By the time election day comes around, Trump’s approval rating may be as low as George Bush’s was when he left office — 28% — and for the same reason: the Middle East
Very roughly, there are two scenarios about Trump’s decision to assassinate Suleimani. They involve different narratives about why Trump responded in the way he did on Friday and over the weekend to Iran’s ongoing proxy war against the U.S. in the M/E. 1/31
One is a Netanyahu-esque and Bolton-esque scenario, according to which the U.S. must engage in a showdown with Iran, including the use of military force directed against Iran, to bring about regime change. Trump has simply decided to embark seriously on that policy. 2/31
The other scenario is that Trump thought he could effect regime change in Iran without paying a high price. Eventually, Iran would have to buckle under and accept U.S. dominance in the region — in alliance with Israel and MBS’s Saudi Arabia — without triggering a war. 3/31
Question: Does Trump’s fateful decision to assassinate Suleimani fit with the first or the second scenario? 4/31
Since it was clear that the assassination was tantamount to an act of war, and on the basis of the perfectly sensible belief that Trump and his advisers must have realized this, I believed (and tweeted) yesterday in favor of the first scenario. 5/31
(Iran’s ambassador to the U.N. has declared that the assassination of Suleimani was an act of war, so de facto, we are in a state of war with Iran now.) 6/31
However, excellent reporting on the decision-making at Mar-a-Lago on Friday and over the weekend by the NYT, WAPO, CNN, and Rukmini Callimachi (especially the latter two) has changed my mind. 7/31
It is pretty clear now that Trump’s first response to the latest Iranian provocation in Iraq was seen as a “moderate” one, and that he adopted the most “far out” option after the attack on the embassy in Baghdad only after long discussions with WH lawyers and natsec officials (CNN). 8/31
Of particular interest is CNN’s reporting that, before the strike, the lawyers and natsec officials worked up a “strong rationale” for Trump claiming that the strike against Suleimani would not lead to war. 9/31
This CNN reporting is more informative and revealing than the coverage by NYT and WAPO, but it fits both, and it strongly supports the view that superhawks in the Admin prevailed on Trump by convincing him that he could assassinate Suleimani w/out provoking a war with Iran. 10/31
Putting it all together, it seems that the superhawks were able to sell Trump a bill of goods — that he could have it all. But this is so clearly mistaken one must question whether the effort was even made in good faith. 11/31
If the second scenario is correct, then Trump has made a huge gamble, and a very bad one, because none of the presuppositions based on this decision can be supported by what we know about Iran and the role it plays in the region. 12/31
And for that reason, Trump’s decision is going to be disastrous for him politically, as it dawns on everybody, including Rs, that this decision was based on a grave miscalculation. 13/31
As this realization takes hold, the stock market is going to turn bearish, and then the economy (already shaky) is going to turn south. 14/31
Since the stock market and the economy are the only two things that have kept Trump’s job approval rating above its historically low levels (around 43%), this will be devastating for Trump. 15/31
(The first signs of this showed up on Wall Street yesterday, and if consumer confidence and spending shrink b/c of unfolding events in the M/E, the economy will tank, too, since only consumer confidence and spending have been holding up the economy for months.) 16/31
But Trump has also threatened his political base.
The move has thrilled neocons like Bolton, but it has appalled a very large sector of his base that hates the neocons, who they see as the embodiment of the R establishment they loathe. 17/31
(Tucker Carlson is a good example here, but people like Carlson are legion within the GOP, and even within Trump’s Tea Party-like base. See Carlson especially beginning at 6:50.) 18/31
Within days after 9/11, Bush’s job approval rating was above 85%. Shortly after the invasion in 2003, it was at 72%. On the eve of the 2004 election, it was 53%. 19/31
By the time the 2008 election came around, Bush’s job approval was at 28%, and Rs were overwhelmed by a huge blue wave tsunami. 20/31
My prediction: While we are only 10 months away from election 2020, Trump’s decision to assassinate Suleimani will lead to a similar political debacle for Trump. 21/31
To see why this is the case, understand that the Iraq invasion is not the right model for what is going to happen now in Iraq and the wider M/E (indeed world) as a result of Trump’s decision this weekend. 22/31
It took a long time for Bush’s sky-high approval ratings to tank because Bush led off with a conventional military invasion that went well initially — until his military strategists realized, too late, 23/31
that the invasion faced a guerrilla insurgency for the long term, where a whole host of anti-American forces in the M/E had an asymmetric advantage militarily and strategically.
(We are still suffering the consequences.) 24/31
But the U.S. is in an even worse position now, because now the war will begin with Iran’s asymmetric strategic and military advantage all across the M/E, so the repercussions on the stock market will also be different from the jump (as it already was yesterday). 25/31
Furthermore, unlike Bush, voters are not going to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. His job approval ratings are at a historical low for this point in a presidency, and a majority even believes that he has committed impeachable offenses. 26/31
And unlike the invasion of Iraq in 2003, 75% of Americans don’t want a war with Iran (which is exactly what we’re going to get because of Trump). 27/31
As geopolitical strategist and diplomat Richard Haas said in a tweet I posted yesterday: 28/31
For more details, see the Vox article I’ve already posted and a slew of tweets and threads in my feed yesterday. 29/31
The CNN article is particularly interesting. It has Trump consulting with his advisers and wandering the marbled halls of Mar-a-Lago, second guessing his decision and not at all sure that he hasn’t made a terrible mistake. 30/31
That he has certainly done, and because he cannot back down now, he is going to pay a huge price for it on November 3 of this year.
Like Bush, Trump has gambled everything on the M/E, and like Bush, he has gambled everything away. 31/31
