Transcript:President Donald Trump doubled down on his threat to deploy Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to airports nationwide on Saturday by issuing Democratic lawmakers a strict deadline for action, warning that if his demands were not met by Monday, he would make good on his threat.“If the Democrats do not allow for Just and Proper Security at our Airports, and elsewhere throughout our Country, ICE will do the job far better than ever done before! The Fascist Democrats will never protect America, but the Republicans will,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social. “Just like the Radical Left allowed millions of Criminals to pour into our Country through their ridiculous and dangerous Open Border Policy, the Republicans closed it all down, and we now have the Strongest Border in American History. Likewise, I look forward to moving ICE in on Monday, and have already told them to, ‘GET READY.’ NO MORE WAITING, NO MORE GAMES!”Trump’s threat comes amid the ongoing partial government shutdown, sparked by Democratic lawmakers’ refusal to fund ICE without the agency undergoing reforms in the wake of its violent immigration enforcement operations. Trump first issued the threat to deploy ICE agents just an hour prior to having imposed the Monday deadline in a follow-up post.“The Radical Left Democrats have hurt so many people with their vicious and uncaring ways,” Trump wrote. “What they have done to the Department of Homeland Security, our fantastic [Transportation Security Administration] Officers, and, most importantly, the great people of our Country, is an absolute disgrace.”Our Analysis:Unpacking the Threat: The Power Dynamics at PlayIn the midst of a heated political environment, President Donald Trump's recent statements regarding the deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to airports across the nation illuminate a complex web of power, decision-making, and responsibility. To dissect the narrative accurately, it's essential to identify who holds the institutional power, who made the critical decisions, and how the framing of the article might misdirect responsibility.Institutional PowerThe President of the United States, as the head of the executive branch, wields significant institutional power, particularly in matters of national security and immigration. The decision to deploy ICE agents falls squarely within the executive branch's purview, given ICE is a federal agency under the Department of Homeland Security, which reports directly to the President. Therefore, Trump's threat to mobilize ICE agents is not only within his institutional authority but also showcases the considerable power the executive branch has over immigration enforcement.Decision-MakingThe decision to potentially deploy ICE agents to airports nationwide is attributed directly to President Trump, as stated in his posts on the social media platform Truth Social. This decision is framed as a response to Democratic lawmakers' refusal to fund ICE without the agency undergoing reforms, especially in the wake of its violent immigration enforcement operations. However, while the Democrats' refusal plays a role in the context of this decision, the ultimate choice to threaten deployment lies with President Trump. The framing of the article correctly identifies Trump as the decision-maker in this scenario.Misdirected Responsibility?President Trump's narrative attempts to shift responsibility onto Democratic lawmakers, accusing them of endangering national security by not funding ICE and thereby necessitating his drastic measures. This framing implies that the Democrats' actions have directly led to the decision to deploy ICE agents. However, this perspective overlooks the fact that funding and reform negotiations are complex processes that involve both parties. It also ignores the President's autonomous decision to use the deployment of ICE as leverage. While it's true that Democratic lawmakers have refused to fund ICE without reforms, the decision to escalate the situation by threatening deployment is solely the President's. The article could misdirect responsibility by not sufficiently highlighting the complexity of negotiation processes in Congress and the President's significant autonomy in immigration enforcement matters.Conclusion: A Clear View Through the FogIn analyzing the situation, it's clear that President Trump holds the institutional power and made the decision to potentially deploy ICE agents, leveraging his executive authority over immigration enforcement. The framing of his statements attempts to shift the blame onto Democratic lawmakers, suggesting their refusal to fund ICE without reforms is solely responsible for his actions. However, this simplification overlooks the intricacies of legislative negotiations and the President's significant autonomy in this domain.It's crucial to pierce through politicized narratives to understand the underlying power dynamics and decision-making processes. In this case, while legislative stalemates and debates over ICE's funding and operations are relevant, the decision to escalate the situation by threatening deployment rests with President Trump. Blaming one party or the other without acknowledging the complexities of governance and the distribution of power does a disservice to informed public discourse.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

The Tangled Web of Influence and Accountability in the U.S. War Against Iran

In a political landscape where accountability often gets muddied by layers of bureaucracy and influence, the resignation of Joe Kent, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, over the U.S. war against Iran, cuts through the noise with the precision of a well-aimed critique. Kent’s departure is not just a personal protest; it’s a mirror reflecting the fraught dynamics of power, decision-making, and influence in the Trump administration’s approach to Iran.

