Trump’s Line in Sand: Iran Can’t Have Nukes
What Should President Trump Do If That Line Has Been Crossed?
The pivotal question of the moment in the Iran-Israeli war is now “Will Donald Trump attack Iran?”
Corporate media is convinced that he already has decided he will.
President Trump told senior aides late Tuesday that he approved of attack plans for Iran, but was holding off on giving the final order to see if Tehran will abandon its nuclear program, three people familiar with the deliberations said.
Since his private instructions in the White House Situation Room to the military, Trump has disclosed publicly that an attack is an option.
Was Tucker Carlson right after all? Will there now be “all out war”?
The only rational and even sane answer to that question is always “I do not know.”
I do not know if Donald Trump actually will attack Iran.
Tucker Carlson does not know if Donald Trump actually will attack Iran.
Corporate media does not know if Donald Trump actually will attack Iran.
What any of us know is that Donald Trump may attack Iran.
A number of my readers have expressed support for the US joining Israel’s attacks to varying degrees.
Others are opposed.
Perhaps the better question to ask is “should Donald Trump attack Iran?”
How a person answers that question hinges mightily on how they view the war, the countries involved, and the United States overall.
We should note that Donald Trump has already stated his casus belli for attacking Iran, and reiterated it from the Oval Office earlier today.
Reporter: Have you seen the Tucker Carlson, Senator Ted Cruz interview? It seems like this issue on whether or not the United States should strike is kind of dividing a lot of your supporters.
Donald Trump: No, my supporters are for me. My supporters are America first. They make America great again. My supporters don't want to see Iran have a nuclear weapon.
Tucker's a nice guy. He called and apologized the other day because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong, and I appreciated that. And Ted Cruz is a nice guy. I mean, he's been with me for a long time. I'd say once the race was over, he's been with me ever since, right?
But very simple. If they think that it's okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, then they should oppose me, but nobody thinks it's okay. People that don't want... I don't want to fight either. I'm not looking to fight. But if it's a choice between fighting and them having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do.
Maybe we won't have to fight. Don't forget, we haven't been fighting. We add a certain amount of genius to everything, but we haven't been fighting at all. Israel's done a very good job of that.
But we'll see what happens. The bottom line is they can't have nuclear. And if Ted, I can't imagine that Ted Cruz said it's okay for Iran to have nuclear, including Tucker. I don't think Tucker says it's okay. The problem is then they get themselves into a thing. They don't want them to have nuclear, but then they say, well, we don't want to fight. Well, you're going to have to make a choice because it's possible that you're going to have to fight for them not to have nuclear.
And it's interesting because I did ask Tucker. I said, well, are you okay with… nuclear weapons being in the hands of Iran. And he sort of didn't like that. He didn't want to really, but he sort of didn't like that. And I said, well, if it's okay with you, then you and I do have a difference. But it's really not okay with him.
Therefore, you may have to fight. And maybe it'll end, and maybe it'll end very quickly. But there's no way that you can allow, whether you have to fight or not, you can allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon because the entire world will blow up. I'm not going to let that happen.
This is a position with which one may agree or disagree, and which many no doubt will disagree.
Yet the internal logic of President Trump’s position is quite sound. His policy position is that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons and cannot have a nuclear weapons program. He has been consistent on this point for years.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated that position when the US and Iran first began negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program:
So I think if in fact – Iran likes to say they’re not interested in nuclear weapons. They like to say all they want is peaceful nuclear energy. Then they should not be afraid of inspections by inspectors of any kind, including Americans.
And look, there’s a win here for Iran, okay? They can actually have real economic development, can have real investment in their country, but they have to walk away from sponsoring terrorists, they have to walk away from helping the Houthis, they have to walk away from building long-range missiles that have no purpose to exist other than having nuclear weapons, and they have to walk away from enrichment.
