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.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CTV News

an hour ago

• CTV News

The success of a key NATO summit is in doubt after Spain rejects a big hike in defence spending

U.S. President Donald Trump, centre, stops to talk with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, left, and Turkiye's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, right, as they attend a meeting of the North Atlantic Council during a summit of heads of state and government at NATO headquarters in Brussels on July 11, 2018. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) BRUSSELS — The success of a key NATO summit hung in the balance on Friday, after Spain announced that it cannot raise the billions of dollars needed to meet a new defence investment pledge demanded by U.S. President Donald Trump. Trump and his NATO counterparts are meeting for two days in the Netherlands from next Tuesday. He insists that U.S. allies should commit to spending at least 5% of gross domestic product, but that requires investment at an unprecedented scale. Trump has cast doubt over whether the U.S. would defend allies that spend too little. Setting the spending goal would be a historic decision. It would see all 32 countries invest the same amount in defence for the first time. Only last week, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte expressed confidence that they would endorse it. But in a letter to Rutte on Thursday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez wrote that 'committing to a 5% target would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive.' 'It would move Spain away from optimal spending and it would hinder the (European Union's) ongoing efforts to strengthen its security and defence ecosystem,' Sánchez wrote in the letter, seen by The Associated Press. Spain is not entirely alone Belgium, Canada, France and Italy would also struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars, but Spain is the only country to officially announce its intentions, making it hard to row back from such a public decision. Beyond his economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern, and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He's under growing pressure to call an early election. In response to the letter, Rutte's office said only that 'discussions among allies on a new defence investment plan are ongoing.' NATO's top civilian official had been due to table a new proposal on Friday to try to break the deadlock. The U.S. and French envoys had also been due to update reporters about the latest developments ahead of the summit but postponed their briefings. Rutte and many European allies are desperate to resolve the problem by Tuesday so that Trump does not derail the summit, as he did during his first term at NATO headquarters in 2018. Budget boosting After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO allies agreed that 2% of GDP should be the minimum they spend on their military budgets. But NATO's new plans for defending its own territory against outside attack require investment of at least 3%. Spain agreed to those plans in 2023. The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defence spending to 3.5% of GDP. A further 1.5% would go to upgrade roads, bridges, ports and airfields so that armies can better deploy, and to prepare societies for future attacks. Mathematically, 3.5 plus 1.5 equals Trump's 5%. But a lot is hiding behind the figures and details of what kinds of things can be included remain cloudy. Countries closest to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine have all agreed to the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the June 24-25 summit. The Netherlands estimates that NATO's defence plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defence spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros (US$18 billion to $22 billion). Supplying arms and ammunition to Ukraine, which Spain does, will also be included as core defence spending. NATO estimates that the U.S. spent around 3.2% of GDP on defence last year. Dual use, making warfighting possible The additional 1.5% spending basket is murkier. Rutte and many members argue that infrastructure used to deploy armies to the front must be included, as well as building up defence industries and preparing citizens for possible attacks. 'If a tank is not able to cross a bridge. If our societies are not prepared in case war breaks out for a whole of society approach. If we are not able to really develop the defence industrial base, then the 3.5% is great but you cannot really defend yourselves,' Rutte said this month. Spain wanted climate change spending included, but that proposal was rejected. Cyber-security and counter-hybrid warfare investment should also make the cut. Yet with all the conjecture about what might be included, it's difficult to see how Rutte arrived at this 1.5% figure. The when, the how, and a cunning plan It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit the 2% target, although most will this year, and they had a decade to get there. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That's far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate that Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within 5-10 years. The U.S. insists that it cannot be an open-ended pledge, and that a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. Another issue is how fast spending should be ramped up. 'I have a cunning plan for that,' Rutte said. He wants the allies to submit annual plans that lay out how much they intend to increase spending by. The reasons for the spending hike For Europe, Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat. A major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents is blamed on Moscow. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The United States also insists that China poses a threat. But for European people to back a hike in national defence spending, their governments require acknowledgement that the Kremlin remains NATO's biggest security challenge. The billions required for security will be raised by taxes, going into debt, or shuffling money from other budgets. But it won't be easy for many, as Spain has shown. On top of that, Trump has made things economically tougher by launching a global tariff war — ostensibly for U.S. national security reasons — something America's allies find hard to fathom. Lorne Cook, The Associated Press

