Speculation About Trump’s Underlying Reasons for the Continuing Conduct of the Iran War

Politics & Elections
1

Now that we’re over a month into the Iran War, this thread is about why Trump makes the wartime decisions that he does as Commander in Chief. For speculation about why Trump started the war, see this thread: Speculation About Trump's Underlying Reasons for Bombing Iran and Other Targets

Discussion of why Trump carries out the war in certain ways, now that the war has commenced. (I can take it elsewhere, but I think it belongs here.)

On Easter Sunday, Trump threatened war crimes on his social media website:

Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP

We’re quite a ways from Abraham Lincoln. What is going on here? Adam Serwer, who wrote the article, “The Cruelty is the Point”, some years back explains on Bluesky:

Trump advisers think the age of imperialism ended because of wokeness, not because 1) colonized peoples made colonialism untenable 2) technology made territorial empire unnecessary. They thought mere brutality and perceived genetic superiority would make wars against countries like Iran easy.
Facing the reality that brutality and cruelty also have tradeoffs and are not a secret weapon that facilitates an easy victory, they are furious at being embarrassed by their lessers and seeing their theory of the world publicly discredited (not that they would ever acknowledge that)
Remember all this nonsense about the supposed inferiority of “third world” immigration? They really believed that and applied their theory to international relations and it failed. Racism makes you stupid.

David Roberts, environmental journalist:

On one hand, the way the Iran war is playing out is a heavy-handed, almost theatrical illustration of the point Adam makes here.
On the other hand, the same strategy—tougher, harder, more violence, more cruelty—has failed over and over again throughout human history, and we still haven’t learned.

I think the key thing to understand is that this strategy, despite occasional notional attempts by its adherents to pretend otherwise, is not the conclusion of any kind of analysis. It’s orthogonal to empirics. It’s a gut feeling. It feels compelling to (certain kind of) people.

If humanity were even remotely as smart as we like to think we are, and our behavior were even remotely guided by empirical analysis, we would have long ago abandoned that strategy due to its manifest multi-hundred-year record of spectacular failure. But we don’t becuase it feels right.

Pretty much everything good or worthwhile that humanity has produced has come through non-zero-sum cooperation. The bravery that has mattered, the bravery that has advanced our species, has been the bravery of reaching out beyond tribal lines to expand circles of cooperation.

Again and again, I return to the same thought about authoritarianism, fascism, reactionary thinking, whatever you want to call it: it is not an alternative analysis or an alternative set of values. It is permission to wallow in brainstem-level feelings. It is permission to ignore the frontal cortex.
Not different thinking, but whether to think at all.

Memo to Trump admin: Please do not commit flagrant and ineffectual war crimes.

Cut your losses and get out.

Speculation About Trump's Underlying Reasons for Bombing Iran and Other Targets
Speculation for and/or Consequences to the US and Elsewhere for Engaging in the Bombing of Iran and Other Targets
2

I am not sure what is cause and what is effect here: maybe racism makes you stupid, maybe being stupid makes you a racist, probably both, depending on the concrete case.

But one thing I know: Being stupid makes you underestimate your enemies, and that is a mistake.

Your other enemies are watching:

3

Another perspective. This is an ill-considered war: Team Trump apparently didn’t even consider the possibility that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz, a possibility that a casual and longtime viewer of CNN would have under grasped, and the subject of volumes of internal analysis. So now he is left with bad choices, eg

  • Ground troops taking uranium
  • Take Kharg Island
  • Take another Island in the Persian Gulf
  • Commit massive war crimes by air
  • Declare victory, get out, let Iran take control of the Strait of Hormuz, suffer Brent oil prices above $120 per barrel.

Trump wants to avoid the last choice. Careful diplomacy might be able to manage it, but Trump has fired or sidelined his careful diplomats.

4

I think the writer is mostly correct, but one thing they miss is it can “work” - it’s just expensive and you have to stay there (or simply be willing to kill everyone and move in). Old school colonialism in other words, which was largely given up because it cost too much, not because it didn’t work at all.

What a lot of these neo-colonialist types want is a sort of quick, easy budget colonialism where they can barge in, kill a bunch of people and then leave having terrorized their victims into compliance forevermore with no need for any continuing investment. That doesn’t work. Bombing people just makes them angry, and an occupation government only lasts as long as you are willing to keep the occupation forces there.

