Trump's speech

The mainstream media's criticisms were silly, but the speech won't gain support for the war.

Immediately after President Trump’s speech about the Iran war, commentators at CNN opined that the president had said “nothing new.” He has been saying the same thing to reporters for days, if not weeks, they noted, Joe Klein’s take was similar.

But Trump’s speech wasn’t given for the benefit of reporters. It was addressed to the American public — an audience that has been misled by mainstream media reporting.

From Trump’s address, the public could have learned that, contrary to what the MSM has told it, regime change was never the goal of this war. It was something Trump encouraged and hoped for. However, as is clear from the initial statement he released explaining the war’s objectives, his goals were purely military.

The public could also have learned the extent of the damage the U.S. has inflicted on Iran’s military. The mainstream media almost never reports this. For the MSM, it’s always about the price of gasoline, the survival of the regime (if not its leaders), the alienation of allies (but almost never an acknowledgement of how much allies in the Middle East support the war), and public opinion polls.

Both the public and MSM reporters could have concluded from the speech that Trump is not yet ready to stop fighting. In fact, lots of people seem to have so concluded. The stock market took a big hit the day after the speech because investors were hoping for an immediate end to the hostilities and learned it wasn’t going to happen.

CNN viewers didn’t have to wait until Trump’s speech to hear spurious takes about it. David Sanger of the New York Times said it would not be enough for Trump to discuss our military’s successes in taking out targets (successes that, as noted above, the MSM has studiously avoided reporting). Trump would have to tie these successes to achievement of the war’s goals.

But a main war goal is precisely to take out targets that are key to Iranian military power. Thus, hitting these targets is the same thing as achieving our goal. Sanger was spouting nonsense.

The targets we’re striking include industrial facilities central to the mullahs’ nuclear program. So again, hitting these targets advances the goal of thwarting Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Furthermore, the administration contends that destroying Iran’s conventional military power is also a key to preventing it from becoming a nuclear power. Its case, as presented by Marco Rubio, is based on the North Korea precedent — specifically, that nation’s success in becoming a nuclear power without anyone taking military action to prevent this.

The argument is that the North Koreans were able to get across the nuclear finishing line without outside military interference because their conventional power posed such a grave threat to South Korea that no one dared attack the nuclear program. By analogy, Iran will be able to get its program across the finishing line if it reaches the point where its rockets can inflict serious damage throughout the region, as well as in Europe and possibly the U.S.

For Trump supporters, this line of thought is another example of Trump brilliantly playing multiple-dimension chess. To his most severe critics, it’s another example of what it contends are the administration’s ever-shifting arguments to justify the war.

To me, there is probably merit to the argument Rubio makes. During the current war, Iran has surprised the world with the reach of its rockets. In one attack, two intermediate-range ballistic missiles reached a joint US-UK military base 2,500 miles away in the Indian Ocean (though the base was not hit). If the U.S. allowed Iran to keep advancing on this front, the mullahs might well be able to deter future attacks on its nuclear program. Thus, the time to attack it was now, or very soon.

In any case, degrading Iran’s conventional capabilities is a worthy project in itself. So is destroying facilities Iran needs to advance its nuclear program.

But did Trump’s speech succeed in gaining support for the war? I don’t think so. For the public, the proof will be in the pudding as it tastes when the war ends.

Indeed, I think the war is probably a lose-draw proposition politically. Even If Trump brings the war to an end and achieves his military objectives without much loss of American life and without sustained economic harm (e.g., high gas prices), I don’t think he’ll get much political mileage from it. If things go genuinely sideways, he will, of course, suffer political harm.

Only in the event of meaningful regime change — by which I mean full and decisive regime overthrow — might Trump gain politically. Even then, I doubt that the gain would be substantial.

But from the standpoint of America’s interests, I think the war is likely to be a big win. Iran will be much weaker militarily. It will be much further away from meeting its nuclear ambitions. The economy will be in ruins, meaning that the regime, even if it survives the war (and it probably will), will lose more ground with the public, including not just those who crave freedom but also those who crave bread.

Trump isn’t running for president again. Thus, it’s not unreasonable to think that his calculus when it comes to the war will continue to place America’s interests ahead of his political ones. Concern over his legacy should also push Trump to persevere without his normal focus on what polls say.

Let’s hope so.