined thought on the part of the president is wishful thinking at best. They assume Trump is like any other president, with a set of values and principles that guide his decisions. There is no rhyme or reason to Trump, only a gaping black hole of ego, childishness, and vindictiveness.
4
What will you propose when Iran has enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon? What will you propose when N Korea launches another long range missile? There will be no regime change in either country despite maximum pressure. Just look at Venezuela. Russia and China will continue to support all these regimes. The most important thing was to stop enrichment by Iran. It was thrown away by this administration. There will be no grand bargain as the Iranians will only agree to go forward if the US honors the agreement. Who will negotiate any grand bargain? The treaty with Iran and the TPP were excellent diplomatic and economic strategies to deal with issues critical to national interest. Both thrown aside with nothing to replace them besides threats and a set of tariffs that are paid for by Americans. Some grand strategy.
27
Trump's strategy, taken from his New York City real estate days, is to push the other side to the brink to get the best possible deal.
However, as far as I know, no one he negotiated real estate deals with had a large army or nuclear weapons.
Assuming that Trump doesn't want a war, he may cause one by accident. Pushing Iran or North Korea to the brink (say, by seizing a ship) may cause retaliation, not in the form of some conventional military action but by some terrorist act. And this may, in turn, provoke us to a retaliatory strike. And so on, and so on.
A little over a century ago Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia to avenge a terrorist act. The rest of Europe followed into World War I, which led to World War II, which in turn led to the Cold War. And none of the European powers wanted World War I, or thought it would last more than three months.
31
@John Graybeard The Trump business model has been shown -- explicitly in the NYT -- to be a misadventure in lies, greed, bluffing and incompetence. And for Douthat to say, rather blithely, "one war at a time"... no Ross, look back again. Bush left the country on the brink of another Great Depression, with loss of respect in the world, and many thousands of dead, maimed, and traumatized Americans and Iraqis. And with Hussein gone, Iran emerged the big winner. Today's war mongering, draft dodging narcissists (and gutless Republican pols) could produce even greater disasters.
3
@John Graybeard Kind of like 911? Worked out GREAT for the terrorists, not so good for USA
1
China and Iran are old civilizational powers and not to be confused with countries came out of historical mistakes. Strength and weakness of those societies are reflection of the civilizations wisdoms and conventions. Trump, assumes that the business school approach of predictable outcome from predictable maximal pressure will work in these cases - a very naive assumptions. The outcome of both China and Iran policies are highly unpredictable and unimaginable. Normally, American military play the war games to understand these consequences and we hope that exercise has been completed. The worst case scenario should be the basis of actions and we hope Trump administration working on this dynamics of the situations. Both China and Iran will change over time and the two countries will play important role in the future of humanity. American current uneasiness of the two governments structure is a transitional state - the real trajectory of history will show positive progression if all three parties look deep inside their respective role in our growing human family. It is not an one time World Cup game.
16
How do you know when you have won a war? We thought we did well in saving South Korea from Communism by at least holding our own in the Korean conflict, but today the result is that we are threatened by long-range nuclear weapons from North Korea. We lost in Vietnam, but today we are great friends and trading partners with Vietnam and Americans go there on holiday. In Iraq, we won, or did we? The rebuilding of a thriving democracy there, built with oil revenues, has proved to be one of many illusions by the Bush team. Iran, for all its faults, has an intellectual middle class and a kernel of democracy in that it votes in regular elections that don’t seem to be “fixed” as former and present communist ones are. Most crucially to me, if the U.S. enters into a treaty, as it did with Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, it needs to stay true to its word, regardless how you feel about it, as long as the terms are met.
15
"It's better to just back our Sunni and Israeli allies" then to attempt a reconciliation with Iran. Why is that? Those allies are no more peace-loving than is Tehran and also no more democratic. It can, in fact, be said that Bin Salman and Netanyahu compose an access of intervention along with our very own nightmare, John Bolton. I'm all for retrenchment in the Middle East so long as that implies bidding adieu to the entire region. We don't need their oil or their religious fanatics, especially given that we have more than enough of both commodities right here at home.
comment submitted 5/18 at 3:40 PM
33
@stu freeman: Oops; make that "axis of intervention."
2
Two commentaries in today’s NYT suggest that Trump may be the “sage in the room” surrounded by advisers pushing him towards war. This is a fallacy. Trump has been angling for a war from the start. Choose the pretense: North Korea nukes; Iran nukes and terrorism; Venezuela failed state near our border. He will use this to energize his base and generate the national threat he requires to consolidate and enlarge his executive powers; one more step towards authoritarianism. There is nothing about Trump that suggests sagacity.
16
@Bill
"There is nothing about Trump that suggests sagacity."
Nor, with a close reading is there anything in either article to suggest Trump's sagacity. Maureen is ironic and Russ suggests patterns in his irrationality. It's best not to just read the headers.
1
One wonders: Will Trump manufacture an “incident” around, say, September 2020, declare a national emergency in order to postpone the election, with the obsequious support of his Republican lap dogs? Leave it up to the Courts to determine constitutionality? Nah...just a dystopian fantasy!
2
War with Iran would not only be a military disaster for the US, it clearly has no considered purpose. Iran fought a debilitating war with Iraq for 8 years, and would have won had the US not supported Saddam Hussein. Iran has 15-20 million hyper-patriotic potential fighters under the age of 40.
So what would war with Iran achieve? Neither governmental collapse, nor regime change will ensue.
Iran is not a single-figure dictatorship despite chicken hawk declarations to the contrary. It has a widely distributed power base. Killing or toppling Ayatollah Khamene'i would not change anything.
John Bolton's absurd plan of installing the terrorist Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) to rule Iran would be the most embarrassing abject failure possible. Iranians despise the MEK, and US backing of this rejected group would assure their inability to govern.
This is yet another disastrous incompetent stunt, Unless we dump Trump, we will face much worse debacles.
21
The US and Israeli hawks' objective has never been to turn Iraq or Iran into a liberal democracy. In Iraq, their only concern was that Hussein had grown too powerful and that Iraq was therefore a serious regional threat. They see the Iraq war as a stunning success. Now that the Iraqi nation is utterly destroyed, Iraq is impotent. The endless war that has followed doesn't bother them. For the US hawks, it's an excuse to keep pumping money into the military-industrial complex—which is the American institution they value most. For the Israeli hawks, it's a great deal. They get the results they want and the US pays the bill in blood and treasure. So Iraq has not been a failure in these twisted minds—it's been a tremendous success. Repeating it in Iran is their most fervent desire. These hawks want to turn all Middle Eastern states that oppose Israeli and US interests into cesspools of chaos. It makes those states weak. And the militias, like ISIS, that arise from the chaos are also desirable, as they preserve the weakening instability indefinitely while presenting only a minor, containable threat to the US and Israel. So what we see today in Iraq is exactly what the hawks want—a society so devastated by endless war it can never be a threat. Don't mislead yourself—the hawks have no interest in democratizing the Middle East or improving life for the people there. Their goal is simply to destroy the societies they see as enemies and leave them too devastated to present any threat.
21
@617to416. A perfect analysis of what really is going on behind the scenes. But CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc. just stick to the "approved" talking points. It's all Bolton and Pompeo pushing for war.
3
Islamic terrorism against western countries is almost exclusively a product of Wahabi Sunni extremism and ISIS, fueled by Saudi Arabia, by any standards one of the most odious and barbaric regimes on earth.
Yes, perhaps Iran supports militias in Lebanon and Yemen, but as an American, why should I care? Those are part of their own regional power plays. I have yet to hear about a single terrorist incident in the west engineered by Iran.
Iran may have a islamic fundamentalist government, but it is a country with a rich history and an immensely talented and young population and does have a limited amount of democracy. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand is a barbaric monarchy with a population that survives on oil-related rents while almost all scientific and development work is done by expats. I cannot imagine a worse and more morally repugnant ally for the leader of the free world to have.
An Iran has tons of oil as well... why not build a relationship with them instead of trying to starve the country to death. Unlike the Saudis they are not trying to attack us in our home countries.
23
@Ruchir....Exactly. One can only assume that there is some monetary connection between the Trump family and the Saudis. All the more reason why it is essential for the country to see Trump/Kushner tax returns.
17
@Howard
Iran is not flying planes into buildings in the US or bombing stadia in Europe. Who cares if Hezbollah is doing drugs - it's all in the middle east and no reason for Americans to fight and die in some god forsaken land.
The Saudis have already created havoc in the US - remember 9/11?
The Israelis have a fantastic war machine and god knows we give them enough military aid and an implied nuclear umbrella. They can take care of themselves.
2
@Ruchir
Hezbollah, a direct product of Iranian funding, is one of the largest illicit drug dealers in the entire world. It is where they get the balance of finances to run their enterprise. They are well entrenched within the Americas, and have used their "forces" to attack mostly Jewish institutions in Argentina. This has happened on multiple occasions via bombings and assassinations. They tried to arrange to kill a Saudi Arabian diplomat in the United States. To say that Iran is not involved in the Western Hemisphere is a HUGE tactical mistake and if not addressed, will eventually raise havoc within our borders.
2
Please stop using "the president" and "trump" in the same sentence. Please stop forwarding the pretense that this amoral fraud of a human being gives any consideration to any policy that extends beyond his own interest. Thank you.
