In September 2013, amid concerns about a possible U.S. confrontation with Iran, Donald Trump published a tweet that read, “Remember what I previously said — Obama will someday attack Iran in order to show how tough he is.” The Republican added, two months later, “Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly — not skilled!”
A year earlier, the then-television personality wrote, “Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin — watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.”
More than a decade later, those missives are newly relevant.
Axios published a striking report this week that noted the growing body of evidence that suggests a war with Iran is “imminent.” The report added, “A U.S. military operation in Iran would likely be a massive, weeks-long campaign that would look more like full-fledged war than last month’s pinpoint operation in Venezuela.”
A day later, The Wall Street Journal reported:
The U.S. is sending significant numbers of jet fighters and support aircraft to the Middle East, assembling the greatest amount of air power in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. […]
Over the past few days, the U.S. has continued to move cutting-edge F-35 and F-22 jet fighters toward the Middle East, according to flight-tracking data and a U.S. official. A second aircraft carrier loaded with attack and electronic-warfare planes is on the way. Command-and-control aircraft, which are vital for orchestrating large air campaigns, are inbound. And critical air defenses have been deployed to the region in recent weeks.
Although the details of these reports haven’t been independently verified by MS NOW, there were nearly identical reports in The New York Times and NBC News.
These coincided with a Politico report that asked a good question: “Has America ever built up a military force like this and not done something?”
With the prospect of a conflict looming — some of this week’s published accounts suggested that strikes might begin as early as this weekend — it’s tempting in theory to think that Americans would see a flurry of activity in Washington, such as Congress debating the merits of a possible war and a White House preparing the public for what’s to come.
In practice, it’s not quite working out that way.
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers aren’t even around — they’re off this week, taking advantage of the Presidents Day holiday — and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the White House is simultaneously touting a “Board of Peace” (officials are apparently indifferent to the irony) while it struggles to explain why exactly we’re moving toward a possible war.
On Friday, for example, a reporter asked Trump what the U.S. would even target if, as the president has claimed, Iran’s nuclear program has already been “obliterated.” Trump replied, “You could get whatever the dust is down there.”
Five days later, a reporter asked White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt why a military strike in Iran might be necessary. She replied that there are “many reasons and arguments that one could make.”
Leavitt, however, didn’t actually offer any of those “many reasons and arguments.”
In the 2024 race, many voters saw Trump’s entire vision as rooted in foreign policy restraint. He was, these voters believed, the candidate who’d reject military adventurism and ignore the calls of those who embrace foreign interventionism.
I have some bad news for those Americans.
