The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board wasn’t buying President Donald Trump’s latest saber-rattling at the United Nations.
Hours after Trump warned he could “annihilate” Iran’s regime during his Tuesday address to the General Assembly, the Rupert Murdoch-owned paper’s editors argued the threat would land harder if Trump hadn’t already worn it out. The warning would be more credible “if we and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps hadn’t heard it several times by now,” the board wrote, noting this year’s speech was comparatively subdued — “no escalator sabotage” — with the drama confined to the annihilation threat itself.
The editors doubted Iran’s regime would suddenly surrender its nuclear stockpile or drop its claim to the Strait of Hormuz, warning Trump could be “blindsided again” the way he was when Tehran blew off an earlier cease-fire. They also noted Iran may be “banking on the midterms” to force Trump’s hand — but argued that bet could backfire, since a second-term president freed of election pressure “will have two years left in office, with no political threat hanging over his head” and might prosecute the war “with less restraint.”
Adding to the whiplash: later Tuesday, Trump said a three-hour meeting with Iranian representatives had gone “very well,” raising fresh hope for a diplomatic off-ramp. The board argued Trump’s constant swings between annihilation and peace talks have left “exhausted Americans” unsure what to believe.
“Iran is going to heed what the President does, not what he threatens to do,” the editors predicted. “When the annihilation talk rings false, it hurts U.S. deterrence around the world. It also hurts Mr. Trump at home because it doesn’t look like the U.S. is winning. He’s better off explaining his strategy to win the war and for seeing it through—before and after the midterms.”
The post Murdoch’s WSJ sticks a knife in Trump’s credibility after latest Iran threat appeared first on Raw Story.