14
If we do go along with Bolton and Pompeo and decide to destroy Iran, let's do it soon, so that Trump can give our soldiers "presidential pardons" for any war crimes or crimes against humanity that they commit. This is the evilest, vilest US administration in history. Trump and his criminal sycophants make my rue that I am an American military veteran.
10
So let’s do realpolitik.
Yes, the Shi’a Sunni split in Islam goes back 1400 years to who would take over leadership of the of the Islamic community after Muhammad died (Shi’a or Party were party of Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law, Muhammad had no sons; term Sunni comes from Sunnah, customs/practices of Muhammad - Sunni elected Abu Bakr as first Caliph - Shi’a don’t recognize first 3 Sunni Caliphs). But the notion of 1400 years of war between Shi’a and Sunni is a myth - part of Western divide and conquer. Shi’a and Sunni have lived together far longer in peace than conflict (Europe’s religious wars were easily more bloody and far longer). Persia/Iran was Sunni until Safavid Empire of 16th century. But pitting Iran’s Shi’a against Sunni Arabs is realpolitik.
Backing Bin Laden/Mujahideen against Soviets created Al Qaeda and Taliban, Iraq invasion gave us ISIS, CIA funded Muslim Brotherhood for decades as part of Cold War, backing Saudi Wahhabism - main ideological foundation for Al Qaeda/ISIS, Israel nurturing Hamas as counterweight to PLO, Lebanon invasion creating Hezbollah - all realpolitik. Nice results.
Now realpolitik also means that hegemonic superpower US should use its client states Israel and Saudi Arabia as pawns. Instead we use America blood and treasure and not Israeli and Saudi soldiers (both too cowardly to use their ground troops) to fight our and their Middle East wars. And then we write Israel a $4 billion/year check. That’s not realpolitik, it’s just plain stupid.
15
@MC.... Who funded Al Qaeda? Who funded ISIS? Where did the money come from to establish the conservative madrasas in Pakistan and Afghanistan to form the basis of the Taliban? Who promoted terrorism attacks outside the Middle East? It wasn't Iran.
2
@MC Thank you for your informed and sensible perspective. Let's not forget actively support Saudi Arabia's effort to spread Wahhabism/Salafism all over the Islamic world as a counter to the Iranian revolution and assisting Iraq in its terrible war with Iran. Great success stories all around.
2
@MC Donald Trump just fell asleep. You use too many big words. Here is Bolton’s morning report: “Iran be Muslim. Iran be bad. We have big bomb.”
1
Don't worry. Other news today : the non existant rockets which were on the non existant small boats have been unloaded so what was not there is no longer there.
4
If Trump can make money out of a war he will go to war, especially if it would help get him re-elected as there are a lot of ongoing investigations into his neparious affairs. The Democrats will not forgive this president, and will pursue him to the bitter end.
2
We have agency problems: the Democrats see Trump's foreign policy snafu's as playing into their hands in 2020. Would they be willing to save the President from making a major long term mistake, if it meant weakening their chances in the 2020 election? Probably not. If we were on the precipice of WW3, who would stop the President? The GOP and Pence? They're toothless. If Trump wants to remain President, escalating confrontations that could lead to nuclear war must wait until after his reelection--not beforehand.
President Trump will do anything to keep the roughly 30 investigations out of the news. Let's not try to justify Trump's nonsense. Iran is now more likely to go for a nuclear weapon, more likely to sponsor a terrorist attack in the U.S. or Israel, and more likely to form closer ties with China and Russia.
Rather than taking the next logical step after the Obama nuclear deal, and use some carrots to get what we want, we're going backward and hoping sticks will work. Foolhardy, tail-waving-the-dog stuff.
5
"Trump’s 2016 campaign rhetoric made a case against a hawkish Republican foreign policy consensus that seemingly wanted to confront all our enemies, at once, everywhere."
So why should you (or we) expect Trump to make good on his campaign promises and positions?
With the exception of the Wall (Cap W) and his trade wars, Trump has reneged on just about every other campaign promise, from "I alone can fix it", to "tax cuts for the middle class," to a big beautiful infrastructure plan, and everything in between.
I get the feeling that plan to go after Iran is more because it's something the Saudis and the Israelis want more than anything, and it's John Bolton's knee jerk reaction to making his mark.
That Trump is backing off has more to do with jealousy over Bolton's not so hidden plotting than it is any moral imperative about the cost (in men and treasure, as well as his re-election chances) of more meddling where we don't belong.
Of course, it could still happen because of all the saber rattling that really started with Trump and Bolton, not the mullahs.
And that would be, above all, not just a stupid war, but the stupidest of all.
6
Trump's "grand strategy"? Someone is making a joke, right?
6
Iran will hold its breath and wait for regime change in the US.
6
Iran is a democracy, and there was a strong pro-America sentiment in the country during Obama's tenure. We could have improved relations, but Trump handed the keys to foreign policy over to Jared Kushner and Bolton. I will never ever ever support another war in the Middle East as long as I live. This was completely avoidable.
P.S. Also seeing as Trump now has a penchant for pardoning war criminals. I find your idea for a "return to kill-your-enemies, back-your-friends" foreign policy absolutely ghastly.
8
Oh, Ross, you overestimate Mr. Trump. For those of us who are not in the business of journalism when it is necessary to present both sides of an issue, you need to understand that Mr. Trump is frightening. I read so many op eds that Trump needs chaos to govern, that it is his nourishment. That is hogwash. If one is sane and stable, is that person rational or chaotic in his rhetoric and actions? It is the first characteristic which is the sign of leadership and downright sanity. Can someone, anyone, inform me of anything that this man has done for the betterment of this country? From what I see, everything is based on self-glorification, hate, racism, and greed...lots of it. And perhaps one of the biggest mistakes Trump made is pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal. We were moving forward in the only direction and option available to us. Ross, Trump is indefensible. He is not worth the ink of your typed essay to attempt to understand. You can not get into the mind of an unhinged man. And unhinged he is. Psychology One.
17
In Oct. 1962, when I was in 9th grade, there was an exact moment when WWIII almost started. For a deeply disturbing recreation, visit the Soviet sub at the San Diego Maritime Museum. "... as tensions rise, so does the risk of miscalculation.” An arguement broke out between the sub's captain and his first officer about whether to fire a nuclear torpedo at the U.S. fleet nearby. The captain felt his orders were to fire. His exec said they had been submerged 36 hours and did not know the situation.
Fire a nuclear weapon or surface and be captured or be sunk be depth-bombing destroyers. In 120 degree heat at close quarters the Exec prevailed, they surfaced, and eventually surrendered. That is the danger of brinksmanship. It takes control out of the hands of government leaders in DC or Moscow or Teheran and puts it in the hands of nervous local commanders. Kennedy and Khrushchev negotiated a stand-down, but it was a Russian Executive officer who prevented the war, and we did not learn that for decades.
The Middle East is the most unstable powder keg in the world. Fighting major wars there is more dangerous than we imagine.
9
Strategy? You think there's a strategy? That's cute.
8
We should rejoin the nuclear agreement and end all sanctions on Iran, as well as those on other nations.
4
oh please. Trump's policy is what will get home reelected.
3
Did not Ross say during the 2016 primaries and election that Trump “would not win”?
Maybe I am misremembering and it was some other right wing pundit?
If I am correct, let’s hope Ross’ intel this time concerning war with Iran is better than in 2016!
I agree with your assessment that he does not want a war, but as we both know, Ross, sometimes stupid, hidebound men blunder us into them.
Or financial collapse. Or both.
4
@Peak Oiler Like he did not 'want' to bankrupt his Casinos either...yet it Happened, that is what is so dangerous.
1
Strategy? From a man who’s forgotten the beginning of a sentence before he reaches its end? Trump will do whatever he thinks will give him the most bragging rights, and he’s easily manipulated with flattery. John Bolton, psychopath, wants war and can butter up trump with victory parade imagery to get what he wants.
And when we lose the ground war with heavy casualties, Trump will order a nuclear strike.
2
Trump/Bolton/Pompeo are ramping up the Israel, AIPAC, Saudi Arabian (mis) information promoting war with Iran! What next, repeat of the LIES of Bush/Cheney on the War Crime of invading Iraq? Trump & Bolton will flood Fox News and Hate Radio airwaves with accusations against Iran. Trump & Republicans of Congress should visit Section 60 at the Arlington National Cemetery where many of the American KIA of the Bush/Cheney war crime of invading Iraq are buried. A war with Iran will result in many more U.S. KIA causalities than Iraq! If Trump/Bolton/Pompeo and Congressional Republicans want war with Iran, then Trump/Congress reinstate the National Selection Military Draft, no bone spur exemptions, and then we will see whether Americans are willing to support war with Iran as a 2020 election prop. While JCS/DOD do not desire a military draft with only less than 0.5% of Americans serving in the U.S. Military, the majority of Americans are completely unaware and detached from the perils of the ongoing continuous war status or presently the significant threat of the idiocy of war with Iran. Only by engaging the majority of Americans in the sacrifice of military service can the Republican neoconservatives and presidential war powers be restricted from endless catastrophic wars and that the authority, as in the U.S. Constitution to declare war, be firmly returned to Congress.