Unpacking Institutional Power

At the heart of this narrative is the institutional power wielded by the President of the United States, Donald Trump, and his administration. The decision to wage war against Iran, as detailed in the article, falls squarely on Trump’s shoulders, both as the Commander in Chief and the figurehead of the U.S. government’s executive branch. This position grants him extensive authority over military actions and foreign policy decisions.

Decision-Makers vs. Influencers

The distinction between who made the decision and who influenced it is crucial for a nuanced analysis. The article points directly to Trump for authorizing the conflict, spurred by claims of an imminent Iranian attack. This places the responsibility for the decision to engage militarily with Iran firmly with Trump and his administration.

However, Kent’s statement introduces a secondary layer of influence: “pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” This assertion suggests a complex web of external influences shaping U.S. foreign policy. While these actors may wield significant influence, the ultimate decision rested with Trump and his administration, underscoring the importance of distinguishing between direct decision-makers and those who lobby or influence those decisions.

Misdirection and Responsibility

The framing of Kent’s resignation in the article potentially misdirects responsibility by highlighting his criticism of external pressures (Israel and its lobby) without adequately emphasizing the autonomy and authority of the U.S. presidency in military engagements. This could divert attention from the core issue: the decision-making power of the President and his administration.

The Real Culprits

The article, while informative, skirts around the edges of a deeper issue: the concentration of decision-making power in the hands of a few and the susceptibility of these individuals to external pressures, whether from foreign governments, lobbyists, or other influencers. The critical takeaway is that, despite these pressures, the responsibility for the U.S. war against Iran rests with President Trump and his administration. They were not mere conduits for external influences; they were the ultimate arbiters of U.S. military action.

Conclusion

Joe Kent’s resignation serves as a poignant critique of the Trump administration’s handling of the war against Iran. It highlights not only the moral quandaries faced by those serving under this administration but also the complex interplay between institutional power, decision-making, and external influence. While it’s essential to recognize the role of influencers, it is equally crucial to remember that the buck stops with those who have the authority to make and execute decisions. In this case, that responsibility lies with President Trump and his administration, irrespective of external pressures. Accountability should not be a casualty of war, nor should it be obscured by the shadows of influence and lobbying.

We warned them.We told them.We shouted from the rooftops.We plead.We begged.They didn’t listen.Now, we all will suffer.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

