Trump's bullying of Iran isn't the same as bullying political opponents on twitter--this is the "real" world now

Republican hypocrisy on full display in the U.S. Senate: They had the majority and called three witnesses in the Clinton impeachment trial; today they have the majority and refuse to allow any witnesses in a Trump impeachment trial—including John Bolton, who is suddenly “eager” to testify if subpoenaed. In Florida, Sen. Rick Scott is pretending to look after the interests of Puerto Ricans he somehow conned into helping him win his seat by a razor-thin margin by making a “show” call to Trump after earthquakes hit Puerto Rico—and we all know how Trump “cares” about Puerto Ricans (they are Hispanic, after all). 

But those are all just side stories for the moment. For now, the country has to “trust” Trump’s “judgement” after he had a “gut” feeling to order the assassination of Iranian general Qassam Suleimani. Let’s review what has happened since:

Iraqi government officials demanded that the U.S. pull out all of its troops from the country. A letter surfaced stating the U.S. intends to do so. Then the Pentagon denies such a letter was sent, that it was a “draft,” and it has no intention of pulling troops out of the country, just “redeploying” them for self-defense purposes. Then the Iraqi’s claim that a letter was sent, except that another letter sent in Arabic didn’t match-up with the English version, and they wanted a “clarification.” Oh wait, Defense Secretary Mark Esper now claims that a letter wasn’t “actually” sent—or rather not one that was actually “signed.” Or rather, no letter that was signed was sent “to the best of my knowledge.” Good grief; is there any doubt that this “confusion” is due to the chaos of the Trump administration’s decision-making processes?

And then there were indications that the Pentagon was taken completely by surprise when Trump chose to take the drastic step of assassinating Suleimani. After Iran’s supreme leader threatened to conduct an assassination in kind, Trump made the kind of bizarre menaces that he is known for, this time threatening to bomb 52 cultural sites in Iran in “commemoration” of the 52 Americans taken hostage in 1979; he is also sending 6 B-52 bombers to a base in the Indian Ocean. Knowing Trump, he must have that number “52” on the brain, with the number scrawled with a black sharpie on post-it notes in strategic locations so he doesn’t “forget” it. The Pentagon for its part has refused to condone Trump’s scheme; it appears that targeting cultural centers constitute a “war crime,” and might lead to similar retaliatory acts (i.e. 9/11)—not to mention further erosion of America’s “moral” standing in the world. 

It is also being reported that Donald Trump’s latest “senior adviser”—Robert O’Brien, a previously unknown corporate lawyer with predictably no experience in government or foreign affairs—was the primary supporter of Trump’s “gut” feeling to assassinate Suleimani, feeding Trump sufficient “bad dude” information to label him safe to kill (probably the same way the Saudi crown prince thought it was “safe” to kill Jamal Khashoggi). To be honest, it is not like the demise of Suleimani, who was responsible for giving guidance and support to Iran’s proxies in the region, is going to sadden anyone here. But it is another example of how Trump makes friends with “bad dudes” like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un as long as they flatter him, and decides to go after the nearest “bad dude” who wasn’t very flattering to him—and worse, made him look “bad.”  Of course, to Trump certain children are “bad dudes” too, but this country hasn’t quite reached the stage of killing them outright being an acceptable response to their “national security” threat, although doing so by attrition through untreated illnesses is acceptable.  

With Iran threatening to pull completely out of the nuclear deal altogether and to retaliate directly and not through its local proxies, and NATO allies and Israel quick to distance themselves from Trump’s impulsions, it seems that things are not so simple for the simpleminded bullyboy turned coward in the face of consequences he didn’t prepare for, let alone discuss with the military or national security specialists who actually know what they are talking about. As usual when he impulsively acts and his opponents do not “cooperate,” Trump throws darts at the board hoping that one will actually hit the target and not bounce off completely because his aim is bad. Hoping to get out of this mess somehow, he is threatening sanctions and sending Marines, elements of the 82^nd Airborne Division and bombers to the region—all in the hope that Iran will not do anything “bad” like, say, carry out an assassination of its own.

Was all of this necessary? Iran isn’t an “innocent” bystander in all of this, of course; after all, it seems that “regime change” is what is necessary for “normal” relations with Iran, whose religious leaders seem to believe that the only way to remain in power and prevent a return to a secular state is to keep portraying the U.S. as the “Great Satan.” After 40 years, you’d think that most Iranians would be tired of living in economic turmoil and would like to give “peace” a chance; perhaps the majority of Iranians think this way, but like Trump’s cabal of fanatical supporters, Iranian fanatics and their habit of acting out in violent ways pretty much keep any “moderate” inclinations undercover.

On the other hand, the U.S. did much to create the problems it continues to face with Iran. The invasion of Iraq was a critical mistake by the Bush administration, because Iraq under its secular Sunni regime was a natural bulwark against Shiite Iran’s regional designs. As for Trump, he has done everything he can to destabilize the situation out of pure small-mindedness. He opted out of the nuclear deal with Iran for one reason, and one reason only: he hates Barack Obama, and he wants to undo everything that had Obama’s stamp on it. Funny thing there—for those who claim that Obama was a “do-nothing” president, there was an awful lot of things that he did that Trump and his familiars thought needed “undoing.” Let’s also keep in mind that “undoing” is not the same as “doing”; it just means that people whose job it is to make certain laws and regulations are enforced are in fact just spending their time sitting on their asses, and getting paid taxpayer dollars for the privilege. 

Were there other ways to pressure Iran through diplomatic means to stop its proxy activities? Whatever leverage Trump may have had to do so was frittered away with his abuse of our NATO allies and his “friendship” with Putin, when Russia is Iran’s most powerful ally and military supporter, joining forces together to oppose U.S. interests; Putin has taken Trump for a fool, and Trump has been more than obliging. There are those who claim that Iran’s leaders may not act “rashly” because Trump is capable of any crazed, unpredictable action, but that is not a given. Trump can now be seen as the “aggressor” without taking into account consequences or having any real “plan” on how to respond to Iranian retaliation; already Iran has announced it has fired missiles at a U.S. base in Iraq as a “first” act of “fierce revenge.” 

We live in dangerous times, and Trump’s “contribution” to it by acting on his “gut” feelings—like any beer-guzzling unemployed slob sitting on the sofa watching Fox News—cannot be gainsaid. It has always been his way or the highway, and no one really knows where that goes—or wants to.