7
This is a joke. Trump and grand strategy; an oxymoron if there ever was one. More like the Three Stooges.
6
What are the chances that a major ally, desperate for the US to "take care of" Iran for them, will take some action to create a situation triggering a US response leading to war? Saudis? Israel?
4
Trump has a strategy? Who knew.
2
By imposing illegal sanctions Trump has already declared war. Only Iranian restraint has prevented worse.
5
Ross,
I guess that you are paid to do this, so that's OK.
But you are wasting your (and your readers') time by trying to analyze anything that comes out of this White House.
He may have advisors, staff, councils, whatever, to tell him what to do.
But Trump has the mind of a 4 year old. And that child is obsessed with revenge for Obama's slights toward him.
Since Obama helped forge the deal with Iran, to Trump it must be erased. If Bush had done it before 2008, Trump wouldn't have paid any attention to it.
Anything else that this administration is doing about Iran comes from your favorite hawks, Bolton and Pompeo.
So you can look at it, hold it, shake it, and even taste it....but sometimes a doughnut is just a doughnut.
6
The war is inevitable. Iran, just like China and Russia, wants death to America and their hypocritical democratic moral. The nuclear devices of the world are going to be used en masse and with no foreseeable scenario. Pakistan and India, France and UK and Israel and all the nuclear military actors are going to use their precious bombs because men always used what he has built.
1
Regime change?
How is that working out for you?
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, ...
4
Russ and his fellow right wing warmongers only want “winnable” wars like Saint Reagan in Granada or Panama. They are afraid of the Revolutionary Guards of Iran and the Red Army. Cowardice with a pen.
2
Shorter version: Iran is a sovereign nation, and sufficiently well-armed that a war against it would be costly and bloody. And Iran is a regional power, so sure they project influence into Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq. Are any of those countries a US ally? Are any of them strategically important? (Well, if they are, that would be based on the presumption that every corner of the planet is strategically important to America, a presumption I'd argue is dangerous folly.)
5
Hope the the leaders of the Revolutionary Guard read your article.It is hard to avoid war if they start it.The mysterious damage of four oil tankers in the Persian Gulf was likely the first salvo by the Iranian
Regime
2
i don't doubt ross douthat's realpolitik bona fides, but i'm curious how an avowed pro-lifer like him can advocate "a return to kill-your-enemies, back-your-friends realpolitik."
while "kill your enemies" is often just a figure of speech, in the context of u.s. foreign policy, it means exactly what it says. it means actually kill them. and why? because they're different than you? because they have different political or religious views? because they're conscripted in the army of a government that doesn't agree with your government?
are their lives less precious than mine and yours? how do you reconcile your advocacy for their deaths with your pro-life beliefs? what makes this choice ok?
4
How about, instead, no war unless we are attacked, as with 9/11, and then strictly limited war to punish the non-state perpetrators?
3
How about one time with no wars?
3
Trump has a grand strategy? Fooled me Russ, I ,mean Ross---!
1
"Whenever possible, one war at a time." Really? How about "NO war, MOST of the time."
12
Trump has a grand strategy? Really? The only strategy I see at work is to destroy the country while lining his own pockets.
5
I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 for reasons that still seem good to me, even though it was obvious even at the time that he was an idiot.
I also voted, twice, for Barack Obama, in part because I was afraid that McCain or Romney might attack Iran. In 2016 though Hillary seemed the greater warmonger.
So I want to endorse the message of this column in the strongest possible terms, and say to Donald Trump please, please, please, DO NOT ATTACK IRAN! It would be an absolute disaster for your presidency and for the country, and a betrayal of the people who voted for you.
5
Whenever possible, no war any time.
6
The Israel lobby is pushing hard for an attack on Iran. Last November, John Bolton was awarded the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon Adelson Award for Defense of Israel at the Zionist Organization of America. His acceptance speech is even on the National Security Council part of the White House website! The speech was full of bellicose talk toward Iran. Our foreign policy has been and is being hijacked by special interests, just as it was for Iraq. It is time to shine the light on and question the influence of such lobbies which really represent the interests of foreign countries, and act as agents for foreign countries.
9
It is the 21st century. Time to banish wars from the face of the earth. We do not need humans to kill humans. The planet is already under siege by climate change and we can all watch with horror as hurricanes tornadoes earthquakes floods volcanic eruptions rock the planet at its very core. Islands will disappear, shore lines will be swallowed. Why blame Iran? Why destroy other nations? If you want to make a change, start with Netanyahu. Tell him to pull back from his hard line, back off and then see the world align itself. With or without Iran war, the world is seeing a rise in anti semitism. Netanyahu is fueling it by drawing criticism of Israel rather than sympathy empathy admiration of the invaluable contributions of the Jewish diaspora to human civilization. If peace is an essence of Judaism and the old testament, let that guide all those who follow...
5
"Embracing naïvely utopian hopes in the Islamic world" is a pretty disgusting euphemism for killing over a million people to try to steal their oil.
11
@David The Original title for the War in Iraq under Cheney/Bush was : Operation Iraqi Liberation...and that was very quickly changed when folks saw the acronym on their TV Screens, the news agencies had a different name, Operation Enduring Freedom.
Having it named O.I.L. was just a tad much, even for their stomachs, even though it came from the Cheney/Rummy/Bolton corner in the first place for those No Bid Contracts for the Pentagon, which had admitted to losing $2.3 Trillion in spending the day before 911 happened (Rummy via TV news.)
Bolton is still having dreams of glory...and needs to be brought to heel fast. Trump will only see Bolton 'getting ahead' and benefiting more than Trump himself, so he will be jealous of Bolton. We know how the story goes for those who 'start' to fall out with this present occupant in the Whitehouse.
Since Trump still lost his Casinos, even though he did not WANT to lose them, he most certainly did, and tried to bury it like a cat in his backyard. Sure gives you hope for this pass, does it not?
I worry, however, whenever one posits the stupidest possible result, Trump seems to always seek to break the record in that manner.
If his goal is to totally ruin the Republican Party for the next 80 years, well, he is going on the correct path for that, but I fear him taking the rest of the country down too. We truly need some adults at the wheel of our Ship of State, which is currently floundering and rudderless, apparently without power.
“Whenever possible, one war at a time”.
Really. Is that what Jesus would say Ross?
It makes your religious piety seem absolutely bankrupt.
12
@Johnny, it is not just christianity, sadly abrahamic religions have shown hypocrisy when it comes to peace brotherhood blah blah. this is what happens when you receive messages from bushes and rocks.
Another war in the Middle East would be bad for America but good for its sacred cow,just as the last one.
3
"Whenever possible" used to mean "when the President of the United States brings a declaration of war resolution to the joint houses of Congress for a vote." That was last done constitutionally ithe morning after Pearl Harbor. Everything since August of 1945 has been, well, you name it, but the results speak for themselves.
2
Like all Douthat columns, this one gets silly in the first sentence:
"war with Iran, which Donald Trump clearly doesn’t want"
If Donnie didn't want a war with Iran, he wouldn't have pulled out of the peace treaty with Iran. I honestly don't understand how Douthat can come up with this nonsense week after week and get paid for it. White privilege in action.
11
Why are we even having this discussion? Has this country not learned from its absolutely disastrous actions of the past?
Does anyone remember that 'Shock and Awe' garbage? The fake photo ops showing Hussein's statue being toppled? The idiotic idea that democracy is a one size fits all template and easily applied just like a dime store peel off tattoo?
Is it oil yet again? It's not enough that we haven't addressed climate change because oil didn't want us to? Because the Koch network has spent millions denying things are changing when that money and so much more could have been spent helping us prepare or new technology?
Finally - for any idiot - and there are plenty of them out there - how do you feel about the draft? Reinstate the draft and let's see how many people pound their breasts while being firebombed or mowed down.
We've squandered everything. Everything.
6
“[D]eals with them in one area inevitably just enable aggression elsewhere.”
The primary aggressor in the region has been the United States, not Iran. Iran has not been aggressive but rather reactive to economic and geopolitical warfare being waged on it by Bolton and Pompeo together with the “allies” Israel and Saudi Arabia whose agenda they help promote.
Why is it that virtually everything one reads in the NY Times seems to buy into US regime propaganda with its claims about Iran’s “malign actvitity in the region”. Iran, 1953. Iraq, 2003. Who did that? Libya 2011? Syria? Destabilizing regime change not exactly motivated by charity, and thank goodness the regime change failed. The world, not to mention Syria, is better off for the failure. Although still feeling the effects. Gaza 2008, Gaza 2014. Whatever Iran has done cannot hold a candle.
What has Iran done? Helped destroy ISIS. Hmmm. Fully abide by its obligations under JCPOA? Yep. Support Hezbollah in Lebanon, yes. Sorry, that’s not a crime, not aggression and not “malign”. Armed Shiite militias during the US surge in Iraq, yes, killing hundreds of American personnel. Terrible. How appalling to think that a war of aggression against the Iranian nation would be suitable payback.
Saturday May 18, 7:30pm
5
If US wants regime change and spread democracy why don’t they start with Saudi Arabia...you know US’s ,”friend.” If you can’t convince your friend to change why would others listen?
7
Babi and the Prince get what they want from Trump. If they want war, you will go to war. Why? Because that’s how low you have gone. Just another bully with a martyr complex!