Transcript:President Donald Trump's decision to kick off the U. S. war against Iran last month was motivated, in part, by “pressure from outside allies,” multiple insiders told Bloomberg in its report Saturday, a revelation that sparked a fierce rebuttal from the Trump administration. Speaking with Bloomberg on the condition of anonymity, the insiders claimed that Trump was under pressure to strike Iran from at least two individuals outside his administration: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who’s wanted by the International Court of Justice for alleged war crimes – and Rupert Murdoch, the billionaire conservative media mogul and architect of Fox News.“[Murdoch] communicated with Trump several times as he urged the president to take on Tehran, according to one person briefed on their interactions,” Bloomberg’s report reads.“Meanwhile, some of Trump’s closest advisers were more muted about the prospect of an armed conflict, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, the people said.”When asked for comment, a State Department spokesperson accused Bloomberg’s sources of “not knowing what they are talking about,” and “pretending that they do.”“There is no division,” said State Department spokesperson Tommy Piggot, speaking with Bloomberg. “President Trump is making the world safer, and the entire administration is lockstep in that effort.”In spite of Piggot’s claim, division did exist within the Trump administration over the Iran war, made evident with the recent resignation of Joe Kent, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, who stepped down from his position in protest and alleged that Trump was manipulated by Israel into launching the conflict.Our Analysis:Unraveling the Threads: The Decision to Wage War on IranThe Bloomberg article on President Donald Trump's decision to initiate a war against Iran is a complex narrative interwoven with allegations of external pressure, internal division, and vehement denials from the administration. At the heart of this story are claims that Trump was swayed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and media mogul Rupert Murdoch. This analysis aims to dissect the institutional power dynamics, decision-making processes, and the framing of the article to provide a clearer understanding of where responsibility lies.Institutional Power and Decision-MakingWho Holds the Power?The power to declare war, under the U. S. Constitution, is a shared responsibility. While Congress has the power to declare war, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has significant leeway in military engagements. However, the decision-making process in this context seems to have circumvented the broader institutional checks and balances, focusing instead on the influence of external allies and advisers.Who Made the Decision?The article directly attributes the decision to engage in war with Iran to President Trump. Despite the presence of internal dissent within his administration, as evidenced by the resignation of Joe Kent and the muted responses from key advisers like Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, the ultimate decision rested with Trump. This aligns with the institutional powers vested in the presidency but raises questions about the influence of external actors on such critical decisions.External Influences versus Internal Decision-MakingThe framing of the Bloomberg article suggests a significant role played by Netanyahu and Murdoch in persuading Trump to take military action against Iran. While the President indeed has the final say, the emphasis on these external pressures overlooks the internal dynamics and Trump's own agency in the decision-making process. It is crucial to distinguish between influence and decision-making authority. while Netanyahu and Murdoch may have advocated for action against Iran, the choice to proceed lay solely with Trump and his administration.Misdirection and ResponsibilityFraming and MisdirectionThe article’s narrative potentially misdirects responsibility by emphasizing the 'pressure' from Netanyahu and Murdoch. This framing could lead readers to attribute the decision more to external influences than to Trump himself, who, despite any pressures, had the ultimate authority and responsibility to decide on matters of war.Scapegoating versus AccountabilityThere is a thin line between recognizing influence and absolving internal decision-makers of their responsibility. While it is essential to understand the context and factors leading to such a pivotal decision, it is equally crucial not to allow this understanding to morph into a scapegoating mechanism that shifts blame away from those with actual decision-making power.ConclusionThe decision to wage war against Iran, as reported by Bloomberg, underscores the complex interplay between external influence and internal decision-making authority. While it is clear that President Trump faced pressures from figures like Netanyahu and Murdoch, the responsibility for the decision rests with him and his administration. The framing of the article, while shedding light on these pressures, should not distract from the central fact that institutional power and the capacity to make such a decision resided within the White House. Recognizing influence should not equate to absolving internal actors of their responsibilities. In the analysis of political narratives, it is imperative to maintain a clear distinction between those who can persuade and those who ultimately decide.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

