It is a measure of the times in which we live that we are expected by some to feel not only relief but gratitude or even admiration, when Donald Trump, aka the Mad King, experiences a spasm of common sense. That was the reaction, more or less, of Benjamin Wittes to Trump’s last minute decision to call off an aerial and missile attack on Iran. Writing in Lawfare, Wittes quoted Trump tweets and also his interview with Chuck Todd of NBC:
[Trump] told NBC on Friday that a plan was “ready to go, subject my approval.”
Trump said that before he issued a final decision, he asked his generals, “I want to know something before you go. How many people would be killed, in this case Iranians?”
The generals said approximately 150 people would be killed, the president said.
“I thought about it for a second and I said, you know what, they shot down an unmanned drone, plane, whatever you want to call it, and here we are sitting with a 150 dead people that would have taken place probably within a half an hour after I said go ahead,” Trump said “And I didn’t like it, I didn’t think, I didn’t think it was proportionate.
In Wittes’s view, Trump had reacted in a fashion that was, well, actually presidential, to an untypical, perhaps unprecedented, degree:
The president’s comments on the Iranian situation reflect thinking that is genuinely unusual for Trump, who normally articulates a kind of government by magic in which one can have it all and without costs. Here, by contrast, Trump is overtly acknowledging costs, nuance and complexity. The man who campaigned for president promising to commit war crimes is now acknowledging that brutality isn’t an objective but a negative and that restraint may be valuable. I cannot think of any previous set of statements in which Trump’s thinking seems so coherent and linear and logical—and also so complicated.
While I have great respect for Wittes, I think he gave Trump rather too much credit. To begin with, there is nothing terribly nuanced or complicated about the stark reality of 150 casualties–and the negative reaction that the killing would inevitably produce. The truly appalling thing is that, taking Trump at his word, he had not previously inquired about, or been briefed on, the casualties that the raid would produce. Moreover, Trump has given no indication that he understood–at the last minute or before–just what actions Iran might take in retaliation, or what we then might do to retaliate for the retaliation, and so on. Put another way, the loss of 150 Iranian lives, tragic as that might have been, would probably have been only the precursor to far greater death and destruction. And Trump’s action, welcome as it may be, bears more the earmarks of a royal whim than the product of thoughtful assessment.
Wittes’s lofty analysis also did not consider that Trump’s reprieve for Iran may have been an instinct of crude political calculus. The New York Times reported on Friday that Trump may have been influenced once again by a favorite voice from Fox News. According to the Times, Trump was warned by Fox commentator, Tucker Carlson, that “if Mr. Trump got into a war with Iran, he could kiss his chances of re-election goodbye.” The Times did not assay the weight Trump gave to that particular advice, but there is no doubt that in everything Trump does, the potential impact on his political popularity is a prominent, if not the deciding, factor.
Passing this crisis, at least for the moment, the way forward is daunting. Even if Trump continues to rein in his more bellicose advisers, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, and refrains from a military attack, further escalation seems to be on the menu. Trump announced increased sanctions with a view to forcing Iran not only to modify radically the 2016 nuclear agreement but to modify its position and its actions throughout the Middle East. The demands of the United States do not appear to have changed from the twelve demands set forth by Secretary Pompeo in a speech a year ago and enumerated in the Wall Street Journal:
1. Iran must provide a complete account of its previous nuclear-weapons research.
2. Iran must stop uranium enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing.
3. Iran must provide the International Atomic Energy Agency “unqualified access” to all sites in the country.
4. Iran must stop providing missiles to militant groups and halt the development of nuclear-capable missiles.
5. Iran must release all U.S. and allied detainees.
6. Iran must stop supporting militant groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
7. Iran must respect Iraqi sovereignty and permit the demobilization of the Shiite militias it has backed there.
8. Iran must stop sending arms to the Houthis and work for a peaceful settlement in Yemen.
9. Iran must withdraw all forces under its command from Syria.
10. Iran must end support for the Taliban and stop harboring al Qaeda militants.
11. Iran must end support by its paramilitary Quds Force for militant groups.
12. Iran must end its threats to destroy Israel and stop threatening international ships. It must end cyberattacks and stop proxies from firing missiles into Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Pompeo’s list of demands may be desirable goals, but there is little reason to believe that they are attainable. In that respect, they resemble the announced goal of complete de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula. While that too is a worthy goal, it is one toward which, despite affectionate exchanges between Trump and Kim Jong Un, there has been no significant progress. Trump’s only achievement in his dealings with the murderous dictator has been to talk himself down from the panicked rage in which he once threatened to rain “fire and fury” on North Korea. In the case of Iran, it may be that the best we might hope for is a similar de-escalation of the Trump psyche. After all, Iran is a dangerous and disruptive force in the Middle East, but it would be hard to argue that it is a greater threat to the homeland than North Korea.