Your like a 5 year old with a gun!
5
"One war at a time?"
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Venezuela (?), and drone strikes all over Africa, those are wars. Lots of them.
We are losing all of them too.
6
This article ignores Iran's responsibility for starting a war, should it tragically come: if the Iranian's start to pull out of Syria, cease promoting terrorism around the globe, directly or indirectly, and startt to focus on their own nuclear-free nation building, then all will turn out well -at least with regard to Iran. If Iran should seek to close the Strait of Hormuz, or attack American troops or sailors, then a war need not invlove ground troops. A sustained air attack will not bring down the regime, which is not ours to do anyway. However, it could set their economy back a genertion or two. That is preferable to allowing them to develop nuclear weapons, on missiles, and pointed at New York, LA, Chicago, and D.C., and making it far easier for Shai Iran to become the dominant hegemon in the Sunni Middle East. That scenario ought to be completely unacceptable to Democrats and Republicans alike.
2
@Jack Kay
First , there is not and was not an Iranian nuclear weapons program since 2003. The only reason they ever had one was that they believed the Bush lies about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD and they sought a defense from that arch enemy. When the big lie was revealed they canceled the program. Every intelligence agency in the world including the US and Israel said so.Only lying politicians disagreed for their own political reasons.
Next, you are repeating vague unsupported claims by politicians about Iran "promoting terrorism" without a single fact, just as the lying politicians do.
Next, every significant nation is wrongly involved in Syria, Saudi-Arabia, as usual supporting Sunni terrorists, Turkey trying to destroy the Kurds, Russia and the US stumbling and bumbling around.
Iran is as close to to Democracy as there is the region. When our odious "allies" Saudi-Arabia , and the Gulf states stop conducting wars there and stop supporting international terrorism we will have a start toward peace
1
“...naïvely accommodating the rise of China”. China isn’t just a start-up nation that came from nowhere. It has been actually one of the cradles of human civilization. There is nothing wrong with other nations competing and even surpassing the United States. We have no inherent right on being the leading nation of the world. US exceptionalism does not exist, neither political nor economically.
14
Fascinating. Douthat spells out a “complete” depiction of the Iran mess reverse-engineered by Trump with no mention whatsoever of what has been the key Republican cant for the last decade: keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
So we’ve gone from “Obama’s deal won’t deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons” to “nuclear what?”
It’s one thing to shift the pea from one walnut shell to another. Removing the pea altogether is brazen, even for a conservative.
12
Recent American presidents have been overly optimistic about democratic transformation? Are you serious? That's seriously your analysis?
Well, it's absolutely ludicrous. It would be laughable it it weren't so vastly tragic. In all the times we have intervened beyond our shores since World War II, I don't think a single one of those interventions was ever intended to be anything remotely akin to democratic transformation.
C'mon, you can do better than that. There's plenty of honest history out there - go get some of it.
22
If we somehow manage to survive four years (and only four years!) of the Trump administration without a major military conflict it will be a miracle. The bigger problem (and it's not just on the military front) is what the country and the world will look like in the wake of this administration. We may or may not get burned this time - who knows? It's all the now inevitable fires next time that frighten me even more.
12
All considerations oflaw, morality , and politicsaside, has anyone looked with some care at the map and the demographics? For example, you can order 120,000 (or many more) troops to the ME, but where would you put them? Do you think that Pakistan, Iraq, or Jordan would happily accommodate an expeditionary force of that size for very long? The logistics of getting them into and supporting them once there in, say, Afghanistan are monumental, if not impossible, since that place is landlocked and badly equipped with heavy-duty roads in the border area. Then there is the terrain: far more mountainous than Iraq and a lot bigger. Air power? We put more HE on Vietnam than we had done on Germany in WWII and we lost anyway --- hint: air power alone has never won a war. Regime change: every experience of the 20th century showed that foreign invasion, however well meant, causes a regime to strengthen, not abdicate. And as for bombing the nuclear facilities you have to first find them, and if they are under several hundred (or more) feet of mountain you can bomb them for a year without doing serious damage. (Meanwhile your bombers are dodging antiaircraft missiles, not always successfully.) The cost of all this you can imagine --- you might even have to claw back that trillion-or-so tax cut! Good luck with the whole idea.
18
@jprfrog Yes to all of that, plus the observation that, as usual, the advocates of war assume their adversaries are incapable of retaliation.
2
How about “whenever possible no war at anytime”. We have not won a war since World War II. There was s a message there. And that message is “Beware the Military-Industrial Complex” delivered by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower.
We should have learned by now that most of the reasons we have gone to war is because we arrogantly think that all countries should be run like ours, not to mention how much money can be made. No thought given by all the people murdered by cause of our leaders and those of other countries
It says a lot when most of our Allies are against the United States from pursuing agression against Iran
It is time to rid ourselves of John Bolton and Mike Pompeo and any other War Hawks. They are dangerous to our Country
I do have one more thought. Trump loves Kim, Putin, Orban and Netanyahu. According to Trump they are his friends and lovely men. Seeing as he fauns over Strong murderous Leaders why doesn’t he make the Ayatollah his next best friend?
21
@Jean
John Bolton and Pompeo need to put on a uniform and go fight their perpetual wars.
10
Pompeo did serve, as did Tom Cotton. Both must have PTSD! They’re crazy.
1
Iran will not be attacking the US because its theocratic leadership wants to stay in power and maintains its very lucrative stranglehold on the economy. That the average Iranian suffers greatly at their leaders economic (and environmental) mismanagement is ultimate Their issue, not ours, and the populace know quite well who is to blame for their misfortune. Eventually, the tipping point will be reached and if the US helps that along by highlighting the fact that the price of Iranian destabilization has gone up, why is that suddenly a bad thing?
What is different in President Trump's approach is his including in clear message that any attack by any of Iran's proxies on an American ally will be viewed as an attack perpetrated by Iran itself. That warning, along with military naval and troop movements reinforcing its seriousness, has left Iran's generals to bluster in ways that make the statements of Baghdad Bob appear statesmanlike, as a face-saving maneuver. The last time Iran tested the US in the Gulf, its navy took the brunt of the retaliation and the lesson has not been lost. That, in turn, is why Iran has not even pretended to mine the Gulf this time.
The US strategy, then, harkens back to a very ancient principle (entirely lost on the EU, but then it plays behind the shield of the US military): if you wish for peace, prepare for war.
2
To add, the US can fight wars for years on end because of the military industrial complex, but as Iraq showed, regime change is messy in the Middle East. We do not want to be drawn into a twenty-year affair against a variety of terrorist groups. Some may believe that if Iran falls, so will Hezbollah, al Assad, and Hamas, but we cannot guarantee that conclusion, especially with regard to Assad, whom the Russians have already propped up. In addition, Iran trades with Russa and Iran is part of China's Belt Road Initiative, thus, a war with Iran will not be with just Iran. In contrast to Mr. Douthat swipe at Obama, making deals with the Iranians is probably the best way to handle the situation. We do not need to prop up the government but simply make smaller deals. As we have seen in Venezuela, sanctions that simply hurt the citizens do not force the hand of the government. Of course, in the zero-sum world of the Trump administration, "winning" against the Iranians might help the US "win" against the Russians and Chinese. In reality, there is no victory in these conflicts, just death, and destruction. We can have a world with open trade and competing visions.
13
@Anthony
It has become as described in Orson Welles book 1984, Perpetual War and black is white and whit is black.
1
His grand strategy is to profit, profit, and then profit. He wants it all to be in the hands of the 1% of the 1%, and that grand plan is evil for it wants to continue the process of making America about the grand few living in islands of wealth, like Mar A Lago.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
15
@Hugh Massengill
To steal a phrase out of my own tradition.
How is this night different from all other nights?
"I met a traveller from an antique land, who said: "
Shelley
Ozymandias
4
These wars cost a minimum of about $1 trillion and upwards. The usual result is a long tail of military commitments and ever so happy contractors. Sounds a bit too normal, doesn't it?
11
Two twin national security goals come into play with Iran: non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and containment of Islamism.
It's a potent mix. But unfortunately it's what got us into the Iraq quagmire. GWB phrased it like this:
"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Everyone seems to agree Iraq II was a disaster. But Iraq I wasn't. So how would the Trumpian reptile part of the brain explain the difference? How about this: in the first Gulf War, we set the terms of victory as territorial gain and kinetic destruction. In another, the standard of victory was all that same stuff, but also a grand plan to rebuild, reform and democratize a society half way across the world.
So what's the lesson? How about be realistic about what military power projection can accomplish.
And if we apply that lesson to our stated goals in Iran--stop reactors from making plutonium and centrifuges from enriching Uranium--what are our chances?
Obviously seizing the territory of a large mountainous nation of 80 million would be a challenge.
But Iran's nuclear facilities can be targeted militarily from the air tonight. And tomorrow too. If $680 billion dollars a year in military spending has bought us anything, it's the assurance that, in terms of purely military might, the U.S. wins a war if it fights it on its own terms.
2
@Mmm
But Iraq 1 wasn't?
Iran is 74% urban. Tehran is 15M people. Do you have a calendar?
It is 2019 on planet Earth.
Fighting a war on America's terms? Are you sending in the NYPD?
