Trump Bombs Big Time

​ 
Last week, a friend asked me if I thought Trump would attack Iran.  I said I didn’t have the slightest idea, and added that I long ago gave up trying to decipher what was in Trump’s mind.  It’s like entering a Black Hole and getting sucked down into the void.  But I said, too, that if I was absolutely obligated to give an answer – one way or the other, based on nothing -- it was that, yes, Trump would attack Iran.  Because that seems to be the most Trumpy thing.

But I was wrong.  No, not about Trump attacking Iran.  Yes, he did that.  I'm referring to how he announced dropping bombs with a tweet.  A tweet!!  Trump made the announcement to the world that he had ordered the United States to drop bombs on another country's nuclear facilities and risk a generational war...with a tweet.  And that would seem to be the most Trumpy thing.
 
I have absolutely no idea the status of Iran’s nuclear capability, and if they were close to building a nuclear weapon or not.  Therefore, I also have absolutely no idea if this was, in fact, necessary to do or not.  Having said that, I feel I’m in good company because I don't think Trump has the slightest idea of Iran’s nuclear capability either.
 
There are, however, a few things that I do feel comfortable saying that I do know.

I know that a president who is so fully certain a country was building nuclear weapons that it was essential he bomb their facilities, and his Director of National Intelligence said, no, our intel services say that was not true, most presidents would have no confidence in their Director of National Intelligence and immediately replace the person.  To not do so shows that the Director of National Intelligence has no function and is just an empty shell to make it appear someone is in the job.

I also know that Sen. Chris Murphy has written that "I was briefed on the intelligence last week. Iran posed no imminent threat of attack to the United States. Iran was not close to building a deliverable nuclear weapon. The negotiations [that] Israel scuttled with their strikes held the potential for success."  This might be an accurate assessment he was given or not.  But one might think that since it is what the intelligence services were saying, then a president should at least confer with all top members of Congress first before bombing another country, rather than brief only the MAGOPs of his own party and no Democrats, as was the case.
 
I know, too, that one of the most critical reasons a country should never offend its closest allies and push them away is because, if you ever do bomb an enemy and risk getting involved in a war, especially over nuclear arms, that’s when and why you need those allies to support you, united together, rather than to be alone.
 
And I know that when a president believes he can drop bombs and risking involving the country in a war without consulting Congress to declare war, as required in the U.S. Constitution and by the War Powers Act, that shows a president believes he can ignore Congress and act like an authoritarian dictator.  How MAGOPs in Congress respond to this remains to be seen -- though "How" is a polite way of saying "If".

That said, I know Trump will try to position this as not “a war,” but just a mere one-off bombing.  A quaint phrase, indeed.  And I am equally certain that Iran views having bombs dropped on them to be as clear an act of war as could possibly exist. Just like we would feel if an enemy dropped bombs on us to destroy our nuclear facilities and then said, “Okay, that’s it, we’re finished.  It’s all over.  All’s well.  Bye!  Friends?”)
  
What I additionally know is that whether this action was justified or unjustified or is the start of a war or a one-off, I would never want to dare risk a war when having a Secretary of Defense as unqualified and incompetent as Pete Hegseth, a Director of National Intelligence as unqualified and incompetent as Tulsi Gabbard, and a Director of Homeland Security as unqualified and incompetent as Kristi Noem.
 
I know for certain, as well, that just because Trump says that Iran's nuclear facilities have been "completely obliterated," that doesn't remotely mean they have been completely obliterated.  After all, this is the man who tells us wind farms kill whales, that there were airports during the Revolutionary War, and that he is the person who came up with the phrase "priming the pump" and brought back the word "groceries." Furthermore, I know it’s foolish to think that bombing these sites will “obliterate” the threat of Iran’s nuclear program.  Because at some point, Iran (who has already announced there will be "everlasting consequences" and the concept of "everlasting" in the Middle East tends to translate as -- "everlasting") will be highly motivated to rebuild their program, however many years or decades that is.  And even though such a delay has real benefits, that rebuilding now comes with Iran seeking retribution, having us as a major, everlasting target.  In fact, the International Atomic Energy Association told the UN Security Council that we don't even know enough yet to assess the damage -- because, among other things, Iran moved much of its enriched uranium gas before the Israeli attacks and also has another underground facility that wasn't hit by bombs. So, as nuclear policy expert Joe Cirincione said, we not only may not have inhibited the Iran nuclear program, we "may" have even accelerated it!  In other words, as for that whole "completely obliterated" thingee, it's of course, just pure Trump word spewing.  Throw a ketchup bottle at the wall and see what sticks.

