Operation Epic Fail

​Well, there goes Trump’s chance to get his Nobel Peace Prize this year.
 
For all the attempts by Trump and MAGOPs at justifying this act of war attacking Iran, there are two points that are just so problematic it’s almost impossible to get past before even dealing with all the questions of the bombing and what lies ahead.

We had a nuclear deal with Iran. Trump tore it up.

Trump only months ago bombed Iran, and said he "obliterated" their nuclear capability.
 
So, either Trump was correct, and we weren’t “two weeks away” from Iran reconstituting their nuclear arms program, in which case there was no imminent threat.  Or Iran was that close, and Trump was lying.  There’s no middle alternative.
 
Further, if Iran was that close and Trump was lying, then tearing up that nuclear deal was a disastrous idea.  An idea so disastrous that even Trump’s actions show he acknowledges it, since he was trying to negotiate a deal again.  But rather than continue the negotiations, he decided to drop them and thought war was a better alternative.
 
War is almost never a better alternative when you’re in the midst of negotiating, especially when the reason you’re negotiating is because you tore up the deal in the first place and insist you “obliterated” the other side’s nuclear capability.
 
So, this is not about justification for the war (whether “justification” exists or not) -- the attack should never have occurred in the first place.  That’s the bottom line.  We had a nuclear deal with Iran that Trump tore up, and Trump said that a few months ago we “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capability. 
 
You can’t get around that.  And you can’t say it enough. 

Which means the attack should never have occurred in the first place.
 
And once you accept that reality and move to dealing with Trump deciding to starting a war with Iran, there is a flood of problems that get in the way of any attempt at “justifications” which make Trump’s decision – defended by MAGOPs in Congress – so disastrous.
 
A slight digression, but with a point. 
 
I’m a member of the Writers Guild of America.  Whenever we’ve had a vote whether or not to strike, getting a simple majority in favor never is enough to authorize a strike.  In fact, neither is a vote as his as 70% in favor.  It’s only when the “Yes” vote reaches at least 85%, or ideally 90%, will the Guild authorize a strike.
 
One who think that an administration deciding to go to war would have a standard close to that.

Before a war, you build up a case and get the strongest support behind you. It’s one of the reasons it took the United States so long to get involved in World War II – about as justifiable war for the U.S. as there’s been – but President Roosevelt had to build up national support for it.  And now?  An AP-Norc poll last week showed only a 21% of Americans supported the U.S. initiating a war against Iran.

And it’s not just that there is so low support for this war. Nor that there is almost no support for it by Democrats.  But worse for Trump is that starting a war is hated by his party’s own base.  Trump ran on being the “peace candidate” and his base ludicrously believed him.  No foreign wars, no regime change, America First, America only.  Trump and MAGOP candidates pounded that into the country during the 2024 election.  And it’s all on video -- Trump, “JD Vance”, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and more – during the campaign and for the past years since, all on video, all on social media, everywhere, out loud insisting no wars, and specifically no war against Iran!!!  But it goes even further.  After all, there was Gabbard, now the Director of National Intelligence, for goodness sake, who six years ago was literally peddling t-shirts about this.  Priming the base, even then.  Going for the merch.

Really.  Honest.

So, of course, the MAGA base was primed to hate foreign wars, especially against Iran, indeed any foreign involvement.  But then, after Trump actually threatened war against our ally Greenland and took military action against Venezuela, now he has started, in his own words, “Major combat operations” against Iran. And worse for the MAGOP, this is in an election year.  Trump’s party base has exploded over social media outraged, shouting they were lied to, crying out they were deceived, insisting they never voted for this!!  (Although, in fairness, yes, they did vote for it.  It’s their fault that they didn’t listen to Trump make clear who he was, and that they believed his lies.)  And there are MAGAs so furious that they’re writing about not even voting this year.  Now, of course, that’s not a moral reason against starting a war, but it’s certainly a big political reason.  And even a military one, since you do need national support to successfully wage a war.  Just ask administrations pummeled during Viet Nam.
 
And all that, too, is before Trump and his MAGOP enablers are trying to explain their justification for starting a war against Iran.
 
When Democrats express anger that Trump has taken this action without authority from Congress, the MAGOP defenders trot out that Presidents Clinton, Obama and Biden bombed nations without Congressional authorization.  The problem with that argument is that limited, precision bombing is allowed by the War Powers Act.  But this action against Iran is not “limited, precision bombing.  It’s a war.  In Trump’s own words, it is “Major combat operations.”
 
And then there’s a Trump/MAGOP attempt to justify the reason for the attack.  But they can’t even get that right.
 
First it was Trump’s “red line” to protect the Iranian citizens being murdered by the Iran regime.  But not only is it ludicrous to think Trump cares about protecting the citizens of a country that is 98% Muslim, given his long-standing hatred of Muslims.  Nor ludicrous to think that Trump cares about the citizens of any country – including Israel. Or Lithuania.  Or anywhere.  He’s made Canada an enemy!  We know from watching Trump that he only cares about himself.  If a country’s needs fit his own, then he’ll make that his own.  But ultimately, it’s just what Trump wants for himself that matters.  And we haven’t heard Trump justifying war against Iran to protect its citizens.

Then it was the whole “two weeks away from having nuclear capability” gambit.  But that doesn’t fit with Trump’s insistence that we “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear arsenal.  Nor does it fit either with the fact that neither Trump nor anyone in his administration has provided any evidence at all that the United States was in imminent threat from Iran.
 