We’re seeing the latest iteration of that, where the US bombs and bombs and is surprised when the Iranians fail to roll over and play dead. “Bomb them into submission” is a naturally appealing tactic for a bully like Trump.

5

This, basically, plus changes in technology and how societies work (the whole “Enlightenment” stuff) may have made the old ways impossible.
But yes, they should work, if it is committed to spend trillions like they were pennies and blood like it was water a great power could, in theory, ocuppy say, Iran for 50 years, kill most of everyone, reeducate the rest forcibly and build a more or less reliable colony.
Except that the rest of the world would move ahead in the meantime and make that great power not so great anymore.
It looks like old-fashioned imperialism is no longer cost-effective (I wonder if that’s why it’s not done that way anymore)
Of course with AI and robots it may become cost-effective in the future: Plant a self-sustaining worker-bot and soldier-bot factory in the middle of the victim’s country, defend it until it’s self-reliant and wait for the resources to flow your way.
Ain’t the future bright?

6

I tend to agree, but we might be wrong. Technology may have advanced to the point where the military model the US did in the Philippine-American War (1899–1902) may no longer work even if you are willing to engage in the war crimes. A return to that policy would certainly cause wider problems for the US, as we can see a taste of during the current abandonment of US allies. Not to mention domestic unpopularity.

But it might also be tactically unviable now. The Iranian government currently has about 20% support in its populace, a share that would grow if the US occupied the country. How would 300,000 US troops fare against a country with 20 million+ hostiles out of 93 million? The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has personnel of about 125,000. It’s difficult to see the US winning this thing even with a lot more commitment which we assuredly do not have.

7

Donald may think he could add a sixth choice to your list:

  • Inform the Iranians that he is genetically superior to them and therefore they should just start doing whatever he wants

He might well believe that’s a viable option. Certainly he’s surrounded by sycophants who confirm that to his face, every day.

8

Another perspective. MBS of Saudi Arabia leaks to the New York Times (March 24):

Prince Mohammed, the people familiar with the discussions said, has argued that Iran poses a long-term threat to the Gulf that can only be eliminated by getting rid of the government.

Much ink has been spilled about Nentanyahu’s influence on Trump. The Saudi connection has received less attention. But the Saudis are far more connected to Trump-world than Nentanyahu, to the tune of billions of dollars of funds flowing to Trump’s family. Josh Marshall:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/theres-another-big-reason-trump-is-stuck-in-the-gulf

Placing a story like this in the Times, is about as clear and as audacious a message a Saudi ruler can send to the US government without purchasing a nationwide 30 second ad campaign. I interpret this as him saying: just to be sure the message is getting through or in case you’re getting the message and not sharing it with your people. Trump whacked a hornets nest and MBS says now Trump needs to remove the nest. It can’t be left in place. He needs to overthrow or defang the Iranian regime. The status quo is unacceptable, whatever nonsense of the day Trump may be saying about the Strait not being his problem.

The common thinking in the US is that President Trump either blundered his way into this mess or was goaded into it by Benjamin Netanyahu. There’s a bit of truth to the second idea and a lot to the first. But it’s MBS and the leader of the UAE along with other gulf princes who are really Trump’s guys, much more than Benjamin Netanyahu. The way the Trump White House has interwoven US security, money and geopolitics with them runs much deeper. And, critically and relatedly, the Trump family’s business ties with them are infinitely deeper.

Phillips OBrien is more candid:

The Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, however, are facing a huge strategic problem. They clearly lack the capabilities to open the strait themselves. If Trump does walk away, they would be left with no recourse but to accept Iranian dictation to open their trade (for states such as Kuwait and Dubai, there will be no other alternative).

9

I agree that Trump wants a new, compliant Iranian government to emerge, and that means regime change.

My worry is that he’s been told that this will require a massive troop presence or the deployment of nuclear weapons.

For most presidents, that’s an untenable choice.

For Trump, it means he’s contemplating a nuclear strike.

10

Damn, I was hoping to delay the nuclear discussion for 24 hours. My take is there’s lots to discuss in the first 20 posts. The nuclear diversion can wait. Trump won’t nuke Iran next week. I do think it’s topical.

