Before we get to the reclusive and mentally unstable head of North Korea, let’s begin with the fact that a key plank in Donald Trump’s election (and re-election) platform was being “anti-war.” Yet, last weekend, Mr. Trump decided to launch — with an assist from the Israel — a major military offensive against Iran.
So much for that FIFA Peace Prize.
Importantly, under our Constitution the power to declare war is given to Congress, not the president. What we’re doing in Iran is not merely “airstrikes;” this is a full-scale war. The president has even implied that we might put “boots on the ground.” However, the Republican Party has gleefully ceded its authority to him on a wide range of matters — the Constitution be damned.
War with Iran comes just a few months after Trump forcibly removed Venezuelan President Nicolàs Maduro from office. Like Venezuela, Iran sits on a lot of oil. But Iran is not Venezuela. For starters, Trump kept Venezuela’s political leadership largely intact. This was in part to avoid nation-building there.
Soldiers visiting the huge statues of North Korean leaders.
Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il have special posters and monuments in different parts of the city. The most important of these monuments is the giant sculptures of North Korea’s founding leader Kim Il-Sung and his son Kim Jong-Il. All tourists who come to visit the country have to come here and show their respects.
It is nearly impossible to imagine the same thing happening in Iran. And speaking of nation building, our history isn’t exactly replete with resounding successes. Unfortunately, we’re very good at nation destroying, including domestically of late. But it’s very clear that, if we try to avoid creating some political power structure after the war ends, other players will rush to fill that void. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.
In any case, a few days into the war with Iran, Mr. Trump announced four objectives: 1) prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, 2) destroy their ability to create and deploy long-range missiles, 3) ensure that they can’t support terrorist organizations outside their borders, and 4) annihilate their navy.
The first goal is surprising given that we “totally obliterated” their nuclear capabilities just a few months ago. Why, then, is this a goal today? Second, at some point, Iran will re-amass enough wealth to build (or to acquire) long-range missiles. That is, unless we plan to occupy them full-time.
Likewise, Iran will eventually be able to fund terrorists — should they choose to do so. Finally, I assume that the goal of destroying Iran’s insignificant navy was included as comic relief. Iran’s navy would barely be a threat to McHale’s Navy.
Interestingly enough, Trump failed to mention “regime change” as a goal, despite the fact that he suggested that Iranians rise up to overthrow their government shortly after the invasion commenced. By the way, how would we respond to a civil war in Iran? In the wise words of Colin Powell concerning the Iraq War, “You break it, you own it.”
And one wonders whether the Iranians will “welcome us as liberators”, which is what then Vice President Dick Cheney erroneously claimed about our Iraq invasion 23 years ago. Further, as was the case with Iraq, Iran did not pose any identifiable “imminent threat” to the U.S., which is something that the Trump Administration has claimed.
Of course, someone might want to ask Trump to share his objectives with his Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth. For his part, Hegseth has publicly stated that regime change is a goal of this invasion (without even first leaking it on Signal). This is another parallel with Iraq. The “reasons” for going to war with Iran keep changing.
The great irony is that we are in this situation because of American intervention into Iran more than 70 years ago. In 1953, the United States — with an assist from Britain — fomented a coup d’etat against Iran’s democratically-elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. That led to a takeover by the Shah of Iran, who presided over a brutal regime until the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
In short, the regime that is almost comically known for its incessant “death to America” refrain came to power because of … America. Few Americans know that. By contrast, every Iranian does.
Now to Kim Jong Un. For several years the conventional wisdom was that countries built a nuclear arsenal, or wanted others to believe that they did, in order to prevent other nations (especially the U.S.) from attacking them. However, that didn’t work out so well for Iraq, which wanted the world to believe that they had WMDs. Nor did it ultimately work out for Iran, whose leadership likely had non-civilian desires for nukes.
That leaves North Korea, which has a history of forcing its people to suffer, including by literally starving them to death. Thus, there is little question that Kim would not rule out a war that would be devastating to his nation.
Indeed, given that North Korea is the last member of George W. Bush’s so-called “Axis of Evil” not to have been attacked by the U.S., one wonders what Kim’s military calculus might be. Specifically, what would keep him from launching a “first strike” nuclear attack against us?
One way or another, this war will end with Iran being forced to have inspectors on the ground ensuring that they cannot develop a nuclear weapon — which is exactly what the case was under the JCPOA (i.e., the “Iran Nuclear Deal”) that the Obama Administration negotiated.
As with the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace, this war will have the President’s name on it. We’ll see how that works out.
Contact community leader Larry Smith at larry@leaf-llc.com.
 platform was being “anti-war.” Yet, last weekend, Mr. Trump decided to launch — with an assist from the Israel — a major military offensive against Iran.){kind=link}