Timothy Birdnow

Powerline has an article asking why Trump is piddling around and not launching a series of major strikes on Iran. It's a question I have been pondering myself.

Here are what I think he's doing:

1. He's waiting until we have all the pieces in place as per Centcom, rather than launching before the military feels prepared.

We've had plenty of time to prepare but apparently we haven't and that may tie in with the fluidity of this situation. It may also tie in with our allies; we'll need the bases in Europe and we'll need the backing of a lot of the arab states. Talk is cheap and buys us time to make preparations. You don't go off half-cocked in war.

2. Saul Alinski, the commie "community organizer" the left is so fond of and who inspired Hillary Clinton and who Barack Obama actually worked for, once said "fear of a thing is worse than the thing itself" and so it may be Trump is trying to keep Iran in dread. Once you hit them hard they can say "that wasn't as bad as we feared". NOT hitting them makes them sweat. It's the way Trump negotiates and he may be right on this (assuming this is part of his calculations).

3. When I was in school studying the Russian revolution we discussed revolutions in general and they never happen when times are at their worst. WWII was a prime time for a rebellion against the Bolsheviks but it didn't happen. People rebel when times are getting better or are o.k but expectations are rising and are then disappointed.

When times are hard the People accept deprivation and suffering in the interest of their country. But when times are fair enough they get "spoiled" and want more. It is then that any government is facing peril. (It's why the U.S. has seen rising radicalism at a time of immense prosperity.) When expectations rise - particularly for greater political freedom - and are dashed then we have a problem. Or they do, I should say.

4. Revolutions come not when one side has power taken from them but when there is a power gap. Everyone scrambles to fill the vacuum and if you are lucky good people step up and take the country back. Most times bad people win because they are ruthless enough to wipe out the good people. But not always. If Mr. Trump is counting on an Iranian revolution he will need time - to arm and train rebels, to move supplies and set up proper intelligence. He's already decimated the leadership of Itan and there is now a power vacuum. It's been filled largely by the IRGC but their grasp on power is probably rather tenuous and there no doubt is fighting within the ranks as different factions try to seize power. (This is much like what happened before the Bolshevik coup in October of 1917. In May the Tsar was overthrown and a coalition government of leftists took power. The parties involved included the Social Revolutionaries (S.R.'s), the Kadets, the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks were largely left out because, well, everyone knew they were crazy. But when it appeared Moscow was going to be overrun the government of Alexander Kerensky ordered guns be given to the populace, and when the crisis was averted they asked for them back but the Bolsheviks kept them and used them in the October revolution to seize power. See, there was largely a power vacuum in the provisional government, with all groups fighting for control. The Bolsheviks - the most disciplined and ruthless group - won.

That's how these things usually go; the French revolution went much the same (the American revolution was not really a political revolution at all but a secession from Britain; the same governments run by the same people were all still in place). Still, that's not ALWAYS the case an if the all the radicals fall out and begin fighting each-other then perhaps the Iranian People can topple the regime. What follows certainly can't be any worse than what is currently in power.

If Trump is trying to foment a revolution it may well be he's been arming the Iranian People all along, and organizing networks for command and control, and doing other such things. Trump is not as artless and stupid as was George W. Bush, the kind of guy who would use a hammer to fix his iPhone.

Ronald Reagan did this and he drove the Sandanistas out of Nicaragua (until 2006, under the hapless Bush's watch). He also helped finish the Communists in El Salvador which is now run by some pretty good people. The only direct military intervention Reagan had to make was in Grenada, where he had to send Marines in to rescue trapped American students. Of course Grenada was easy pickings.

Reagan created and funded the Contras to drive Daniel Ortega and the Sandanistas out of power in Nicaragua. I wonder if Mr. Trump isn't working towards that very thing as we speak.

5. The obvious; as the clock keeps ticking and we keep Iran from selling oil and gas their funding dries up. Trump keeps backing off of this in order to keep the Iranians from having to permanently close a lot of their oil wells, but he's keeping his foot on their necks. This keeps raising and then dashing expectations in Iran, but it also keeps their economy just barely creaking along. Trump doesn't want to lose the support of the populace there. Hit Iran too hard, squeeze it into lifelessness, and the public grows angry with America and throws their support behind the Mullahs.

6. He needs to maneuver China into backing the war, or at least staying neutral. Thus far he's been successful. I suspect the reason we are getting a lot of leaks and old stories about Chinese interference in American affairs, be it their breaching 220 million voters data or other election tampering, or what I just posted about Chinese scientists working in America smuggling in dangerous pathogens (reader Bill first noted this) it's designed to send a warning shot over the bow of the good ship Cathay. This makes the propaganda war more difficult for China, puts them back on their heels. So we are squeezing China economically but need to keep them neutral - it's a big trick. I suspect Mr. Trump understands all this.

China cannot feel free to invade Taiwan, say, or pull some other dirty trick while we are fighting Iran.

These, I think, are the main reasons for Trump's seemingly inexplicable behavior towards Iran in this war. I suspect he has a plan.

I would add Sun Tzu cautioned against tepid invasions of an enemy "shallow penetration leads to dispersion". Trump has read his Sun Tzu. He knows better than to send American troops on the ground in tentatively. He will want to use air power and maybe take some of the Persian Gulf islands, but I doubt much more than that - unless he's got a strong resistance movement ready to act for him/us.

So what are the negatives? Obviously the political climate in America. If we are at war on election day we may lose one or both bodies of Congress and that would be a disaster. Lose them both and Trump will be tied up with impeachment articles and enactments of the War Powers Act.

This is exactly what the Iranians are counting on and it is a real danger. Even losing one branch of Congress will mean endless investigations which will hamper Trump's ability to act. And of course there will be no money to prosecute this war. While spending ORIGINATES in the House the Senate still signs on with House spending bills via reconciliation. And that only requires a simple majority to win or lose.

Americans hate long, protracted wars, and especially hate this as many voted for Trump to put an end to "endless wars". But the only way you can do that responsibly is to win a few. WE may want to stay out of it but our enemies have no intention of letting us. Sometimes you just have to fight.

War with Iran was inevitable, ever since 1979 when they seized our embassy and Carter did nothing about it. We've kicked the can as far down the road as we could. Another kick would only result in a smoking crater where Tel Aviv now stands - with New York City right behind. (Now, if they'd do us the favor of eliminating Washington D.C. that would be another matter...)

And it's not just nuclear weapons they are working on. Iran has a robust biological weapons program and chemical weapons too. The chemical weapons are evil but limited - biological weapons are true weapons of mass destruction.

We are going to have to fight Iran at some point. Mr. Trump decided to do what a real leader does and confront the problem head on.

But it's a big gamble, especially fighting the media and Democrats and RINO Republicans and Euroweenies all at the same time.

The fate of America is truly tied up with this. Let us pray Mr. Trump has made and will continue to make the right choices.

Hide Comments | Add Comment