Washington Post: Trump is about to repeat Bush’s mistakes in the Middle East

Two American writers said that a US strike on Iran could easily turn into an all-out war, opposed by Americans on both the right and left, and that getting involved in it would be a great folly.

Matthew Dass, a consultant to progressive lawmakers, and Sohrab Ahmari, a conservative editor, explain that President Donald Trump has now chosen to join Israel’s reckless war with Iran, derailing his proven diplomatic negotiations, putting the nation on the brink of a new quagmire, and representing a grave betrayal of the millions of Americans who supported him in his pursuit of domestic renaissance, not foreign adventures.

In their Washington Post article, the authors noted that Trump outperformed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016 because he criticized America’s wars after the September 11 attacks, describing them as a “disaster”.

Former President Joe Biden won in 2020 because of his opposition to Middle East wars, and Trump’s recent campaign triumphed because of his pledge to “prevent World War III”.

The article note that, despite their careers being at odds, they are united today in their fear of the possibility of a direct conflict between Iran and the United States and their determination to avoid it, along with a number of lawmakers and some of the most prominent voices in the Trump-friendly “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement.

In addition, a recent poll showed that only 16% of Americans believe the US military should intervene in the conflict between Israel and Iran, while 60% believe it shouldn’t.

Another poll showed that a large majority of Americans support resorting to diplomacy to address Iran’s nuclear program rather than war.

The authors note that hawks among the war advocates imagine that the matter boils down to a quick strike on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, echoing boastful statements that preceded the invasion of Iraq, stating that President George W. Bush’s war would be a “picnic,” but any American war against Iran would not be quick at all.

Trump has now chosen to join Israel’s reckless war with Iran, potentially plunging the nation into a new quagmire, and a grave betrayal of the millions of Americans who supported him in pursuit of domestic renaissance, not foreign adventures.

Although the Israeli military achieved some impressive results in the early days of the conflict, as did the US military in the first days and weeks in Iraq, the problem, the authors argue, is what comes after the dust settles from the initial strikes.

Even US attacks Fordo, and the Trump administration convinces itself that a single operation has achieved all that is necessary, the Iranian leadership will feel the need to escalate.

It could close the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of the world’s oil supply passes, and target US bases across the Middle East with an arsenal of advanced missiles that haven’t yet been affected by Israeli airstrikes, the authors write.

There is no doubt that attacks on US bases will require Washington to respond in kind, starting another war in the Middle East, and devoting a generation of Americans to a needless conflict.

Israel aims to bring about the collapse or overthrow of the Iranian regime, creating chaos that could destabilize neighboring countries and sensitive US interests, and driving millions of migrants to a weary Europe.

The article concluded that further involvement in this war would be foolish, and that Trump must now urge Israel to halt its attack and return to the diplomatic track, because the best way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon—which they oppose as much as they oppose war—is an agreement that places the Iranian nuclear program under strict restrictions and close monitoring.