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

erronis

(23,324 posts)
Fri Feb 20, 2026, 04:50 PM Yesterday

The 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 :

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
... or take out a few antifa enclaves. erronis Yesterday #2

muriel_volestrangler

(105,922 posts)
1. Or maybe there's no-one telling him to not use nuclear weapons in this term
Fri Feb 20, 2026, 05:15 PM
Yesterday
* 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 O’Reilly 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, “I’m 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 Trump’s many displays of ignorance had occasioned the label. Now we know. It seems to have been the president’s 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. I’m 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.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Next Crisis -- Digby ...