Other presidents have become ensnared in foreign fights. But for President Trump, the issue is complicated by the fact that he rose to political prominence by relentlessly criticizing them for it—especially George W. Bush for the Iraq War. What happens next, Michael Birnbaum and Natalie Allison write in a Washington Post analysis, will have much to say about the rest of Trump's presidency. The main possibilities they see:
- "If Iran is sufficiently weakened that it cannot meaningfully retaliate, Trump will have delivered a blow against a longtime adversary that will send a message to China, Russia and other global rivals that he will not shy from using military power when necessary."
- "But if Iran does not agree to peace on Trump's terms, the president's vow that 'there are many targets left' opened the door to a much deeper and potentially longer conflict."
The president who promised to not start "endless wars" appears to be trying to return to his earlier position,
Luke Broadwater writes in a
New York Times analysis, by saying he still wants peace. Trump called the US attack massive while also describing it as limited.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden faced similar confrontations with Iran but instead stuck to diplomacy, the Post points out, with the caveat that Iran was in a stronger position to retaliate then. And Trump's decision has stirred criticism from die-hard supporters already. Steve Bannon, an ally and commentator, said much of Trump's MAGA base is unhappy with the bombing even after Trump's explanation. "A lot in the chats are saying, 'Hey, I hear ya, but you know you promised you wouldn't do this," Bannon said. (More US strikes Iran stories.)
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
