'Going it alone' approach will leave one person holding the Iran bag

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

Going it alone is fine for some pursuits — flying solo, monobobbing, and solitaire, for example. But it rarely works out when it comes to international relations, especially in matters of war and peace. President Trump seems determined to decide, after debating it over with himself, whether or not to go to war with Iran. His go-it-alone approach — ignoring the will of the American people, steamrolling a Congress that can’t be bothered, and bulldozing over skeptical allies — is fraught with peril. Of course, going to war is always fraught with peril. But if the balloon goes up, as they say inside the Pentagon, the weight of that choice will be Trump’s alone. And history does not grade on a curve.

Slip slidin’ into war

Going to war is the most consequential step any nation — especially one purported to be a democracy — can take. It is not supposed to be launched upon the whim of one person. Yet this is where we are, having slid into an autocratic deviancy sought by Trump and championed by his Gumby Congress. The nuts and bolts of how this campaign might — or might not — unfold are less important than the fact that the United States and the world’s most powerful military are moving warships and warplanes into place to strike Iran without debate or declaration of war by the American people, or their purported representatives in Congress. Trump denies that his top military adviser, General Daniel Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is leery of attacking Iran. Yet this martial march is especially jarring given the fact that its key goal — to thwart Iran’s nuclear-weapons production capability — is something Trump declared he accomplished just eight months ago.

The president has been all but mute on his need for this war he is threatening. Trump has detailed no goals, no timetable, nor any notion of how much the U.S. should expect to pay, in blood and treasure, for what the nation — oops, he — wants to achieve. Congress, the only branch of the U.S. government constitutionally obliged to declare war, is likewise mum.

Somewhere, the founders’ tears are befouling their white-powdered hair, streaking their stricken faces with surrender flags of subjugation and stupefaction. Our allies are fretting over our messed-up mechanism for mayhem. And American parents are wondering if their children are going to be sacrificed on the altar of authoritarian aggrandizement without the backing of their fellow citizens.

The Bunker goes way back with Iran. Shortly after TB began reporting from the capital, Iranian “students” seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran in November 1979. They initially held 66 Americans hostage to punish Washington for its support of the shah of Iran whom the Iranians had just ousted. The Bunker, angry like many Americans, came to blows with some pro-Iranian demonstrators outside the White House shortly after the embassy takeover. His frustration soared after eight U.S. troops perished in an Iran desert in an unsuccessful effort to rescue the 53 hostages still being held in April 1980. The Bunker has since spent decades witnessing, and reporting on, the nuclear-wanna-be Islamic Republic of Iran terrorizing the greater Middle East. It is an outlaw state.

But if the U.S. is to wage war on Iran, it must do so with the full support of the U.S. people. It must be declared in their name by the U.S. Congress, after a full debate on the wisdom of this particular fight. A recent poll has only 21% of Americans supporting a U.S. attack on Iran. That’s especially distressing if you’re old enough to remember that 72% of Americans supported the misbegotten 2003 U.S. war on Iraq.

We’ve faced this situation before. The parallels between Iran and Vietnam are striking. Each has a population of about 100 million, and an annual GDP approaching $500 billion. The median age of their citizens is around 34, and their per-capita incomes hover at around $5,000. Data like these used to be published annually in the CIA World Factbook. Unfortunately, the Trump administration abruptly shut it down without notice earlier this month after 64 years, along with removing a spate of other CIA documents they didn’t like. (Old CIA motto, engraved on its headquarters: “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." New, improved, not-yet-engraved motto: “Ignorance is bliss!”)

We don’t need the CIA to remind us that both Iran and Vietnam had, and have, well-founded historical reasons to despise the U.S. Nor do we need an intelligence agency to tell us why Americans feel so sour about their recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam. It’s because their Congress has willingly subcontracted out the awesome power to wage war that is constitutionally theirs to White Houses occupied by both Democrats and Republicans.

Unbelievably, we’re on the verge of letting it happen again.

Last week, the Supreme Court restrained Trump’s trade wars. “It can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in his concurring opinion as part of the court’s 6-3 vote to limit the president’s unilateral imposition of tariffs. “But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design,” the Trump-appointed justice noted. “Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.”

It’s long past time for the high court, allied with Congress and the American people, to restrain U.S. presidents when it comes to launching real wars, too.

A big headache over a small island

Alliances are a lot like marriages. And it’s looking like some nations view Trump as an abusive spouse. That signals tough military sledding ahead for a pair of Washington’s most long-standing allies.

What if you threw a war and your closest ally didn’t show up? That’s the prospect facing Trump as Great Britain looks like it will deny the U.S. access to a pair of key island bomber bases the U.S. military needs to attack Iran. One is Fairford Royal Air Force base, just west of London. The second is Diego Garcia, a small, isolated isle in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia may be 5,800 miles from London, but it’s only 3,300 miles from Tehran. The London Times reported February 19 that Britain believes “allowing the U.S. to use the bases would be a breach of international law.”

After years of negotiation, Britain wants to turn Diego Garcia, a one-time colonial prize, over to Mauritius. On February 17, Trump’s State Department said it “supports” the deal, so long as Mauritius agreed to the joint U.S.-UK military base’s “long-term, secure operation.” (Read this to learn how and why Britain ended up occupying this spit of sand, and why it may give it up.) But the very next day, Trump denounced the island swap. “Should Iran decide not to make a Deal, it may be necessary for the United States to use Diego Garcia, and the Airfield located in Fairford, in order to eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous Regime,” Trump foamed. “DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA!”

Last year, Trump saber-rattled Iran by dispatching six B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia. This year, despite his even bigger military buildup in Iran’s neighborhood, the B-2s are nowhere to be seen.

Maybe that’s why they call them stealthy.

How is that even possible?

You know relations with our northern neighbor have gone south when Canadians see the U.S. as a bigger threat than Russia. But Canada also poses an economic threat to the U.S., as well: Ottawa is considering buying Swedish Gripen fighters instead of continuing to purchase U.S.-made F-35s.

“Slashing the F-35 buy would be the first seismic fracture in a 70-year trade between the United States and those allies, including Australia and Japan, who did not maintain the ability to produce top-line combat aircraft and instead bought from the U.S.,” veteran aerospace reporter/analyst Bill Sweetman wrote February 13. “It foreshadows what I predicted soon after President Donald Trump’s re-election: a changed industrial and defense order based on collaboration among the U.S.’s erstwhile buyers.” Other potential future U.S. military sales to Canada are likely to meet the same fate.

And it’s not only happening in Canada.

Things like this — and that tussle over U.S. access to those British bases — are second-order effects of a U.S. president whose only North Star is himself.

Here’s what has caught The Bunker’s eye recently

→ Expanding wasteline

The Pentagon has no idea how to smartly boost next year’s defense budget by 50%, the Washington Post’s Jeff Stein and Dan Lamothe reported February 21.

→ Not shipshape …

The Navy is so fed up with the lousy job it has done developing new warships that it has hired a private company for the first time since World War II to oversee construction of a new class of vessels, Marcus Weisgerber reported February 18 in the Wall Street Journal.

→ No more Air Force Wan

The Air Force confirmed it has adopted Trump’s preferred bold red, white, and blue paint scheme for Air Force One and the rest of the service’s VIP transport fleet. It replaces the iconic light blue and white livery that has been used aboard presidential aircraft since the Kennedy administration, Chris Gordon reported February 18 in Air and Space Forces Magazine.

Thanks for boarding The Bunker this week. Please forward to potential readers so they can subscribe here.