State of Monday: Can Trump Prove In Iran That Forever Wars Were Always A Choice?
Iran is a different bird.
Greetings, Dear Reader,
Welp, a new front has opened up in Trump’s history of warfighting.
Will it be worth the trouble?
ARE FOREVER WARS A CHOICE?
You might have thought you had a busy weekend, but Saturday was barely just hours old and Trump had already killed Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
His death, along with dozens of other top officials, occurred in a barrage of American and Israeli ordnance you’ve certainly heard about by now. The shooting has not stopped since. Iran’s military has been shellacked, but not annihilated. It’s launched dozens of counter attacks targeting Arab civilian structures and US military personnel.
Make no mistake about it, Washington is firmly in a new war. As the first handful of American KIAs and WIAs roll in, the primary questions for now are for what purpose and at what cost?
Personally, my stomach for subduing rogue actors, killing bad guys, and limited displays of military might is decidedly more robust than the loud minority cohort on the right that thinks it speaks for “MAGA.” And they are decidedly a minority.
Up till now, I’ve fully supported Trump’s diplomilitary tactics. They’ve been highly aggressive, limited in scope, and mostly successful. Along with clear objectives, they’ve also come with distinct diplomatic goals. Both are usually achieved.
I believe that peace, prosperity, and stability are best maintained when bad men are either dead or grievously put on notice.
That said, Iran is a different bird.
Like many of Trump’s other kinetic exertions – under the umbrella of the so-called “Donroe Doctrine” – there appears to be a distinct objective, along with many other layered ancillary objectives.
(Here some observers have pointed out the effects the campaign has or will likely have on Beijing and Moscow.)
First, destroy the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and fully depose its hard line Shia political leadership. Second, transition Iranian governance to something more open to normalized diplomatic and economic relations.
Third, and here’s the rub, do both without protracted military and economic commitments from the west and Washington.
Whether these can be achieved without “boots on the ground” is the first major test of Trump’s new war. Skeptics say no, citing historical cases in modern conflict. Optimists think it’s at least possible.
The risk is great. Locking America into a regional ground war would be utterly catastrophic. It would expend military resources America cannot rapidly replace. It would cost lives America cannot replace. We know from Iraq (and Afghanistan), the treasure Trump has wagered on this endeavor is literally incalculable.
The reward, however, is also great. With Maduro’s replacement fully cooperating with the US, both Russia and China took stunning blows to their developing geopolitical plans (and their wallets). Should Trump pull off a similar outcome in Iran, America would effectively control how much oil goes to Beijing.
Why or how this is “America First” is entirely on Trump to answer. And he should answer.
While he has strong majorities on the right, both for attacking Iran (55% support) and his use of military force (73%), he lacks a plurality, as most Americans are skeptical on both fronts.
They’re right to be. Unlike a one-off shot dusting Soleimani, or even the daring raid to capture Maduro, Iran could go sideways to the extent that everyday Americans end up distinctly worse off and in short order.
The administration is obligated to take that concern seriously.
While I don’t expect the notoriously (and oddly) tight-lipped Trump to go spelling out his strategy’s next steps with utter clarity, some explanation of the vision would go a long way.
What’s next, Mr. Trump?
Should he answer that question even just generally, and should he make good on his history of ultra-violent, yet limited engagements with high upsides, Trump will have proven his Teddy Rooseveltian Doctrine.
Forever Wars might just be a choice, one made by dithering, feckless, perennially incompetent and corrupt leaders who see every conflict as an opportunity to launder trillions in taxpayer debt to their friends in and around Washington.
It’s possible Trump will have shown a different way. Maybe you can just kill and capture bad guys without spending trillions. Maybe you can topple terrorist regimes without building new bases.
Let’s all pray that maybe comes to pass.
GEOFF’S FORBIDDEN TAKES
Jasmine Crockett Showing Far-Left Liberals Can’t Handle The Heat
This so often seems to be the case with them.
–
ROOKE: Stop The Children’s Skincare Trend You Weirdos
Why can’t we leave the kids alone?
–
Team USA’s Celebratory Bar Tab Was So Big It Could’ve Gotten A Small Country Absolutely Plastered
Heck yeah.
Like what you’re reading? If so, please consider subscribing to State of the Day or sharing this with a friend. You’d be supporting this newsletter and helping keep independent journalism alive.
If you are already a paid subscriber, make sure to join the conversation in our subscribers-only chat below.
