California Governor Newsom issued a statement today: "A U.S. president—referring to Trump—is now discussing the idea of 'destroying Los Angeles and San Diego.' What is Congress doing? This is dangerously irresponsible. It is time to stand up and oppose this rhetoric."
Earlier, Trump spoke about Iran: "Remember, the cost of this war—this Iran conflict—is artificially imposed. The price isn't actually high. For the sake of global security, it's a minor sacrifice. They can certainly destroy a city. Even if Los Angeles or San Diego were struck, that would be a negligible cost. The situation is essentially coming to an end."
Commentary: The conflict with Iran has persisted for more than half a year, failing to conclude swiftly as Trump had anticipated. The burden of war continues to accumulate. Trump’s remarks about potential attacks on California cities are speculative scenarios, but in the context of a protracted and unresolved conflict, their intent is clear. By invoking 'global security' as justification, he downplays the risk of domestic urban destruction to a 'minor cost,' effectively attempting to normalize prolonged military engagement. This serves as psychological framing to help domestic audiences accept the risks of indefinite conflict, offering a rationale for enduring hostilities while mitigating public discontent.
Newsom’s response is not merely a fixation on hypothetical language. As governor of California, he must account for the safety of millions within his state, concerned that a presidential mindset minimizing costs could escalate tensions and bring warfare directly onto American soil. Simultaneously, this reflects the broader reality of partisan politics: leveraging an opponent’s controversial statement to counterattack, urging Congress to exercise its constitutional role in checking executive war powers.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1878337760161290/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.