Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Next Crisis -- Digby and The New York Times - David Sanger
https://digbysblog.net/2026/02/20/the-next-crisis/
The NY Times' David Sanger (gift link) reports :
He's said it's about the nuclear program which he previously claimed was "obliterated." Then he said that he wanted to support the protesters. He's doing it on behalf of Israel and for oil prices. he's all over the place.
. . .
I'm not a big fan of the "distraction" theory but if there's any truth to it, this would certainly be the mother of all distractions.
. . .
When President George W. Bush began preparing the country for the invasion of Iraq, he traveled the country making the case that Saddam Hussein's government, and its weapons, posed an unacceptable threat to the United States.
Speaking in Cincinnati's Union Terminal one October night in 2002, he warned that Iraq could attack the United States "on any given day" with chemical or biological weapons. He compared the urgency of the moment to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, declaring doing nothing was "the riskiest of all options."
Most of Mr. Bush's arguments turned out to be fanciful, based on selective intelligence and in some cases outright false claims. The war that followed is now considered by many historians as one of the gravest American strategic errors of modern times.
But if Mr. Bush made a false case, President Trump, facing a decision about whether to unleash a second major military assault on Iran in less than a year, has made almost no case at all.
He's said it's about the nuclear program which he previously claimed was "obliterated." Then he said that he wanted to support the protesters. He's doing it on behalf of Israel and for oil prices. he's all over the place.
Mr. Trump has never consistently described his goals, and when he talks about them it is usually in a haze of brief, offhand comments. The president has given no speeches preparing the American public for a strike on a country of about 90 million people, and sought no approval from Congress. He has not explained why he has chosen this moment to confront Iran instead of, for example, North Korea, which in the years after Mr. Trump's failed negotiations in the first term has expanded its nuclear arsenal to 60 or more warheads, by U.S. intelligence estimates, and is working to demonstrate they can reach the United States.
Mr. Trump's national security strategy did not mention North Korea once.
And when pressed on Iran, Mr. Trump regularly deflects questions about whether regime change is his true goal, leaving unclear what kind of end-state he seeks -- other than an Iran that can never obtain nuclear weapons.
. . .
Rarely in modern times has the United States prepared to conduct a major act of war with so little explanation and so little public debate. As Mr. Trump gathered the first meeting of the "Board of Peace" at the White House to discuss the rebuilding of Gaza, he veered briefly into the topic of imminent action in Iran, describing only the vaguest of objectives.
. . .
I'm not a big fan of the "distraction" theory but if there's any truth to it, this would certainly be the mother of all distractions.
. . .
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Next Crisis -- Digby and The New York Times - David Sanger (Original Post)
erronis
Yesterday
OP
Or maybe there's no-one telling him to not use nuclear weapons in this term
muriel_volestrangler
Yesterday
#1
muriel_volestrangler
(105,922 posts)1. Or maybe there's no-one telling him to not use nuclear weapons in this term
* He has repeatedly expressed a personal fascination with nuclear weapons, although he seems to have little idea of what their actual use might mean. In March 2016, for instance, he told The OReilly Factor on Fox News that he might even consider using nuclear weapons in Europe, which he called a big place, as if some parts of it might be legitimate nuclear targets. And he added, Im not going to take cards off the table. At an MSNBC town hall that same month, he proposed using nuclear weapons against the caliphate of the Islamic State. Nuclear weapons directed against guerrilla fighters? That makes so much sense!
When Chris Matthews suggested that Japanese citizens might be nervous on hearing a presidential candidate bring up the use of nuclear weapons, Trump responded by asking, Then why are we making them? Why do we make them? It might be a reasonable question, if someone other than Donald Trump had been asking it.
When word first surfaced that his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had called him a moron, some of us wondered which of Trumps many displays of ignorance had occasioned the label. Now we know. It seems to have been the presidents suggestion, at a July 2017 national security briefing, that the United States should increase its current nuclear arsenal of around 4,000 warheads by a factor of 10.
* The advisers Trump seems to respect the most at the moment are generals or former generals, including his chief of staff John Kelly, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. Commentators (including some on the liberal end of the spectrum) like to think of this coterie of military men as the grown-ups in the Trumpian room. Im not convinced, but even if they are more temperamentally suited to governing than this president, they have a tendency, not surprisingly, to reach first for military solutions to diplomatic problems.
https://www.salon.com/2017/10/30/trumps-nuclear-dreams_partner/
When Chris Matthews suggested that Japanese citizens might be nervous on hearing a presidential candidate bring up the use of nuclear weapons, Trump responded by asking, Then why are we making them? Why do we make them? It might be a reasonable question, if someone other than Donald Trump had been asking it.
When word first surfaced that his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had called him a moron, some of us wondered which of Trumps many displays of ignorance had occasioned the label. Now we know. It seems to have been the presidents suggestion, at a July 2017 national security briefing, that the United States should increase its current nuclear arsenal of around 4,000 warheads by a factor of 10.
* The advisers Trump seems to respect the most at the moment are generals or former generals, including his chief of staff John Kelly, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. Commentators (including some on the liberal end of the spectrum) like to think of this coterie of military men as the grown-ups in the Trumpian room. Im not convinced, but even if they are more temperamentally suited to governing than this president, they have a tendency, not surprisingly, to reach first for military solutions to diplomatic problems.
https://www.salon.com/2017/10/30/trumps-nuclear-dreams_partner/
Compared to the idiots and killing-enthusiasts around him now, Kelly, Mattis, and McMaster were pacificists. It's possible he'll end up nuking a Revolutionary Guard site just to show the world he can.
erronis
(23,324 posts)2. ... or take out a few antifa enclaves.