More from Josh Marshall:

2/ To be clear, I don’t think this is solely abt money or leverage. It’s more abt personal relationships embedded in those financial and alliance relationships. They also have a common authoritarian outlook. The gulf princes are his guys. People tend to listen to their guys. The money doesn’t hurt.

3/ This began to become clear to me in 2021. When Trump really looked to be on the outs for good MBS invested $2B in Jared Kushner’s new fund. People I spoke to …

5/ The final point is that I think it’s arguable that Israel’s arguments played a more important role getting Trump into this. But it’s the Gulf princes who are more key to keeping him in. They’re right there. Israel might be okay with a failed state Iran. The Saudis and the Gulf princes would not.

11

Ok, it’s been 24 hours.

With respect to Trump’s conduct of the Iran war, are nukes a realistic possibility? Yes. Heather Cox Richardson discusses:

In 2023 a book by New York Times Washington correspondent Michael Schmidt alleged that in 2017, when Trump was warning North Korean leader Kim Jong-un on social media that North Korea would be “met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before,” behind closed doors he was talking about launching a preemptive strike against North Korea and of using a nuclear weapon against the country and blaming someone else for the strike.

Schmidt reports that Trump’s White House chief of staff at the time, retired U.S. Marine Corps General John Kelly, brought military leaders to try to explain to Trump why that would be a bad idea and finally got him to move away from the plan by telling him he could prove he was the “greatest salesman in the world” by finding a diplomatic solution to his fight with the North Korean leader.

In his own book about that period, journalist Bob Woodward wrote: “The American people had little idea that July through September of 2017 had been so dangerous.”

But Trump’s secretary of state Mike Pompeo told Woodward: “We never knew whether it was real or whether it was a bluff.”

How much push-back would Trump receive if he ordered nukes? Tom Nichols, nuclear expert, author, academic, and staff writer for the Atlantic, commented on Bluesky last month:

12

I’d be very surprised if there would be much military resistance at all to him ordering a nuclear attack, especially after how he’s been purging the military of anyone insufficiently toady.

The idea sounds like the the latest iteration of how any day now the noble military will step in and save us from Trump. People have been pushing that since back during Trump’s first administration (remember how Jim Mattis would stop him?) but nothing of the sort ever happens.

13

Read my post again. Apparently John Kelly and a phalanx of military leaders talked Trump down from “… launching a preemptive strike against North Korea and of using a nuclear weapon against the country and blaming someone else for the strike.” Pompeo thought that might have been intended as a bluff, but he wasn’t sure.

So yeah, there will be military resistance to this lunacy, even with the purge of competent men like Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George and two other generals in the middle of a war by Hegseth. Whether it will be sufficient is something that I don’t know, and apparently neither does the nuclear expert Tom Nichols.

As noted by Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) , it’s past time for the 25th. I’m hearing crickets from Republican politicians.

14

He just admitted his reason is to take Iran’s oil. (The bolding is mine.)

15

So here we see the “logic”: trump can’t lose. Or rather can’t be seen to lose. So as soon as he can find a scapegoat that makes it look smarter for him to withdraw, that’ll be redefined as the wise winning move. And trump only ever makes wise winning moves.

So the American people are the losers who decided to stop the war; trump’s just the dedicated public servant carrying out their wishes.

What abject garbage from a POS human.

16

I mean, back in the late Nixon era the military had orders to check with the Secretary of Defense or Kissinger if they received any nuclear launch orders.

Of course, “The U.S. President has sole authority to authorize the use of U.S. nuclear weapons…”, but, you know…

17

There’s a huge difference between early in 45’s administration when he had not yet suborned most of the DoD and today when he has.

Whatever safety net was in place to prevent Nixon doing something rash 50 years ago is now a frayed and rotten tangle of thread. Might hold if tested by idjit trump, but I personally am sure not counting on it.

18

I’m not even sure he’s bothering with the “genetically” part. His current approach is “get upset that the Iranians won’t just admit that he’s won the war”. After all, simply declaring victory and/or success has worked so well on the domestic front, so why won’t foreign countries fall in line too? It’s so unfair…

19

Trump warns a ‘whole civilization will die tonight’ if a deal with Iran isn’t reached

That kind of threat certainly sounds like a threat of mass nuclear attack.

20

Let me guess: did an oracle tell him that if he attacks Persia, a great empire will be destroyed?