Transcript:President Donald Trump’s actions in engaging America into a war with Iran are “unpardonable,” according to a Republican strategist who worked for President George W. Bush during his similarly-controversial war against Iraq. Steve Schmidt, co-founder of The Lincoln Project and the Save America Movement, cautioned that a “tidal wave” of epic proportions is coming for the president’s party on The Daily Beast Podcast.“We’re not winning this war,” consultant Steve Schmidt told The Daily Beast Podcast’s Joanna Coles. “And that is unpardonable in the United States.”Noting that Trump has been repeatedly told the Iranian regime shows no signs of being toppled despite the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28th, Schmidt expressed disgust at Trump for publicly declaring victory regardless. At the time of this publication, Trump’s war has led to at least 13 American servicemembers dying and another 140 being injured.“Before the war started, the midterms were already a political disaster of immense dimensions, immense dimensions for MAGA, for Trump,” Schmidt told Coles. “They’re going to lose the House majority. They’re likely to lose the Senate majority. They’re going to lose governors’ races. They’re going to lose up and down the ballot all over the country.”Even before the Iran war, Democrats were already gaining momentum by flipping 28 traditionally safe Republican state legislative seats since November 2024, while Republicans have flipped zero. The Iran war is only heightening that trend.“There are a lot of [Democratic] candidates and a lot of places who are going to win, and that’s before the war,” Schmidt said. “You can tell through the collapse of his polling numbers and their further deterioration and the split within the MAGA party on this issue that this is terrible for Trump.”Despite originally being a staunch Republican, Schmidt is now one of Trump’s fiercest conservative detractors. Earlier in March he called out Trump for demanding a Nobel Peace Prize before waging unprovoked wars against Venezuela and Iran.“He wanted the Peace Prize, and when he couldn’t get it, Trump lost his mind,” Schmidt wrote for his Substack on Friday. He then quoted a February letter Trump wrote to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre saying he would wage wars because of his disappointment at not getting the prize.“Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America,” Trump told Støre. On another occasion in March, Schmidt characterized the Iran war as being waged with “no debate, no plan, and no thought given by Donald, his stooges and politicized generals about the second-and third-order effects of their decisions. This is escalating.”In a separate Substack editorial, Schmidt described how Trump has eroded faith in public institutions.“Trust is a rare commodity in our wretched times,” Schmidt argued. “These are the days of corruption, self-dealing, incompetence and faithlessness to the Constitution.”Our Analysis:The Unforgivable War: A Dissection of Power, Decision-Making, and ResponsibilityIn the complex theater of American politics and its military engagements, the war with Iran, as described in the article featuring Steve Schmidt's criticisms of President Donald Trump, presents a fertile ground for examining the allocation of blame, the sources of institutional power, and the responsibility for decisions that have far-reaching consequences. This analysis aims to untangle the web of narrative, power, and accountability surrounding Trump's war with Iran.Institutional Power and Decision-MakingFirstly, it's imperative to identify who holds institutional power in the context of engaging America in a war. The President of the United States, as commander-in-chief, wields substantial power over military decisions. However, this power is not unilateral. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to declare war, thereby setting a system of checks and balances intended to prevent rash or unilateral military action by the executive branch. In the case of the war with Iran, the article implies that Trump bypassed broader institutional oversight, suggesting a significant concentration of decision-making power in his hands.Decision-maker: President Donald Trump is pinpointed as the primary decision-maker, having engaged in military action against Iran. The narrative suggests that Trump's decisions were influenced by personal grievances (notably, not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize) and conducted without the deliberative process that such grave decisions warrant.Misdirected Responsibility?The article frames the responsibility almost exclusively on Trump, attributing to him the entirety of the blame for the war's initiation and its consequences. While it's clear that the President played a pivotal role, the framing potentially overlooks the broader context of American foreign policy, the role of advisors and military officials, and the lack of Congressional intervention. The mention of "politicized generals" hints at a more complex decision-making environment, yet the analysis stops short of exploring these dynamics in depth.False Equivalences and ScapegoatsRejecting false equivalence is crucial. While the article does not make direct comparisons, it implicitly elevates Trump's actions as singularly unprecedented. This is a precarious simplification. Historical context is vital. the U. S. has a long history of military engagements initiated under questionable circumstances. The critique of Trump should be balanced with an understanding that the issues of unilateral military action, bypassing Congress, and engaging in conflicts with dubious justification are not unique to his administration.However, the critique of Trump in this context appears well-founded, given the specific accusations of initiating a war based on personal vendettas and without a clear plan. These criticisms are not scapegoating. they address the heart of the matter. decision-making power and its misuse.Conclusion: The Weight of Decision and PowerThis analysis concludes that President Trump, as the primary actor with institutional power, indeed bears significant responsibility for the decision to engage in war with Iran. The article, while potentially narrowing the focus too tightly on Trump, does not misdirect responsibility toward actors with limited control. However, it could benefit from a broader examination of the systemic issues that allowed such a decision to proceed seemingly unchecked.Steve Schmidt's criticisms, as presented, serve as a poignant reminder of the consequences of centralized decision-making in matters of war and peace. The narrative underscores the need for a more robust system of checks and balances, a diversification of perspectives in foreign policy decision-making, and a reevaluation of the mechanisms that allow for the initiation of military conflict.In dissecting the political narratives surrounding this war, it becomes clear that the unforgivable act is not just the decision to wage war but the failure of the system to prevent such decisions from being made unilaterally and capriciously. Accountability extends beyond the individual to the very structures that enable such power to be misused.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com