SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
US President Donald Trump speaks about the situation with Iran in the Grand Foyer of the White House in Washington DC, United States ,on January 8, 2020. (Photo by Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Now We Know for Certain Trump Will Do Anything to Win in 2020--Even Start a War
Though a failed realtor, Trump was a successful reality show star. And he knows how to entertain people with fake conflict.
Jan 07, 2020
President Trump was impeached for secretly distorting our Ukrainian policy to get himself elected. But there were so many leaks that he learned his lesson. This time he's openly distorting our Iranian policy to get elected.
Trump's dramatic distractions hardly surprise us anymore. It's the pathetically undramatic reactions of his critics that really worry me this time.
In the first few hours after we learned that the U.S. military had killed Iran's Qassem Suleimani, TV pundits tried to explain to a presumably clueless Donald Trump that there could be repercussions. Could be? Repercussions are the point. There may be other reasons for killing this particular Iranian. But Trump's purpose was to provoke a response that will make him a war-time president.
Here's how we can be sure of his motive.
Normally, when a government orders an assassination, the operation is veiled with "plausible deniability." That's not the same thing as trying to hide who did it. When Putin sent an agent to kill a man in England the assassin used a poison associated with Russia's secret police. Putin's foes were meant to have no doubt about who ordered the job. But Putin didn't go on TV to cross a name off his enemies list. Proud as must have been, he claimed publicly that he knew nothing about it.
That gave the British government options. They could have expelled Russian diplomats, tied up Russian money, maybe even put out a contract on Putin. But they would first investigate and gather definitive proof to punish the guilty parties in their own good time. The U.S. adopted the same wait-till-it-blows-over strategy when Trump's favorite Saudi Prince had a journalist chopped up in a Saudi embassy. We're still waiting for definitive proof on that one.
But instead of building deniability into the Suleimani mission, Trump posted a full-screen American flag on his website to announce its success. By the next day, he was taking bows all around. What options does that leave a poor ranting Mullah?
If, due to caution and their true weakness, the Iranians stop with a retaliation that isn't macho enough, Trump can claim a victory and goad them again closer to the election. These militarists know how to press each other's buttons because they understand the needs of their respective "bases."
What about Trump's claim that he had to act now in order to head off a specific Iranian plan against us. That has some built-in truthiness. Suleimani is the General who coordinates Iran's support for those Middle East militias that harry the U.S. and Saudi backed gangs. That's what he was doing in Iraq the day he was killed. That's what he does every day.
If you believe that there was something new afoot that required action now--shortly before his impeachment trial--then you probably still believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
I can think of only one way for Trump to justify his timing. He could remind us that "Because of Obama, Iranians don't currently have nuclear weapons. But because of me they soon may. So we want our war as soon as possible." That's almost plausible but I don't think he'll say it.
If I was depressed to hear pundits instruct innocent Donald Trump on possible reprisals for killing Suleimani, think how I feel hearing Democrats instruct him on the proper way to start a war: "Under our constitution, Sir, one needs a congressional declaration."
Haven't they learned anything from the impeachment hearings? Trump's response to their constitutional, procedural, and moral case was neither denial nor admission. His highly successful defense was: "This is boring." Let's not be boring again.
Our winning message is not a civics lesson on the separation of powers. "You can't have your war because you forgot to say 'May I.'" Besides, what would the Democrats do if they got their constitutional right to a roll call vote? The last time a president said "May I?" was before the Iraq war. Most Democrats answered yes.
This time many Democrats seem to be saying something like: "He's got the right enemy but he's too erratic to lead a U.S. war. Vote for us." That won't do.
With or without Congress, Trump will try to make himself a wartime president. We have to be honest, "don't change horses in midstream" usually carries the day. And this president, though a failed realtor, was a successful reality show star. He knows how to entertain people with fake conflict. Unfortunately, when war comes off the TV screen it can hurt for real.
An American president tried to pressure the Ukrainians into harming one particular American--Joe Biden. Then he tried taunting the Iranians into harming many Americans. Donald Trump will do anything to win.