Transcript:Republican strategist and media consultant Rick Wilson says he keeps bumping into Trump voters who are wailing over the predicament their president keeps putting them in.“You can't spin your way out of objective reality hitting people in the face [at the gas pump,” Wilson told “Jim Acosta Show” host Jim Acosta. “I’m out at the airport right now. And a couple hangers down I’m talking to [this guy]. Very MAGA. And he's like, ‘I can't believe what Trump did. I can't believe he did this. Because … I just paid 7 dollars a gallon for aviation fuel for my airplane.’ I'm like, yeah, you did. What was it two weeks ago? ‘4.35 dollars [he says].’”“Flying is not a cheap hobby, right? But this guy, I've talked to him a number of times . we’re civil with each other . but he was stunned. But he had to know this [was coming]. He had to know this,” Wilson added. “And now we’re all paying the price.”Acosta cited clips of other Trump voters angrily renouncing their vote, saying “it seems to me right now people are just getting a whiff of the big old pile of poop that is in front of their face.”Acosta added that the MAGA movement, now financially betrayed, is gearing up to smash its leader with the same finesse they used on former president Biden.“I remember when Biden was in office, people would, you know, the little a. . wipes would stick the little stickers [of Biden] on the gas pumps that said, ‘I did this’ in our show. … And now you're starting to see the Donald Trump ones,” Acosta said. Wilson went on to point out that farmers and U. S. manufacturers are still living Trump’s “bad, bad dream,” and many of them were also Trump voters in the last election.“He's hurting his own people. And one more thing: … The young men and women who are going to fight this war and die when he puts troops on the ground in Iran, they're MAGA,” said Wilson, the co-founder of the conservative Lincoln Project. “More likely than not their families are MAGA, or they're MAGA. So, he's sending your kids to die for a war that wasn't planned, for a goal that he couldn't articulate if it bit him on the a. . . And to help who? I mean, we have set the world economy and the world stability back a decade or more because of this insanity.”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

Transcript:Comedian Francesca Fiorentini joined Wajahat Ali on his “Left Hook” podcast to destroy MAGA’s weird fixation with manliness and war. Fiorentini began the destruction by describing President Donald Trump’s invasion of Iran as “regime change with no lube,” which, she said, was “how these little f. . procreate anyway.” She also blasted the administration’s use of memes to sell the war to its childish MAGA admirers.“[J]ust looking at the [meme] of whatever island that we bombed. Like, It's very pathetic. … [N]ot only have we been infantilized in Trump 2.0, but the brain melt of this senior sundowning citizen, the combo, it's like we're f. . reverse. It's like a Benjamin Button of an administration, but both [age directions] go towards senility.”“What about delivering a coherent speech that instills any kind of confidence that you know what the f. . you're doing?” Fiorentini continued. “Memes make you laugh. Memes make you chuckle in … your little virginal 13-year-old self. But memes can't plan a war. Memes are not going to bring down the price of oil. You can't float a f. . meme through the Strait of Hormuz and be like, ‘hey, Ron, we're just out here doing dank memes.’ You can't meme your way out of a quagmire. Sorry.”Fiorentini and Ali both blasted the administration’s compulsion to sell their manhood to the detriment of brains, citing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s bro-speak press conferences and FBI Director Kash Patel’s proposal to bring in entertainment fighters to teach the FBI to fight.“And why does [Patel’s] voice break, though?” demanded Fiorentini. “Like, why is he going through puberty? You know what I think? He's on T. You know he's on T. Like, his voice would not be doing that if he were not actively taking testosterone because he doesn't like that his voice is high.”But the administration’s emphasis on manhood comes with a dark side, warned Ali, with “100 percent of MAGA” still standing with “a violent insurrectionist, a man who was a liable for rape, a man who most likely raped girls with Jeffrey Epstein and a man who has led us into war.”“There's a major difference between us and MAGA,” said Ali.“I think some of the rise of people like Charlie Kirk really does dovetail with the backlash to the open discussions about rape, rape culture … And that, combined with Gamergate . all this stuff can be mapped out to one of Steve Bannon's pockmarks.”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

