The ninnies squawk, the caravan moves on

Anderson Cooper's lame sniping at Trump's Iran policy

Ninnies like Anderson Cooper are saying that Donald Trump’s attack on three Iranian nuclear facilities contradicted his promise to avoid foreign wars. Some of Trump’s MAGA critics are making the same complaint.

But Trump has never been unwilling to use military force against adversaries and has never promised not to. During Trump’s first term, the U.S. waged war against ISIS until that group was defeated. The U.S. also had troops in Afghanistan for four years.

Nor was Iran immune from U.S. military power. Trump ordered the strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian terror chief, in Iraq.

Tulsi Gabbard condemned this act. But Trump has never shared Gabbard’s views on the use of American military power. It’s no accident that, at least for now, Gabbard seems to be out of the loop when it comes to America’s stance in the Iran-Israel war.

Very early in his second term, Trump again ordered U.S. bombing. This time, it was against the Houthis.

David Reaboi, a MAGA stalwart, says that Trump’s consistent position has been “no more stupid wars.” I think that’s right. But, of course, no candidate has ever favored stupid wars.

The best way to phrase Trump’s position is to say that he demands a somewhat higher threshold than the old Republican establishment did for using military force, and a significantly higher threshold for deploying U.S. ground forces. This is an example of Trump’s centrism, which Bill discussed here.

Trump concluded, reasonably, that the opportunity to destroy or significantly degrade Iran’s nuclear weapons-related stockpiles and facilities, coupled with a high probability that our pilots would complete their mission safely, met his high threshold. So he acted.

While it was far from certain that he would, no one should have been surprised that he did.

Ninnies like Anderson Cooper are also wringing their hands over Trump’s recent statement about regime change. Trump wrote:

It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!”

On its face, the words simply state the obvious. Iran is in an awful condition — economically and militarily. Its proxies have been crushed, it is essentially defenseless against Israeli air strikes, and the regime has long been unpopular.

Therefore, it’s entirely reasonable to ask, if the current situation continues, why there wouldn’t be a regime change. After all, regime change sometimes is the byproduct of military defeat. For example, it happened in Russia during World War I and in Argentina following the Falklands war.

Trump isn’t saying the U.S. will try directly or overtly to bring about regime change in Iran. In fact, he later said he does not want regime change because it would be too chaotic (a view that warrants a separate Ringside post). Trump is just saying that regime change is a possible, and perhaps likely, outcome if Iran adheres to its present course.

Trump’s critics pretend that talk of regime change is inconsistent with administration statements that U.S. air strikes had the limited objective of taking down Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But any intelligent person should understand that there is no inconsistency. Desiring regime change (which Trump says he doesn’t) is not the same thing as making it a military objective. So too with predicting or warning of regime change.

Another criticism of Trump’s statement might be that even talking about regime change is a mistake when the stated goal of the administration is negotiating with mullahs. If anything, though, reminding the mullahs that regime change is a distinct possibility if they can’t deliver something more to Iranians than incessant Israeli bombing, further humiliation, and economic woes seems like a reasonable way to induce negotiations.

I suspect the mullahs didn’t need the reminder. In any case, they agreed to a ceasefire very soon after Trump gave it. We’ll see whether negotiations follow. It’s clear, however, that Trump’s statement about the possibility of regime change has not been a fly in the ointment.

The ninnies at CNN and elsewhere have a seemingly endless supply of bad arguments and nitpicks with which to make Trump look bad to an audience that hates him. As things stand now, however, two things are beyond genuine dispute. First, the bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear program has set that program back (how far, we don’t know). Second, to date Iran’s retaliation has been feeble and, indeed, farcical.

Bad arguments and speculation about what comes next cannot obscure these two excellent outcomes.