Trump's Iran activities like setting fires he doesn't know how to put out

Reading between the lines of Donald Trump’s self-serving speech to the nation today, we learned several things, or rather, we are once again reminded of the things we should have known anyways. One, Trump never takes responsibility for his mistakes, and takes all the “credit” for actions that please his Fox News supporters. We were also reminded that Trump has a tendency to blame Barack Obama for all the negative responses to his own ill-conceived actions. And Trump has a habit of expressing his “thankfulness” to enemies great and small when they don’t “embarrass” him by making him pay too great a price for his mistakes.

Let’s point out here that U.S. policy in general is not to be directly responsible for assassinating high government or military officials, at least not since World War II; it starts a bad precedent, since the nations whose leaders are targeted tend to be angered by such brazen affronts upon their sovereignty. On the other hand, the fact is that Americans have become so accustomed to government-sanctioned killings of foreign foes that “right” or “wrong” isn’t the question; the “question” is whether targeted foreign governments or entities will have the effrontery to actually respond in kind, since “we” always have the moral “right” on our side. We can do whatever we want, depending upon what propagandist is in the White House at the time. After that, it is up to historians to “explain” why or why not we actually had “right” on our side. Given this country’s past history in places like Central America and Vietnam, what the U.S. considers what is “right” tends to be very wrong for those effected. 

In the relatively recent past, the U.S. has targeted for killing characters generally regarded as bad actors who technically have no allegiance to any particular nation, thus avoiding “offending” too much the country the killing took place in. But Trump’s killing of a well-known Iranian general whose movements in the open suggested he believed he had “immunity” from attack due to his “official” capacities is a quite different action. We have seen the memes of Trump going on a rampage and killing his “enemies” in politics and in the media; we have heard Trump on the campaign trail in 2016 exhort his supporters to attack and beat the odd protestor without any criminal sanction. Given Trump’s frustrations with such things as laws, the court system, “checks and balances” and the fact that other countries do not cooperate with his every whim, one suspects that the killing of Qassim Suleinami was just Trump imagining himself to be movie “action hero” and taking out his frustrations on a “supervillain.”

Trump was no doubt sweating it out when he realized that the assassination would likely have consequences, which explains his wild hallucinations about actions he hoped would convince the Iranians not to respond at all—which if he thought would be the case was more evidence of his impulsive inclinations. After a day and evening of frantic consultations meant to calm Trump down and convince him to refrain from ordering attacks that would constitute war crimes and further escalate tensions that would likely paint the U.S. in a friendless corner, those with cooler heads realized that Iran’s eventual missile attack  was calculated more for Iran’s public consumption than to escalate tensions. But if Iran’s leadership thought that it’s rather “moderate” response (which according to the U.S. military in Iraq resulted in no casualties and little damage) would convince Trump that Iran was more interested in de-escalation, they mistook their man. Trump is the kind of bully that if you don’t stand up to him, he will take that as “fear” rather than good sense, and he will beat on you some more, which is what he proceeded to do by threatening more “punishing sanctions.” 

But as some foreign policy experts noted, Trump has no “exit” strategy, and will deal with whatever come what may, just like any amateur; he and his incompetent and inexperienced sycophants for advisors will “figure it out” as it goes along. Trump will never learn the “art of the deal” in geopolitical affairs, and he is too concerned about what his “base,” Christian evangelicals and Fox News want rather than use common sense and recognize that Iran’s “response” was calculated not to escalate the situation. But Trump’s speech was his typical chest-thumping braggadocio, and making wild threats is just part of his game; the question is just how far he will go to make matters worse. War in the Persian Gulf would mean a major disruption of world oil supplies, and destabilize and even topple regimes that have kept jihadists in check. Trump’s sanctions will also likely be offset by his good friend Vladimir Putin, who would continue to support the Iranian regime with military assistance so long as it remains a thorn in the side of the U.S. 

Of course, when all else fails, Trump just blames the “other guy,” Barack Obama. Most Americans thought that it was a step in the right direction to reach some kind of deal with Iran to curb its nuclear weapon ambitions, and at the same time giving moderate Iranians a toehold in a hoped-for “warming” of relations. But it is a mistake to believe that the ayatollahs who are the “supreme” leaders in Iran with their own militia to enforce its will on recalcitrants want any true “normalization” of relations with the U.S., so the question was how best to thwart the worst impulses of the leadership in Iran. Let’s face reality here: if anyone but Trump had been elected president, the nuclear deal would have been kept in place, because allowing Iran to continue to build nuclear arms capabilities was seen as the greater threat to regional stability. Trump’s pullout from the deal and reinstating sanctions was idiotic in that regard; his only “justification” was as we have seen an intense dislike of Obama (probably because he is black—I mean, he never attacks Bill Clinton or his policies, does he?), and a desire to destroy his legacy. There is no other reason, other than those that induce incomprehension. 

For now, we are back to square one: no nuclear deal, and no potential “friends” in the Iranian government to make a “deal” with because Trump has burned all his bridges. It is possible and perhaps likely that Iran will be less likely to install a general who is too closely linked to the activities of its proxies, and for its part its senior leadership wishes to avoid any chance of self-destruction by going toe-to-toe with the U.S. militarily. But Trump clearly would never see an opportunity to negotiate if it stared him in the face; he only wants “unconditional surrender” on his terms—we saw how that worked, or didn’t, with North Korea—and that will not bring peace to that part of the world, only even more enemies to fight.