Cromwell

In the end, Trump sided with Team Bibi’s Lawn Guy over Team America First. We will be feeling the repercussions of that decision for years to come.

Here are my initial reactions:

1. Launching a war of choice with no authorization at all from Congress is unconstitutional–not that he cares.
2. Trump’s claim that the attacks were completely successful is just typical sales talk. The fact is that he doesn’t know, and neither do we.
3. Trump’s hope that Iran won’t retaliate is a pipe dream. Nothing in the Islamic Republic’s history suggests it will lie down and call him “Sir.”
4. Most of the speculation about retaliation has revolved around attacks on American bases in the Middle East. That possibility doesn’t concern me overly much. The military will be prepared; they have been through this before.
5. The forms of retaliation that really concern me are attempts to shut off shipping in the Persian Gulf and cyberattacks. Those would have significant economic impacts that all of America would feel.
6. If the retaliation is relatively unsuccessful, would Trump choose to disregard it? Probably not; continuing opposition from a weaker party generally causes him to double or triple down. Just ask Harvard.
7. This is not Iraq; I don’t believe Trump will send in ground troops. But any escalation on his part will have unpredictable results, and in any event, he is committing us to cut the grass for the foreseeable future.
8. Bibi has won. This is the day he has been waiting for over a period of decades. America will now pay the price for a war that is overwhelmingly in Israel’s interests and only tangentially in its own.

The war drags on while Trump decides what to do next. The Israelis are running out of targets with a plausible connection to the Iranian nuclear and missile programs. Will they go for regime change next just out of boredom and a lack of other options?

If that is the plan, it isn’t working. It appears that the Iranian nation is rallying around the government in spite of its unpopularity, just as one might have expected. If regime change is to occur, the outside world will have to provide powerful carrots as well as sticks.

He was a child of privilege with a strong sense of noblesse oblige who rose to be the leader of his land. A romantic at heart, he had a childish affinity for war and empire. He frequently bucked the system, sometimes with success, and sometimes not. He had great faith in his own destiny and that of his country. Literate and charismatic, he used the media of his day to great effect. By any reckoning, he was one of his nation’s greatest chief executives.

Is it Churchill or TR? Actually, it is both.

Donald Trump doesn’t want to hear the truth. Still less does he want to hear her interpretation of ambiguous facts. Her job is to figure out in advance what he wants to hear and to meet his expectations. Admittedly, this is a difficult task with someone as capricious as Trump–nobody would have guessed he wanted to hear that Iran almost had a nuke–but she volunteered for the job, so she isn’t entitled to any sympathy.

She’ll be gone soon. Mitch and Lindsey won’t shed any tears. Nor should you.

Donald Trump has an unprecedented opportunity to bring peace and stability to the Middle East. Will he take advantage of it or make America Israel’s lawn guy for the foreseeable future? TBD.

What would I do in his position? I would take my case directly to the Iranian people. I would tell them that Iran can have normal–even friendly–relations with America, the EU, and its Arab neighbors if it is willing to give up its nuclear program and its missiles and stop financing its proxies. The choice would be peace and prosperity, or a grinding perpetual unsuccessful war with no meaningful assistance from Russia or China. Is that such a hard choice?

Ayatollah Khamenei, of course, might well pick the grinding perpetual unsuccessful war even if it puts his regime at risk. If he does, it is up to the Iranian public to override him. If that doesn’t happen, Iran will be responsible for what happens next.

Trans activists insist that gender is an inherently fluid concept and that trans people are consequently as normal as the rest of us. They further argue that anyone who disagrees with this self-evident proposition is a bigot on the same moral level as a slave owner. Since their position is inconsistent with the laws of nature, thousands of years of human practice, and my own experience as a completely cisgender person, I reject the argument entirely.

MAGA, on the other hand, views trans people, regardless of their other personal characteristics, as the modern equivalent of heretics; they are inherently evil and dangerous to the rest of society, and they need to be stamped out. Government regulation which identifies them as lesser beings and makes their lives as miserable as possible is, therefore, necessary and appropriate.

