With 1,000 troops dispatched to the Middle East in response to tension with Iran, conservative war hawks in government are giddy with renewed hope of another war. The only thing standing between them and another war: President Trump.
His voters were derided for the excuse they often gave for endorsing him in the primaries. “He’s a successful businessman,” they often said. “That’s good for our country.” Unfortunately, since his election, that business intuition hasn’t made him popular with a lot of world leaders.
It has driven him to make friendly relationships with some unsavory characters, rubbing shoulders with the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. He’s played dangerous games of hard-ball with Mexico, China, and the EU. Indeed, he can create less-than-ideal situations for our nation.
But here, on the eve of sending 1,000 troops into the Middle East, we face the prospect of another destructive war. What we need now is Trump’s gut reaction. We desperately need the negotiator, the sweet-talker, the deal-maker. We need Trump the businessman.
In the past 40 days, the U.S. has been subject to a variety of “attacks.” Since May 12, six tankers were attacked in the volatile Strait of Hormuz, a rocket crashed near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, a U.S. drone was shot down in Yemen, another was targeted in the Persian Gulf, and a missile fired by the Iranian-backed Houthi militia exploded at Saudi Arabia’s Abha International Airport.
The sole perpetrator of all these random acts is Iran — allegedly. At least that’s what Secretary Mike Pompeo argued Sunday morning. In fact, he claimed the most recent tanker attacks were “unmistakably” committed by the hand of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Pompeo refuses to rule out the possibility of war as a means of retribution. “Everything,” he said, “is on the table.”
But there’s nothing “unmistakable” about any of this, and blaming Iran without firm confirmation of guilt is a recipe for disaster.
Indeed, we’ve been horribly wrong before. We were positive that communism would engulf the world if Vietnam fell. Lest we forget, we were certain that Iraq maintained a large arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The list goes on. Even if the United States intelligence is actually right on this one, it doesn’t matter; none of these attacks warrant waging war.
Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton have tremendous sway over U.S. foreign engagements. We all remember Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi and John Kerry’s carnage in Syria. But when it comes to Iran, we don’t want Trump listening to Pompeo and Bolton’s whispers of hawkish sweet nothings. As the New York Times noted on Saturday, what happens in Iran could very well depend on whether or not he does just that.
The reasoning behind a military clash is weak. In an appearance on “Face the Nation,” Sen. Tom Cotton proclaimed that “unprovoked attacks on commercial shipping warrant a retaliatory military strike.” In similar fashion, during his own TV spot, Pompeo quickly shifted his from discussion of the targeted oil tanker to a polemic on preventing Iran from creating a nuclear arsenal. For Bolton’s part, he has never quite proven himself sympathetic to the idea of negotiations to de-escalate.
That’s why Americans of all political persuasions need, for this moment, to jump on the Trump train — to hope our chatty blowhard of a president is utterly himself.
As of now, the man who vowed to stop endless wars is our only hope to avoid starting a new one. Sure, President Trump is often ill-suited for the diplomacy his job demands and, given both nations’ propensities to pull out of deals, any agreement he would make with Iran would be shaky at best. But let’s face it: Whatever it looks like, another deal struck with Iran is the much lesser of two evils, and, at this point, the most we can hope for.
Natalie Dowzicky (@Nat_Dowzicky) is a researcher at a Washington, D.C. think tank and a Young Voices contributor.
