Iran decision shouldn't be Trump's alone, MAGA voices and Democrats say
Social Sharing
Much has been made this week of a rift among Donald Trump's loyalists regarding the degree to which the U.S. should support Israel's offensive strikes against Iran — although there has been little pushback among Republicans in Congress.
Some longtime defenders of his America First mantra are calling him out for weighing a greater U.S. role in the conflict between Israel and Iran after a week of deadly strikes and counter-strikes.
Trump emphasized Thursday morning that one notable report was erroneous.
"The Wall Street Journal has No Idea what my thoughts are concerning Iran!," Trump posted on Truth Social. The report said Trump had signed off on unspecified attack plans, but was holding out hope Iran could be compelled to abandon its nuclear program after a week of Israeli strikes.
The U.S. under Trump, who grew frustrated after two months of talks with Iran did not lead to progress on a nuclear deal, has been shifting military assets in recent days in the Middle East.
How deep will the U.S. be pulled into the Israel-Iran war? | About That
23 hours ago
Duration 13:28
It is understood that Israel needs considerable U.S. assistance in any bid to decimate Iran's nuclear program, particularly with respect to the Fordow nuclear fuel enrichment plant, built deep underground in the mountains. The U.S. Air Force's B-2 Spirit stealth bomber is the only aircraft that can carry the 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, known as the bunker buster.
"I'm not looking to fight," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday. "But if it's a choice between fighting and having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do."
'The American people have to be on board'
Among the factors that propelled Trump, the outsider, to the 2016 presidency was his pledge to end American military adventurism after lengthy and costly engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks.
"We are ending the era of endless wars," Trump said in one 2020 speech to troops.
Steve Bannon, Trump's final 2016 campaign chief executive and a first-term White House adviser, is currently urging the president to stay true to those instincts.
"This is one of the most ancient civilizations in the world, OK, with 92 million people," he told reporters this week at an event in Washington, D.C. "You have to think this through at this level, and the American people have to be on board. You can't just dump this on them."
Bannon's knowledge of Iran's population was not matched by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who had a fractious interview this week with Tucker Carlson, who strongly criticized the senator for seeking regime change in Iran.
"You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple?" Carlson asked.
"Why is it relevant if it's 90 million or 80 million or 100 million. Why is that relevant?" Cruz countered.
A day earlier, Carlson told Bannon on the latter's podcast that he was "really afraid that my country's gonna be further weakened by this. I think we're gonna see the end of the American empire."
Charlie Kirk, CEO of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA and a supporter through three Trump presidential campaigns, echoed the stance of Bannon and Carlson. Kirk said in a Thursday social media post that "there is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change."
'Help Israel finish the job'
On Capitol Hill, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is arguably the most vociferous hawk, urging Trump to "go all-in to help Israel finish the job."
"It's time to close the chapter on the ayatollah and his henchmen," Graham said in a Fox News interview this week. "Let's close it soon and start a new chapter in the Mideast: one of tolerance, hope and peace."
Cruz has said he envisions no scenario in which "American boots" would be on the ground in Iran.
In MAGA world, that view seems polyannish. On the OAN cable news show hosted by Matt Gaetz, a former CIA analyst and erstwhile Trump cabinet pick said the U.S. might just end up with "a different version of hell" even if regime change ultimately occurred.
Unsurprisingly, Democrats are raising alarm about any unilateral action by Trump. Led by Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, they said in a statement on Wednesday that "Congress has not provided authorization for military action against Iran," and that the party would not "rubberstamp military intervention that puts the United States at risk."
That sentiment is matched by few Republicans, save Kentuckians Rand Paul and Thomas Massie.
In a podcast with Daily Signal released Thursday, the Sen. Paul said he feared the "unintended consequences" of greater U.S. military involvement, pointing to Afghanistan.
"When we finally left [in 2021], it reverted back to the stone ages within six months," he said.
Massie, meanwhile, is teaming with several House Democrats to sponsor a resolution that calls on Trump to "terminate" the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless Congress authorizes it.
"This is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our constitution," he said earlier this week.
MAGA firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene, not known for her bipartisan spirit, has not partnered on the resolution, though she did post on X: "Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA."
Iran again, but different
Trump has grappled with weighty decisions involving Iran and military might before. In 2019, the U.S. did not act with force after Iran shot down a surveillance drone and when it launched aerial strikes on Saudi Arabian oil facilities.
Trump also stood down after Iran fired ballistic missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq in January 2020. As is likely happening now, multiple voices within the administration, in Congress and in right-wing media were jockeying to influence Trump's January 2020 decision.