Trans people commit suicide at higher rates than the rest of us. If you’re MAGA, why not encourage it to help get them out of the way? Why not push for TASA–the Trans Assisted Suicide Act of 2025?

That would be inhumane, of course, but remember–empathy is the enemy for MAGA.

It has to annoy Trump, who is only a president, every time he identifies Ayatollah Khamenei as Iran’s “Supreme Leader.” It bugs me, so why wouldn’t it bug him? He runs the world, after all; if you don’t believe it, just ask him.

So here’s an idea to resolve our differences with Iran–Khamenei could agree to give up his title and acknowledge Trump as the “Supreme Leader” in exchange for an end to the war and guaranteed American protection in the future. Think of King John becoming the vassal of the Pope as a precedent.

Given Trump’s vanity, it could work.

A more liberal Supreme Court would have looked at the recent record (trans people didn’t exist until recently, so there is no long pattern of official discrimination) and created a new suspect class for trans people. There was never any possibility the current conservative body would do that. In addition, there was a plausible, if not overwhelming, argument that the disputed classification in this case was based on age, not sex. Finally, the medical profession is not united on the proper care for teens with gender identity issues, even though trans extremists like to pretend it is. As a result, the Court’s decision in this case was completely predictable, and while I do not welcome it–I would prefer that medical decisions be made by doctors without coercion by either the state or influential activists–I am not outraged by it.

Trump seems increasingly inclined to pile on and attack the Iranians. His comments may just be an effort to add to his negotiating leverage, but what if they’re not? What are the pros and cons of entering the fray?

The principal benefit is that the Israelis have gained control of the skies to the point that an attack on Fordow is close to risk-free. A successful attack would unquestionably set the Iranian nuclear program back several years. That would eliminate the direct danger to Israel and the potential second-level threats to the United States for quite some time.

But risks remain. There are no guarantees that the bombs would work. Even if they do, Iran will still retain some degree of nuclear expertise and funds to purchase new nuclear assets from bad actors on the market; in other words, the setback to the program will only be temporary. In the meantime, the Iranians will have a menu of retaliatory options. Gas prices will go up dramatically. There will be plenty of economic wreckage. And, of course, we will be committing ourselves to be Bibi’s lawn guy for the foreseeable future; this will be yet another war of indefinite duration in the Middle East.

On balance, a diplomatic solution is still the best option.

He said it was in order to focus on the Israel-Iran conflict. There is probably some truth to that. But I can’t help thinking that part of it is simply that he can’t stand being in a room with the rest of the G7. He would much rather hang with the S6.

Netanyahu is relatively indifferent to the fate of Gaza, but he cares very deeply about putting an end to the threat from Iran. With his extreme right-wing allies, it is precisely the opposite. So how do they compromise?

By fighting concurrently on both fronts, of course.

Trump has reconvened his meeting of world strongmen at the new Executive Branch club. As usual, Putin is the first to arrive.

T: Vlad the Impaler! Good to see you, man!

P: It’s good to be back. It was a long four years with Biden.

T: Tell me about it.

P: I have to say, I’m impressed with what you’ve been doing to your opposition, Donald. Last time, you didn’t listen much to my advice about cracking down, but this time, you look like a real strongman. I’m proud of you.

T: Thanks, Vlad. There’s plenty more where that came from.

P: Now you just have to do a bit more to help me with the war.

T: Can’t you just declare victory and call it a day?

P: I want a real victory. I want a parade in Kyiv. You owe me that.

T: I don’t like the optics. We need to find a better compromise than that. I may have to threaten you to get us there.

P: I won’t take your threats seriously. Everyone knows you hate the Ukrainian leadership as much as I do. I’m willing to be patient to get everything I want. That’s what Russians do.

(Kim enters the room)

T: Rocket man! How’s it going, little bro?