4
@Mmm
Apart from Grenada, which war/s has the US won fighting on its own terms?
3
If this column, or anything like it, had been written 20 years ago, it would have been dystopian science fiction. See how far we've come? Casual continual war.
21
@John
You would rather live in a world where the use of nuclear weapons is casual and continual?
1
@GregP, must I remind you of the name of the only country that has actually dropped nuclear bombs?
3
I am not sure why everyone is so sure that the war will not happen. By prohibiting all oil purchases, the Trump administration is essentially sitting on Iran's chest and daring it to try to sit up. If Iran does resist, then it will be declared an aggressor and war will be 'justified' and triggered by the alliance. That is the Pompeo/Bolton/Bin Salman/Netanyahu grand plan. Only Trump does not seem to understand. He thinks they are just bringing Iran to table, while they think they are bringing Iran to the chopping block.
28
You lost me at the subhead, claiming Trump has a grand strategy.
45
Exactly what I was gonna say. The idea’s insane.
Honestly, Douthat, is it that you’ve been having doubts about Papal infallibility or the Virgin Birth or something? Because that’s understandable, and the notion that Trump has thought about a blessed thing other than, “Wadda I get out of this?” is completely crazy.
2
@Matt: Trump considers himself as grand, and that is his strategy. I agree, however, either Douthat is a White House insider, or a fantasist. Of course, someone will reply that all WH insiders are fantasists.
4
@Matt
Douthat in the link he gives to a previous column, explains Trump’s Grand Strategy. Here is a quote:
“This Trump doctrine, in practice, isn’t the isolationism that he sometimes promised on the campaign trail; nor is it the flailing bellicosity that many of his critics feared. It’s a doctrine of disentanglement, retrenchment and realignment, in which the United States tries to abandon its most idealistic hopes and unrealistic military commitments, narrow its list of potential enemies and consolidate its attempts at influence. The overarching goal isn’t to cede United States primacy or abandon American alliances, as Trump’s opponents often charge; rather, it’s to maintain American primacy on a more manageable footing, while focusing more energy and effort on containing the power and influence of China.”
Agreed!
But, if we really don't want war with Iran we should not have sent the carrier battle group and bombers. That is a military provocation in itself.
With recognition that I never believe Donald Trump -- every time he opens his mouth it is a lie or misrepresentation -- I believe the UK general who claimed there is nothing out of the ordinary going on in the Middle East.
The classified briefing to Congress and them shaking their heads tells me they have been conned. Yes. Just like the lies that were told about the Gulf of Tonkin and WMD for the Vietnam war and Iraqi war. YES. Congress bought the lies hook, line and sinker in both of those cases!
A photograph of an Iranian ship with missiles on board. How normal is that? Congress doesn't spend its days reviewing classified Iranian intelligence. Was that photo taken this year or 5 years ago? Is it one of hundreds of similar photos taken over the last 10 years, or is this case unique? Go back and read the cons that were run on the public and the Congress for WMD in Iraq. The WMD didn't exist and the UN investigation team proved it.
Trump "doesn't want a war". Baloney. He is praying and begging that there will be a military provocation that will be used to induce Congress for enactment of a war powers bill. He'll continue to weep big alligator tears about how he "didn't want a war". And then he'll run off to the Saudis for permission to start building the Trump tower in Riyadh.
18
Douthat forgets to mention a few key details about why Iran views the US as "the great satan."
Iran as the Persian Empire has claim to a rich civilization that dates back to 500 BC and counts among its contributions Calculus and Algebra, the first universal human rights declaration, gender equality, animal rights, the first medical textbook, efficient government, and the largest empire in history. The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, a Persian mathematician and poet, stands as one of history's greatest works of literature.
They aren't descended from desert nomads who were used by the British to defeat the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) and later to draw lines in the desert to delineate oil empires that supplied the West, particularly the oil-powered British warships that enforced Pax Britannia.
Saudi Arabia and the Emirates are British political impositions, as are nearly all other nations in the region except for Iran.
The CIA and British M16 staged a coup d'état in 1953 to overthrow Iran PM Mosaddegh's government when he tried to nationalize Iran's massive oil deposits and threatened US and British oil interests.
CIA installed the hated Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who with his wife were glamorous jet-setters while Savak, his hated secret police, terrorized Iranians until he was overthrown by his people in 1979.
We've messed up Iran big time, imposing a hated monarch and his reign of terror.
They have no reason to think our intentions are benign. Because they're not.
201
Way back in the yellow pancake day, my neighbor mansplained to my daughter about the need for the US (founded by religious zealots) to bring civilization to the Middle East.
Sigh.
21
The danger of war with Iran is not actually war with Iran but rather with its proxies such as Hezbollah who have at this moment some 130,000 rockets, most aimed at Israel.
Iran also controls Islamic Jihad in Gaza and turns them on and off at will for its own purposes.
Should the US channel back its brinksmanship as Mr. Douthat counsels? Should the "maximum pressure" be dialed down a notch?
Perhaps. But what is a mistake is to consider Iran and to decide about Iran simply as Iran. Iran pulls the stings on terrorist organizations and utilizes numerous proxies only too willing to do its bidding. Detente with Iran while leaving its proxies ready and willing is no solution ever.
4
@Joshua Schwartz
Israel is supposedly our "greatest ally", but when was the last time the IDF fought side by side with the US in any war, anywhere? The French, British and Canadians have, but what about the Israelis? Israeli intelligence is supposedly top notch, but where was it before 9/11? Where was it before any terrorist bombing in the Middle East that killed Americans? Where was it before the 2003 Iraq War and Iraq's supposed WMDs? Where was it on helping locate bin Laden? Nowhere to be found. Yet there was Netanyahu lecturing our Congress in 2003 about the threat from Iraq, and later lecturing our Congress about the threat from Iran.
How about you and your countrymen take the billions of dollars in expensive military hardware the US has given you over the years, and you go take on Iran. We will be cheering from the sidelines.
13
Amen!
No-one has presented to me a persuasive argument that we should support Iraq and Saudi Arabia in their conflict with Iran.
In what way are they more humanistic or more democratic?
23
All due respect to your analysis, Ross, what it comes down to for profiteers such as those currently in control of our government is that it is a lot harder to make substantial profits from creating war materials if there isn't an actual war--either one of our own, or somebody else's we can sell the material to.
Rule 1:
No matter what they're talking about, they're talking about money.
Rule 2:
See Rule 1.
24
Is anyone surprised to see Putin remaining quiet, while the conflict between the US and Iran is escalating? Iran not only Russia's neighbor to the south, it was working closely with Russia in Syria. So, why Putin is not providing any political or military support for its neighbor?
The answer is simple. Mr. Putin is looking forward seeing a war between the US and Iran. He sees a US attack on Iran a Afghanistan-repeat, but in a much larger scale.
Taliban did not have a large army, let alone a navy or air force. But it managed to survive and push the US out in its own terms. After 18 years of bombing every city, village, valley, and cave in that country, now the US military is quietly withdrawing, effectively leaving the Taliban in control of much of that country. No matter how one view this, the bottom line is the US military is abandoning its Afghan allies, defeated by a ragtag army.
Genetically, Iranians and Afghans are the same people (anthropologist call them "Iranic"). They share the same "warier genes" in which the US military is so interested. Their main difference is that Iranians are more educated; hence more cunning. They have a well-trained, well-equipped military of almost half a million. More importantly, compared to Afghanistan, their country is four times bigger with a three times larger population.
After Putin was told "Russia is just Europe's gas-station", his dream has been to see a complete US financial bankruptcy and military humiliation.
16
@Eddie B. @Eddie B. If Putin looks forward to a war between the US and Iran, it would certainly be for a reason you don’t mention. It would solve his Syrian dilemma by removing the Iranian military (and its proxies) presence.
Russia's goal was always a narrow one: to maintain its bases in Syria to project its power in the Eastern Mediterranean. Iran's goal, to obtain hegemony in the region through an inevitable confrontation with Israel, is antithetical to Russia's interests.
While Putin may then root for war, the Ayatollahs will back down under US pressure. After all, they are realists and will not fight a war they know they cannot win but will cost them their rule. Given how lucrative the Iranian rulers' stranglehold on the Iranian economy has proved, they are in no rush to get to Paradise - that fate is, as always, reserved for their impoverished credulous followers.
@Charlie in NY "the Ayatollahs will back down... they are realists and will not fight a war they know they cannot win but will cost them their rule" is pretty much what Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld thought in the early 1980s when Iraq launched its war against Iran, and then gained the backing of the Reagan administration. They were mistaken; what makes you think your judgment will prove better than theirs did?
3
@Eddie B.
What else is Putin being silent about? I bet he is guilty of everything he isn't talking about right now how about you?
I will give you credit for the hard work invested in creating coherence out of threats, tweets and actions all seeming to run at cross purposes.
On the only topic where a vast majority of Americans seem to agree - - that we should not become involved in war with Iran - - we still face the possibility of it happening BECAUSE of Trump.
11
Why can't the bloggers come clean and admit the truth for a change? Everyone out there is just itching for an all out shooting war to break out between Iran and America. The bloggers have been anticipating this war since the presidency of Bush 43.
Trump + Miller + Bolton = The Three Stooges, bumbling into trouble in the wrong places.