Global News

an hour ago

• Global News

EU officials to hold talks with Iran as Tehran's conflict with Israel rages

Israel and Iran exchanged strikes a week into their war Friday as President Donald Trump weighed U.S. military involvement and new diplomatic efforts got underway. Trump has been weighing whether to attack Iran by striking its well-defended Fordo uranium enrichment facility, which is buried under a mountain and widely considered to be out of reach of all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. He said he'll decide within two weeks whether the U.S. military will get directly involved in the war given the 'substantial chance' for renewed negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi appeared to be en route to Geneva for meetings with the European Union's top diplomat and counterparts from the United Kingdom, France and Germany. A plane with his usual call sign took off from the Turkish city of Van, near the Iranian border, flight-tracking data from FlightRadar24 showed. Iran typically acknowledges his departure hours afterward. Story continues below advertisement Britain's foreign secretary said he met at the White House with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and envoy Steve Witkoff to discuss the potential for a deal that could cool the conflict. Before his flight, Araghchi said on Iranian state television that his country was 'not seeking negotiations with anyone' as long as Israel's attacks continued, underscoring the diplomatic challenges ahead. He also accused the U.S. of collaborating with Israel, noting that Trump regularly used 'we' in social media posts and interviews talking about the attacks on Iran. 'It is the Americans who want talks,' he said in comments Thursday that were broadcast Friday. 'They've sent messages several times — very serious ones — but we made it explicitly clear to them that as long as this aggression and invasion continue, there is absolutely no room for talk or diplomacy. We are engaged in legitimate self-defense, and this defense will not stop under any circumstances.' 1:51 Israel-Iran war: Will Trump drag U.S. into conflict? He added that he expected the Switzerland talks to focus only on Iran's nuclear program, and that Iran's missile capabilities were 'for defending the country' and not up for discussion. Story continues below advertisement French President Emmanuel Macron said top European diplomats in Geneva will make a 'comprehensive, diplomatic and technical offer of negotiation' to Iran, as a key response to the 'threat' represented by Iran's nuclear program. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'No one can seriously believe that this threat can be met with (Israel's) current operations alone,' he told reporters on the sidelines of the Paris Air Show, saying some plants are heavily fortified and nobody knows exactly where all uranium enrichment is taking place. 'We need to regain control on (Iran's nuclear) program through technical expertise and negotiation.' Iran had previously agreed to limit its uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors in to its nuclear sites under a 2015 deal with the U.S., France, China, Russia, Britain and Germany in exchange for sanctions relief and other provisions. After Trump pulled the U.S. unilaterally out of the deal during his last term, however, Iran began enriching uranium to higher levels and limiting access to its facilities. Israel says air campaign will target more sites Israel said it conducted airstrikes into Friday morning in Iran with more than 60 aircraft hitting what it said were industrial sites to manufacture missiles. It did not elaborate on the locations. It also said it hit the headquarters of Iran's Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, known by its acronym in Farsi, SPND. The U.S. in the past has linked that agency to alleged Iranian research and testing tied to the possible development of nuclear explosive devices. Story continues below advertisement It also carried out airstrikes targeting the areas around Kermanshah and Tabriz in western Iran, where the military said 25 fighter jets struck 'missile storage and launch infrastructure components' Friday morning. There had been reports of anti-aircraft fire in the areas. Iran did not immediately acknowledge the losses, and has not discussed the damage done so far to its military in the weeklong war. 'We are strengthening our air control in the region and advancing our air offensive,' Israeli military spokesperson Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin told reporters. 'We have more sites to strike in Tehran, western Iran and other places.' Israeli airstrikes also reached into the city of Rasht on the Caspian Sea early Friday, Iranian media reported. The Israeli military had warned the public to flee the area around Rasht's Industrial City, southwest of the city's downtown. But with Iran's internet shut off to the outside world, it's unclear just how many people could see the message. Damage from missiles in southern Israel In Israel, the paramedic service Magen David Adom said Iranian missiles struck a residential area in southern Israel causing damage to buildings, including one six-story building. They have provided medical treatment to five people with minor injuries such as bruises, smoke inhalation, and anxiety, it said. Story continues below advertisement This comes a day after at least 80 patients and medical workers were wounded in a strike on the Soroka Medical Center in the southern city of Beersheba. On Thursday, Israel's defense minister threatened Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei after the Iranian missile crashed into the hospital. Israel's military 'has been instructed and knows that in order to achieve all of its goals, this man absolutely should not continue to exist,' Defense Minister Israel Katz said. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he trusted that Trump would 'do what's best for America.' Speaking from the rubble and shattered glass around the hospital, he added: 'I can tell you that they're already helping a lot.' The war between Israel and Iran erupted June 13, with Israeli airstrikes targeting nuclear and military sites, top generals and nuclear scientists. At least 657 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 2,000 wounded, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Iran has retaliated by firing 450 missiles and 1,000 drones at Israel, according to Israeli army estimates. Most have been shot down by Israel's multitiered air defenses, but at least 24 people in Israel have been killed and hundreds wounded. Iran has long maintained its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. But it is the only non-nuclear-weapon state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. Story continues below advertisement Israel is widely believed to be the only Middle Eastern country with a nuclear weapons program but has never acknowledged it. The Israeli air campaign has targeted Iran's enrichment site at Natanz, centrifuge workshops around Tehran, a nuclear site in Isfahan and what the army assesses to be most of Iran's ballistic missile launchers. The destruction of those launchers has contributed to the steady decline in Iranian attacks since the start of the conflict. ___ Gambrell and Rising reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Associated Press writer Sylvie Corbet in Paris contributed to this report.