K: OK, but you haven’t called me. What’s going on?

T: I’m busy, you know. Running the world and sticking it to my enemies. It’s a full time job, and then some.

K: I suppose so. I don’t have opposition, so I wouldn’t know.

T: Let’s make some time to talk deals. I have a great proposal to make peace with you, and you don’t even have to give up your nukes.

K: Does it involve a Trump hotel, by any chance? Maybe some crypto?

T: We’ll have to talk about that later.

(Erdogan enters the room)

T: Turkish delight! Love what you did with the opposition guy.

E: To my friends, everything. To my foes, the law. You know that as well as anyone.

T: Yes, I’ve learned. No more Mister Nice Guy. That’s the way it has to be. We need a unified country, period. One nation, one voice.

E: You got that right. Democracy doesn’t mean the voters have the right to be irresponsible.

(Xi arrives)

T: Xi! How’s my favorite Chinaman?

X: I’ve been better. Dealing with the fallout from your tariffs has been a problem.

T: You should call me! We can make great deals together! Everything will be on the table!

X: Everything? Including Taiwan?

T: Call me, and you’ll find out.

X: Where’s Duterte?

T: He couldn’t make it. But that leads me to today’s program.

(Trump addresses the entire crowd)

T: Listen up, folks! Duterte can’t be here, because he’s out of power, and in jail. But we have a new member–Nayib Bukele!

P: Good choice, man! I love that tropical gulag thing. It’s sort of Siberia in reverse.

B: That’s the idea, to be sure.

T: And for our special entertainment tonight, Bibi Netanyahu is going to play us video of Israeli air strikes on civilians in Gaza!

E: You always do this to me, Donald. I’m out of here.

The official position of the Israeli government is that the war is directed solely at Iran’s nuclear and military assets. Regime change, we are told, is not on the table. Iranian missile strikes, however, are resulting in retaliation, which can easily lead to mission creep. If the Israelis seek to broaden the war, what are their options?

Bibi could decide to use his nukes to annihilate the population, of course. But in the absence of a genuine existential threat to Israel, which clearly does not exist at the present time, even he would be reluctant to take that step.

The Israelis can also further damage the Iranian economy by attacking oil facilities. Some of that has already occurred. The problem there is that the interests of much of the outside world, including American consumers, would be damaged by dramatically higher oil prices, which in turn would lead to more attempts from the international community to stop the war. As a result, I don’t think we will see a significant increase in oil facility attacks in the near future.

Finally, the Israeli government could decide to go for regime change. In the absence of an invasion, which is highly unlikely, this would require attacks on the highest levels of government, including the Supreme Leader, and on elements of the security apparatus. The Israelis, however, have no carrots to offer to the Iranian opposition, which is in any event unlikely to treat Netanyahu as a modern-day Abraham Lincoln. Any serious attempt at regime change would have to include significant economic incentives for normalization, which would have to come primarily from Donald Trump.

Based on logic and our experience with Trump’s previous steel and aluminum tariffs, the latest tariffs will save a handful of jobs at an exorbitant cost to the economy as a whole. The U-turn on the sale of US Steel to Nippon Steel, on the other hand, is mostly welcome. Biden’s attempt to block the sale was just an unsuccessful pander to the union; the new agreement permits the deal to go forward while preserving some unnecessary federal government influence in the operation of the business.

The government influence part isn’t exactly a great way to encourage foreigners to invest in American businesses, but Trump, as a reactionary, has a soft spot in his heart for the steel industry, so it probably won’t serve as a precedent for many future investments. Let’s hope not.

William McKinley, the tariff man, is more in fashion today, but Trump still resembles Andrew Jackson in some important ways; he is more contemptuous than ever of cultural and economic elites, foreigners, and the judicial system.

With that in mind, there is another Jackson analogy that fits the mass deportation scheme pretty well–the Trail of Tears. Trump would probably view that as a badge of honor, but not many others would.