daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 44,248
- Points
- 1,160
Let's see if he TACOs....
Donald Trump is at risk of launching a war without purpose
A conflict with Iran without a clear objective would be recklessly dangerous
EARNING A NAME for issuing empty threats can be devastating. Ask Barack Obama. Thirteen years ago, a dictator in the Middle East defied a warning from America’s then-president not to cross a “red line” by using chemical weapons against his own people. The world held its breath, asking itself when Mr Obama would punish, or even topple, the tyrant for his war crime. Instead, Mr Obama did nothing. Syria’s vile ruler held on for over a decade. Half a million people died. For many, from that moment, the president’s credibility was shot.
Today, another murderous regime in the Middle East has been rabidly killing its own people. Iran’s rulers massacred perhaps 20,000 demonstrators in January. President Donald Trump said at the time that he would ride to the protesters’ rescue, promising that “help is on the way” and urging them to remain on the streets. Since then, Mr Trump has sworn to topple Iran’s regime. In his state-of-the-union address this week he vowed to block any resurgence of Iran’s “sinister” nuclear programme.
Has Mr Trump thereby set his own red line in the Middle East? You might suppose not. No politician today is less bound by his own bombastic outbursts and contradictions. Had the president merely shunned Iran, few would have held him to account for his noisy pledges.
Yet few people are more likely to take Mr Obama as a cautionary tale than the present occupant of the White House. More importantly, Mr Trump has done a lot more than talk. To give his words extra credibility, he has sent an armada towards Iran’s shores. The Middle East now hosts the largest concentration of American military firepower since 2003. A second aircraft-carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, has just sailed in. Jets, bombers and other airborne forces have assembled. Allies are on alert. By preparing the means to punish the regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Mr Trump is bringing this crisis to a head. This is both a moment of jeopardy and a test of his credibility.
A further reason to expect military action is that the president may be getting a taste for it. Last June he ordered bombers from Missouri to help Israel’s air force in a 12-day war to “obliterate” Iran’s nuclear programme. In January he again rolled the dice on a high-risk operation, sending special forces to Caracas to seize Venezuela’s dictator, Nicolás Maduro.
Mr Trump would prefer to win without firing a shot. But Iran’s rulers have a say, too, and they look defiant. They may judge that they can play for time at nuclear talks with America—or agree to a deal, only to stall over the details. Mr Khamenei may be prepared to put his country through an air war. Perhaps the 86-year-old is ready to be a martyr; more probably he bets he will live, even if many others die. Iran’s rulers seem united, and few, even among the Americans, seem to bank on missiles alone toppling them. The regime may be expecting to emerge stronger from any conflict simply by surviving.
If that is Iran’s calculation, Mr Trump has put himself in a bind. Launching an attack without a clear goal is exactly the sort of misstep he has long derided. Too many small and short wars turn out to be big and long. Iran has drones and ballistic missiles. Its leaders say they are readier than last year to use them against America and its allies. Imagine if a strike kills many American troops. China or Russia would be thrilled to see America bogged down, yet again, in the Middle East.
Mr Trump may yet set out a war aim that could win support from the public and Congress. But until he does, he would do better to keep talking with his fleet standing by, rather than start a war—even if holding fire looks like backing down.
Donald Trump is at risk of launching a war without purpose
A conflict with Iran without a clear objective would be recklessly dangerous
EARNING A NAME for issuing empty threats can be devastating. Ask Barack Obama. Thirteen years ago, a dictator in the Middle East defied a warning from America’s then-president not to cross a “red line” by using chemical weapons against his own people. The world held its breath, asking itself when Mr Obama would punish, or even topple, the tyrant for his war crime. Instead, Mr Obama did nothing. Syria’s vile ruler held on for over a decade. Half a million people died. For many, from that moment, the president’s credibility was shot.
Today, another murderous regime in the Middle East has been rabidly killing its own people. Iran’s rulers massacred perhaps 20,000 demonstrators in January. President Donald Trump said at the time that he would ride to the protesters’ rescue, promising that “help is on the way” and urging them to remain on the streets. Since then, Mr Trump has sworn to topple Iran’s regime. In his state-of-the-union address this week he vowed to block any resurgence of Iran’s “sinister” nuclear programme.
Has Mr Trump thereby set his own red line in the Middle East? You might suppose not. No politician today is less bound by his own bombastic outbursts and contradictions. Had the president merely shunned Iran, few would have held him to account for his noisy pledges.
Yet few people are more likely to take Mr Obama as a cautionary tale than the present occupant of the White House. More importantly, Mr Trump has done a lot more than talk. To give his words extra credibility, he has sent an armada towards Iran’s shores. The Middle East now hosts the largest concentration of American military firepower since 2003. A second aircraft-carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, has just sailed in. Jets, bombers and other airborne forces have assembled. Allies are on alert. By preparing the means to punish the regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Mr Trump is bringing this crisis to a head. This is both a moment of jeopardy and a test of his credibility.
A further reason to expect military action is that the president may be getting a taste for it. Last June he ordered bombers from Missouri to help Israel’s air force in a 12-day war to “obliterate” Iran’s nuclear programme. In January he again rolled the dice on a high-risk operation, sending special forces to Caracas to seize Venezuela’s dictator, Nicolás Maduro.
Mr Trump would prefer to win without firing a shot. But Iran’s rulers have a say, too, and they look defiant. They may judge that they can play for time at nuclear talks with America—or agree to a deal, only to stall over the details. Mr Khamenei may be prepared to put his country through an air war. Perhaps the 86-year-old is ready to be a martyr; more probably he bets he will live, even if many others die. Iran’s rulers seem united, and few, even among the Americans, seem to bank on missiles alone toppling them. The regime may be expecting to emerge stronger from any conflict simply by surviving.
If that is Iran’s calculation, Mr Trump has put himself in a bind. Launching an attack without a clear goal is exactly the sort of misstep he has long derided. Too many small and short wars turn out to be big and long. Iran has drones and ballistic missiles. Its leaders say they are readier than last year to use them against America and its allies. Imagine if a strike kills many American troops. China or Russia would be thrilled to see America bogged down, yet again, in the Middle East.
Mr Trump may yet set out a war aim that could win support from the public and Congress. But until he does, he would do better to keep talking with his fleet standing by, rather than start a war—even if holding fire looks like backing down.
