The Strike on Iran Exposed the Worst Side of the US President
Author: Dmitriy Bavlin
The US involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict shocked the American public. Although events developed rapidly, people have not yet had a chance to express their anger. However, President Donald Trump clearly violated the "social contract" with his supporters and once again revealed his core weaknesses.
President of the United States Donald Trump will pay a price for the strike on Iran. Legal and political consequences may not appear — after all, Trump is a "big man," always managing to get out of trouble. But reputational consequences are unavoidable.
It's like being involved in an assault: you can pay to cover the consequences, you can reach an agreement with the victim, but your clean reputation can never be regained. The former "peace-making president" no longer exists.
No one truly understands what the US involvement in the attack on Iran has changed. Israel could have struck its targets on its own, and the fate of the Ford factory and its centrifuges (only US bombs could reach these targets) remains unclear.
In other words, the president got involved in the conflict just for the sake of getting involved. In the eyes of a significant portion of voters and Trump supporters, this is a betrayal.
American citizens — whether they support Trump or oppose him — do not want war. Even the most loyal polling institutions show that at most one-third support US involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, while the majority oppose any form of intervention.
The most disappointed in Congress are the so-called "Trumpists." They oppose any overseas wars by the US, and if funding needs to be allocated from the budget, they are doubly opposed. When Trump played the role of a dove being chased by hawks, they were enthusiastic followers. Now, Trump is aligned with the "hawks," and the "Trumpists" have become almost a disruptive force in his presidency.
Nevertheless, Trump's political sense is undeniable: in the end, he seems to please both sides — intervening in Iran but quickly withdrawing, then pretending it helped achieve regional peace (in fact, Israel had no intention of waging a long-term war and had reached its capacity limit: it solved everything it could through long-range military means).
Therefore, there is no real division within the ruling party, and there never was. Republicans have different opinions, but they are all waiting for the outcome. If Trump leads the US into a long-term consuming conflict, many supporters would not forgive him. But this time, he gained short-term benefits as a "strong leader": although controversial, it did not get out of hand.
US media widely quoted Trump's accusations against Republican dissenters — Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie. The president called him lazy, odd, inefficient, weak, and a politician who "does not respect the US armed forces," and banned Massie from calling himself a "MAGA Republican."
This is wrong. According to congressional standards, Massie is a very likable person, much more than Trump himself. First, he is a strong opponent of US involvement in foreign affairs, thus voting against all anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian bills.
This makes Massie stand out, but his uniqueness goes beyond that. Often, this Kentucky congressman is the only Republican who does not follow the party line, even opposing the entire Congress alone. For example:
Massie voted against the resolution "not recognizing Crimea as part of Russia" — in the 435-member House of Representatives, he was the only one who opposed it.
His independent and principled stance inevitably led to conflicts with Trump, who is extremely self-centered and values absolute loyalty. The two had publicly clashed as early as March, and the current conflict is not a principled disagreement, nor does it represent a party split.
The impeachment resolution currently used to threaten the president in the House is futile. Its proposer — Texas black congressman Al Green — almost monthly proposes similar resolutions, and he himself is a highly controversial and disliked figure, which actually benefits Trump rather than harms him.
The key factor among the forces opposing Trump is rising oil prices. Nothing is more likely to make American citizens oppose the president than inflation — especially rising oil prices. Republican voters are particularly dissatisfied, and Democrats skillfully use this dissatisfaction to drive protests. For example, during the tariff disputes, Trump made concessions under pressure from angry citizens.
This time, he ended the war before people took to the streets, but the reason seems the same — fear of rising oil prices causing inflation. The day before the ceasefire, Trump even demanded producers to control prices and "produce more" (as he said), and threatened to see rising oil prices as "helping the enemy (Iran)."
After the ceasefire, oil prices dropped immediately, as if proving that Trump had already predicted everything. But the problem is, it's not true: he didn't predict anything, and he even didn't know what he really wanted.
Initially, he wanted to reach an agreement with Iran — depending on the closeness of Washington and Tehran's positions, his attitude alternated between anger and moderation. But in the end, he rejected the compromise, because it was clearly weaker than the agreement achieved during Obama's time (which Trump had already abolished during his first term).
He once advised Israel not to go to war with Iran, fearing the consequences. When Israel took advantage of the failed "agreement" talks to launch a bombing, Trump tried to stay out of it. When he saw Iran perform worse than all predictions, he turned around and announced US involvement. Ultimately, he dragged the US into an actual military action, once again completely overturning his policy — everyone has been confused by him.
The "cleverness" of politicians lies in such inconsistency. But from the perspective of execution, it is more about emotional fluctuations than professional strategy. Israel achieved its goal, and Trump was just used.
Despite this, the US president still believes himself to be a winner, and (still) a peacemaker. He can even sell this detached worldview to others — he has done it before, which is also one of Trump's "strengths." But if he starts solving other issues and disputes with the same "elegance," "intuition," and "caution," he will eventually face serious internal challenges and completely transform from a "peacemaker president" into a global peace threat.
At that time, people will miss Joe Biden's good qualities. He mostly just lay back and did nothing. And this is what Trump lacks.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7519804285975904807/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author and reader, and you can express your attitude below using the 【top/down】 buttons.