17
Recently Trump said something at one of his appearances that amounted to "we just don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons." It was an off-the-cuff remark that probably reveals his true views on the matter - despite Trump's many deficiencies, he is not a neocon.
Of course the existing Iran nuclear deal was put in place specifically for the purpose of keeping Iran nuke-free, and by all accounts it was working. GOP opposition was mostly borne of Israeli and Saudi antipathy toward Iran, and Trump's opposition to the deal was simply because Obama had engineered it.
I say this half-jokingly, but it seems the best course of action would be to simply re-invite Trump to the treaty table, rename the deal, and make Trump feel as though he's negotiated a winning treaty (that's basically what happened with the as-yet-unratified NAFTA 2.0). As long as the old man thinks he's the one who came up with the winning hand, he'll be happy. And the rest of the world can breath a little easier. Such is the case when the world's most powerful country is ruled by a doddering old fool.
24
@Vin. The Swiss have talked with Iran & they want the US to back off & leave them alone. The Ayatollah refuses to agree to any talks with the US, especially Trump! He said “I would rather drink double poison than negotiate with Trump.”
They’re ready for you though because the US has done everything to provoke them & they carry on. Our allies will not participate in another unnecessary War like Iraq. The Trump Admin. should not expect anyone but his base to support this debacle! It’s totally unnecessary & probably not winnable. The Regime is not collapsing. Russia & China both consider Iran an Ally.
Obama also negotiated the TPP, which left China out because of Intellectual Property Theft. Trump threw that away too. His brilliant ideas now are a War with Iran and Tariffs for China and our used to be Allies! Truly a fine mess he has the US in!
3
The only country in the world ever actually threatened by Iran with nuclear destruction is Israel.
When President Obama decided to enter into a nuclear deal with Iran that did not provide Israel with permanent assurance that Iran would never obtain atom bombs, he placed ordinary Israelis in a position where they had little reason to have confidence in him.
That is a regrettable fact, but it is a fact that should be prevented
from occurring again.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/11/iran-israel-nuclear-destruction-584196
5
@A. Stanton. Yes, Israel insists that Iran be thoroughly bombed before a Deal is made. They tried to get Bush 2 & Obama to go War with Iran, but they refused. Then along came Bibi’s favorite president! He just keeps promising to name Settlements after Trump. Really sad for the US! The Defense people were pleased with JCPOA, but not Bibi, who is basically a smarter Trump!
3
That is a regrettable fact, and it is a fact that must be prevented from occurring again.
@A. Stanton.... Even several Israeli generals thought the nuclear agreement with Iran was a good deal. The principle objection came from Netanyahu who needs Iran as a whipping boy to maintain his grip on power.
A red hat embroidered with MAGA isn’t a strategy.
17
Before it's waged, war must be manufactured, then manipulated into being. That's where we are right now. Before it's too late to call back what can't be called back. Before blood is spilled, lives are lost than cannot be replaced.
'Cannon fodder,' by its very definition, propagated by those who live, love and work thousands of miles from the front line is what's willing to be sacrificed for the greed of ego and the hypocrisy of principle.
What's the hurry? Instead of hindsight being 20/20 perhaps, just perhaps this time foresight could provide a clearer solution.
9
I rarely (aka never) agree with Mr. Douthat on anything. In this writing, I find I do agree: we are at risk of inadvertent war based on inconsistent (aka incoherent) foreign policy by the administration, compounded by infighting within the administration led by Mr. Bolton. He learned nothing in Iraq.
In addition to Mr. Douthat’s observations, I would add that there is a remarkable uncritical and incurious acceptance of the cited escalating risks. I see the punditry class and foreign policy wonks echoing the administration assertions regarding belligerence by Iran in a manner all too familiar – a few voices challenging and the majority serving as the bugle and drum corps echo chamber. Those drums created enough noise to drown out all other speakers last time around.
We’ve been here before and,as with Mr. Bolton, also learned nothing.
12
“In the past I have argued that there is a certain coherence to the Trump foreign policy, even if it’s just an accidental synthesis of a chaotic White House’s competing impulses.”
This is nothing more than wishful thinking. In all matters, but especially in foreign policy, Trump has the childish habit of adopting the idea of the person who spoke to him last. Attributing coherence to that is, well, quaint.
Trump’s two foremost foreign policy advisors are ardent Iran haters. Bolton is just Dr. Strangelove with the black humor bleached away, but Mike Pompeo is even more dangerous, an end of days Armageddon freak. His inane evangelical theory is that war in the Middle East is the precipitating event for the Rapture, the return of Jesus, and the end of the world as we know it. He thinks he and other “evangelical christians,” their own hostility toward the actual teachings of Jesus notwithstanding, will be drawn into heaven, while the rest of us burn in eternal hellfire. Good for him if he is right, maybe, if Jesus deigns to forgive his anti-Jesus faux christianity, but bad for the rest of us. If he is wrong, it is bad for the whole world.
Ross’ description of “our Sunni allies” is contemptably laughable. I assume he means Saudi Arabia, provider of 19/20 of the 9/11 hijackers and their mastermind. In addition, they are 5he funders of a worldwide network of madrassas espousing hateful antisemitic, antichristian and antiamerican rhetoric to Sunni children. These are not our allies.
41
Iran is no more Islamic than Saudi Arabia, no more of a weapons risk than North Korea, no more iron-fisted than Russia or the Philippines. Yet Trump singles out Iran as an enemy. A partial explanation is that it was always a cheap accusation to throw at President Obama that Iran can’t be dealt with like other nations. But a fuller explanation is that the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Israel, for their own cynical reasons, need to posture hysterically about Iran, and Trump is a convenient tool for their bidding.
157
The GOP world view and Trump as its bumbling, ignorant and hamfisted champion are beyond redemption.
Civilization is not a zero-sum game. Diplomacy and soft-power projection create more real-world leverage than sabre rattling and carrier battle groups
The key to the whole puzzle is leverage. Leverage comes from coalitions which start on a limited basis but provide their own growing foundation of common interests.
The United States especially must learn to keep its hands to itself and stop trying to shape the world in its preferred order (ostensibly democracy but, in reality, unfettered capitalism). Like a 300 lb. adolescent we throw ourselves about on the world stage attempting to bully cultures that were old for millennia before we were conceived.
The modern GOP is a threat to free people everywhere. The military industrial complex doesn't care as long as they get theirs. The single most important things we can do is neuter the latter to suffocate the former; in a phrase "campaign finance reform."
Or their narrow, zero-sum world view will be the death of us.
20
With our chief diplomat Mike Pompeo being anything but diplomatic and John Bolton wanting war with Iran, seemingly little mistakes can escalate to a point where the president must make an instant decision.
Trump could be easily goaded by his wanna be Teddy Roosevelt Bolton telling Trump like TR did with McKinley in 1898 that he must do “ the manly thing.”
If Trump fears that he will be viewed as a wimp, pushover or loser, a small incident involving the U.S. Navy and Iranian forces could become a conflagration.
I disagree with Mr. Douthat that Trump has a foreign policy doctrine. Instead, it is an incoherent mess run by incompetents like Stephen Miller, John Bolton, Mike Pompeoetc.
24
Honest Ross, with this Administration, up is down and down is up. Pompeo doesn’t agree with Bolton, Bolton doesn’t agree with the President and vise versa, the Joint Chiefs are in a state of flux, and our “Armada” is in the Persian Gulf just itching to pick a fight. The Republican Congress is asleep at the switch, no one is listening to the Democrats, and the American citizenry is away for the weekend.
We could start a war with Iran tomorrow and on Monday the stock market would probably jump 300 points, just thinking of all the new cruise missile orders Raytheon would be getting.
No, Trump won’t start a war with Iran, but not because it doesn’t meet his nationalistic campaign promises, it’s because it would require critical thinking, a strategy, and most of all, he would be required to “read” the NSA briefing every week, and attend a bunch of meetings and maybe even stay in Washington and not be able to go to Mar-a-Largo.
Don’t forget to vote in 2020.
53
@cherrylog754...And Trump would own the war. He won't do it because he would be held responsible. He doesn't accept responsibility for anything.
3
@PWRT
Oh, he'll find a way to blame Hillary! McConnell will try to have HRC investigated again, and Faux News will blast its talking points to the gullible.
4
I usually disagree with virtually everything Ross Douthat writes, but I give credit when due. Good essay Douthat. The only thing you left out in your description of how Bolton and Pompeo are pushing for a hot war is that BOTH Israel and Saudi Arabia are talking to Bolton and Pompeo and are pushing very hard behind the scenes for that same hot war.
24
Why Americans are so incensed by Iran is beyond me. On the region, it is one of the most rational actor, with an address to go to if you want to talk.
They defend their interests, and they annoy some regional actors. And you want to bomb them ?
By those standards war would be never ending.
105
@Fred
"We" don;t want to -- Bolton and Pompeo and their clan would love to have a reason to to just that and will do their utmost to concoct an incident.
At the moment, it appears the Trump might be a little frightened by the war drums beating in the West Wing.
It feels as if the US government is in the hands of madmen.