The latter decision came just days after Trump gave the go-ahead for arguably the most consequential foreign policy decision of his first term, one a UN expert report later deemed "unlawful" — the drone strike that killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, who had shaped Tehran's military stance in the Middle East and provided logistical support to militant group proxies Hezbollah and Hamas.
The Solemaini strike on Jan. 3, 2020, had repercussions both immediate and to the present day. An Jan. 8, 2020, Iran mistakenly shot down Ukrainian Airlines Flight PS752, killing all crew and passengers, including 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents, per Global Affairs Canada.
U.S. authorities since then, including just in November, have claimed to have snuffed out plots to kill Trump, as well as other Iran critics.
The Netanyahu factor
Of course, the 2019-2020 events weren't taking place against the backdrop of the Israel-Hamas war. Since Oct. 7, 2023, Israel's military has eliminated several top commanders of Hezbollah and Hamas.
While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may feel emboldened to end Iran's threat to his country for the foreseeable future, former Trump national security adviser John Bolton told CBC News last week not to overestimate the strength of their personal relationship in any Oval Office decisions.
"I don't think the relationship with Trump and Netanyahu personally is as good as many people feel. And I do think Trump really wanted to see if there was a negotiated settlement [possible]," said Bolton.
Another difference since 2020 is that even by Trump standards, there is a great deal of upheaval within his current administration. Several National Security Council officials have been bounced — some reportedly because they weren't loyal enough to Trump. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is currently also serving as national security adviser, after Mike Waltz was reassigned following the fiasco over the Signal chat on Yemen military strikes that a journalist was inadvertently invited to.
Meanwhile, Trump this week completely disregarded the comments about the Iranian nuclear program made by his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.
Alex Ward, from the Wall Street Journal, summarized the state of play on Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
History in reruns
Opinion I've seen this movie already. I don't want to see it again. 'They lied,' said U.S. President Donald Trump in 2016, when he was running for the Republican presidential nomination against the neocons in his own party who had started the 'forever wars' in Afghanistan and Iraq. 'They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none.' Invading the wrong country is generally a big mistake, and everybody outside the United States knew it (except maybe Britain's Tony Blair). However, then-president George W. Bush had to believe in Saddam Hussein's alleged 'weapons of mass destruction' so that he could invade Iraq and expunge the blame for having let 9/11 happen on his watch. (Yes, I know Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Don't get tangled up in the details. The point is that Bush managed to persuade Americans of a link between Saddam and 9/11.) Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu is in a similar position. He not only failed to prevent Hamas from carrying out the massacre of Oct. 7, 2023; he had previously allowed a flow of cash from Qatar into the Gaza Strip in order to ensure that the Palestinians remained divided between Hamas and Fatah. Bibi must erase his guilt for that failure if he is to have a political future, and even the expulsion of the Palestinian population from Gaza (now being prepared) may not be enough. Whereas the destruction of the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons threat, and perhaps of the entire Iranian regime, could earn him full absolution within Israel. Netanyahu is genuinely obsessed about such weapons, but there is also always a tactical, political element in his warnings. He said Iran was 'three to five years away from a bomb' in 1992. He said it again in 1995. It was allegedly only one year away in 2012, and it has always been 'imminent' since 2019. Which brings us to the congressional testimony of Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's own director of national intelligence, on March 26 of this year. She said that the U.S. intelligence community 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Finally, an American official who thinks she is working for her country, not for her party — but then she is also a combat veteran (Iraq) and a lieutenant-colonel in the National Guard. She takes her job seriously, and does not fall for all that guff about an Iranian nuclear weapons program. There once was such a program. It began in the mid-1980s, when the fledgling Islamic Republic of Iran was invaded by Iraq (with U.S. encouragement and support). It was cancelled after the U.S. invaded Iraq and found no nuclear weapons there in 2003, and to the best of our knowledge, it has not been restarted since then. All Middle Eastern governments know that they would face a pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike if they ever sought nuclear weapons of their own. (Israel has had nuclear weapons since the late 1960s and now has a hundred or more, deliverable by planes, missiles and submarines.) The idea that Iran is working on such weapons now is frankly ridiculous. The whole show is performative nonsense. Even if Iran had weapons-grade uranium now, fabricating warheads, testing the weapons and devising a reliable means of delivery (it has nothing suitable now) would take years. Whereas if Israel really believed Tehran were close to success now, it would have nuked all of Iran's facilities six months ago. Trump has long known that Bibi was trying to sucker him into a joint war against Iran, and never fell for it before. Why now? Probably because he just can't resist the opportunity to strut around emoting on the stage. Look at his recent tweets. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' And a couple of minutes later: 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' They won't surrender. This will be Trump's own 'forever war.' Gwynne Dyer's new book is Intervention Earth: Life-Saving Ideas from the World's Climate Engineers.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Can militarization deliver a safer world?
