Two decades ago, George W. Bush toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein after securing a bipartisan authorization from Congress, gaining the support of the majority of Americans, and a year of planning the attack and making his case to the American people and the world.
Over the last two months, President Donald Trump has taken down two foes — first in Venezuela, and now Iran — without the authorization of Congress, lacking the support of most Americans and with little planning or politicking.
Critics have assailed Trump for failing to consult Congress or do more to gain the support of Americans for his unexpectedly robust use of military force. But he has won some praise for a narrower approach.
In Venezuela, U.S. forces seized Nicolás Maduro but did not topple his government or send U.S. ground forces into the country. In Iran, Trump has said he has no plans to deploy ground troops there, either.
In a taped address on Sunday afternoon, Trump said it was up to unarmed Iranians to topple a regime that killed at least 7,003 Iranians during recent demonstrations, including 214 members of government forces, per the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency.
“I once again urge the Revolutionary Guard, the Iranian military police, to lay down your arms and receive full immunity or face certain death. It will be certain death, won’t be pretty,” Trump said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” said that Trump is creating a new American model — a Trump doctrine — for removing foreign leaders who threaten the U.S., without being drawn into a military quagmire. Graham praised the killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but said it was not Trump’s job to choose Iran’s next leader.
“It’s not his job or my job to do this,” Graham said. “How many times do I have to tell you? Our job is to make sure Iran is no longer the largest state sponsor of terrorism, to help the people reconstruct a new government. No boots on the ground.”
Critics say that Trump and his allies are creating the worst of both approaches to intervention. They argue Trump is using U.S. military force aggressively and recklessly and assuming his enemies will capitulate, as they have in business and politics.
Critics say that Trump and his allies are creating the worst of both approaches to intervention.
“Trump’s entire operating theory is you come in and punch the other person in the face until they capitulate,” Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told MS NOW. “That’s the only move he’s got.”
Critics predict that Trump’s actions in Iran will end with chaos, repression and a new hard-line ruler in Iran, not the emergence of a new, more moderate government that Trump hopes.
“We should have learned the lesson,” Peter Beinart, a longtime foreign policy analyst, told MS NOW. “You may remove a dictator, but what you may well get in response is another dictator. Going in and bombing countries is in no way a plan for what comes next.”
A former CIA official with extensive experience in the Middle East before and after the 9/11 attacks praised the Trump administration’s limited approach in Venezuela and the U.S. military’s execution of it.
“The Caracas battle plan was flawless,” said the former CIA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “A tribute to our military and their bravery.”
But he said the same approach will not work in Iran.
“It can’t be replicated in Iran,” he said. “Iran will be much, much more complicated.”
The official said that the U.S. and Israel should be focusing on getting members of the Iranian armed forces to abandon the regime.
“There is clearly some sort of organized opposition in Iran. The Israelis clearly have an excellent network in Iran,” said the former CIA official. “The key thing in my mind is turning some Iranian military units. If that transpires, it’s a different ballgame.”
The official agreed that large numbers of U.S. ground troops would be seen as occupiers. But the official said the U.S. still needed to covertly aid Iranian opposition groups.
“Make it an Iranian versus Iranian fight,” said the former CIA official. “Not an Iranian versus U.S. fight.”
Nehzat Lavvaf, one of several hundred Iranians who marched in New York on Sunday supporting the U.S. strikes, compared the situation to World War II. She said that Iranian opposition groups will fight the regime but they need U.S. support, just as European nations did fighting the Nazis.
“I can just remind the American people that in World War II, without America the Nazis still could be in the world,” she said. “The United States helped the other countries and the Nazis are gone.”
Trump, in his taped comments, maintained that the American role was limited and the fall of the regime was up to the Iranian people.
“I made a promise to you, and I fulfilled that promise,” Trump said, referring to U.S. airstrikes. “The rest will be up to you, but we’ll be there to help.”
David Rohde
David Rohde is the senior national security reporter for MS NOW. Previously he was the senior executive editor for national security and law for NBC News.
Maya Eaglin