January 14, 2020--Jack On Iran

"I know you don't want to talk with me. I get under your skin. But this won't take long. I'll talk, you listen. You don't have to say a word.

That sounded like a good deal to me and so I said, "OK," put the phone on speaker, and continued to sip my coffee.

"So, all right, here's the dope on Iran. I assume you're following what's going on there." He paused to lure me in. I remained silent. "I know from things you've written that you think Trump's various ways of tormenting the Iranians is a wag-the-dog thing. To lure them into a confrontation. Increasing economic sanctions, pulling out of the arms control deal, and most recently taking out their number two--Soulman or whatever he's called. Was called."

Under my breath I said, "Soleimani."

"I heard that, "Jack said, "and stand corrected. I'm assuming you and your friends think Trump doesn't have a big-picture strategy, that everything he does is impulsive, self-serving, and political. And his moves in the Middle East will result in a potentially big war that will drive a further wedge between us and the Arab world."

That about summed up my position. Though Iran isn't an Arab country.

"Actually," Jack said, "I think some of that is true and not attractive."

Attractive? I thought that didn't begin to scratch the surface.

"But when it comes to Iran what Trump's been up to has been very smart. And is working. You'll find out how well come November."

He raced on. "Take a look at what's going on there. In Iran for months there have been street demonstrations that are aimed at toppling the current regime. Many hundreds of the protesters have been killed by the Revolutionary Guard--they don't mess around--and more than a thousand are already in prison. Trump's people have been trying to find ways we can help them as have other countries in the area. Saudi Arabia, for example.

"The economic sanctions have been working. Iran is pretty much broke. They're having trouble selling their oil to China and Japan. Inflation is out of control. A lot of the young Iranians are well educated but there are no good jobs for them. They're among those protesting. But the protests also includes even poorer rural people. In fact they appear to be among the leaders of the revolt. They traditionally side with the religious leaders. But not this time. 'It's the economy, stupid, works for them as well." 

Jack said, "Some who are experts say the regime may be vulnerable to being overthrown. That would be a big deal since many Iranians seem to have good feelings about America. If this was to happen it could be a game changer.

"But your people, who reluctantly admit Soleimani was a bad guy and it's good he's gone are beating up on Trump for not consulting with Congress and abusing his power as commander in chief. Ignoring the War Powers Act which was passed when Nixon was president and the Vietnam War still had two more bloody years to go.

"The Democrats are missing the political point so let me tell you about Grenada. You remember Grenada?"

"Grenada?" Unable to stifle myself, in frustration I shouted in response to his seeming non sequitur.

"How back in 1983 President Reagan invaded that small Caribbean country because it was allegedly taken over by Communists and that could threaten the region, The invasion was over in what seemed like a couple of hours. They didn't have a real army and couldn't defend themselves. Reagan did this to tell the world not to mess with us. That he was willing to use our military to protect our interests.

Jack said, "I see similar things going on with Iran. After being criticized for incendiary rhetoric--mainly Tweets--he has consistently backed off. Threatening but not acting. So like Reagan, with Iran he's putting on display his willingness to use force.

"He bombed Soleimani but when he spoke publicly about it didn't take a victory lap or turn up more heat. In fact he did the opposite. For him what he said was pretty moderate.

"So here's the bottom line--as a result Trump gets to look tough (I bet the North Koreans have taken note of that) and like Reagan doesn't make a big mess. And then of course he will reap the political rewards."

"We'll see," I said, now fully engaged, "Iran has 80 million people and a pretty advanced military, and so . . ."

Jack cut me off, "Don't forget what's goining on in the streets. The ayatollahs, who are corrupt, have made things worse for themselves, shooting down that plane and lying about it."

"There are these demonstrations, you're right about that, but the military there as you said doesn't mess around so we can expect to see the protesters squelched."

"We'll see," Jack said, "One final thing, the New York Post yesterday, on page one, had a picture of the demonstrators being careful not to step on Israeli and American flags that were neatly spread out in the road. And they were not shouting 'Death to America,' but rather 'Death to Supreme Leader Khamenei.'"

January 9, 2020--Trump the Nation Builder

Virtually all presidents shy away from talking positively about nation building. They know from experience and history (a few presidents actually know something about American history) that more frequently than not it doesn't work and that the nation attempting to carry out the nation building usually winds up paying a huge political price.

Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon come to mind. Both presidencies collapsed as the result of sinking into the quagmire that was the Vietnam War. 

And then we have George W. Bush who, during the October 2000 presidential debate with Al Gore, when asked by Jim Lehrer about nation building, said--

I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win wars. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops . . . I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the strategy obvious.

Then, ignoring his own advice, Bush authorized nation building after invading Afghanistan and Iraq. In both instances this turned out to be an expensive, bloody disaster that to this day many years later continues to fester.

And now we have Trump who as a candidate and later as president spoke contemptuously about his predecessors' nation building efforts.

Trump though now finds himself in an ironic situation. Like it or not, after mocking Obama and Bush he too finds himself supporting nation building in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran where neo-con advisors such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have been pressing him to abrogate the de-nuclearization deal struck by Obama and a number of allies and to act more confrontationally.

I refer to current pressures that Trump is placing on Iran as ironic because the demands he is making and the aggressive military actions he has authorized are having unanticipated consequences.

Until Trump turned up the volume of threatening talk, bragging that we have the capacity to bring down the current regime and devastate the country, there were dissident political factions in Iran that might very well, with the right kind of support, have had enough power to challenge the ruling ayatollahs.

But the decision to assassinate general Soleimani so inflamed Iranian national pride that the contesting factions are now fully united in their hatred of Trump and America. Now everyone in Iran is chanting "Death to America."

For this example of nation building they and we have Donald Trump to thank.

January 8, 2020--"Imminent Attack"

Do you remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? Back in 1964 it authorized then president Lyndon Johnson to expand our military involvement in the Vietnam War. 

The U.S. command claimed that one of our ships, a destroyer, in international waters, was attacked by three North Vietnam torpedo boats. Based on this assertion, Congress voted to allow LBJ and the Pentagon to enlarge our footprint in the region and the resolution was cited frequently during subsequent years to justify direct attacks on North Korean cities, harbors, and military facilities.

Then do you remember how George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and his senior national security and military staff claimed that the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq in January, 2003 was justified because Iraq was actively building weapons of mass destruction and would soon have the means to deploy them against the American homeland and our European allies? Recall how National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice spoke vividly about how if we failed to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein it would lead to "mushroom clouds" over European capitals.

Though seemingly unrelated, these two incidents have a number of things in common--most significant the threats they identified were  largely untrue. 

The North Vietnamese had not initiated an attack on one of our naval vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin, and Iraq was found after our invasion and occupation not to have WMDs.

This brings us to today where the current administration is unleashing the dogs of war.

Trump authorized "taking out" Iranian general Qassim Soleimani because he was allegedly plotting an "imminent attack" on U.S. military and diplomatic assets in the Middle East.

Since neither Trump nor his national security team have provided credible intelligence evidence to justify this explanation it sounds suspiciously like the way the Gulf of Tonkin incident and WMD claims were represented. 

Perhaps in coming days we will hear more, but I remain skeptical. This feels all too familiar and Trump of course is constitutionally incapable of telling the truth.