Trump Admin.: The Buck Stops with Israel

The clown show at the top of the United States government continued yesterday. Cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump still appears to have no idea why he launched a war against Iran, what he hopes to achieve from it, or how he expects it to end. As such, it was left to others in his administration to attempt to fill these gaps. In the end, the best story the administration could come up with essentially came down to "Trump didn't start a war." We used to scoff at Russian President Vladimir Putin's claim that Russia was not involved in a war with Ukraine, but rather a "special military operation." But now the Trump administration tells us to ignore our lyin' eyes. What's happening in the Middle East is not a war, but simply "major combat operations." Never mind that Trump himself referred to the conflict as a "war." Of course, the administration does not want to use the word "war" because the U.S. Constitution is very clear that only Congress has the power to declare war, and not only has it not done so, the administration does not want it to take such action. The result was that once again, yesterday was a contradictory display of U.S. military technical competence while the political leadership continued to reveal itself as a collection of buffoons.

Yesterday I discussed several justifications that U.S. officials had provided for launching the attack. Most of them did not stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny. However, I noted that a claim by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the U.S. had acted because Israel was going to attack regardless of what the United States did was the most believable. It seems that administration officials came to the same conclusion and settled on this explanation. Throughout the day yesterday, this justification was being repeated. Rubio publicly reiterated the remarks about which I wrote yesterday, saying "We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces" and that the U.S. had, therefore, acted preemptively. Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson also aired this justification, saying "If Israel fired upon Iran and took action against Iran to take out the missiles, then they [the Iranians] would have immediately retaliated against U.S. personnel and assets."

I am not sure that those making the claim that the U.S. had been forced into this conflict because of Israel had really thought through the implications. A week ago, anyone claiming that Israel was leading the U.S. into a war would have been branded an "antisemite." Now, this appears to be the official U.S. policy. Needless to say, those who have been claiming that the U.S. is controlled by Israel claimed that this justified their accusations. But, mainstream politicians also reacted negatively. Democratic Representative Joaquin Castro tweeted that:

Secretary Rubio's remarks indicate that Israel put U.S. forces in harm's way by insisting on attacking Iran. And the administration was complicit—joining their war instead of talking them down.

This is unacceptable of the President, and unacceptable of a country that calls itself our ally.

Democratic Senator Mark Warner, a moderate who previously said that all options for dealing with Iran should be on the table, told reporters that:

There was no imminent threat to the United States by the Iranians. There was a threat to Israel. If we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent threat to the US, then we are in uncharted territory.

Similarly, Republican Representative Thomas Massie tweeted:

The administration admits 🇮🇱 dragged us into the 🇮🇷 war that’s already cost too many American lives and billions of dollars. Before it’s over, the price of gas, groceries, and virtually everything else is going to go up. The only winners in 🇺🇸 are defense company shareholders.

The administration's justification did not go over very well in MAGAland either. MAGA influencer Matt Walsh responded to Rubio's remarks by writing, "So he's flat out telling us that we're in a war with Iran because Israel forced our hand. This is basically the worst possible thing he could have said."

However, the suggestion that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was running U.S. foreign policy only got stronger as the day went on. Axios correspondent Barak Ravid, who often appears to serve as the mouthpiece of the U.S. Department of State and the Israeli foreign ministry, reported a "scoop" that "President Trump spoke by phone with Kurdish leaders in Iraq on Sunday to discuss the U.S.-Israel war with Iran and what might come next." For those not familiar with the Kurds and the history of their relations with the United States, there is quite a bit of important background. I will get to that in a bit. But why this relates to Israel is due to further reporting by Ravid saying that "The calls were the culmination of months of behind-the-scenes lobbying by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu". Ravid also wrote that:

Netanyahu, who "has been relentless" in urging strikes on and regime change in Iran, first advocated for the Kurds in a White House meeting with Trump.

"When he first came over and sat with Trump for hours, you would have thought Netanyahu had it all figured out," the official said.

"He had the successor planned out. He had the Kurds all figured out: Two sets of Kurdish groups here and there. This many people are going to rise up," the official added.