Our response must be a straight forward anti-war movement. No matter how hard he drags us, we've got to keep ourselves far from mid-stream.
On January 20th, it begins...
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. Our Year-End campaign is our most important fundraiser of the year. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Barbara Garson
Barbara Garson is the author of the play "MacBird" and four books focused on work including: "All the Livelong Day: The Meaning and Demeaning of Routine Work" and "Down the Up Escalator: How the 99% Live."
President Trump was impeached for secretly distorting our Ukrainian policy to get himself elected. But there were so many leaks that he learned his lesson. This time he's openly distorting our Iranian policy to get elected.
Trump's dramatic distractions hardly surprise us anymore. It's the pathetically undramatic reactions of his critics that really worry me this time.
In the first few hours after we learned that the U.S. military had killed Iran's Qassem Suleimani, TV pundits tried to explain to a presumably clueless Donald Trump that there could be repercussions. Could be? Repercussions are the point. There may be other reasons for killing this particular Iranian. But Trump's purpose was to provoke a response that will make him a war-time president.
Here's how we can be sure of his motive.
Normally, when a government orders an assassination, the operation is veiled with "plausible deniability." That's not the same thing as trying to hide who did it. When Putin sent an agent to kill a man in England the assassin used a poison associated with Russia's secret police. Putin's foes were meant to have no doubt about who ordered the job. But Putin didn't go on TV to cross a name off his enemies list. Proud as must have been, he claimed publicly that he knew nothing about it.
That gave the British government options. They could have expelled Russian diplomats, tied up Russian money, maybe even put out a contract on Putin. But they would first investigate and gather definitive proof to punish the guilty parties in their own good time. The U.S. adopted the same wait-till-it-blows-over strategy when Trump's favorite Saudi Prince had a journalist chopped up in a Saudi embassy. We're still waiting for definitive proof on that one.
But instead of building deniability into the Suleimani mission, Trump posted a full-screen American flag on his website to announce its success. By the next day, he was taking bows all around. What options does that leave a poor ranting Mullah?
If, due to caution and their true weakness, the Iranians stop with a retaliation that isn't macho enough, Trump can claim a victory and goad them again closer to the election. These militarists know how to press each other's buttons because they understand the needs of their respective "bases."
What about Trump's claim that he had to act now in order to head off a specific Iranian plan against us. That has some built-in truthiness. Suleimani is the General who coordinates Iran's support for those Middle East militias that harry the U.S. and Saudi backed gangs. That's what he was doing in Iraq the day he was killed. That's what he does every day.
If you believe that there was something new afoot that required action now--shortly before his impeachment trial--then you probably still believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
I can think of only one way for Trump to justify his timing. He could remind us that "Because of Obama, Iranians don't currently have nuclear weapons. But because of me they soon may. So we want our war as soon as possible." That's almost plausible but I don't think he'll say it.
If I was depressed to hear pundits instruct innocent Donald Trump on possible reprisals for killing Suleimani, think how I feel hearing Democrats instruct him on the proper way to start a war: "Under our constitution, Sir, one needs a congressional declaration."
Haven't they learned anything from the impeachment hearings? Trump's response to their constitutional, procedural, and moral case was neither denial nor admission. His highly successful defense was: "This is boring." Let's not be boring again.
Our winning message is not a civics lesson on the separation of powers. "You can't have your war because you forgot to say 'May I.'" Besides, what would the Democrats do if they got their constitutional right to a roll call vote? The last time a president said "May I?" was before the Iraq war. Most Democrats answered yes.
This time many Democrats seem to be saying something like: "He's got the right enemy but he's too erratic to lead a U.S. war. Vote for us." That won't do.
With or without Congress, Trump will try to make himself a wartime president. We have to be honest, "don't change horses in midstream" usually carries the day. And this president, though a failed realtor, was a successful reality show star. He knows how to entertain people with fake conflict. Unfortunately, when war comes off the TV screen it can hurt for real.
An American president tried to pressure the Ukrainians into harming one particular American--Joe Biden. Then he tried taunting the Iranians into harming many Americans. Donald Trump will do anything to win.
