Trump’s mixed messages and potential military intervention
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, as they say, and it’s certainly true of Donald Trump when it comes to protesters.
The brave Iranians who took to the streets en masse again on Tuesday night, despite the great risk to their lives, are the US president’s “patriots” and he encourages them to continue the fight.
Yet Americans protesting the deportation of alleged criminal aliens are “domestic terrorists” in the view of the Trump administration, whose deaths at the hands of ICE officers are unfortunate but justified.
This is not meant to compare or contrast the two groups of demonstrators, but simply to point out that Trump lacks a principled approach to public protests. If Trump eventually decides to cut off a deal rather than intervene militarily to fatally weaken or decapitate it, it could be costly for the thousands of Iranians protesting the Islamist terror regime.
The son of Iran’s ousted Shah, Reza Pahlavi, makes the same point. “Part of the reason they’re still in street fights is because they believe this president is determined to do what he promised,” he told Fox News from the United States, where he lives in exile.
Tehran-born Pahlavi, 65, will try to return to lead Iran if the regime falls (although his level of support in the country is far from clear), thus naturally prompting Trump to intervene.
The president seems aware of this dilemma. His final message was that the regime would decide on a course of action based on the latest estimates of the death toll, including whether it hanged people.
Trump’s support of protesters in their just cause does not and should not force him to call for airstrikes. But by giving the impression that American “help is on the way,” it increases Iranians’ incentives to continue risking their lives even as the danger escalates.
Clear objectives and strategies will still be needed for any military operation, whether it be symbolic attacks, sustained bombings, the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, or a combination of these.
Airstrikes have a mixed record, but Trump successfully carried out them against Iran last year, noted Clayton Swope, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“There is little historical evidence that airpower alone leads to the collapse of a regime or that airpower alone can prevent a tyrant or terrorist group from committing atrocities against civilians.” he writes.
“But the regime in Iran is weak today. It is rapidly losing power. Because of this weakness, a certain logic can be discerned in US air strikes against Iran, which can achieve a policy goal without using ground troops.”
“Air strikes alone will not stop the Ayatollah from shooting protesters. What if air strikes could lead to the collapse of the regime because they are too weak? It seems plausible that such an outcome would end ongoing violence against civilians.”
Given his recent track record not only in Iran but also in Venezuela, Nigeria and Syria, Trump will believe that is exactly what will happen. He’s excited to “win,” as he puts it.
“We were right about everything,” Trump told CBS News on Wednesday after listing successful military interventions, including the assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in his first term.
The likely outcome is that Trump, convinced he cannot fail, confident in his unique ability to effect change, and weighed down by expectation, decides he must act.
Get notes directly from our foreign correspondents on events making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What’s on in the World Newsletter.
Michael Koziol is the North America correspondent for The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. He is a former Sydney editor, Sun-Herald deputy editor and a federal political correspondent in Canberra.Connect with: excitement or email.