Opinion In a recent speech, Prime Minister Mark Carney said, 'Rising great powers are now in strategic competition with America. A new imperialism threatens. Middle powers compete for interests and attention, knowing that if they are not at the table, they will be on the menu.' We hear this dog-eat-dog sentiment shared quite often now, most notably from U.S. President Donald Trump, and it is often used as a justification for Western countries to spend more on their military. I would argue that the world has not spiked in terms of violence, and I would also argue that we cannot forget that an important context of violence is inequality and poverty. Focusing on militarization diverts our attention and creates conditions that will exacerbate international poverty and drive further violence. The world is becoming more violent, right? Not really, at least not in the sense of rising interstate wars. For simplicity I focus on the post-Cold War period, 1989-2023, and use deaths from conflict as the indicator. Less than 10 per cent of the 3.47 million conflict-related deaths over this period were due to interstate conflict (i.e., war). Most, almost 55 per cent, were from intrastate deaths. The rest are considered one-side violence or non-state conflicts. The world is clearly more violent for many people but often this is not the result of war (interstate conflict) but due to internal conflict, e.g., the Rwandan genocide. Conflict-based deaths have a strong regional distribution. The regions most affected by violence are Africa and the Middle East. During this period, Africa has faced 350 deaths per 100,000 people; the Middle East 285 deaths; Europe 40 deaths; Americas 31 deaths; and Asia-Oceania 19 deaths. There is evidence of an increase in annual deaths from conflict since 2012, but this has been driven by non-state and one-sided violence, not interstate violence. It was not until 2022, with the latest episode of the Ukraine-Russia war, that interstate conflict death numbers rose. A recent study estimated that up to 100,000 Ukrainians were killed and 300,000 were wounded, while 250,000 Russians have died and 700,000 have been wounded. The data I have presented are slim in support of the view that the world has become more violent. But I accept that there might be better indicators of violence or that the argument is not about recent history, but about fear of the future. That is, the fear is that the rise of authoritarian countries, most notably the rise of authoritarianism in the United States (not to mention China and Russia) and that these states will fuel future interstate violence. So, will better arming us will make us less vulnerable to aggressive authoritarian pressures? I do not specialize in military and political theory, so I leave this debate for others. But what I would like to argue is that an unequal world is one that can create and exacerbate tensions and lead to rising violence including interstate violence. Violence flows from a world in which certain groups, nations, and regions accumulate more wealth and power at the expense of others. Conversely, there are many ways in which a poor group can experience self-identified economic improvement. It is critically important that the international economy is rules-based, that these rules embed economic justice within them, and that wealthy nations support relatively poorer ones. Worthwhile support comes in the form of fair trading and investing systems. Moreover, the poorest nations require assistance in the form or high-quality development assistance. But fair trade, investment, and aid are diminishing. Trade barriers are rising. For instance, the U.S. has placed a 37 per cent tariff on garments from Bangladesh. This is an odd move, because it is unlikely the U.S. will ever gain a share of garment manufacturing. It is a low-wage sector and, with anti-immigration pressures in the U.S., American wages are likely to rise well beyond what is needed for a competitive garment sector. For years, a key international goal was that development assistance would reach 0.7 per cent of national income. This is only one of many needed reforms. But the increasingly ubiquitous goal of spending two per cent (or five per cent) of national income on military has usurped that goal. The U.K. has stated its plan to cut its development assistance and the U.S., by cutting its agency USAID, it has already done so. Canada and other countries are following suit and plan to reduce their development assistance. The case of the Israel-Gaza/Palestine conflict demonstrates how military force does not solve the problem. After over a year and a half of violence, there is no end in sight. Civilian deaths and infrastructure obliteration will only aggravate inequality and cycle back into more violence. Fear about a violent future should compel us to embrace a justice-based economic system. The alternative is imperialism and the violence that logically flows from inequality. Jerry Buckland is a professor of economics and international development at Canadian Mennonite University.
Toronto Star
3 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Democrats in Virginia have a hefty fundraising advantage heading into November general election
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Democrats in Virginia have built up a hefty fundraising advantage for their effort to reclaim the governor's mansion in a November election that is seen as a bellwether for the party in power in Washington ahead of the 2026 midterms. Democrat Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA spy turned congresswoman, has a more than 2-to-1 fundraising advantage over her GOP opponent for governor, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, who has struggled to draw support from her fellow Republicans. Both were unopposed for their party's nominations and were able to focus on the fall general election without having to overcome a challenge in this week's primaries. The match-up means Virginia is all but certain to elect the state's first female governor.