It is almost ironic that Netanyahu, and apparently Trump, may be turning to the Kurds now. Kurds span several countries in the Middle East with large communities in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. They have frequently sought to establish their own state, resulting in conflict with the countries in which they live. The U.S. has occasionally found them to be useful allies to pressure hostile governments. But when the Kurds have outlived their usefulness, the U.S. has abandoned them. Repeatedly. In the early 1970s, the U.S. armed Iraqi Kurds and encouraged them to rebel against Saddam Hussein. When Saddam showed that he was willing to accommodate U.S. demands, the U.S. summarily ended its support of the Kurds, leading to their defeat at Saddam's hands. Another Kurdish rebellion took place in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, leading to the Al-Anfal campaign in which Saddam's forces killed an estimated 182,000 Kurds.

In the 1991 Gulf War, the Kurds again rebelled against Saddam. This time they managed to push Iraqi forces out of the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq and the U.S. and its allies established a no-fly zone over the region. However, the Kurds failed to receive U.S. support for their independence. The Kurds were later instrumental in the U.S. invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam. However, the Kurds again were denied support for independence. Furthermore, the U.S.-supported Iraq army defeated the Kurdish fighters, or Peshmerga, in 2017, during Trump's first term as president.

Turkey has had a very contentious history with the Kurds and has aggressively suppressed them within Turkey. Turkey has repeatedly attacked the Kurds in Iraq and Syria. Kurds in both Iraq and Syria have been strong allies of the U.S. against the Islamic State. However, in 2019, also during Trump's first term, Turkey launched attacks against the Kurds in northern Syria. Trump explicitly took Turkey's side in the conflict, bizarrely justifying it because "They [the Kurds] didn't help us in the Second World War. They didn't help us with Normandy, as an example."

Even after the attacks by Turkey, the Kurds and the U.S. continued their cooperation combatting the Islamic State. However, things became more difficult after Bashar al-Assad fled the country and power was assumed by an opposition coalition of Sunni Muslims. The Kurds were left out of the new government, and the Kurdish groups soon found themselves on the outs with Syria's new leaders. When fighting broke out between the two sides, Trump sided with the Syrian government, abandoning the Kurds again. The United States could not be more clear that the Kurds were simply no longer useful. Tom Barrack, a longtime Trump friend and U.S. Ambassador to Turkey stated that "The original purpose of the SDF [the Kurdish fighting force] as the primary anti-ISIS [IS] force on the ground has largely expired." Trump abandoned the Kurds for the third time.

Given the history of the U.S. abandoning the Kurds, and Trump personally doing it three times, I am not sure why Kurdish leaders would give him the time of day. Nevertheless, Kurdish leaders have repeatedly acted like Charlie Brown and the football, certain that this time they won't be tricked. The Iranians don't appear willing to wait to find out. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards announced today that they had targeted dissident groups in Iraqi Kurdistan that were planning attacks against Iran.

At any rate, Netanyahu may have been able to make a convincing case to Trump that the Kurds are the solution to the Iran problem, but this is really a Pandora's box that could have ramifications for Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, as well as Iran. I have serious doubts that Trump has any inkling of the complications of pushing Iraqi Kurds to get involved in Iran. The most likely outcome of a Kurdish uprising in Iran is a civil war.

As if this wasn't enough to convince many Americans that Netanyahu was running the war rather than Trump, Netanyahu appeared on Fox News' "Hannity" show to try to sell the war to an apparently skeptical audience. It is notable both that Trump has made little effort to make a case for the war to those he represents and that Netanyahu has made no similar effort in Israel. Having Netanyahu serve as the spokesperson for the war effort, excuse me "major combat operations," is hardly going to convince Americans that Trump is pursuing an "America First" policy.

If lives were not on the line, the current situation in America would almost be funny. We have a dull-witted leader who literally doesn't know why he started a war and is fumbling for possible justifications. A Secretary of State who says with a straight face that it is because of the actions of one of our closest allies, thereby unleashing the evils of antisemitism and giving credence to the suggestion that Israel calls the shots for the United States. Then there is word that the Israeli leader is also pitching a foolish plan that, even in the best scenarios, will likely result in Trump abandoning the Kurds once again. Finally, the same Israeli leader has appointed himself spokesperson for the war effort. I don't think Trump could do more damage to his MAGA brand if he intentionally set out to do so. I assume that by tomorrow, the administration will have realized the problems with appointing Netanyahu the leader of the U.S. war effort and will have come up with another idea. It will be interesting to see what that might be.