(Related Side Note that I know:  To help lead the way protecting the U.S. on alert now against any terrorist attacks, I know that the person Trump put in charge of terrorism prevention is 22-year-old Thomas Fugate, who graduated last year from the University of Texas, San Antonio -- ranking #231 out of 436 national universities -- and whose recent work experience includes "landscaping/grocery clerk" and intern at the Heritage Foundation.  What his resumé doesn't include is any experience in counter-terrorism. But he did work on Trump's presidential campaign.)
 
And most of all, what I know for absolute certain, more than all these certainties above, is that this attack was totally unnecessary and 100% on Trump -- because the United States actually had a strong nuclear deal with Iran, agreed to in 2015 with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the United States), that limited the amount of enriched uranium Iran could have, and there were international inspectors in place to ensure that.  And it was working well.  The numbers were low, contained and steady.  And Trump ripped up that deal seven years ago to end it.  And this is what enabled Iran to begin building its nuclear capability and do so in secret, greatly expanding it.  This is on Trump.  This is all on Trump. 
 
(For those skeptical, here is a chart that the Financial Times presented from the Institute for Science and International Security.  It shows Iran's nuclear activity while the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal was in effect -- and how it significantly increased  after Trump ripped it up.)

​And directly related to this, I know that even if Iran now sits down again at the negotiating table and signs a deal, and Trump tries to claim success, the reality is that Iran had actually already been in negotiations, but then walked away when Israel, with Trump’s support, attacked them.  Which made this attack additionally unnecessary – beyond even Trump ripping up the JCPOA nuclear deal in 2018.

The bombing, whatever it "obliterates" or not, was, on so many levels, completely unnecessary, and that is all on Trump.  It can’t be repeated enough: there was an international nuclear deal with inspectors in Iran that Trump ended, and there were negotiations ongoing now for a new deal (well..."new" to start up again the deal that Trump had ended) that Trump allowed to fall apart. And whatever the results are from the bombing, even if it seems to be a success in the immediate term and Trump tries to do a victory jig to fool his base -- another “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!” banner moment that has unintended consequences which don't end the mission for another 20 years -- the long-term ramifications are unstable, full of risk and all on Trump.  And all that’s even accepting that this is really truly just an amazing, surprise, “one-off” bombing success with no retaliation – which, as we all know, is how countries react when they are pre-emptively bombed.  By an enemy they’ve long referred to as “The Great Satan.”  As they are trying to build nuclear capabilities.  After Trump posted a subsequent tweet (a tweet!!!) that, oh-by-the-way, he forgot to mention in his speech his threat of a further response to Iran if it strikes back in any way.  Which seems improbable that they won’t – either in the near future or years later, especially if there turns out to be regime change, and the new regime is made up of hardliners (as an Iran expert on MSNBC stated is most likely).  That is, if you don't count that Iran already made retaliatory strikes against Israel within hours.  And has already voted to close off the Strait of Hormuz, blocking 20% of the world's oil supply.  And if you can even just figure out who to believe whether or not this was about regime change, which Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio and "JD Vance" say it wasn't -- though Trump says it was.  So, y'know, oops.
 
For God’s sake, a tweet!!
 
Yes, Trump bombed another country’s nuclear facilities -- and sent out a tweet to announce it.  And then sent out another tweet to add a threat.  Just in case, y’know, the actual bombs didn’t make the point.  When this administration shouts, “Incoming!!” you don’t know if it means bombs or a barrage of tweets.
 
Tweets.
 
Finally, there’s one other thing I know.  That while Trump has refused to support our democratic ally Ukraine as it is attacked and bombed for three years by our major enemy Russia, it is impossible to miss the bitter, galling, grueling irony that Trump himself has turned around and bombed another country, in a first strike.  Which, lest it not be forgotten, he long-criticized George W. Bush for doing -- although in fairness, that wasn't a "first strike," but a response after the U.S. was actually attacked.  (Even if it wasn't attacked by Iraq, but that's just quibbling about details...)
 
This is on Trump.  There was a nuclear deal with Iran with limits and international inspectors.  He ripped it up.  And let Iran build its nuclear capabilities.  In secret.
 
This bombing, whatever happens, should never have gotten to this point.  And that is entirely on Trump.  Who, to make matters worse, has pushed away our NATO allies, leaving the U.S. to take this action alone, and risk retaliation without their protective support.  This is all on Trump.
 
You don’t get to be an arsonist and then claim you saved everyone by putting out the fire.  Most especially when you leave brushfires all over the place.
 
This is on Trump.
 
And on the elected MAGOP in Congress for enabling him since 2016 and letting it get here, alone, with "everlasting consequences."  And now we’ll see if they fan the flames or finally try to help put it out.  If that’s even possible.