TWGB: Very Fast and Very Hard

The thing with Trump and his unique pathology (I don't know what else to call it) is that he isn't exactly transparent about the things he prefers others don't see, but then he goes and threatens things like obstruction of justice or war crimes or whatever in public. His sense of right and wrong isn't like an ethical thing so much as an optical one. The payola shit like who he owes money to makes him look weak, but he thinks blowing up mosques might make him look strong.

Does he really have 52 Iranian sites he's planning to wipe out in the event of Iranian retaliation for the death of Soleimani? Here's the thing--maybe. And they may include world heritage sites. A lot of commentators have pointed out that this is like ISIS or the Taliban targeting things of cultural and historical value because he, like them, has no idea of the value of these things. But there's more to it than that.

He refers in the Tweets to Iran's civil unrest and the crackdown. I don't think he realizes that instead of highlighting the social division of Iran internally, he might be providing cause for some cohesion--to rally against us. He doesn't think like that.

We know some things about how Trump thinks, though--he telegraphed in 2011 and 2012 that he imagined that a desperate president might try to go to war with Iran to save his political bacon. We know guests at the "Winter White House" might have heard as much about Trump's big plans against Iran as the Senate did, and we know he spoke with friendly GOP Senator Lindsey Graham, but not the Gang of Eight.  This makes the rationale behind the move suspect--because when he and Defense spokespeople suggest that this move was "to prevent a war not start one" or to "prevent an immanent attack" which they for sure and really no honest have proof of, I feel like the public should be demanding receipts.

It's especially troubling when VP Pence (and why don't we have more information on his conversations with the Ukrainian president?) just bald-faced lies about how Soleimani might have been involved with 9/11 terrorists, because he seems to think the justifications (potentially true but requiring verification) aren't valid enough without a total lie thrown on top (which tends to suggest they weren't all that valid, right?). It actually appears the likelihood of immanent attacks was "razor-thin".  It also seems that Trump was presented with an array of options of retaliations towards Iran aggression and picked the most severe one.

This makes me think of the "madman theory"--the idea that some countries will only respect a power if they feel that the person in charge is so insane that they will do anything and are best left alone. It's associated with Kissinger and Nixon.

It doesn't work, though. "Fire and fury" didn't get Trump anywhere with North Korea. (Nor did reversing course.) It hasn't with China trade negotiations, and it won't here.

Iran has time to do whatever they mean to do--they don't have to respond "very fast and very hard". The thing with asymmetrical warfare is that it can be as slow and grinding as possible for the "weaker" side. They reply on their own terms, and there is a limit outside of total war that Trump can engage in. But one shudders when Secretary Pompeo mourns the lack of support Trump has from European allies.  Maybe Trump threatening them with dumping ISIS fighters back on their soil was....not good? Will Pompeo express the same amount of surprise at the lack of assistance we might expect from the Kurds? Does he not understand why our good friends in Russia and Turkey will look at us blankly, as well?

This choice seems to have been made as if in a world where events never had consequences (much like Trump's decision to shake down Ukraine). If Trump is going to ever learn anything, he'd have to come to some kind of understanding very fast and very hard.

But he won't--it's off brand. He will stand by his decision and his people will stand by him--however it turns out.