The US is extraordinary. One day it goes to the far side of the moon and revives the space age. On the same day, its president is looking to the far side of the Earth and says he will take Iran “back to the stone ages”. It may be a giant leap for mankind, but in what direction?
There can be no point other than prestige in sending humans to the moon, which is why more than 50 years have passed since they last went there. Robots can perform all we need in space. Returning the Iranians to the stone age is a different matter. The last time the US made the same boast was against Vietnam in a typical threat (much misquoted) by Gen Curtis LeMay. Vietnam crushed the US in the ensuing war.
The Iran war has become impossible to read, because it is so clearly the creation of one man driven by personal vanity, who wishes to force the world to dance to his tune. He is joined in his quest for global disorder by a like-minded soul, Vladimir Putin. Such men have often led nations to collective disaster, but that two should do so at the same time is a horrific misfortune. Hence the urgent need to recognise what they are: just two men with access to immense power. They do not represent their respective countries. We can only know that without them, these wars probably would not have begun. The world must react with due realism and proportion.
That Iran has long been a destabilising force in the Middle East is beyond argument. But Trump came to the White House fiercely denouncing the US’s past interventions in that region, undertaken by Republican and Democratic presidents. Were he now in opposition, he would be excoriating this war. It is only the seduction of office that has got the better of him, driving him to appalling violence.
It is likely that Trump already regrets what he has done, and it may even be in the world’s interest to help him break free. He might take revenge on Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, who appears to have persuaded him into it. Either way he
must extricate himself, much as Richard Nixon did from Vietnam – and Barack Obama failed to do from Afghanistan. His method appears to be by leaving a trail of blood-curdling threats and destruction in his wake.
One day he claims to have wiped out Iran’s nuclear capability, another he cites it as his reason for going to war. One day he offers aid to Iranian protesters in the streets, another he bombs those same streets. One day his ambition is regime change, another he says that it has been achieved.
Were this a repeat of January’s Venezuelan kidnap, it might have ended cleanly with the assassination of Iran’s top brass. Instead, it is still showing signs of a classic military escalation. The failure of each stage to deliver success becomes a prelude to another bloodier stage ahead. Trump, who once pledged he would never put American boots on the ground, has clearly been so exhilarated by “shock and awe” – he even called it “fun” – as to believe he can save face via boots on the ground.
In these circumstances, all naturally look to the famous constitutional constraints on the presidency. In Trump’s first term they were internal to the White House, the so-called grownups who curbed his wilder moments. But
Trump ensured that there were few if any grownups on his return, just favourites and stooges. There is increasingly talk of invoking the 25th amendment, allowing the president to be declared unfit for office. The chances of that happening are said to be slim.
It may be hard to believe that Trump’s talk of escalation prior to retreat is supported by either his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, or his vice-president, JD Vance. His close adviser Stephen Miller and secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, are more likely hawks. But so far, all seem unable to bring him to order. It was near unbelievable that no one warned against threatening to bomb Iran’s water desalination plants. Inevitable Iranian retaliation against the desalination plants of Qatar and Bahrain would render those states uninhabitable. Such warmongering is beyond irresponsible.
As for the supposed constraints of Congress and the supreme court, they have been all but inert and the world can only watch and wait. Both have been cowed by Trump’s patronage and his electoral strength. This year’s midterm elections must alter this. They will almost for sure deliver a Democrat majority, leading to congressional vetoes on “emergency powers” and possible impeachment. Presidents have frequently attempted to circumvent the former, including Obama in attacking Libya in 2011. At the
very least they mean a battle.
As for the reaction of the outside world, Trump seems determined to infuriate his one-time allies for failing to support him. He insults them almost daily. He raises tariffs on their goods. He announces his readiness to abandon Nato. Who knows what he will or will not do? They would do well to play for time.
The one certainty in the US is the 22nd amendment to the constitution imposing a time limit on the presidency. Time is American democracy’s most potent safeguard. After the midterm elections Trump is certain to see his base weaken. His opponents will find their voice strengthening, not only in Congress but in the states, industry, universities and the media. Congress will refuse any question of leaving Nato.
A world long dependent on alliances and loyalties, understanding and trust, may have been at a loss as to how to handle Trump’s US. European powers have been wise to stay aloof from the Iran war. They have remained loyal to Ukraine in a war that was not caused by the west and whose resolution should now return to centre stage.
Pessimists have asserted that the US’s relations with Europe will never survive Trump. There is no reason to think that. A great effort will be needed to mend the damage Trump has done to his country’s global standing. But that effort will for sure be made, by whoever replaces him. His bomber pilots will return to their ships and the oil will again flow through the strait of Hormuz. The US’s friends will devote themselves to putting Trump in the past.
That is why Keir Starmer was right this week to call for realism in the UK in cooperating with Europe over economic and defence security. The continent must act together as a union and put aside the childish petulance of Brexit. If can do so, then something sensible may yet come from this nightmare time.