24
Perhaps unintentionally, Mr. Douthat reveals what is just as wrong with a supposed Grand Strategy as with those of the predecessors this president constantly insults and whose policies he ostensibly rejects. "David French ... describes a potential conflict with Iran as possibly worse than any of our wars since 9/11," "With any of our wars"? Are we so inured to constant - and I'd add, unnecessary - war that we refer to it so casually? A real policy of "retrenchment" would involve ways to disengage, not provoke incidents to justify war.
14
Iranians have good reasons to fear the Americans and their British predecessors, and history is there to prove it; in 1913 the British grabbed Iranian oil and made it their property. Six years later, Britain imposed another agreement and took over Iran’s treasury and the army. During the Second World War, Britain’s requisitioning of food led to famine and widespread disease. Shortly after that war, Iran’s own efforts to establish its nascent democracy and nationalize the oil industry were thwarted. And by whom? Uncharacteristically, Eisenhower joined the systematic British looting, and, sadly, by 1953, the blossoming Iranian democracy was completely destroyed by the covert operation of the American CIA and British MI6, known as Operation Ajax. In place of the democracy was installed Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, a US-British puppet, a despot deeply hated by his own people. His fall to the Khomeini’s mullahs was so precipitated that even today Iranians see it as a British plot, branding Britain as “Original Satan.”
What could Iranians think of US under Trump today? Or of Bolton, a seemingly demented man who wants regime change?
But really, what would we think if we were Iranians? Perhaps, will America continue to hurt us, and why?!
64
“Trump’s grand strategy” re Iran. That’s rich. Trump’s only grand strategy is to lie and obstruct and through the republic under the bus. Period. Vote.
15
Donald Trump's mind focuses chiefly on himself, what is best for him. A war will diminish his polling numbers making reelection prospects less certain. That makes a war out of the question unless he were to use it to distract from some legal or political danger to himself. With lies and distortions, he is able to control how issues are now presented to the American public. Lies and distortions are more risky in determining the narrative of a war. And, if discovered, the consequences for him from deceiving Americans about a war, where our military members have been killed, are far more severe. So, thinking of himself first, war poses too many dangers to him and his decision will be made according to what's best for him.
8
Well expressed and reasoned, but I wish you would consider two other factors:
1. The Iranians are capable engineers. They don't innovate, but they can use Western technology. Their rockets work reliably.
2. Nuclear weapon technology is not beyond their capabilities. Iranian engineers are capable of developing nuclear warheads for those missiles.
3. A small nuclear weapon, say the size of the ones dropped on Japan, would kill 1/5 of Israel outright, and 1/3 would be left dying of cancer. Do you think Israel is going to risk that?
4. Nor is Saudi Arabia going to risk a nuclear armed rocket landing on Riyadh, and has already announced they don't buy Iran's plausible deniability claim that it wasn't them, just their good friends the Houthis in the attack on the pipelines. It doesn't sound like they'll patiently wait for a nuclear attack in order to earn sympathetic world opinion, does it?
5. Iran is probably one year away, maybe less, from having small, deliverable nuclear weapons.
The Ayatollahs are old and disappointed and probably think an apocalypse would be a great way to go, the Republican Guard is old and feeling threatened, there's no real reason to think the next generation, although more secular, is any less determined to have nuclear weapons so that the dreams of Iranian hegemony in the Middle East can be realized. Donald Trump's policy is the last chance we'll have to employ real pressure on Iran.
5
@Mary
wrote,
"A small nuclear weapon, say the size of the ones dropped on Japan, would kill 1/5 of Israel outright, and 1/3 would be left dying of cancer. Do you think Israel is going to risk that? "
So let Israel fight a war with Iran..Why should Americans fight another Mideast war for Israel?
3
@Mary
Interesting thesis..too bad the United States is unquestionably the aggressor state.
Trump's "policy" is undeniably arrogant, uninformed and warped by the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Follow the money.
5
"David Frum, once a notable Iraq war supporter, writes that war with Iran would recapitulate our Iraq blunders on 'a much bigger scale, without allies, without justification, and without any plan at all for what comes next'.”
If the regime in Tehran does collapse - which by no means is certain - what comes next is easy to foresee. Iran is much more in Russia's backyard than Venezuela is in the US's. So, Putin will be dispatching his FSB/SVR people to ensure the next government in Tehran, whenever formed, will be 100% pro-Russia. The US will not stay idle and will be supporting pro-US groups with arms and money. As we have seen elsewhere, that is the recipe for starting a large civil war.
With many large national minorities (Persian, Turkic, Kurdish, Baloch, Arab, etc.) in Iran, and with Saudi Arabia, Emirate, and Israel, eagerly waiting for an opportunity to break up that country, a civil war of immense proportion will certainly follow. Then millions of Iranians will try to migrate to Europe and US, while millions will be displaced within their own country.
At the start of Syrian civil war, that country's population was close to 23m, out of which roughly 1.4m moved into Europe. Given Iran's 80m population, assuming a similar movement, close to 5m Iranians will head for Europe. If the EU's most serious political instability was created by 1.4m Syrians, imagine what happens when 5m Iranians trying to get to Europe.
Could this be Trump's plan to destabilize EU?
9
@Eddie B. I doubt anyone in the Trump administration can plan that far ahead. Maybe the more interesting question is why the Trump administration wants to destabilize the EU so much? Why, if you look close enough, do Trump and the GOP/neocons despise Europe so much?
4
@Eddie B. Why the apocalyptic vision when nothing remotely similar occurred when Ayatollah Khomeini seized power from the Shah in 1979 and then ruthlessly annihilated his no longer useful leftist allies to consolidate his version of an Islamic theocracy? No outside powers intervened and the Iranian state did not implode. And, in any case, why would you oppose the national aspirations of non-Persian minorities?
That's a problem with his ordering all those fighter plans, while criticizing the conclusions of the Obama administration that this would not be the way the wars would be conducted. (Remember the exchange with Romney?). Anyway, once they've got them, the fingers itch to use them.
6
The "explicitly pro-war rejoinder to these points" is simply that John Bolton wants this war. For half a century it seems that he has never seen a war that he didn't want fought--by other Americans. Now he is finally in a position to have his own war.
His innate intelligence (versus that typical of the present Administration) may be sufficient to maneuver the situation over an edge that will make President Trump seem to be a coward if there isn't US militarily action. If the crisis is structured properly it might even be hard for Congress to push back.
27
Somebody remind me, how many foreign wars has China involved itself in over the last 30 years? What have they spent their money on instead?
How is that war thing working for us?
135
@Victor Lazaron
Be patient. You will get your answer on China soon enough.
You are aware that they do have the world’s largest army, right?
1
@Stuart
Yes. I also remember Iraq had one of the largest armies at one point.....how'd that work out....for the both of us?
5
@Victor Lazaron
China's military is too busy trying to tame the Uighers, keeping Tibet reined in and building "islands" so they can control the shipping lanes in the south China sea.
2
You might call alienating our allies, starting trade wars with everyone, embracing Russian interference, cozying up to dictators, ripping up international agreements and letting Saudi Arabia kill innocent women, children and journalists for craven financial reasons Trump's "Grand Strategy" but I see it more like a "Grand Mal Seizure". Once again you mistake our President's pernicious performance with patriotism. There is no overview for Trump's foreign policy, it's only what he can see from the Foxhole.
61
"In the past I have argued that there is a certain coherence to the Trump foreign policy, even if it’s just an accidental synthesis of a chaotic White House’s competing impulses."
Not much of an argument, Mr. Douthat. More of a desperate hope.
The "chaotic White House’s competing impulses" include those from
... an ignorant, emotionally unstable President whose biggest fear is likely that a war will inevitably cut into his executive time and golf outings.
... a smart, emotionally unstable National Security Advisor whose biggest fear seems to be that he may miss getting his war, any war, a goal he has dedicated his life to after ducking service in Vietnam
... a desperately ambitious sycophantic Secretary of State whose biggest fear is that he may not maximize his personal advantage regardless of the cost country
There is no coherence in administration led by a President who can't articulate a policy, calls reports of public actions by his administration fake news, and spends more time critiquing late night TV than discussing the impact of actions that may lead to a war that will kill thousands of Americans.
Trump is a ticking time bomb and has been since day one. 612 days left.
19
The Trump Administration is provoking a war with Iran!
Unilaterally imposing trade sanctions on Iran, a sovereign nation, and trying to force other nations to comply, is a war-like act. Positioning a navy carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf at Iran's front door is a war-like act. Supplying arms and intelligence to assist Saudi Arabia in waging a brutal war against Shiites in Yemen is a war-like act.
The Trump Administration, abetted by Saudi Arabia and Israel, is inserting itself into the centuries-old conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
The United States has no interests at stake in that conflict. Our oil supplies are not under threat. History has shown that our government is incapable of formulating and pursuing a foreign policy for the Middle East. Our meddling in the region has always produced disastrous outcomes.
The United States and Britain engineered the overthrow of the only democratically-elected government Iran ever had. The United States supported the brutal, oppressive Shah regime, which was overthrown by the Mullahs.
The American conquest and occupation of Iraq converted Sunni Iraq, a bulwark against Iranian Shiite expansion in the Arabian Peninsula, into Shiite Iraq, an ally of Iran. Members of the disbanded Iraqi Army formed the core of the ISIS/ISIL movement that further destabilized Iraq and Syria.
