The one thing Trump 'ignored' is now back to 'seek its revenge' in Iran: analyst
A typical position for wartime government operations has been dismissed by Donald Trump, with an expert calling the change-up a worrying consequence of his administration.
The president appears to be calling shots on the fly when it comes to the Iran war, and The Atlantic columnist Franklin Foer believes this is now an intentional strategy, rather than ill-advised planning. Strikes against Iran were carried out earlier this month, with the US joining Israel in firing a series of missiles at the Middle Eastern country.
This decision has been roundly criticized, but the administration has pressed on all the same, and it appears there is little in the way of planning from Trump or his closest allies.
Foer wrote, "The lesson that the Trump administration seemed to learn from the failed planning for postwar Iraq is that planning isn’t worth the effort at all. When asked what comes next, Trump can manage only several contradictory answers, sometimes in the course of a single sentence.
"But the most plausible of these answers is that the administration finds a faction in the government willing to cut a deal favorable to the United States, an Iranian version of Delcy Rodríguez—the Venezuelan official who quietly negotiated her government’s survival after U.S. forces captured Nicolás Maduro.
"Such an outcome would undercut every promise that Trump made to protesters about help being on the way. It’s hardly encouraging that the administration doesn’t have a plausible candidate for this job after nearly two weeks of conflict—and that the existing regime hasn’t begun suing for peace, even though it’s fighting for survival."
This situation for Trump means countries he strikes or threatens can claim a victory even if there is total domination from the US. Foer explained, "By trumpeting unachievable objectives—unconditional surrender, regime change—as his war aims, Trump has given his enemies the opportunity to claim survival as victory.
"He’s left himself with no evident end point to what he recently called a 'short-term excursion.' If he had wanted to weaken Iran’s ballistic-missile threat—a worthwhile aim—he could have focused U.S. strikes on launchers and production sites.
"Much as he did after attacking Iranian nuclear facilities last year, Trump could have declared that limited goal and walked away a victor a few days later. Or he could have allowed Israel to carry out attacks, with U.S. support, which might have limited fallout in the Gulf.
"If he wanted to topple the regime, he could have helped organize and support the opposition, nurturing and supplying the movement to better equip it to succeed. Instead, Trump ignored the obvious and went to war. Now the obvious is seeking its revenge."