Transcript:When award-winning journalist and media founder Katherine Couric drops a bomb, she can do it with minimal investment and maximum understatement, reports the State. The target of her derision this week was the fawning adoration from a Melania Trump fan who posted a clip from the First Lady’s maligned “Melania” documentary. The clip depicts Melania riding in her car while singing along to Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean."The person who posted the video claimed the sing-along clip, with its overlong shaky interior car-scene footage of Missus Trump’s feeble voice trickling out karaoke from a back seat, was the poster’s "favorite" part of the movie. He added that the scene of Melania’s uncommitted performance . interspersed with its camera phone-style shots of the rear bumpers of Trump’s expensive security detail . made her look like “a real person.”To this, Couric, delivered the one-word response: "Riveting."“Couric's cheeky one-liner garnered applause from several users on Threads, including one user who said the former Today show host was ‘spot on’ with her sarcastic response,” reports the State."I just love Katie Couric's shade game," said another user, while still another admitted she “giggled so hard” at the comment. The State reports another fan wrote "Shady Couric is giving me life!!!" while more Threads users claimed they "could smell the sarcasm from here.”Review aggregation website Metacritic, delivered a collective score of just 6 out of 100 from critics, in early February indicating “overwhelming dislike,” despite Amazon paying 40 million dollars to acquire and an additional 35 million dollars to market Melania. The documentary appeared to be a sop to MAGA, which singlehandedly saved the movie from a total economic waste for Amazon. Metacritic’s score of the film has since dropped to “5” as of March 19.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

Transcript:President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, announced on Monday through the president that she was diagnosed with breast cancer . and reports indicate the White House is worried about how it will get by without her.“Wiles’ diagnosis has generated fresh anxiety among aides and allies who describe her as perhaps the sole irreplaceable figure in Trump’s orbit . and the only one capable of imposing order on a White House led by a famously unmanageable commander in chief,” CNN reported on Thursday. One longtime Trump adviser told the publication, “She’s basically doing what we were told was impossible. I don’t know what any of us . especially the president . would do without Susie.”CNN described Wiles as a “constant presence” in Trump’s White House, frequently attending his sensitive meetings and high profile public events. In a White House where Trump wishes to be the center of attention, Wiles is skilled at staying out of range of the cameras, providing assistance while not receiving media focus. Her low-key attitude may explain her approach to announcing her cancer.“The way Susie sees it, everyone knows someone who has had cancer, and they keep doing their jobs,” a source close to Wiles told CNN.“This past week, I was diagnosed with breast cancer,” Wiles said in a statement which the White House shared with AlterNet. “Nearly one in eight women in the United States will face this diagnosis. Every day, these women continue to raise their families, go to work, and serve their communities with strength and determination. I now join their ranks.”Wiles thanked her doctors and Trump, adding that she plans on “continuing serving in my role as White House Chief of Staff.”Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, echoed those thoughts.“Susie has built a close-knit team in the West Wing because we all fought together on the campaign,” Leavitt told CNN. “That camaraderie has followed us into the White House, thanks to her leadership. Everyone in the West Wing is rallying around her. No questions asked.”Wiles’ tenure in the White House has not been without controversy. Because of her past as a lobbyist, Public Citizen warned that her “lobbying client list is both extensive and littered with controversial clients who stand to benefit from having their former lobbyist running the White House.” In a December interview with Vanity Fair, Wiles admitted that Trump has an "alcoholic's personality" and lives with "a view that there’s nothing he can’t do." She described Vice President JD Vance as someone who has "been a conspiracy theorist for a decade" but changed his stances so he could work with Trump. Finally she Trump advisor and world’s richest man Elon Musk as "an avowed ketamine" user and "an odd, odd duck" whose actions left her "aghast." At the same time, Wiles reportedly worked with Vance to reconcile Trump and Musk when the two had a falling out last year.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

