Here’s why ‘Sharpiegate’ matters

The Abqaiq oil facility burns Saturday night. (Credit: Reuters)

Because when this administration claims it has evidence that Iran was responsible for a devastating attack on a Saudi oil production facility over the weekend, the world, and the American public, is right to be skeptical.

President Trump, enabled by craven and opportunistic aides and advisors, lies the way the rest of us breathe. As my friend and colleague Steve Saideman writes at his blog:

[W]e know that the Trump Administration has no credibility–it has lied about a great many things, so even if they come out with some evidence of either Iranian complicity (and Iran is almost certainly at least complicit) or Iran guilt, it will be easy for folks to dismiss these claims.

Let’s be honest. Can a president who would take a Sharpie to alter a weather forecast map in a childishly obvious attempt to cover for an inconsequential mistake, and then mobilize his Commerce Secretary to threaten to fire some of the nation’s top weather officials unless they also lied to support the president’s lie, be trusted to tell the truth on a matter of real consequence?

Even now, while the Trump administration claims photographic evidence proves the attacks came from Iranian territory, the Saudi government has so far declined to back that conclusion, according to Beirut-based reporter Dion Nissenbaum of the Wall Street Journal:

This all has real consequences, because Trump has again turned to Twitter threatening American military retaliation, raising the specter of triggering what virtually all observers realize would be an absolutely catastrophic war.

Of course this is not the first time that Trump has made a threat like this against Iran, as I’ve commented on here and here. Threats that this president, who seemingly believes tough talk is as good as tough action, has in every case failed to follow through on. I put it this way back in the good old days of “fire and fury”:

The problem is that Trump simply has no credibility. His words are not believable and therefore his threats likely carry no weight with North Korea or anyone else for that matter. Not even the American public believes what they hear coming out of the White House. So why should our adversaries?

Trump routinely lards his rhetoric with threats, violence, and aggression. Such language was part and parcel of his stump speeches as a candidate, reared its head in his inaugural address, and comes out when he talks to or about his political opponents and adversaries.

And he routinely fails to follow through on the threats he makes. He threatens to force Mexico to fund his border wall, but Congress is scrounging for the money. He threatened to withdraw from NAFTA but hasn’t. He threatened a trade war with China but was talked out of it. He threatened Germany over what he believes to be unfair terms of trade. He threatened to lock Hillary Clinton up and sue James Comey. Neither seems to be sweating over it.

Couple all of this with Trump’s penchant for lying and his administrations overall lack of credibility when it comes to the threats it so easily tosses off, and the danger is clear.

The key to successful application of coercive diplomacy – in short using threats of force to either deter an opponent from action, or to compel him to act – relies on more than the capability to inflict an unacceptable level of punishment if your opponent fails to comply. It also requires credibility. The opponent must believe that you will follow through on the threats you’ve made. Without that belief, coercion fails.

And then you’re stuck.

Fail to follow through and you create an impression of weakness, the perception that you are either unable or unwilling to deliver on your threats, a blowhard whose blustering can be safely ignored in the future. Or use the force you’ve threatened and risk dragging yourself into a military conflict no one wanted and which could easily spiral out of control.

The perception of weakness has dire consequences in international politics, which is why most responsible foreign policymakers are very cautious when it comes to the threats they make. Sadly, responsible policymakers are in short supply in this White House.

We’re going to have to wait to find out what the fallout from this particular episode is going to be. I’m not optimistic.

It’s not a bug, it’s a feature

(Credit: Dave Granlund)

Way back in 2015, Donald Trump began his run for the White House with a naked appeal to fear rooted in racism. And for the last four years, as he first campaigned and then as he has governed, his tune has remained the same.

His tune has remained the same even as his words have given legitimacy to white supremacists and inspired the murderous acts of racist terrorists. All the while he denies the impact of the noxious bile that spews from his mouth and drips from his Twitter fingers. As he was leaving the White House en route to Dayton and El Paso yesterday, the president took issue with the very idea that his rhetoric might in any way be divisive:

I don’t think my rhetoric does at all. I think my rhetoric brings people together. 

As disconnected from reality as this seems, I think we have to take the president as his word here. His rhetoric really does bring people together. The key question, however, is which people?

We actually have a pretty good idea. As I wrote back in September 2016, the profile of many Trump supporters’ attitudes concerning Muslims and Islam, immigration and immigrants, racism, and their degree of racial resentment, is just as ugly as the president’s rhetoric. To review:

  • Nearly 60 percent of Trump supporters had somewhat or very negative views of Islam. More than 75 percent of Republicans favored Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States.
  • Trump’s supporters hold strongly anti-immigrant views, and are especially afraid of the cultural impact of Mexican immigration. These feelings are strongest amongst those who live the farthest from the southern border and in areas with fewer residents of Mexican descent.
  • Trump supporters are more likely to hold explicitly racist views, and to bear particular resentment toward African Americans.
  • Mandatory caveat — These attitudes do not necessarily describe every Trump supporter, so for those of you who take issue with these characterizations, or deny they apply to you, understand that this is the company you keep.

This is what the essence of the president’s base has been from the start, and what it remains. For these loyalists, Trump’s rhetoric isn’t divisive at all, but instead brings them together.

Just as the president said.

