Let’s just say that reactions to the United States entering the fray and bombing Iranian nuclear hubs has been controversial to say the least.
There’s a lot of heartburn on Twitter, particularly on the isolationist right, about Trump‘s actions and perhaps justifiably so.
The more rational “America First” contingent fear that we’re headed for an early 2000s Iraq War scenario that will spiral into over a decade of senseless foreign conflict. But the more hysterical detractors are afraid of a potential World War III.
And, of course, because it’s an action taken by President Trump, leftists have simply rushed to defend Iran’s honor.
But if I had to guess, I think a lot of the anger with Trump has less to do with people being in love with Iran and more to do with feeling disappointed that Trump isn’t conforming to their political ideals.
In this instance, most of them have hung their hats on the idea that Trump was the “no new wars” guy that would take different approaches to Iran and Middle Eastern policy than his predecessors.
Isolationists and my fellow libertarians are upset because they’ve made the same mistake that a lot of people have made regarding Trump, namely the attempt to apply a concrete philosophy to him that fits their personal political priors.
There have been plenty of efforts over the years to nail down exactly what the MAGA movement is and how to define Trumpism as a philosophy.
As a political figure, Trump has the curious quality of being the avatar for so many people’s rage, hopes, dreams and political desires that its often hard to see the man himself for what he actually is and what he’s trying to achieve.
Trump is not an ideological figure in the same way that his predecessor, Obama, was or past Republican presidents were.
Trump is Trump. Which means that he’s often not playing 4D Chess as many on the right hope. Usually he’s playing an aggressive game of checkers and he follows his impulses and instincts until he wins ‘bigly’ or he swipes the board and knocks the pieces on the floor.
That’s Trump, take it or leave it.
As far as America’s Iran intervention, I think that a lot of people need to re-examine exactly what “peace through strength” actually means in the context of foreign policy.
When he says this, he isn’t talking about simply the illusion of strength, but rather a proactive approach to letting foreign powers know that the United States carries the biggest stick and will use it to get what it wants. Frankly, much of that reputation has been lost over the course of Biden’s tenure and it has yet to be regained under Trump.
Personally, I believe that the strikes were motivated partially to restore some of that lost legitimacy.
I think dropping the bombs on the nuclear sites was a flex that Trump felt he needed at a time where things aren’t going nearly as smoothly as he had hoped once he retook the helm.
It used to be that Trump’s name carried a lot of weight during his first administration.
Other countries didn’t know exactly what he was thinking or what he was capable of, so they played it cool and didn’t risk testing him. This was especially true since he gladly continued anti-terrorism efforts such as killing Qasem Soleimani and others during his first administration.
When it comes to chest thumping and strikes to flex your country’s muscles, Trump isn’t unique in this regard. If you’re a world leader, flexing is part of the game, which is especially true as the Trump Administration’s efforts to talk down Vladimir Putin and the Iranians have been met with disregard, disrespect and dismissal. And, with him being taunted by the American mainstream press as “T.A.C.O” or Trump Always Chickens Out, it’s easy to see why it might have seemed like a good idea to toss some bombs in Iran’s direction.
If you ask me, I don’t think any U.S. intervention was necessary at all. I’m of the opinion that Israel had it all under control.
I’m also of the opinion that that’s their neck of the woods so they should be the ones to be doing all heavy lifting since they’re most affected.
I said the same thing about Europe’s involvement in the Ukrainian/Russian war. Europe is closer to that conflict than the USA and ultimately is most affected by it. Hence, it ought to require more of their attention and resources than ours.
While it has been said that Iran doesn’t have the capability to create a nuke, they certainly have been building towards it for a long time. Despite constant setbacks, Iran remains one of, if not the largest sponsors of terrorism the world over and it operates through various proxies to spread their attacks and influence.
All of which is to say that taking them down a peg doesn’t hurt my feelings.
The real goal of the strikes is obviously to put the Iranians on notice, even though Netanyahu’s boys were doing a great job of whooping them all throughout last week.
And that I think has been upsetting to many who do not share a more muscular view of foreign policy. It’s an argument I’m certainly sympathetic to and you won’t hear me say a bad world about you if you’re against unnecessary foreign meddling.
However, I write all this to say that if you feel as if Trump betrayed you, or deceived you by joining the fray, you haven’t been watching and listening to him throughout his terms.
Trump has always done things his own way. Sometimes that way will be Based AF and align perfectly with your views and sometimes the orange man is going to kick over the table. But then, that’s been true of every political leader of my lifetime, which is why it’s important to see how things turn out before despairing that the end is nigh.
Arthur Howell is a staff writer at The Beacon. He can be reached via email at arthur@ roanokebeacon.com.