To that end, it would be helpful if Iran could take a page from the Kim Jong Un playbook and simply find a way to be nice to Trump, holding out the prospect perhaps of a visit to Tehran one day, maybe a parade, and possibly even a shiny new Trump Tower. For his part Trump has indicated that he is not only open to talks with Iran but eager for them and has even proclaimed a desire to Make Iran Great Again.
Iran, however, has not only failed to swoon at Trump’s blandishments, but rebuffed the idea of negotiations while sanctions remain in place. Then on Monday, displaying the coherence and consistency of policy for which he is well known, Trump announced the additional sanctions on Iran, including sanctions on various Iranian officials, including Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s highest authority. The impact of the new sanctions is questionable. As reported in the New York Times, “the Iranian officials most likely do not keep substantial assets in international banks, if any at all, or use those institutions for transactions, and any additional pressure from the new sanctions is likely to be minimal.” The new sanctions may function principally as a sop to Trump supporters who were disappointed when he backed off taking military action. In any case, the likelihood of their leading to negotiations is negligible, and if they have any effect, it may be to produce some form of retaliation from Iran.
If it is not feasible to begin negotiations on the fundamental issues dividing the parties, it is conceivable that there is a small but constructive step they could take. It concerns the continuing disagreement as to the location of the United States drone when it was downed by Iran—over Iranian waters or international waters. This is a factual dispute that could be submitted for resolution by the International Court of Justice. Alternatively, the parties could create a more flexible forum by creating an ad hoc arbitration panel. Such a panel might have one or two arbitrators appointed by each party, with those arbitrators then selecting a neutral arbitrator; if they could not agree, the neutral could be appointed by, say, the Secretary General of the United Nations. Arbitration of disputes between counties is not common but it has had some success in resolving territorial disputes even between countries with a history of violent conflict. See, Carla S. Copeland, The Use of Arbitration To Settle Territorial Disputes, 67 Fordham L. Rev. 3073 (1999). The United States frequently proclaims itself to be a bastion of the rule of law, and this would be an opportunity to put that proclamation into practice. It could also be a step in putting the parties on the road to negotiation of larger issues.
Unfortunately, hopes of de-escalation appeared to fade on Tuesday in the wake of a particularly nasty exchange between President Hassan Rouhani of Iran and Trump. Rouhani’s statement called the White House “mentally retarded” and Trump responded by tweeting, “Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration.” While the exchange is depressing and alarming, it was no worse than the exchanges between Trump and Kim Jong Un before the incubation of the curious love affair between that odd couple. So perhaps here things may somehow take a more positive turn. In the meantime, it would be a very good idea if someone in Congress, anyone at all but preferably a Republican, would remind the President that in order to obliterate a country, or part of one, he needs the authorization of Congress.
Trump must be defeated by every means possible. It’s not just his abysmal stupidity that could lead to a major war at any time but his complete lack of humanity. His cruel treatment of children and destruction of families seeking refuge in our country is as bad as any war crime in recent memory. His supporters and enablers are almost but not quite as bad.
Thanks so much, Doug, for providing more of the back story for Trump’s sudden reversal of his looming attack on Iran than many of us had heard before or bothered to research. While its hard to believe that it was, in fact, mercy for 150 lives that motivated Trump, it is true that it’s proportionality could have been questioned, and consequences dismal for us as well as for Iran. It leads one to wonder whether there may in fact be perhaps some atypical strategy to Trump’s often erratic-appearing statements and actions, and that the extreme threats and then reversals cycle may in some strange, temporary ways have some success. That doesn’t excuse the extensive damage that Trump’s administration has caused, but at least the worst, outbreak of a major war, hasn’t occurred, and for that I breathe a sigh of relief.
Comments are closed.