‘Everlasting Consequences’
Iran’s warning after Trump takes US into war
So much for “two weeks”.
After demanding Tehran’s “unconditional surrender” five days ago as missile exchanges intensified between Israel and Iran, any subsequent suggestion that the US President might make a considered decision on his next steps in a context of potential diplomacy evaporated last night when US forces launched a massive and unprecedented air strike against three key nuclear enrichment sites inside Iran.
Trump appeared on TV to say the facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan had been “completely obliterated” and warned of potentially more to come.
“Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.”
Trump said there would either be “peace or tragedy for Iran”.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu effusively praised Trump, saying “Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history.”
Russia and China both “strongly condemned” the US airstrikes, with the Kremlin’s foreign ministry calling the move “a dangerous escalation … fraught with further undermining of regional and global security.”
After firing a barrage of ballistic missiles against Israel this morning, Iran’s diplomatic response pressed all the political buttons – domestic, regional and global.
Warning of “everlasting consequences” for the US action, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the strikes demonstrated “extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior” that was in violation of international law.
Farnaz Fassihi writes at The New York Times that Iran now faces “grim choices” and that “whatever it does will be a turning point for the Islamic Republic’s nearly five-decade rule.”
*
But Trump’s move last night is fundamentally a huge gamble that the air strikes might prove to be a “one and done” episode. As Andrew Gawthorpe writes:
“It’s not at all clear that this is the case. We don’t know how much damage has actually been done to Fordow, whether and how Iran will retaliate, and whether and how Iran will seek to continue its nuclear program anyway. The idea of a quick and painless victory through air power has been around for as long as air power itself, and it rarely works out.”
In terms of domestic US politics, any kind of split within those who put Trump in office with a promise to end foreign wars is, frankly, of much less immediate consequence than the uncertainty over retaliation against US interests and personnel in the region and also, possibly, against the US itself.
But of course, the extent of the division within Trump’s supporters will depend on what happens next and how much they are prepared to collectively ‘own’ their leader’s irreversible escalation. Margaret Sullivan had written on Friday about the “pro-war drumbeat” of Fox News.
“Sean Hannity, one of the big names on Fox these days, and known as the Trump whisperer, is all in. Iran “is the biggest existential threat to the entire western world,” Hannity said the other day on air, and he just can’t comprehend why everyone doesn’t agree with him.”
Sullivan continued:
“This is hardly the first time the news media has banged the drum for war. Infamously, Big Journalism — including the New York Times — was certainly a factor in mustering support in advance of George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. The widespread and credulous reporting about Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction was very far from the press’s finest hour. Rather, it was an embarrassment and a dereliction.”
Without a clear end game, this weekend’s actions have undoubtedly exaggerated the unpredictability that has characterized Donald Trump’s time in office.
And as David Remnick writes at The New Yorker, the repercussions “are impossible to predict.”
“Although it is true that many Iranians despise the ruling theocracy, and though it is true that the Iranian people are among the most pro-American in the region, there is no reason to be confident that even the most restive will welcome foreign intervention. And it is unlikely, at least in the short term, that what will follow this regime, if it falls, will be a secular liberal democracy with civil rights for women and religious minorities. Regime change is rarely, if ever, regarded as a gift.”
My former boss Alain Catzeflis posted on Friday that the US “would be foolish to fall for Netanyahu’s shoot first ask questions later approach.” He wrote:
War is unpredictable. You can’t script it. “In war,” said Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian general, “everything is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult. No plan survives contact with the enemy.”
***
‘Pure Political Theater’
With last night’s events it won’t be talked about much now, but…
After a federal appeals court upheld, at least temporarily, President Trump’s ability to federalize the National Guard in California, Vice-President JD Vance visited detention facilities in Los Angeles and appeared to hint at a prolonged military occupation of the city. In continuing the administration’s narrative of escalating threat – regardless of what the reality on the ground might be – Vance maintained that the Guard’s presence is “still necessary”.
For Trump’s base, immigration remains the top issue, but there are growing potential adverse effects of mass deportations on both the economy and the budget of an ICE force incentivized to round up as many people as possible.
Garrett Graff writes that ICE “believes it will never face accountability again”.
“ICE, in just a few short months, has lost the trust of the American people. In places like Los Angeles and other communities, ICE special agents and officers (Unlike most federal agencies, ICE has both agents and officers, and there’s a subtle but important difference job-wise between them that’s outside the scope of this column) are getting some tough lessons from crowds and bystanders about how in a democracy policing authority stems from the permission of citizens.”
In the midweek baseball post this week, I looked at the pressure fans were putting on the Los Angeles Dodgers to be more outspoken over what is happening to their community. The team subsequently attempted to defuse criticism by making a $1m donation to “families of immigrants impacted by recent events.”
It looks like despite their PR push, the situation’s not going away.
As for the Veep, his accusations of “political theatre” against Sen Alex Padilla – or whatever name he actually used – could hardly be more ironic. We’ll just have to assume he didn’t mean the Mets’ minor leaguer, but with Vance – who has changed his own name plenty of times – you really never know.
JD’s boss, meanwhile, still really wants that Nobel Peace Prize.
***
As always, thanks for reading. I write a baseball-related post midweek and then a political wrap at weekends.
One is usually more sane than the other.
You might also enjoy – if that’s really the right word at the moment – these other recent posts:
‘An Attack On Everything We Stand For’ – June 16th – Two children are orphaned in a ‘targeted’ political shooting.
Tribute – May 18th – This isn’t America First, this is Trump First.
Certain Things Are Set In Stone – May 26th – Who we are, what we’ll do and what we won’t.
And you can find a full States of Play archive here.
*
Even if he won a peace prize it wouldn't be enough. He'd want other recipients - including one very notable person - to have theirs rescinded on the grounds that his efforts were so much greater, in numbers no one ever believed possible.