Sometimes Trump is very clear about what he’s doing and why. But sometimes he’s using misdirection to provide cover for some other plan. He can be unpredictable and somewhat unreadable, or he can say what he means and mean what he says.
In the case of the present Iran crisis, it seems to me that not following though on threats would be a bad thing. Trump threatened something big if the mullahs killed a lot of demonstrators. They did, but he doesn’t seem to have done much in response.
However, being flexible and reactive to circumstances is good. What are the circumstances right now? Is something in the works? Does that something involve Israel?:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally asked US President Donald Trump to hold off on a US military attack on Iran, The New York Times reported on Thursday, citing an anonymous senior US official.
The two leaders reportedly held a call on Wednesday. The White House confirmed that a call took place after The Jerusalem Post asked for comment. …
Notably, that same day, Trump claimed that he had received information from “very important sources on the other side,” that Iran had stopped killing dissidents.
Is some action forthcoming from Israel? That country almost certainly has formidable intelligence sources in Iran. Are they using misdirection, or are they saying conditions just aren’t right for intervention at present? We simply don’t know.
These statements from Trump on Reza Pahlavi seem very careful:
“He seems very nice, but I don’t know how he’d play within his own country,” Trump said. “And we really aren’t up to that point yet.
“I don’t know whether or not his country would accept his leadership, and certainly if they would, that would be fine with me.”
Meanwhile, the news from Iran is terrible; please see this. The Times of Israel has a lot of coverage of Iran, all of which I find depressing. For example, there’s this (from someone who admittedly thinks very little of Trump):
The theocratic regime, which has ruled the country since the 1979 revolution, has been shaken to its core, but – like on several occasions in the past 25 years – appears to have survived yet another nationwide wave of protest and dissent from a population that overwhelmingly rejects its oppressive governance. …
While Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the other Gulf States benefit from a weakened Iranian regime, they do not want one which collapses without an obvious successor.
Paradoxically, they also know that US military intervention could strengthen the Iranian leadership. Since 1999, the regime has relied on the portrayal of its opponents as American and Israeli agents. An American attack strengthens that narrative. …
For all the scale and potential of the protests, the opposition does not have the organization for its political, social and economic ambitions. The regime has seen to that with its decapitation strategy, imprisoning prominent activists from all spheres of Iranian society. How can protesters and the opposition be supported in developing that organization?
But what revolt ever has a certain outcome? If certainty were the requirement, no such movement could ever be supported.
I guess it’s the old “time will tell.”
