We should know Trump by now, shouldn’t we? He doesn’t have time for “talk,” has not the slightest patience for any other side’s concerns and interests. If the other side doesn’t cave-in immediately to his “terms,” he just walks away, heedless of how the other side will react to being left at the alter. Or he might issue orders to send in the troops against American citizens protesting ICE thuggery, or send in those thugs armed at a swap meet…
…or bomb the hell out of something, like what we are being told that Trump authorized at three nuclear sites in Iran. Nothing Trump does is done without first consulting his bloated gut, and if it tells him a certain action will make him feel wonderful it will be done, no consultation with his brain is necessary. If the response to his actions is not “wonderful” to certain segments of the population, he then consults what passes for a brain, which he uses to devise various schemes of revenge and retribution.
But while John Bolton—who convinced Trump to abrogate the nuclear deal during his first term in the first place—now has an excuse to say something “nice” about Trump after the bombing of those Iranian nuclear sites, what exactly was accomplished is not clear. The “official” story was “mission accomplished,” but as NPR points out in this story 1 this action may only have been a bee sting:
U.S. officials say that strikes conducted on three key Iranian nuclear sites have devastated its nuclear program, but independent experts analyzing commercial satellite imagery say the nation's long-running nuclear enterprise is far from destroyed.
"At the end of the day there are some really important things that haven't been hit," says Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, who tracks Iran's nuclear facilities. "If this ends here, it's a really incomplete strike."
In particular, Lewis says the strike doesn't seem to have touched Iran's stocks of highly enriched uranium. "Today, it still has that material and we still don't know where it is," he says.
Israeli intelligence images days before the attack appeared to indicate trucks were located at targeted sites, Isfahan and Fordo, for the purpose of sealing tunnels and hauling material away, likely the enriched uranium stored at the facilities. Although the infrastructure used to enrich uranium may have been damaged and rendered unusable at the targeted sites for the time being, the material they created in the interim was likely saved and hidden away at a yet unknown site.
It is interesting to note the Trump’s head of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was basically told to return to her corner and be a “nice girl” when she suggested that intelligence reports indicated that Iran was three years away from developing a nuclear weapon, which could be interpreted as Trump having a little more than just two weeks for a "diplomatic" agreement. But he couldn't wait that long, indicating that talk bores him, unless he's the one doing it.
Yet in the aftermath of Trump’s bombing run in Iran, we are told by intelligence experts that Iran’s nuclear program, if no further action is taken, is “only” delayed for 2-5 years, which is in line with previous estimates, which seems to suggest that other than putting large holes in the ground, Trump’s claim that peace is at hand is indicative of his failure to understand that talk is hard work, and people don’t like getting punched in the face just because they don’t agree with what you say.
But Trump doesn’t really want “peace”; he thrives (or thinks he does) on creating chaos that he then claims that only he can “fix.” As noted before the problem is that Trump has no time for “talk”; diplomacy is a waste of time because either you agree to his “terms,” or he walks (or punches you in the face). We have seen this with North Korea, and the result was that he made Kim Jong-Un look like a fool to his own people, and North Korea now has 50 nuclear warheads and the capacity to build a half-dozen a year. Not surprisingly Trump has said absolutely nothing about North Korea lately, let alone suggested “bombing” its bomb-making facilities.
And what about Russia? No one knows what Trump and Putin said to each other during their phone calls, but what is clear is that Putin does not feel he has anything to fear from Trump if he continues to bomb civilian sites in Ukraine and kill dozens of innocent people at a time. In fact a clue to Putin feeling he has a friend in Trump is revealed in what passes for a “press conference” in Russia when a questioner inquires if Putin will respond to the U.S’ bombing of Iran and if he is bound by security treaties with Iran to offer them military support:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmNktVKszxY
Putin responds to such questions as if he wishes not to offend Trump. He claims to feel no obligation to aid Iran militarily in retaliation against Israeli or the U.S. attacks. It seems clear that in their secret communique Trump and Putin have a quid pro quo in which they agree not to criticize the other or employ direct military opposition—meaning in the case of Russia, Trump nixing any further military assistance to Ukraine.
So what did the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites accomplish after the first “shock and awe”? Something akin to a tornado blowing the roof off of a house, and wrecking the furniture. Iran has threatened retaliation, and has already struck a U.S. military base in Qatar, and is threatening to cut-off the Strait of Hormuz from oil traffic. How will Trump respond to that? Well, um, he is telling oil companies not to raise prices, and he is supporting a PAC that seeks to replace Kentucky senator Thomas Massie, who had the audacity to criticize the attack; now what about Marjorie Taylor Greene?
We "might" see a tit-for-tat exchange of missiles, or a self-imposed “ceasefire”; in fact we were told that a "ceasefire" has been called between Israel and Iran, which of course Trump took personal credit for (we shall see how long it lasts or what it means) One suspects that the U.S. public would have less appetite for "war" if people are killed in the service of Israel that “dragged” the country into their quagmire. But the reality is that the U.S. has had a rather poor track record in “winning” foreign wars since 1945 when engaged in countries with non-Western cultures, religions and political philosophies.
Still, while Trump has claimed he opposed involving the U.S. in foreign wars, like everything else he “promised” before the election (mass deportation and political retribution accepted), that would be just as likely another lie, if he thinks it will raise his sinking poll numbers. "War" may be off the table at the moment, but if Iran doesn't want to "deal," then what? It's nuclear program is far from "dead."
No comments:
Post a Comment