In his inaugural address this past January, Donald J. Trump declared that “my proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier.” He added, “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.” How does this statement square with his audacious bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites?
Trump has never been an isolationist. Instead, he is a unilateralist. This term was coined by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and journalist Richard Rovere in a 1951 book about General Douglas MacArthur and President Harry Truman, The General and the President. Their definition of unilateralist sounds familiar: “Go it alone; meet force with maximum counterforce; there is no substitute for victory; do not worry about consequences; these are the tenets of the new faith.”
In both the European and American press, Trump’s decision is essentially being depicted as reflecting this truculent disposition. To be sure, L’Express has referred to Trump’s foreign policy tergiversations. The Middle East is the region that propelled Trump to the top of the 2016 Republican primaries when he denounced the George W. Bush administration’s conduct of the Iraq War as based on specious lies.
But as the London Times observed, Trump may have changed less than some of his more impassioned critics (particularly in the MAGA base) are claiming. “Trump has always had the impulse to use the power of the American military at his disposal as commander-in-chief, when the goal appears immediate and limited and does not involve boots on the ground. In his first term he ordered a drone strike on Baghdad to kill the senior Iranian general Qasem Soleimani.” In 2017, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis warned him against targeting Syrian president Bashar al-Asad. Trump, in other words, has never been shy about deploying American military power, whenever and wherever he sees fit.
Trump’s decision is also largely being met with approbation in Germany, where Chancellor Friedrich Merz previously remarked that Israel was doing Europe’s “dirty work.” Malte Lehming, a columnist for the Berlin Tagesspiegel, emailed me that “for the first time in the history of Israel’s existence, it is not menaced from abroad. It owes this to Donald Trump and his bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities. For this great deed Israel must be grateful and now take up the immense project of creating a worthy and secure homeland for the Palestinians. Israel has never been as strong as it is now. But with strength also comes with obligations.” The Sueddeustche Zeitung concluded that “the mullahs have badly miscalculated,” suffering the “greatest humiliation in its history.”
In America, the fallout to Trump’s decision has occurred on more traditional political lines. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which has long called for bombing Iran, voiced its approval, “Trump Meets the Moment on Iran.” A good number of Trump’s MAGA followers are also on board. The political activist and podcaster Charlie Kirk declared, “Iran gave President no choice.” Former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz wrote that “President basically wants this to be like the Solimani strike—one and done. No regime change war. Trump the Peacemaker!”
More traditional hawks such as Senators Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham are elated. For Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has inveighed against Iran for over a decade, Trump’s move marks a kind of vindication. But as Curt Mills, the executive director of the anti-interventionist American Conservative, warns, the hawks now own Iran. “It’s time to take the hawks at their word,” he says. “Is this really about the nuclear sites? Is the job done? There are already early calls to `clean up’ the remaining nuclear materials, allegations that material was moved and complaints of new nuclear sites. It will seemingly never end until an American president ends this dynamic.”
For now, however, it is the Democrats who are most divided over Trump’s bombing of Iran. Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, holding up the right flank, lauded Trump’s decision. The progressive wing, led by AOC, denounces it as reckless and unconstitutional. Senator Tim Kaine, who was Hillary Clinton’s running mate in 2016, decried what he called Trump’s “horrible judgment” and insisted that he would “push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.”
Will the Iran strike turn into a larger conflict that sends crude oil prices soaring? Or has Trump successfully bombed Iranian nuclear sites and ensured that Iran will not be able to retaliate in any serious fashion? Trump’s presidency will rise or fall on his ability to guide the conflict that he has now entered.