Our response must be a straight forward anti-war movement. No matter how hard he drags us, we've got to keep ourselves far from mid-stream.
Barbara Garson
Barbara Garson is the author of the play "MacBird" and four books focused on work including: "All the Livelong Day: The Meaning and Demeaning of Routine Work" and "Down the Up Escalator: How the 99% Live."
President Trump was impeached for secretly distorting our Ukrainian policy to get himself elected. But there were so many leaks that he learned his lesson. This time he's openly distorting our Iranian policy to get elected.
Trump's dramatic distractions hardly surprise us anymore. It's the pathetically undramatic reactions of his critics that really worry me this time.
In the first few hours after we learned that the U.S. military had killed Iran's Qassem Suleimani, TV pundits tried to explain to a presumably clueless Donald Trump that there could be repercussions. Could be? Repercussions are the point. There may be other reasons for killing this particular Iranian. But Trump's purpose was to provoke a response that will make him a war-time president.
Here's how we can be sure of his motive.
Normally, when a government orders an assassination, the operation is veiled with "plausible deniability." That's not the same thing as trying to hide who did it. When Putin sent an agent to kill a man in England the assassin used a poison associated with Russia's secret police. Putin's foes were meant to have no doubt about who ordered the job. But Putin didn't go on TV to cross a name off his enemies list. Proud as must have been, he claimed publicly that he knew nothing about it.
That gave the British government options. They could have expelled Russian diplomats, tied up Russian money, maybe even put out a contract on Putin. But they would first investigate and gather definitive proof to punish the guilty parties in their own good time. The U.S. adopted the same wait-till-it-blows-over strategy when Trump's favorite Saudi Prince had a journalist chopped up in a Saudi embassy. We're still waiting for definitive proof on that one.
But instead of building deniability into the Suleimani mission, Trump posted a full-screen American flag on his website to announce its success. By the next day, he was taking bows all around. What options does that leave a poor ranting Mullah?
If, due to caution and their true weakness, the Iranians stop with a retaliation that isn't macho enough, Trump can claim a victory and goad them again closer to the election. These militarists know how to press each other's buttons because they understand the needs of their respective "bases."
What about Trump's claim that he had to act now in order to head off a specific Iranian plan against us. That has some built-in truthiness. Suleimani is the General who coordinates Iran's support for those Middle East militias that harry the U.S. and Saudi backed gangs. That's what he was doing in Iraq the day he was killed. That's what he does every day.
If you believe that there was something new afoot that required action now--shortly before his impeachment trial--then you probably still believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
I can think of only one way for Trump to justify his timing. He could remind us that "Because of Obama, Iranians don't currently have nuclear weapons. But because of me they soon may. So we want our war as soon as possible." That's almost plausible but I don't think he'll say it.
If I was depressed to hear pundits instruct innocent Donald Trump on possible reprisals for killing Suleimani, think how I feel hearing Democrats instruct him on the proper way to start a war: "Under our constitution, Sir, one needs a congressional declaration."
Haven't they learned anything from the impeachment hearings? Trump's response to their constitutional, procedural, and moral case was neither denial nor admission. His highly successful defense was: "This is boring." Let's not be boring again.
Our winning message is not a civics lesson on the separation of powers. "You can't have your war because you forgot to say 'May I.'" Besides, what would the Democrats do if they got their constitutional right to a roll call vote? The last time a president said "May I?" was before the Iraq war. Most Democrats answered yes.
This time many Democrats seem to be saying something like: "He's got the right enemy but he's too erratic to lead a U.S. war. Vote for us." That won't do.
With or without Congress, Trump will try to make himself a wartime president. We have to be honest, "don't change horses in midstream" usually carries the day. And this president, though a failed realtor, was a successful reality show star. He knows how to entertain people with fake conflict. Unfortunately, when war comes off the TV screen it can hurt for real.
An American president tried to pressure the Ukrainians into harming one particular American--Joe Biden. Then he tried taunting the Iranians into harming many Americans. Donald Trump will do anything to win.
Our response must be a straight forward anti-war movement. No matter how hard he drags us, we've got to keep ourselves far from mid-stream.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.