Now, it seems to be the one thing MAGOPs have long railed loudest against – it’s about regime changed.  We killed their leader, so a new government friendlier to the United States will come in.
 
And, oh, my, is that filled with problems.  Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was not only the political leader, he was the religious leader – of a country that is 98% Muslim.  Further, there are other political leaders waiting to take over.  Not all are from the top group of leaders, some of whom were killed in the first attack, but not all.  And further, it’s not like you take out Iran’s Revolutionary Guard – they’re not a separate group of officials, they’re embedded throughout all areas of Iran society.  And further still, there’s absolutely nothing even close to certainty that whatever people take over leadership of Iran, that they will be “friendlier” to the United States.  Many are even more hard line than those who were killed.  And you’ve just attacked Iran, that’s generally not a gameplan for making friends among those in leadership.
 
But above all, tied to all this, when you get to MAGOPs trying to justify going to war with Iran – isn’t this great who we killed, isn’t great we’ve making the Middle East safe (by destabilizing it??), isn’t it great we made America safe (without building a case to show why we weren’t safe??) – are the questions that are critical to be answered before you ever go to war, before you even get to justifying your actions.
 
What is your goal in attacking Iran?
 
How will you achieve that?
 
And what is your exit strategy?
 
Not only have none of those legitimately been answered -- they haven’t even been addressed!

Indeed, if this is about “regime change” (which even the administration’s own party is abhorrently against) as it now appears, how are you going to do that???  There are 93 million people in Iran.  Many of them hate the oppressive rule they’ve lived under.  But most probably aren’t  And you killed the religious leader of 98% of them.  Iran still has a strong military force. Is your expectation that the mass of the country is going to rise up against that army – without support?  And so, what support will you offer?  Does that mean boots on the ground, putting American soldiers’ lives at risk?  If not, does it mean you’ll just be offering air support?  That didn’t work too well in Viet Nam – or anywhere?  In fact, as former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul said, "In all of history, there has never been one case where bombing achieved regime change."  Before he added,  "Who knows, maybe it will happen this time.  But it never has."  So – what will the U.S. and the crackerjack Team Trump and his unqualified advisers come up with?  And how long do they expect it to take?  How do they plan to achieve their goals (whatever they are), in order to leave?

Trump has danced around this war lasting “four weeks”.  Well, in fairness, he does have dementia, so that probably makes sense to him.  And, yes, we might possibly leave in four weeks – but it won’t accomplish anything, other than through the Middle East into chaos and creating an even more embittered Iran against us. And it will make Trump look even more crazy and irresponsible than he already does, which is saying a lot.  But then, this morning even the Pentagon, nor Pete Hegseth wouldn't give a timeline.
 
Keep in mind, days after we attacked Iraq, W. Bush went to an aircraft carrier in his cosplay uniform where a huge banner was displayed, “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”.  And it wasn’t for another nine years before we finally left – without accomplishing much of an intended mission.
 
A former general on MS NOW said on Saturday, “Wars always go smoothly for the first two days.”

After the attack, a story came out that Trump officials actually had taken a poll see how how many deaths Americans would accept if the U.S. attacked Iran.  It wouldn't be surprising if the answer was zero. But whatever the poll answer was, the number at the moment is four.

It’s hard to imagine all the problems that lay ahead in so many areas, including (unmentioned by Trump and MAGOPs) economic.  Already, Iran has essentially blocked off all ships through the Strait of Hormuz, which is one of the most critical shipping channels in the world – where around 20% of all the world’s oil trade passes through.  That’s already raised concerns of an economic crisis in the United States that could impact everyone, including the United States.

(After initially writing this, Bloomberg News this morning wrote that gasoline futures jumped 9% today.  On Sunday, the American Automobile Association reported that the average gas price hit $3.00 a gallon, its highest in three months, and added that gasoline and oil prices were expected to keep climbing.)
 
And this only barely touches the surface of the problems that have been unleased by Trump and his circle.  With those in charge of American security being Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Kristin Noem, “JD Vance” and Trump himself, leading them all with dementia, which is degenerative.  Unqualified incompetent children playing at war, swaggering in dress-up, pretending that they’ve changed the name of the Defense Department to a nickname, “Department of War.”  Among them, the same people who held a secure online chat on military plans using unsecure software while a journalist got invited in.  The same people who got all faux-macho by bombing Venezuelan fishing boats – killing incident victims and committing war crimes.  Giving it the faux-macho feel-good name, “Operation Epic Fury.”  While is a pretty cool name for a video game.
 
And in the end, for all else that may come, and will come, and for all the attempts at trying to justify this ghastly action supported by only 21% of Americans, we still come back to the starting point it’s a monumentally high hurdle to get around --
 
We had a nuclear deal with Iran. Trump tore it up.

Trump only months ago bombed Iran, and said he "obliterated" their nuclear capability.

And all that is before we even get to --

What is your goal in attacking Iran?
 
How will you achieve that?
 
And what is your exit strategy?

You can’t get around that.  All of it.  And you can’t say it enough. 

Which means, as much as some are trying to justify it, the attack should never have occurred in the first place.

No word yet if Maria Corina Machado has asked Trump for the gift of her Nobel Peace Prize back.