Transcript:One of President Donald Trump’s former appointees to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee spoke with The New York Times’ Ross Douthat on Thursday about the controversies that ultimately led to him withdrawing his nomination for Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs.“I can show how totally disingenuous my critics have been,” former Trump appointee Jeremy Carl told Douthat when asked about his use of phrases like “cultural genocide.” “I mostly just kind of saying this, I literally say, to troll the libs.” Adding that he was trying to take “some genuine ironic distance,” he added that “I don’t actually think that we are in a cultural genocide per se. I’m trying to kind of push people.” After Douthat pointed out that far right conspiracy theorists push the baseless theory that white people are being deliberately replaced by elites with non-whites, he said that he does not believe in a conspiracy but argues Democrats want to “hyperdiversify the country because they perceive . and we’ll see whether it actually works out for them. the Hispanic vote suggests that maybe it won’t.”When Douthat pointed out that Carl’s response seemed to exist on a slippery slope toward the explicit far right conspiracy theories he ostensibly eschews, Carl replied that liberals found “a few things that they dug out in their intellectual proctological exam of everything I’ve ever tweeted or written or said on a podcast that I was really like, ‘I shouldn’t have said that.’”He added, “I’m not going to defend everything I’ve said. I would also say that I have become more aware of . even though I consider tweets to be a lot less important than books and articles.” When Douthat said tweets are also important, Carl agreed. When Carl was appointed by Trump, he faced intense controversy for comments about a supposed attack on “white culture,” beliefs described as “anti-Semitic” and the so-called “great replacement theory.” The last conviction has motivated a number of violent far right shootings and was described in 2022 by historian Kathleen Belew as integral to the white power movement.“It’s not immediately obvious how the ‘Great Replacement’ theory, often framed as anti-immigrant doctrine meant to preserve predominantly white societies, is connected to the shooting of Black customers and employees at a grocery store in Buffalo last weekend,” Belew wrote, referring to a then-recent mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York that took 10 lives. “Those at the store, who lived over 100 miles away from the man accused in the killings, were simply going about their lives: picking up groceries, buying a birthday cake, taking their children for ice cream.”She added, “But the explanation for both the choice of targets and the brutality of an attack that killed 10 people can be found in the history of the theory. In the American context, it has in its cross-hairs a host of future targets . among them, democracy itself.”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

Transcript:According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday, March 19, less than 10 percent of Americans favor using ground forces in President Donald Trump's war against Iran . which so far, has been an air offensive. Yet among Trump's hardcore MAGA base, Trump's Iran war still has plenty of supporters, according to polls. Although the Iran war has some high-profile MAGA opponents . from former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) to ex-Fox News host Tucker Carlson to former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent . Trump still has his share of hardcore MAGA voters who trust his judgement. According to a Politico poll, 81 percent of Trump voters who identify as MAGA "back strikes against Iran."But in an article published on March 20, Politico's Erin Doherty wonders how much longer the "unwavering trust in the president" among MAGA diehards will last as the Iran war rages on. According to Doherty, "there are signs" that "Trump's hold on them "could grow tenuous as he intensifies military action" in Iran."Trump voters are more split on backing the war if it results in more lives lost," Doherty explains. "The president has called the strikes a success, but America's increasing military build-up in the Middle East has spurred fears that the intervention will involve ground troops and result in a much longer conflict than expected. The war has drawn searing rebukes from prominent anti-interventionist voices within the MAGA movement, including Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, prompted the resignation of a Trump official earlier this week and fueled concerns over rising oil and gas prices ahead of a midterm election set to hinge on the economy…. And yet, Trump has retained deep loyalty from his supporters on one of the most consequential decisions of his second term."Republican strategist Barrett Marson warns that the Iran war could hurt Trump with GOP voters if it drags on too long. Marson told Politico, "The president has to be careful. If things turn just a little bad or if during the summer we are still entangled, those voices will not only get louder but there will be more of them. Trump needs to stick to his four to six weeks, which is fast approaching."Another GOP strategist, Jeff Burton, told Politico, "MAGA is locked in for Trump. The bigger issue isn't about him or even Iran, it's that foreign conflicts expose a real fault line between more hawkish Republicans and a rising isolationist wing. That tension is only going to grow as 2028 gets closer, and it's going to be a defining challenge for whoever tries to take the MAGA mantle."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

