Democrats, Trump, and the bomb

 (Originally published in The Times of Israel)

Predictably, and sadly, partisan posturing did not abate even when it came to something as serious as the United States’ bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities. 

With a few notable exceptions such as Senator John Fetterman and Congress Member Ritchie Torres, Democratic officials could not bring themselves to unequivocally declare that partially or completely destroying the nuclear capabilities of a fanatical regime that has promised to destroy Israel and that considers the U.S. a mortal enemy was a good thing.

The bombing of the nuclear facilities was a historic act for the good of the world. The Democrats should have supported it wholeheartedly.  Then they could have expressed their misgivings about the War Powers Act, and then they could have emphasized what a disaster they believe Trump is in all other respects.

That would have been the right position on policy, and the right position morally.  There is a very good possibility that it would have eventually proven to be the right position politically. 

Instead, ignoring the fact that presidents of both parties have not sought Congressional approval for military action on many occasions when they deemed it unnecessary or inconvenient, they harped on the Trump Administration’s failure to seek Congress’ consent. 

President Trump, being true to form, did not help matters by not briefing the Democratic members of the “Big Eight,” the group of senior members of Congress who traditionally receive briefings when the government is about to engage in military action. 

Within hours of the bombings, many Democratic legislators, with virtually no concrete evidence yet at hand, quickly pronounced it a failure because, they alleged, it only set Iran’s nuclear bomb development by two months.

Again, it did not help matters when President Trump, also long before receiving conclusive evidence, claimed the bombing “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Many of the naysayers were the same people who, before the bombings, either doubted Iran was intent on developing a bomb or argued against immediate action by claiming that Iran was at least a year away from nuclear break-out. 

(For a comprehensive explanation of why Israel struck Iran now, how it went about doing so, and the results of the attack, see The Times of Israel Editor David Horovitz’ piece from June 30. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-was-facing.../)

I leave it to those better versed in time travel to explain how Iran could have gone from a year or more away from a bomb to, after being bombed, only being set back two months until achieving a nuclear bomb. 

And it begs the question:  Is something not the right thing to do even if it is not as successful as you would like it to be?

Pro-Israel Trump supporters should not crow too much about what a great friend President Trump is and how he took such a decisive, bold action. 

President Trump is clearly a man hyper-focused on his own validation and self-aggrandizement.  He loves being associated with those he perceives as powerful and as winners, and he runs away from those he considers losers or unattractive. 

He goes with who he likes, and who he likes is very situational and dependent on what one can do for him and his ego and sense of self-worth.  Some would say he is a narcissist.

President Trump clearly waited until he was certain Israel’s mission was successful before joining the cause.  Given the number of people in key positions in the Administration who are against involvement in foreign military matters that do not present an immediate, direct threat to the U.S., starting with Vice-President and Defense Secretary, there is a high likelihood that had Israel not looked like a winner, the U.S. would have stayed on the sidelines. 

And, as mentioned above, he did not help engender bipartisan support for aiding Israel by excluding Democratic leaders a Congressional briefing that has traditionally been bi-partisan.

And then consider these:

--President Trump’s envoy was the first U.S. government representative to negotiate directly with Hamas, thereby enhancing its perception as a legitimate, influential force in the region.

--Another Trump envoy humanized Hamas by opining as to how “Once you understand that they want to live, then you can… talk to them in a more effective way.”  He went onto raise the possibility of a political role for Hamas in Gaza.

--The Trump Administration felt no compunctions in negotiating a deal with the Houthis that protected shipping from missile attacks but left the Houthis free to daily fire ballistic missiles at Israeli civilians. 

--President Trump basked in the glory of obtaining the release of Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander, which was undoubtedly a major and much-appreciated achievement. 

But it also raises the question:  If Qatar could, in response to Trump’s request, obtain the release of one hostage, could it not obtain similar results for other hostages if enough pressure was exercised?

 I have contended since the beginning of the hostage crisis that, given the political will and the willingness to potentially endure higher gas prices, the U.S. and Europe have sufficient leverage to pressure Qatar and other nations that support Hamas to release all of the hostages.

The release of Edan Alexander gives more credence to that contention. But it raises another question: Do the Trump and Witkoff families’ myriad business relationships worth billions of dollars create conflicts of interest that weigh against them mounting the kind of pressure that would have produced the release of additional hostages?

--President Trump is now clearly and loudly interfering in internal Israeli affairs by attempting to pressure the judicial system to drop criminal charges against Prime Minister Netanyahu.  He went so far as to use U.S. financial support of Israel as leverage. 

This interference Israel as a client state whose independence is not worthy of respect.  One need not imagine Likud leader Menachem Begin’s reaction to such disrespect even if it was intended to aid him. 

--Almost immediately after the war, without receiving any commitments from Iran not to renew its nuclear development, or to halt its terrorist activities, or to limit its development of ballistic missiles, Trump pronounced the U.S. ready to lift sanctions on Iran.  He halted the process only because the Ayatollah Khamenei issued a statement claiming victory that angered him.

Democrats should be ashamed of their failure to support an action taken against a murderous regime that protects, Israel, the U.S., and the world.

Pro-Israel Trump supporters should look at Trump’s erratic and impulsive personality, his statements and behavior toward other long-time American allies, and all of his Administration’s actions vis-à-vis Israel, and should conclude that any “friendship” Trump has with Israel is very situational and fickle.

In short, there is reason for serious concern across the political spectrum.  Neither side should be crowing or posturing.  Each side has work to do.