President Trump on Friday offered a perfectly reasonable explanation for calling off a military strike against Iran. But given his reasoning, why did he order one in the first place?
In a morning Twitter thread, Trump confirmed reports that he had called off a strike against Iran just 10 minutes before it was going to take place.
….Death to America. I terminated deal, which was not even ratified by Congress, and imposed strong sanctions. They are a much weakened nation today than at the beginning of my Presidency, when they were causing major problems throughout the Middle East. Now they are Bust!….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2019
….proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2019
It’s certainly reasonable to argue that it was unnecessary to risk the lost of life with an action he considered disproportionate, especially when there is no rush to do something on Iran’s timeline. Furthermore, Trump still has room to impose more sanctions to further cripple Iran economically, which would likely hurt the regime more than striking three military sites.
But what’s unclear is why Trump didn’t consider these questions before ordering the strike. Why did he wait until 10 minutes before to ask about the potential loss of life, if that concern was weighing heavily on his mind?
There are many options at Trump’s disposal short of war, but his indecision risks turning the administration’s Iran policy into Barack Obama’s bungled “red line” in Syria. Or as Trump mockingly called it when criticizing Obama, the “Red Line In The Sand.”
All day Thursday, Trump publicly vacillated about what to do.
In the morning, he sent out a cryptic tweet, “Iran made a big mistake.”
He later followed up by telling reporters, “Iran made a big mistake. This drone was in international waters, clearly. We have it all documented. It’s documented scientifically, not just words. And they made a very bad mistake.” Asked about a possible response, he said, “You’ll find out.”
But then he elaborated, “I have a feeling that it was a mistake made by somebody that shouldn’t have been doing what they did,” and said, “I find it hard to believe it was intentional, if you want to know the truth.” Seemingly, he was letting the regime off of the hook.
He was also sure to emphasize, “we didn’t have a man or woman in the drone. We had nobody in the drone. It would have made a big difference, let me tell you. It would have made a big, big difference.”
His assertion that the attack was unintentional and significantly mitigated by the fact that there were no deaths, would seem to undercut the likelihood that he’d feel an attack was justified.
So, it makes sense how he got from there to deciding against striking Iran. What doesn’t make sense is what prompted him to order the strike in the first place. Again, there is an argument for strategic patience. But indecisiveness, especially when exhibited so publicly, never works well on the world stage.