There is little doubt that Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons. The IAEA finding traces of highly enriched (83.7%) uranium at Iran’s Fordow enrichment site admits of no other conclusion.
When the IAEA censured Iran over their non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran threatened to withdraw from the NPT. That is hardly the action of a country with no interest in possessing nuclear weapons.
Iran’s parliament in recent days has prepared a bill which, if passed, would begin the withdrawal process.
That Iran is determined to enrich to whatever level they desire has been, regardless of the strictures of the NPT, is a position they made clear after the IAEA censure, and which has been a sticking point throughout their talks with the Trump Administration.
Iran’s position is not reconcilable with President Trump’s position. One or the other must give way, or conflict will ensue.
Clearly, conflict has ensued.
Is Donald Trump wrong about the consequences of a nuclearized Iran? If he is, he is not alone. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has publicly stated that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the Kingdom will also seek to acquire nuclear weapons.
Israel has for years declared a nuclearized Iran to be an existential threat. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in an interview last week with Fox News’ Bret Baier, asserted that not only was Iran “weeks” away from weaponizing enriched uranium, but that it was committed to building up an arsenal of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads.
We should note that Iranian officials have publicly promised to “wipe out” Israel in the past. A primary reason Israel views Iran as an existential threat is because Iran has made existential threats toward Israel.
Consequently, if there is one policy on which Saudi Arabia and Israel find clear agreement, it is that a nuclearized Iran is a threat.
With the IAEA willing to censure Iran over its non-compliance with the NPT, one certainly cannot say that Donald Trump stands alone in the world with his declaration that Iran cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.
However, once one draws that policy line in the sand, the question of “what are you prepared to do?” takes on immediate relevance.
If diplomatic efforts do not dissuade Iran from enriching uranium and pursuing nuclear weapons, how far should the United States—or any nation—go in order to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?
If the choice is between a nuclearized Iran and fighting Iran, should Donald Trump refrain from fighting Iran?
If the choice is between a nuclearized Iran and Tucker Carlson’s “all out war” scenario, should Donald Trump choose a nuclearized Iran over waging “all out war”?
President Trump has made his policy stance clear: Iran must surrender its nuclear weapons program, including all enrichment efforts, or Israel’s attacks will continue, and the US may very well join in those attacks.
Is that the right policy? People will reach their own conclusions on that point.
I will not attempt to predict what Donald Trump will do, whether he will or will not attack Iran.
What I will say is that Donald Trump’s stated casus belli is sound:
Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, not “peaceful” enrichment for civilian purposes.
Iran would rather withdraw from the NPT than give up its weapons program.
Iranian nuclear weapons would be serious threat to the Middle East and to the globe.
Iran has threatened to wipe the nation of Israel from the face of the Earth.
Trump is seeking only to dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons program. That is a precise and limited objective.
With that as his policy framework, should Donald Trump order an attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities, such an order cannot be construed as reckless or ill-considered. Given his policy stance, such an order may very well be inevitable, unless Iran elects to surrender its nuclear weapons program first.
I am a man of peace. I do not want to see any nation at war with any other nation.
I do not want to see Israel at war with Iran.
I do not want to see the United States at war with Iran.
At the same time, I do not want to see Iran with nuclear weapons. I do not want to see the Middle Eastern nuclear arms race that Saudi Arabia has already said would result from Iran having nuclear weapons. I do not want to see Israel attacked with nuclear weapons.
If the choice is between Israel’s continued existence and Iran having nuclear weapons I choose Israel’s continued existence.
If the choice is between the US attacking Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities and Iran having nuclear weapons, I choose for the US to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities.
I do not want the US to attack Iran. I will continue to support President Trump if he does order the US to attack Iran.
Because the world cannot allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
As always Peter, I appreciate your clarity and precision in the way you write. I agree with everything you’ve written concerning this situation and I too will support President Trump IF he ends up ordering an attack, I hope it doesn’t have to come to that.
A nuclear Iran IS all out war