US President Donald Trump speaks about the situation with Iran in the Grand Foyer of the White House in Washington DC, United States ,on January 8, 2020. (Photo by Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Now We Know for Certain Trump Will Do Anything to Win in 2020--Even Start a War
Though a failed realtor, Trump was a successful reality show star. And he knows how to entertain people with fake conflict.
President Trump was impeached for secretly distorting our Ukrainian policy to get himself elected. But there were so many leaks that he learned his lesson. This time he's openly distorting our Iranian policy to get elected.
Trump's dramatic distractions hardly surprise us anymore. It's the pathetically undramatic reactions of his critics that really worry me this time.
In the first few hours after we learned that the U.S. military had killed Iran's Qassem Suleimani, TV pundits tried to explain to a presumably clueless Donald Trump that there could be repercussions. Could be? Repercussions are the point. There may be other reasons for killing this particular Iranian. But Trump's purpose was to provoke a response that will make him a war-time president.
Here's how we can be sure of his motive.
Normally, when a government orders an assassination, the operation is veiled with "plausible deniability." That's not the same thing as trying to hide who did it. When Putin sent an agent to kill a man in England the assassin used a poison associated with Russia's secret police. Putin's foes were meant to have no doubt about who ordered the job. But Putin didn't go on TV to cross a name off his enemies list. Proud as must have been, he claimed publicly that he knew nothing about it.
That gave the British government options. They could have expelled Russian diplomats, tied up Russian money, maybe even put out a contract on Putin. But they would first investigate and gather definitive proof to punish the guilty parties in their own good time. The U.S. adopted the same wait-till-it-blows-over strategy when Trump's favorite Saudi Prince had a journalist chopped up in a Saudi embassy. We're still waiting for definitive proof on that one.
But instead of building deniability into the Suleimani mission, Trump posted a full-screen American flag on his website to announce its success. By the next day, he was taking bows all around. What options does that leave a poor ranting Mullah?
If, due to caution and their true weakness, the Iranians stop with a retaliation that isn't macho enough, Trump can claim a victory and goad them again closer to the election. These militarists know how to press each other's buttons because they understand the needs of their respective "bases."
What about Trump's claim that he had to act now in order to head off a specific Iranian plan against us. That has some built-in truthiness. Suleimani is the General who coordinates Iran's support for those Middle East militias that harry the U.S. and Saudi backed gangs. That's what he was doing in Iraq the day he was killed. That's what he does every day.
If you believe that there was something new afoot that required action now--shortly before his impeachment trial--then you probably still believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
I can think of only one way for Trump to justify his timing. He could remind us that "Because of Obama, Iranians don't currently have nuclear weapons. But because of me they soon may. So we want our war as soon as possible." That's almost plausible but I don't think he'll say it.
If I was depressed to hear pundits instruct innocent Donald Trump on possible reprisals for killing Suleimani, think how I feel hearing Democrats instruct him on the proper way to start a war: "Under our constitution, Sir, one needs a congressional declaration."
Haven't they learned anything from the impeachment hearings? Trump's response to their constitutional, procedural, and moral case was neither denial nor admission. His highly successful defense was: "This is boring." Let's not be boring again.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
President Trump was impeached for secretly distorting our Ukrainian policy to get himself elected. But there were so many leaks that he learned his lesson. This time he's openly distorting our Iranian policy to get elected.
Trump's dramatic distractions hardly surprise us anymore. It's the pathetically undramatic reactions of his critics that really worry me this time.
In the first few hours after we learned that the U.S. military had killed Iran's Qassem Suleimani, TV pundits tried to explain to a presumably clueless Donald Trump that there could be repercussions. Could be? Repercussions are the point. There may be other reasons for killing this particular Iranian. But Trump's purpose was to provoke a response that will make him a war-time president.
Here's how we can be sure of his motive.
Normally, when a government orders an assassination, the operation is veiled with "plausible deniability." That's not the same thing as trying to hide who did it. When Putin sent an agent to kill a man in England the assassin used a poison associated with Russia's secret police. Putin's foes were meant to have no doubt about who ordered the job. But Putin didn't go on TV to cross a name off his enemies list. Proud as must have been, he claimed publicly that he knew nothing about it.
That gave the British government options. They could have expelled Russian diplomats, tied up Russian money, maybe even put out a contract on Putin. But they would first investigate and gather definitive proof to punish the guilty parties in their own good time. The U.S. adopted the same wait-till-it-blows-over strategy when Trump's favorite Saudi Prince had a journalist chopped up in a Saudi embassy. We're still waiting for definitive proof on that one.