Transcript:President Donald Trump has repeatedly offered optimistic projects about the Iran war, but according to a prominent columnist, he is actually caught in a “quagmire” that will require a “military miracle” to be resolved.“Here is the present situation, in a nutshell: The United States and Israel have established absolute air dominance over the nation of Iran,” wrote columnist David French from The New York Times on Thursday. “In a few short days, our combined forces have destroyed Iran’s ability to protect its own airspace, have killed much of Iran’s senior military and civilian leadership, and have sunk much of Iran’s navy.”Citing the Institute for the Study of War, French pointed out that if Iran manages to get America to withdraw despite closing down the Strait of Hormuz, they will declare a victory by seemingly forcing the West to withdraw due to economic pressure. This, in turn, will make them more inclined to use similar economic coercion tactics in the future.“That’s the logic that leads to a quagmire,” French wrote. “If America declares victory now, when the Iranian regime is still in power and the strait is closed, then Iran perversely can claim that it won. It took a huge punch, absorbed the blow, and still forced America to climb down. It employed its ultimate weapon . closing the strait . and America had no effective answer.”He added, “Commit to opening the strait (and keeping it open) by force, and the U. S. may well find itself in yet another open-ended, costly conflict with at least some American soldiers on Iranian soil. This would be war on our enemy’s terms and terrain, with the potential of slowly but surely inflicting casualties and costs on the American military until we grow tired of the conflict and leave.” Only a “military miracle” can avoid either outcome, “a fast campaign with minimal casualties that can quickly reopen the strait, minimize harm to the international economy and leave Iran almost entirely toothless, unable to inflict military or economic damage on its foes.”If Trump fails to accomplish this, French predicted that he would leave Iran in a predicament similar to that facing Iraq after President George H. W. Bush’s Iraq war.“When Saddam Hussein faced a catastrophic defeat during Operation Desert Storm, he doubled down,” French wrote. “He tried to kill George H. W. Bush, he supported the second intifada against Israel, his troops fired on American pilots. He harbored terrorists. Defeat did not make him any less of an enemy to the United States, and in 2003 we fought him again, in a much longer and bloodier war.”He concluded, “Trump has only himself to blame. He led America into an unconstitutional war. And now he’s compounding that sin by proving to be every bit as reckless a commander as he is a president.”In an article published Wednesday by The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer, the journalist argued that Trump has made his situation in Iran war unnecessarily worse by alienating all of America’s allies."After a decade of trashing American allies as freeloaders," Serwer wrote, "President Trump is begging for their help in opening the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway adjacent to Iran sometimes referred to as the 'jugular' of the world economy. Those allies aren't exactly jumping at the chance to join Trump's war on Iran . not a single one has taken the offer. That leaves the president trapped in a needless war of choice that he started and is unable to finish. Iran's leverage over the global economy is increasing as oil prices rise and the strait remains closed to the U. S. and its allies. Now, basically anyone could have told Trump that spending the past few years antagonizing allies with aggressive tariffs, belligerent arm-twisting, and imperial dismissiveness would hurt him when the time came to ask those same allies for help."Serwer concluded, "But this isn't a simple strategic miscalculation or even a typical Trumpian incompetence . it's the result of a particular ideological fantasy of American independence from foreign alliances, one that is oblivious to how those alliances long served American interests. Americans are learning the hard way that the economic costs of the autarky pursued by Trump are far worse than those of the 'globalism' he opposes."Despite these ongoing problems, Trump declared at a Thursday White House press conference that Iran is losing the war because “their navy is gone. Their air force is gone. Their anti-aircraft equipment is gone. Their leaders are gone. We're flying wherever we want. we have nobody even shooting at us. ... And, as you know, their leadership is gone."By contrast, CNN's Haley Britzky reported on X that indeed America has been shot at."New: A US F-35 fighter jet made an emergency landing at US air base in the Middle East after it was struck by what is believed to be Iranian fire, according to two sources familiar with the matter tell me and [CNN’s Oren Liebermann],” Britzky wrote. “CENTCOM spox Capt. Tim Hawkins said an F-35 made the landing safely after flying a combat mission over Iran and that the pilot is in stable condition."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