WallStreetJournal– so we understand how the media narrative framing is going to work
We’re stickin’ to fact as much as possible
President Trump is at a crossroads that could define his legacy: He could sign a deal that curbs Iran’s nuclear program, or launch a war with hard-to-control consequences for the U.S. and the Middle East.
Should Trump instead order an attack, in the hope of coercing the Iranian regime or even bringing it down, he would be risking a major conflict that could envelop the rest of his presidency.
The moment is one of Trump’s own making, according to officials and analysts. He promised in January to support Iranian street demonstrators ( violent US and Israeli backed terrorists) protesting the regime’s violent repression, but no U.S. intervention came.
If Iran, which denies seeking a nuclear bomb, rejects Trump’s demands, the U.S. leader’s options range from a limited initial strike to try to pressure Tehran into concessions to a prolonged bombing campaign aimed at destroying the regime and its military.
The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to slap down Trump’s use of tariffs could make a U.S. attack on Iran more likely, said Wilbur Ross, who was commerce secretary in Trump’s first term. “I don’t think he can take this loss and then be seen as backing down on Iran,” he said.
In case you missed that news– The Supreme Court rules against Trump’s tariff regime (regime defined as – a system or planned way of doing things, especially one imposed from above)
The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, upheld a lower court’s decision that Trump’s use of this 1977 law exceeded his authority. They ruled that the law at issue – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) – did not grant Trump the power he claimed to impose tariffs.
I covered Trump’s use of emergency powers to enact his tariff plan
Back to Trump’s war on Iran
Iran has threatened significant retaliation against any U.S. attack including… sink American warships, attack U.S. troops in the region and close the Strait of Hormuz, a sea lane vital to the world’s oil supply. Gulf states, which could be targeted, are worried.
Even if war leads to the fall of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, what might follow is highly uncertain,
Trump is left facing “a lot of risk and not particularly attractive options,” said Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington.
Trump is charging ahead into a showdown that could go a long way toward defining his place in history.
He has reached this point without seeking congressional approval or making his case to the American public, even as he had criticized previous presidents’ wars in the Middle East
Trump Confident?
Trump has gained confidence about the benefits of wielding U.S. military might since he ordered successful strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in June and captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro last month.
Those were short, narrowly targeted operations, according to analysts. Trump has yet to launch a large-scale, potentially lengthy war with an adversary capable of striking back hard—including against oil markets and maritime trade.
“We have never actually seen what Trump’s tolerance for absorbing pain is,” said Vali Nasr, a former senior U.S. official and an Iran expert at Johns Hopkins University, adding that the president prefers military missions that risk few American casualties. “Unless Trump is sure the U.S. is able to take out everything Iran has up front, there is great risk in what follows.”
Would Trump be absorbing pain? That’s an interesting presentation, but, not credible. The people of Iran, the surrounding region and the global economy will absorb much pain. But, Trump? Not so much.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has urged Trump to seize the moment and bring down the regime before it regains its strength. Other U.S. allies in the region, including Gulf countries and Turkey, have urged caution.
Of course Bibi is all in… Israel will provide the nukes if needed.
Last paragraph
The idea of providing Iran with fuel has featured in negotiations over many years, but Iran rejected the idea of eliminating its indigenous uranium-enrichment program and depending on foreign sources of nuclear fuel.
One can hardly blame Iran for taking this stance.