But instead of building deniability into the Suleimani mission, Trump posted a full-screen American flag on his website to announce its success. By the next day, he was taking bows all around. What options does that leave a poor ranting Mullah?
If, due to caution and their true weakness, the Iranians stop with a retaliation that isn't macho enough, Trump can claim a victory and goad them again closer to the election. These militarists know how to press each other's buttons because they understand the needs of their respective "bases."
What about Trump's claim that he had to act now in order to head off a specific Iranian plan against us. That has some built-in truthiness. Suleimani is the General who coordinates Iran's support for those Middle East militias that harry the U.S. and Saudi backed gangs. That's what he was doing in Iraq the day he was killed. That's what he does every day.
If you believe that there was something new afoot that required action now--shortly before his impeachment trial--then you probably still believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
I can think of only one way for Trump to justify his timing. He could remind us that "Because of Obama, Iranians don't currently have nuclear weapons. But because of me they soon may. So we want our war as soon as possible." That's almost plausible but I don't think he'll say it.
If I was depressed to hear pundits instruct innocent Donald Trump on possible reprisals for killing Suleimani, think how I feel hearing Democrats instruct him on the proper way to start a war: "Under our constitution, Sir, one needs a congressional declaration."
Haven't they learned anything from the impeachment hearings? Trump's response to their constitutional, procedural, and moral case was neither denial nor admission. His highly successful defense was: "This is boring." Let's not be boring again.
President Trump was impeached for secretly distorting our Ukrainian policy to get himself elected. But there were so many leaks that he learned his lesson. This time he's openly distorting our Iranian policy to get elected.
Trump's dramatic distractions hardly surprise us anymore. It's the pathetically undramatic reactions of his critics that really worry me this time.
In the first few hours after we learned that the U.S. military had killed Iran's Qassem Suleimani, TV pundits tried to explain to a presumably clueless Donald Trump that there could be repercussions. Could be? Repercussions are the point. There may be other reasons for killing this particular Iranian. But Trump's purpose was to provoke a response that will make him a war-time president.
Here's how we can be sure of his motive.
Normally, when a government orders an assassination, the operation is veiled with "plausible deniability." That's not the same thing as trying to hide who did it. When Putin sent an agent to kill a man in England the assassin used a poison associated with Russia's secret police. Putin's foes were meant to have no doubt about who ordered the job. But Putin didn't go on TV to cross a name off his enemies list. Proud as must have been, he claimed publicly that he knew nothing about it.
That gave the British government options. They could have expelled Russian diplomats, tied up Russian money, maybe even put out a contract on Putin. But they would first investigate and gather definitive proof to punish the guilty parties in their own good time. The U.S. adopted the same wait-till-it-blows-over strategy when Trump's favorite Saudi Prince had a journalist chopped up in a Saudi embassy. We're still waiting for definitive proof on that one.
But instead of building deniability into the Suleimani mission, Trump posted a full-screen American flag on his website to announce its success. By the next day, he was taking bows all around. What options does that leave a poor ranting Mullah?
If, due to caution and their true weakness, the Iranians stop with a retaliation that isn't macho enough, Trump can claim a victory and goad them again closer to the election. These militarists know how to press each other's buttons because they understand the needs of their respective "bases."
What about Trump's claim that he had to act now in order to head off a specific Iranian plan against us. That has some built-in truthiness. Suleimani is the General who coordinates Iran's support for those Middle East militias that harry the U.S. and Saudi backed gangs. That's what he was doing in Iraq the day he was killed. That's what he does every day.
If you believe that there was something new afoot that required action now--shortly before his impeachment trial--then you probably still believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
I can think of only one way for Trump to justify his timing. He could remind us that "Because of Obama, Iranians don't currently have nuclear weapons. But because of me they soon may. So we want our war as soon as possible." That's almost plausible but I don't think he'll say it.
If I was depressed to hear pundits instruct innocent Donald Trump on possible reprisals for killing Suleimani, think how I feel hearing Democrats instruct him on the proper way to start a war: "Under our constitution, Sir, one needs a congressional declaration."
Haven't they learned anything from the impeachment hearings? Trump's response to their constitutional, procedural, and moral case was neither denial nor admission. His highly successful defense was: "This is boring." Let's not be boring again.