There’s Trump’s July 4th, and there’s all of ours

IMG_9942

Donald Trump’s plans for 4th of July celebrations in Washington, D.C., are just the latest indicator that the man doesn’t know America.

His desire to turn a celebration of our nation’s independence into a feeble, self-aggrandizing imitation of the Bastille Day display he fell in love with on his first state visit to France speaks volume’s about the small insecure man’s lack of understanding of our history, our country, our people, and our principles.

Military flyovers, tanks displayed on the National Mall, and a political speech made before political loyalists seated in a roped-off VIP section for cravens, cronies, and lickspittles, have nothing to do with the occasion we celebrate on July 4th. On this day we do not celebrate American military might. On this day we celebrate an act of political defiance, of 18th century #Resistance if you will.

Ratification of the Declaration of Independence on this day in 1776 was a statement of principles made on behalf of all Americans, even as we still struggle to fully live in to those principles.

The ratification of the Declaration came more than a year after the first shots of the War of Independence were fired at Lexington and Concord in April 1775, and nine years before victory was finally won on the field at the Battle of Yorktown in October 1789. Yet we celebrate neither the feats of arms that began our quest for independence nor those that concluded it. Instead, we celebrate the day that we formally proclaimed the principles that would motivate that dreadful struggle and see it through.

We are not a nation that flaunts its military might in gratuitous display, nor one whose calendar revolves around its martial history. We celebrate neither the great victories of our history nor commemorate our tragic defeats the way other, frankly less capable and self-assured, nations do.

Consider the other patriotic holidays that mark our national calendar. On Memorial Day we remember those who sacrificed all in the service of their country, on countless battlefields and duty posts abroad and at home. On Veterans Day we honor all those who served and celebrate their contribution to our collective freedom and security.

It is worth remembering that Veterans Day was once known as Armistice Day, a holiday marking neither victory nor defeat, but peace, the falling silent of the guns on the Western Front slaughterhouses of the First World War.

We mark our nation’s independence in celebrations that bring us together, despite our differences, not divide us. We celebrate not with partisan diatribes, neither with marching boots nor the rumble of tanks, but with picnics, cookouts, ballgames, carnivals, and neighborhood fireworks displays.

Donald Trump wants to change that, and make the day about himself. In true draft-dodging chickenhawk fashion, he wants to bathe himself in the reflected glory of one of the few American institutions that the vast majority of us still respect. He wants to change the day.

Donald Trump wants to change America. But he can’t.

Unless we let him.

At least someone was listening

You_Suck_Comment

Sometimes when I do a radio segment, like the one on the Trump administration’s Iran policy this morning on the local drive-time news/talk station, I wonder what the audience is thinking about my comments.

Now I know, at least in one instance.

Below is the text of the email I received about an hour after my segment was over. I am reprinting it in its entirety (minus the emoji). My motivation comes from a comment by a former student who listened to the segment from the Republic of Georgia where he now lives and works, who suggested that maybe my blunt assessment might get some of the station’s conservative listeners to rethink their position.

images-9Fat chance.

The email is not particularly scathing, nor is it in any way offensive. But it is a window into the way that I suspect a lot of Trump supporters view his policies, how they see the world, and what they believe motivates his critics. (For the record, I support neither socialism in America nor the establishment of a one-world order communistic government.)

Anyway, here’s how this listener reacted:

I heard you on the radio this morning sir. I just want to say you couldn’t of been more wrong except for one thing. President Trump decided not to retaliate. You agreed with that, and so did I. But probably for different reasons. The Democrats set him up and tried to get him to strike, Which would appear reckless under the conditions. You said the president backed himself into a corner. I don’t think so. So far what he is doing is right on the money. You said it was wrong to get rid of the deal that Obama and John Kerry made. I disagree. Our Intel told us that they never stoped producing enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Our Intel told us that they were still supplying money and weapons to terrorist groups around the world. Till this day Kerry and Obama continue to work against the United States committing tyranny with regards to Iran. It would be best for the world if that regime was dismantled and replaced with a democracy. My guess is you want socialism for America or a one world order communistic type system for the United States. We the people are not going to let that happen. We are going to hold the deep state accountable for all the crimes they have committed. MAGA TRUMP 2020

Here’s a quick recap of the points I made that this listener took issue with:

  • The Iran nuclear agreement that the US walked out on in May 2018 was actually working and Iran was abiding by its restrictions.
  • The best course forward would be for the US to return to that agreement rather than continuing to pursue a policy of saber-rattling and sanctions that has failed to deliver for the last 40 years.
  • The additional sanctions against Iran announced yesterday by the White House will have no meaningful impact on Iranian policy.
  • Trump was right to cancel the military strike that he had previously ordered.
  • But, by taking such an aggressive line with Iran, Trump has backed himself into a corner.
  • If another US drone is shot down, which is entirely possible, Trump, given his tough talk, will find it very difficult if not impossible to avoid retaliatory military action.
  • This kind of escalation runs very real risks of getting out of hand, dragging both countries and the region down a path that no-one whose name isn’t John Bolton wants to tread.

If you’re hanging around a radio or a livestream tomorrow morning, you can catch me talking about Iran again on Detroit’s public radio station, WDET 101.9FM. I’ll be a guest on the Detroit Today show with Stephen Henderson. The show starts at 9 am with rebroadcast at 7 pm.