Is Trump planning for war or re-election?
Wars usually shape the political reality of those that orchestrate them. The other way around, when politics dictates the wars we fight, is often called “wag the dog”, after the figurative tail that is said to get the hound all a-jitter. It’s why, in the context of Donald Trump suddenly setting aside years of caution when it comes to lighting fires in the Middle East, the events of the last week have left foreign policy experts scratching their heads.
The response in America has been predictably partisan. Democrats have been shouting about an abuse of power while Republicans have continued to do what Republicans have done so well – rationalising crazy decisions long after they’ve happened. Paying off a porn star? The personal business of a doting husband wanting to protect his wife from sleazy tabloid stories. Bribing Ukraine for political dirt? Merely uncovering the DNC’s attempts to steal the 2016 election. The assassination of Soleimani? Eminently reasonable and long overdue. The man had been coordinating with all the bad actors. He was, in the words of Senator Ben Sasse, “an evil bastard who murdered Americans”.
And Sasse might well be right but, of course, it would be hard to find a Democrat this side of the progressive fringe who fundamentally disagrees with that. The problem for Republicans is they have no good answer for the Democrat’s primary question: why now?
Trump said on Friday night that the drone strike was conducted to “stop a war”. There’s pressure on the administration to now explain why, given that Iran and America have been in a cold war, albeit one that occasionally gets a little toasty, since the 1979 revolution.
There might well be intelligence not yet made public that explains why this extrajudicial killing had to be done now but until such evidence comes to light the drone strike makes little sense in terms of the administration’s Middle East policy (or lack thereof). Iran’s leadership was already feeling the pressure, with popular dissent routinely challenging their legitimacy. As the Iranian population gets younger, less inclined to believe in the ideals of the Revolution, the theocracy has looked vulnerable, seeking to provoke threats from outside to unify the nation.
Trump clearly spent Christmas frustrated by the House’s verdict and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s unwillingness to send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate until she receives some assurances about the legitimacy of their process. Conventional wisdom still points to an acquittal but, the longer it goes on, the more damaging the evidence set to emerge, with Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski already sounding uncomfortable about being part of a hyper-partisan trial.
So, while it’s might be too simplistic to claim that we’re witnessing an example of “wag the dog”, it does seem plausible that the death of Suleimani was precipitated by a President feeling humiliated at home, harassed, his paranoid fears urging him to remind himself, as well as the nation, that he has more important things to worry about than the Democrats and their impeachment “game”. In Trumpworld, the presidency is much more than symbolism and political power. It has melded with his psychology, his self-image, and his personal history. His manifest belief seems to be that his burden is so great that nobody has the right to impugn his actions. It wasn’t enough to accuse Iran of bad faith or bad actions. He tweeted out that “Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation”, which again framed the issue around his own perceived acumen as a “deal maker”, as well as his obvious loathing of Barack Obama.
Trump might well believe he can resolve this crisis. Of course, Chairman Kim went from “Little Rocketman” to a “friend” in the space of a few weeks. The obvious flaw in that logic is that Kim is no less of a threat, despite his Trumpian makeover, and General Qassem Soleimani a far more significant player than Trump perhaps understood.
The hit illustrates a central lesson of this presidency, that Trump continues to wantonly damage the well-engineered political system designed by the Founding Fathers and enshrined in the Constitution. President Ford’s 1976 Executive Order stopping political assassinations now seems largely mute. Next might be the War Powers Act. Trump tweeted out on Sunday that “These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!” The slightly cod-legal language might again speak to Trump’s belief in his unchallenged power but it led to a reply from the House Foreign Affairs Committee: “This Media Post will serve as a reminder that war powers reside in the Congress under the United States Constitution. And that you should read the War Powers Act. And that you’re not a dictator.”
The Committee is legally correct but, as has been proved so often with this White House, the Constitution’s small print has little force once the Executive has decided it won’t be bound by the rules. Legal remedies might be effective after months or years in the courts but in the here and now, the President can pretend that America is heading for war if it suits him. The danger is that there might be very little that either he or more constitutionally-minded politicians can do should Iran decide to take the President at his word.