Trump is said to trust his new factotum, Robert O’Brien, because he’s handsome and looks the part of a national security adviser in his mind. He is not an isolationist. He is a doctrinaire right wing hawk. How do we know this? well….
“Cut n’ Run” is right out of the wingnut hawk playbook. Liz Cheney probably screamed with delight when she heard it.
Setting aside the fact that we are in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government and that we invaded 15 years ago and destroyed the place, this is not what Trump said he wanted. Not that I believed him, of course. He is a vengeful, bloodthirsty monster. The only good news is that he’s also a coward who believes he can bully and threaten the world into crawling on their bellies and begging his forgiveness. So far, most world leaders have been wise enough to steer clear, undoubtedly waiting to see if America has completely gone nuts or if we rectify our mistake next November. If he wins, all bets are off.
Meanwhile, we are in a very precarious position with Iran. Robin Wright in the New Yorker goes over the fraught history with the US military and Iran, starting with the Beirut barracks bombing. (Reagan’s quick bug-out there is somehow never called a “cut n’ run.”) She points out that “the Trump Administration’s top two goals in Iran have been undermined.” which refers to the fact that they are now hustling to build a nuclear weapon (they can see how well that’s worked out for Kim Jong Un) and it’s reignited nationalism in Iran. (It is true that protesters are in the streets condemning the government for shooting down the airliner, but that does not translate into great love for the US or Donald Trump, however much he thinks it does.)
Iran’s goals remain what they were in 1983. “Military action like this is not sufficient,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, said of the missile strikes. “What is important is ending the corrupting presence of America in the region.” And Tehran is much more capable today. It has evolved into the world’s leading practitioner of “gray zone” activities—covert and unacknowledged military operations, proxy attacks and cyberwar—Michael Eisenstadt, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said last week. “The United States has struggled to respond effectively to this asymmetric way of war.”
Iran also has time and geography on its side. “We are historic interlopers. We come and we go,” Robert Malley, the president of the International Crisis Group, said. “The notion that we could sustain our forces in a multifront, multiyear, unpredictable struggle in the Middle East—given the politics in this country, and the fact that most Americans don’t think this is of vital interest—is illusory.” On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted 224 to 194, largely along party lines, to limit the President’s powers to make war on Iran. A similar resolution is expected in the Senate. Neither would be binding, but both reflect anxiety in Washington about the consequences of further hostilities.
Yeah. There are some “anxieties” and there should be.