Trump: War President or
Anti-Interventionist?
by Patrick J.
Buchanan Posted on June 25, 2019
Visualizing 150 Iranian dead from a missile strike
that he had ordered, President Donald Trump recoiled and canceled the strike, a
brave decision and defining moment for his presidency.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and
Vice President Mike Pence had signed off on the strike on Iran as the right
response to Tehran’s shootdown of a U.S. Global Hawk spy plane over the Gulf of
Oman.
The U.S. claims the drone was over international
waters. Tehran says it was in Iranian territory. But while the loss of a $100
million drone is no small matter, no American pilot was lost, and retaliating
by killing 150 Iranians would appear to be a disproportionate response.
Good for Trump. Yet, all weekend, he was berated
for chickening out and imitating President Barack Obama. U.S. credibility, it
was said, has taken a big hit and must be restored with military action.
By canceling the strike, the president also sent a
message to Iran: We’re ready to negotiate. Yet, given the irreconcilable
character of our clashing demands, it is hard to see how the U.S. and Iran get
off this road, we are on, at the end of which a military collision seems almost
certain.
Consider the respective demands.
Monday, the president tweeted: "The U.S.
request for Iran is very simple – No Nuclear Weapons and No Further Sponsoring
of Terror!"
But Iran has no nuclear weapons, has never had
nuclear weapons, and has never even produced bomb-grade uranium.
According to our own intelligence agencies in 2007
and 2011, Tehran did not even have a nuclear weapons program.
Under the 2015 nuclear deal, the JCPOA, the only
way Iran could have a nuclear weapons program would be in secret, outside its
known nuclear facilities, all of which are under constant U.N. inspection.
Where is the evidence that any such secret program
exists?
And if it does, why does America not tell the world
where Iran’s secret nuclear facilities are located and demand immediate
inspections?
"No further sponsoring of terror," Trump
says.
But what does that mean?
As the major Shiite power in the Middle East divided
between Sunni and Shiite, Iran backs the Houthi rebels in Yemen’s civil war,
Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon, Alawite Bashar Assad in Syria, and the Shiite
militias in Iraq who helped us stop ISIS’s drive to Baghdad.
In his 12 demands, Pompeo virtually insisted that
Iran abandons these allies and capitulates to their Sunni adversaries and rivals.
Not going to happen. Yet, if these demands are
nonnegotiable, to be backed up by sanctions severe enough to choke Iran’s
economy to death, we will be headed for war.
No more than North Korea is Iran going to yield to the U.S. demands that it abandon what Iran sees as vital national interests.
As for the U.S. charge that Iran is
"destabilizing" the Middle East, it was not Iran that invaded
Afghanistan and Iraq, overthrew the Gadhafi regime in Libya, armed rebels to
overthrow Assad in Syria, or aided and abetted the Saudis’ intervention in
Yemen’s civil war.
Iran, pushed to the wall, its economy shrinking as
inflation and unemployment are rising, is approaching the limits of its
tolerance.
And as Iran suffers pain, it is saying, other
nations in the Gulf will endure similar pain, as will the USA. At some point,
collisions will produce casualties and we will be on the up escalator to war.
Yet, what vital interest of ours does Iran today
threaten?
Trump, with his order to stand down on the missile
strike on Iran signaled that he wanted a pause in the confrontation.
Still, it needs to be said: The president himself
authorized the steps that have brought us to this peril point.
Trump pulled out of and trashed Obama’s nuclear
deal. He imposed the sanctions that are now inflicting something close to
unacceptable if not intolerable pain on Iran. He had the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard declared a terrorist organization. He sent the Abraham Lincoln carrier
task force and B-52s to the Gulf region.
If war is to be avoided, either Iran is going to
have to capitulate, or the U.S. is going to have to walk back its maximalist
position.
And who would Trump name to negotiate with Tehran
for the United States?
The longer the sanctions remain in place and the
deeper they bite, the greater the likelihood Iran will respond to our economic
warfare with its own asymmetric warfare. Has the president decided to take that
risk?
We appear to be at a turning point in the Trump
presidency.
Does he want to run in 2020 as the president who
led us into war with Iran, or as the anti-interventionist president who began
to bring U.S. troops home from that region that has produced so many wars?
Perhaps Congress, the branch of government
designated by the Constitution to decide on war, should instruct President
Trump as to the conditions under which he is authorized to take us to war with
Iran.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain
Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more
about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and
cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario