Iran

If war comes now, it would forever be known as “Trump’s War.” One recalls: Saddam Hussein accepted war with the United States in 1991 rather than yield to Bush I’s demand that he get his army out of Kuwait. Who wants a U.S. war with Iran? Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, and who oppose every effort of Trump’s to extricate us from those wars. Should they succeed in Iran, it is hard to see how we will ever be able to extricate our country from this blood-soaked region that holds no vital strategic interest save oil. And America, thanks to fracking, is no longer dependent on the Middle East even for that.

The possibility that the chief executive might rush or be pushed into such a disastrous war is exactly why the Founders obliged presidents to go to Congress for approval. The Constitution places the power to declare war in the hands of the legislature. Yet modern presidents routinely claim monarchical powers, using the military without proper authority. Legislators often avoid taking responsibility for wars that might turn unpopular. But neither unconstitutional nor irresponsible behavior justifies chief executives doing the same. Trump has proven no more faithful to the Constitution than his predecessors.

Who wants us to plunge back into the Middle East, to fight a new and wider war than the ones we already fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen? Answer: Pompeo and Bolton, Bibi Netanyahu, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the Sunni kings, princes, emirs, sultans, and the other assorted Jeffersonian democrats on the south shore of the Persian Gulf. And lest we forget, the Never Trumpers and neocons in exile nursing their bruised egos, whose idea of sweet revenge is a U.S. return to the Mideast in a war with Iran. That, they think, will finally bring an end to the Trump presidency.

After an exhausting two weeks, one is tempted to ask: How many quarrels, clashes and conflicts can even a superpower manage at one time? And is it not time for the United States, preoccupied with so many crises, to begin asking, "Why is this our problem?" During the uprising in Caracas, Bolton cited the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. But according to President James Monroe, and Mike Pompeo's predecessor John Quincy Adams, who wrote the message to Congress, under the Doctrine, while European powers were to keep their hands off our hemisphere — we would reciprocate and stay out of Europe's quarrels and wars. Wise folks, those Founding Fathers.

Taken together, the Bolton-Pompeo threats add up to an ultimatum that any attack by Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, or Iran-backed militias — on Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE or U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria or the Gulf states — will bring a U.S. retaliatory response on Iran itself. Today, Trump's approval rating in the Gallup Poll has reached an all-time high, 46%, a level surely related to the astonishing performance of the U.S. economy following Trump's tax cuts and sweeping deregulation. While a Gulf war with Iran might be popular at the outset, what would it do for the U.S. economy or our ability to exit the forever war of the Middle East, as Trump has pledged to do?

If President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo are serious about stopping the Iranian Islamist threat to the West, their first order of business should be to stop giving the Iranians American forums from which they can threaten Israel and undermine our policies.

“This is another bold act of presidential leadership in support of one of America’s most important allies, Israel.  The president recognized that Israel’s control of the Golan Heights is the reality, and this is not going to change.  President Trump also sent a signal to Iran that the U.S. will not tolerate it using Syria as a platform to threaten Israel’s security.” Fred Fleitz, President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy.

Iran broke out of its isolation for two reasons. First, George W. Bush came in and overthrew its Taliban enemies on its eastern border, and then he overthrew Saddam Hussein, the enemy on its western border. As Trump contends, ISIS has been defeated and driven from its twin capitals — Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq. But it is also true that ISIS and al-Qaida still have tens of thousands of jihadists living among the peoples of the Middle East. And the great question remains: Are U.S. troops necessary over there — to prevent terrorists from coming over here? Or are they over here — because we are over there?

While Trump has urged that the U.S. pull out of these Mideast wars, Pompeo has corrected him, "When America retreats, chaos often follows." Is Trump looking for a showdown with Iran, which could result in a war that might vault his approval rating, but be a disaster for the Middle East and world economy and do for him what Operation Iraqi Freedom did for George W. Bush? One thing may confidently be said of the rhetoric and actions of Bolton and Pompeo: This is not what brought out the new populists who made Donald Trump president, the people who still share his desire to "stop the endless wars."

Washington’s overall objective should be to bring peace to America, not micro-manage other nations’ conflicts. Washington policymakers come up with long lists of objectives which are not worth the cost, in this case essentially permanent war. Withdrawal from Syria is long overdue.

General James Mattis deserves our respect and appreciation for his many years of service to our country, but as Secretary of Defense his departure is not to be feared, and should be viewed as an opportunity to undo the remaining vestiges of Obama’s damaging influence on our military culture and to chart a new course in the war Islam has declared on the West.

A congressional commission found America is weak, isolated, beleaguered, and endangered. Military spending must be greatly increased or Washington will lose its ability to run the world. In which case a new Dark Age may envelop the earth.

President Trump is right, there is little value in staying in Syria if Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iraq are prepared to mop-up the scattered remnants of ISIS, but the President is wrong, and deeply so, if he thinks that killing a few thousand jihadis and retaking some desolate ground in the Middle East ends the war political Islam, and Iran in particular, have declared on the West.

As for Trump, I think once again he is being smart not following the herd.  If MBS turns out to be a total swine, there's plenty of time to react accordingly.  If not, the president has properly hedged his bets.  In any case, in a world (the M. E.) where practically all leaders, other than Israelis, are various degrees of thugs, it may come down to the regrettable choice of the traditional the  "enemy of my enemy," etc. Thanks to Obama's giveaway of billions, we know who that mainly is - Iran and its client Hezbollah.

The U.S. cannot look aside at a royal Saudi hand in the murder of a U.S.-based journalist in its consulate in Istanbul. But before we separate ourselves from the Riyadh regime, we should ask what is the alternative if the House of Saud should be destabilized or fall? Wars are hell on monarchies. And if a new and larger Middle East war, with Iran, should break out in the Gulf, some of the Arab kings, emirs and sultans will likely fall. And when they do, history shows, it is not usually democrats who rise to replace them.

President Trump’s remarks at the UN were noteworthy, not so much for their radical departure from the interventionist policies of the two Bush presidents, and their rejection of the weakness and globalism of Obama, but for their return to the principles of George Washington.

The Trump administration appears to share the belief of prior administrations that it can transform the Middle East in America’s image. But Washington’s record in the Middle East is catastrophic. It is time to bring home America’s troops.

For the late Senator John McCain, war was a first resort, the obvious answer to most any international problem, whatever the specifics. If only Washington would impose its will abroad, Pax America would emerge.

Any shooting war in the Persian Gulf could see insurance rates for tankers soar, a constriction of oil exports, and surging prices, plunging us into a worldwide recession for which one man would be held responsible: Donald Trump. If we start a war with Iran, on top of the five in which we are engaged still, then the party that offers to extricate us will be listened to, as Trump was listened to, when he promised to extricate us from the forever wars of the Middle East.

When the demonstrators in the streets of Tehran rightly cry "Death to the Dictator," Khamenei is the man they are talking about. Trump must meet with him. Mike Pompeo can deal with Rouhani. (Incidentally, the idea that Rouhani is a "moderate" is eyewash believed only by John Kerry and the editors of the New York Times. He has put more people to death than his supposedly hardline predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)