CBC

an hour ago

• CBC

Trump can keep National Guard in L.A. through legal challenges, appeals court rules

A U.S. appeals court let Donald Trump retain control on Thursday of California's National Guard while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the Republican president's use of the troops to quell protests in Los Angeles. Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tension in the country's second-most-populous city. On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended its pause on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's June 12 ruling that Trump had unlawfully called the National Guard into federal service. The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former president Joe Biden. Trump probably acted within his authority, the panel said, adding that his administration probably complied with the requirement to co-ordinate with Governor Gavin Newsom, and even if it did not, he had no authority to veto Trump's directive. "And although we hold that the president likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage," it wrote in its opinion. Trump hailed the decision in a post on Truth Social as a win and said, "If our cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should state and local police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done." WATCH l Trump says urgent action required in several cases: Protests, tariffs, borders: Why Trump says everything is an emergency | About That 8 days ago Duration 12:03 Description: U.S. President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to respond to immigration protests in California with a rarely used law invoked when the government believes a rebellion is underway. Andrew Chang breaks down how Trump's framing of these protests as an emergency — along with everything from trade deficits to fentanyl — exists as part of a larger pattern of governing by executive order with unchecked power. California to continue legal challenges, Newsom says Newsom could still challenge the use of the National Guard and U.S. Marines under other laws, including the bar on using troops in domestic law enforcement, it added. "The president is not a king and is not above the law," said Newsom on X. "We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against our citizens." Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Trump's immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California's National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against Newsom's wishes. The protests in Los Angeles ran for more than a week before they ebbed, leading Mayor Karen Bass earlier this week to lift a curfew she had imposed. Appeals court cites property damage At a court hearing on Tuesday on whether to extend the pause on Breyer's decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Trump's authority to deploy the troops. The law sets out three conditions by which a president can federalize state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the government or a situation in which the U.S. government is unable with regular forces to execute the country's laws. The appeals court said the final condition had probably been met because protesters hurled items at immigration authorities' vehicles, used trash dumpster as battering rams, threw Molotov cocktails and vandalized property, frustrating law enforcement. The Justice Department has said once the president determines that an emergency exists that warrants the use of the National Guard, no court or state governor can review that decision. The appeals court rejected that argument. In its June 9 lawsuit, California said Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state's sovereignty and U.S. laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.