President Donald Trump has a seemingly limitless appetite for brinksmanship, which is not the same as a seemingly limitless appetite for conflict.
Throughout his first term, Trump threatened America’s enemies in shockingly blunt terms. “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” Trump said in 2017. “They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” In his first address to the United Nations, Trump said, “Rocket man is on a suicide mission. The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”
And yet, the U.S. took no military action against North Korea, and Trump went on to hold three face-to-face meetings with Kim Jong Un. He even stepped inside North Korean territory at the Demilitarized Zone that separates the two Koreas. In his interview with Bob Woodward, Trump pointed to avoiding war with North Korea as “one of his greatest triumphs.”
In one of 17 on-the-record interviews for the book, Trump told Woodward that war with Pyongyang was “much closer than anyone would know.” The president argued that conflict was averted because of his flattering letters to and three face-to-face meetings with the 30-something totalitarian leader. Trump said Kim was “totally prepared” for war. “And he expected to go,” the president said. “But we met.”
Trump still points to North Korea as one of his greatest triumphs. “There was no war,” the president said. But he acknowledged to Woodward that Kim has not given up any of his nuclear weapons, using a real estate metaphor to explain why. “It’s really like, you know, somebody that’s in love with a house and they just can’t sell it,” he said.
Iran and North Korea are not the same, but it is very likely that Trump would like to see a similar outcome with the Iranians — diplomatic engagement and high-profile summits, with no overt hostilities. Similarly, the moment the Houthis indicated they were willing to suspend attacks on U.S. ships, the Trump administration announced a ceasefire deal.
Now, on the question of whether Trump is willing to authorize U.S. military action against Iranian targets, Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani could not be reached for comment. (Helpful hint, if you’re flying out of Baghdad International Airport and need to use long-term parking, use the Qasem Soleimani Memorial Exit.)
But there’s a big difference between ordering actions like the Soleimani strike or the strike against ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and dropping the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal on the underground Fordow nuclear facility. Whether or not that action would be officially a declared war, it puts the U.S. and Iran in a state of war. Retaliation from the Iranians is a near-certainty.
Trump is proud of the fact that he didn’t start any war in his first term; in his second inaugural address – just six months ago! –Trump pledged, “our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent, and totally unpredictable.”
Today Axios reports, “The White House is discussing with Iran the possibility of a meeting this week between U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.” Yes, that’s Steve “Hamas duped me” Witkoff, who relied on a Kremin-supplied translator in his meetings with Vladimir Putin. Hopefully Witkoff will bring an American translator this time.
There will always be a reason to give Iran “one last chance,” to put off any military operation a few more days to see if Iran can be cajoled into coming to the negotiating table and what concessions they’re willing to make.
If you’re looking for a reason to drop a bomb, you’ll find that reason. If you’re looking for a reason to not drop a bomb, you’ll find that reason, too. History suggests that Trump will look for a reason to put off military action.