Wed. Jan. 8 -- Happy that President Trump showed restraint in response to the Iranian missile strike, seeimingly regarding it as a face-saving measure that we could live with.
The White House can make a plausible case that it can respond with massive force against Iran without a war declaration. It can point out that Iran's not-so-covert involvement in the Iraq war means that the congressional authorization for the use of force that applied to Iraq also applies to Iran.
Even so, now is the time for a very calculating, rational response to the Iranian missile strike.
What to do?
¶ At some point soon, change the administration's image by asking the resignation of the President's ultra-hawkish adviser, Mike Pompeo, from the State Dept.
¶ Democrats and Republicans should resolve to work together -- not butting heads for political fanfare -- to help resolve the crisis in a rational manner. Perhaps they could join a special presidential-legislative advisory council that would work with the White House domestically and internationally.
¶ World leaders with experience and an interest in the region should attempt to help bring about a workable resolution. Even though the UK and Russia are none too fond of each other, it makes sense for Boris Johnson and Vladimir Putin to put their heads together to prevent a bad situation from flaring into something much worse.
¶ Something that could be discussed is a revision in the make-up of the Iranian government. Though President Trump has said the United States would not seek regime change, all bets are off following the escalation by an unstable, irrational element in Tehran. That group needs to step aside, just as Pompeo and his circle also needs to stand down.
¶ Some form of retaliation is inevitable. But, does it have to be through the use of more hot-war tactics? Perhaps a U.S. naval quarantine of Iranian sea and air ports might work better than a rain of hellfire from the sky. Though hellfire from the sky has a glamorous appeal to the immature, is it really the most rational response?
Iran is facing the annihilation of its oil production capacity. Sen. Lindsey Graham, after speaking with Trump, tonight used the airwaves to warn Iranian leaders that their country's fate was in their hands, that if they "continue this crap, you will wake up without an oil industry." He termed tonight's missile attack "an act of war."
Graham told Sean Hannity of Fox News that Iran is a terror-backing state that is intent on killing every Jew in Israel, but that Trump is "a new sheriff in town" who understands the Iranian menace.
Despite Graham's tough rhetoric, it is in everyone's interest to tone down the heated language and come up with a rational solution.
Fox News' Bret Baier noted that Iran avoided striking an Iraq base holding a large number of U.S. military, but speculated that this was because of its location in a Shia Muslim area. The two bases that were struck, he said, were in Sunni Muslim and Kurdish areas. Sunnis and Kurds are antagonistic to the Shia regime in Iran.
¶ Politically, war is not in Trump's interests. Americans soon tire of the bloodshed. Wartime presidents have about a 50/50 chance of re-election.
Similarly, the leadership of Iran -- excepting perhaps Mr. Biggie Ali Khamenei -- gains little from war other than a life in deep bunkers. By keeping a war going, Khamenei can continue to grasp the levers of power rather than being forced out by rivals who are no longer oppressed by his late enforcer, Qasem Soleimani. But does an 80-year-old supreme leader really have the desire or capacity to continue such a very dangerous course? Or are hotheads even now edging him aside?
The White House can make a plausible case that it can respond with massive force against Iran without a war declaration. It can point out that Iran's not-so-covert involvement in the Iraq war means that the congressional authorization for the use of force that applied to Iraq also applies to Iran.
Even so, now is the time for a very calculating, rational response to the Iranian missile strike.
What to do?
¶ At some point soon, change the administration's image by asking the resignation of the President's ultra-hawkish adviser, Mike Pompeo, from the State Dept.
¶ Democrats and Republicans should resolve to work together -- not butting heads for political fanfare -- to help resolve the crisis in a rational manner. Perhaps they could join a special presidential-legislative advisory council that would work with the White House domestically and internationally.
¶ World leaders with experience and an interest in the region should attempt to help bring about a workable resolution. Even though the UK and Russia are none too fond of each other, it makes sense for Boris Johnson and Vladimir Putin to put their heads together to prevent a bad situation from flaring into something much worse.
¶ Something that could be discussed is a revision in the make-up of the Iranian government. Though President Trump has said the United States would not seek regime change, all bets are off following the escalation by an unstable, irrational element in Tehran. That group needs to step aside, just as Pompeo and his circle also needs to stand down.
¶ Some form of retaliation is inevitable. But, does it have to be through the use of more hot-war tactics? Perhaps a U.S. naval quarantine of Iranian sea and air ports might work better than a rain of hellfire from the sky. Though hellfire from the sky has a glamorous appeal to the immature, is it really the most rational response?
Iran is facing the annihilation of its oil production capacity. Sen. Lindsey Graham, after speaking with Trump, tonight used the airwaves to warn Iranian leaders that their country's fate was in their hands, that if they "continue this crap, you will wake up without an oil industry." He termed tonight's missile attack "an act of war."
Graham told Sean Hannity of Fox News that Iran is a terror-backing state that is intent on killing every Jew in Israel, but that Trump is "a new sheriff in town" who understands the Iranian menace.
Despite Graham's tough rhetoric, it is in everyone's interest to tone down the heated language and come up with a rational solution.
Fox News' Bret Baier noted that Iran avoided striking an Iraq base holding a large number of U.S. military, but speculated that this was because of its location in a Shia Muslim area. The two bases that were struck, he said, were in Sunni Muslim and Kurdish areas. Sunnis and Kurds are antagonistic to the Shia regime in Iran.
¶ Politically, war is not in Trump's interests. Americans soon tire of the bloodshed. Wartime presidents have about a 50/50 chance of re-election.
Similarly, the leadership of Iran -- excepting perhaps Mr. Biggie Ali Khamenei -- gains little from war other than a life in deep bunkers. By keeping a war going, Khamenei can continue to grasp the levers of power rather than being forced out by rivals who are no longer oppressed by his late enforcer, Qasem Soleimani. But does an 80-year-old supreme leader really have the desire or capacity to continue such a very dangerous course? Or are hotheads even now edging him aside?
No comments:
Post a Comment