Once again, an ignorant and arrogant Administration is leading the United States into an ever-expanding, never-ending Middle East quagmire.
41
As a former resident of Red America I understand Trump's ascension to the Oval Office was a response to the decline and eventual fall of America's flyover country. This month's visit to Washington DC showed me that the schism is more than politics it is two different countries one rich and growing richer and one on a path of other USA satellites where hope has disappeared.
Here just North of Vermont's Northeast Kingdom the boom continues. Sherbrooke our big city gets less homogenous every day and new subdivisions spring up like mushrooms. Every business is hiring and our tourism, manufacturing, farming and retail industries search desperately for needed manpower.
Just south of an imaginary line is Vermont's poorest, reddest and least optimistic counties.
While tourist destinations like Magog, Coaticook and North struggle to find the 1000 people to fill the positions needed just for a tourist season even as our two universities cannot find enough students to fill the demand, Vermont's Northeastern frontier cannot keep its best and brightest in an economy which finds a new rock bottom year after year.
Reagan blamed your government for everything and Trump is the culmination of Reagan's two nation policy. Here in Quebec we believe in democracy and peace order and good government. We provide healthcare, education and a floor for almost all our citizens. What is it about peace, order, and good governance that America doesn't understand?
221
@Montreal Moe it's because our country's culture revolves around little more than self-interest and hyper-individualism. "I got mine, so stuff you."
I used to think we'd grow out of it within my lifetime, and though I'm only in my 40's, I'm pretty pessimistic about it.
67
@Montreal Moe
Many Vermonters are working for better healthcare, education and good government too.
Vermont provides Health Insurance for all children under 18 y.o., Dr Dinosaur. The ACA , and expansion of Medicaid, allows low income Vermonters to buy comprehensive Health Insurance with large premium subsidies. The Vermont House and Senate just voted for an increase of the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2024.
Next time , go to Burlington, a booming university town, and see all the Help Wanted signs on the Church Street mall. Many Quebeckers shopping there too.
Finally, our State voted for Hilary Clinton, not Trump.
19
@skier 6
I love Vermont and I love Burlington. I am 71 and have been visiting Vermont for 65 years. I remember when Vermont was the reddest state in the Union and we called it Mississippi North. I love the Northeast Kingdom and its people its children are as good , as smart and ambitious as anyone anywhere. I love Barre and Lyndonville and White River Junction Windsor and St Johnsbury.
It saddens me no end that ten minutes north of the border in my home province we have a booming economy and south of the border in the richest most powerful country on the planet even the farmers are struggling as they watch their children flee as soon as they finish college.
Ayer's Cliff , North Hatley and Magog are packed with people all summer while The Northeast Kingdom with the same mountains rivers and lakes sees its beautiful downtowns shrivel up and die.
Downtown Burlington speaks to the wisdom of Senator Sanders and Middlebury is thanks to Ben and Jerry and Green Mountain coffee part of America's great success story of new immigrants albeit from NYC bringing in new blood to create a new economy.
That is the only purpose of my comment, I am not a scold, I am just reiterating that Ronald Reagan destroyed America by creating two Americas one rich one poor and how much America needs to get back to 1964 when the GOP of Nixon, Reagan and Goldwater used the Civil Rights Act to divide and conquer.
The rising tide only raised the biggest boats and swamped the small ones.
49
Okay, leaving aside the suggestion that Trump is bringing the U.S. to a "back your friends" realpolitik when he's been poking a finger in the eye of Canada, Mexico, the E.U. etc. while cozying up to North Korea and Russia.... and thereby suggesting Mr. Douthat is living in some kind of parallel reality to which the rest of us lack access....
The strategy, to the extent that there is one, is simple. When war happens (even, indeed especially, when the person who started it says he didn't want one--because who in the history of war loudly trumpeted "I'm going to start a war"?) there's a golden period of unquestioning support for the leader and silencing of dissent as even the opposition falls into line. You think the Democrats are dithering, flaccid enablers now....
Time your war for six to twelve months before an election and you're golden. It's actually kind of a miracle Bush didn't think of that; if he'd dragged it out a bit longer and invaded Iraq a year later it would have made 2004 a slam dunk.
43
@Tim Moerman
Disagree—if Trump blunders into a war with Iran, he’ll lose re-election for sure and might actually get impeached.
2003 was only 2 years after 9/11. America was still in “stand in unity for our country” mode which is why even many Democrats authorized the war. The political climate was completely different than today.
Today voters are completely disillusioned with war due to the Iraqi experience. Trump’s remarks that the Iraqi war was a disaster (lambasting Clinton for voting for it) and promising an America-first isolationism resonated with Republicans, because he was the first Republican to break from neoconservative hawkish ideology.
Trump has said he doesn’t want a war with Iran. So if he gets into one, everyone will know it was a blunder. Soldiers (the majority from Republican families) will die for no reason. His isolationist base will view this as a betrayal. Eventually the U.S. will either have to do an embarrassing Vietnam-like retreat or, to defeat a nation 3 times the size of Iraq, implement a national draft.
Starting a war with Iran may make impeachment unnecessary. Seeing a Republican revolt, Pence and his cabinet will probably invoke the 25th amendment first.
23
@Scott
Scott, I would really like to believe that your great assessment would actually play out like that.
The thing is, the difference now is that most people do not seem to be very smart or willing to call out bad behavior, even crimes. Sure 'everyone will know', but we all know now and there is nothing we or anyone is willing to do about it.
Take blind party 'loyalty', misplaced patriotism, and lack of information and you will have enough support to coast this monstrosity into another term. Since that is the point, this will be done on a whim with no thought whatsoever. Sound familiar?
25th Amendment? Disturbed is the feature, not the bug for this crowd.
8
@Scott you stated "if Trump blunders into a war with Iran, he’ll lose re-election for sure and might actually get impeached."
The current crop of Democrats will not impeach Trump. He could murder someone, loan himself money from the national treasury, and declare himself Generalissimo of the armed forces, and Democrats would still do nothing.
5
Words are often used to infer words not used. " War " with Iran is surely one. As far as is known, NSA or DOD war games reflect highly asymmetric naval engagements in the Straits of Hormuz. The Republican Guard maintains a small armada of fleet attack boats and the published games suggest that , in the first weeks, damage would be done to both US maritime and military forces. After that, the tide would change.
Beyond such a limited strike, " war" means little. Iran would not attack the US bases in the region , that would serve no end, nor is there a land bridge for masses armies. Israel could be a proxy target but that too is of limited scope as the Iran air defenses would not stop massive industrial losses for them. And the economy is what this is all about.
" War" , as a word, should be substituted by " armed conflict" in the sea lanes. In this domain, the US is making sure that Iran, in response to the economic pressures, does not respond by interdicting shipping , especially for oil. This is framed issue and not a generalized one.
The difference is simple. Obama imagined that Iran would change its policies if he imagined they would. Trump , as noted, thinks otherwise. From the decision that they are implacable comes a more muscular policy. Simply spoken , do we want risk now or risk later, if risk is believed to be certain.
1
Trump sees every foreign policy issue, from trade to immigration to regional security, always as a bilateral issue and never a multilateral one. This 19th century view was what led the Great Powers into World War I, which led to WWII.
Looking at Iran in isolation misses the greater Middle East conflict between Shia and Sunni, and leads to support of one side (Saudi Arabia) against the other (Iran, Syria, Lebanon) though both are equally engaged in spreading extremism. In fact, if we are concerned about extremism, we should be more concerned about the global Saudi Salafist project, which is destabilizing countries from Pakistan to Indonesia.
It is time to think beyond the old twisted geopolitics of the Fossil Fuel Age and the Cold War era. Trump, Bolton and Pompeo are exact the wrong guys for that kind of multilateral thinking.
Pompeo is increasingly being ignored by the rest of the world and repeatedly insulted by the North Koreans.
Bolton was the "genius" behind the Iraq War that left 500,000 dead and spawned ISIS. He famously reminded Kim that the result of Libyan Col Qaddafi's nuclear concessions was to end up dead in a drain pipe.
But Trump is the worst of all because he thinks Putin is his friend, even while subverting democracy here and throughout Europe.
175
@Look Ahead. There were many "geniuses" behind the Iraq war, especially Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith!
3
“Whenever possible, one war against time.”
Why is one war all the time necessary tool for foreign policy objectives? We are supposed to be a ‘Govt of the People, by the People, for the People.’ But National interest is being defined by Lobbyists for The Military Industrial Complex, and Big Money, not by the people!
President General Eisenhower warned us to be Beware of MIC. But that is History!
We don’t even remember false pretenses under which Vietnam and Iraq wars were started!
Those who don’t learn from History may be doomed in the long term!
75
@Data Data & More Data
... and doom the rest of us with them!
1
". . . it’s better to just back our Sunni and Israeli allies rather than reaching for an unlikely realignment and just reaping more mischief in return".
Again, the zero-sum game.
Why empower either Sunni Saudi Arabia or Shia Iran? They'll have no problem keeping each other busy on their own.
81
@Karl Gauss
And if the choice is Saudi Arabia vs Iran and we pick the Saudis, that is the wrong choice.
3
Diplomacy is the best guard against war; and we all know how little use Trump has for dialogue, treaties, the State Department, and every other diplomatic tool...
153