President Donald Trump faces a momentous decision: Does he deliver on his promise to strike Iran after the regime crossed his red line and killed thousands of innocent civilians? How he answers will do more than define his presidency; it will determine his place in American history.
Trump is right to carefully weigh the risks of military action, which must be taken seriously. But there are also risks to inaction, which are arguably far greater.
Start with the risk to America’s credibility. Trump told the Iranian regime in no uncertain terms that if it “violently kills peaceful protesters … the United States of America will come to their rescue,” adding: “We are locked and loaded and ready to go.” The regime ignored his threat and slaughtered thousands. He then urged the Iranian people: “KEEP PROTESTING — TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. … HELP IS ON ITS WAY.” Iranians listened to those words and took to the streets — and many paid with their lives.
Trump cannot allow Iran to defy his warnings with impunity. It would be one thing if he had never said these things. But he did. When the commander in chief delivers a warning like that, he cannot fail to follow through.
That is what President Barack Obama did when he failed to enforce the red line he drew in Syria against using chemical weapons against its own people. Trump had to bomb Syria twice to enforce it. It is what President Joe Biden did after terrorists killed 13 U.S. service members at the Abbey Gate during his disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Biden warned: “We will not forgive. We will not forget. We will hunt you down and make you pay.” But three years later, Biden left office having made no one pay. It took Trump about six weeks to deliver on Biden’s threat, capturing what he called a “top terrorist” responsible for the attack. If Trump now fails to deliver on his own solemn warnings to the terrorist regime in Tehran, he will be repeating Obama and Biden’s mistakes, sending a message of weakness that would reverberate across the world.
In his first year in office, Trump moved boldly to restore the credibility that Biden squandered on the world stage. He warned Houthi terrorists not to attack U.S. ships in the Gulf of Aden, then launched a campaign of “overwhelming lethal force” when they did not heed him. He warned Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria that if they continued mass killings of Christians, he would send the U.S. military “guns-a-blazing,” and he launched strikes when they continued. He warned Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro to relinquish power, then sent the U.S. military to bring him to justice. And when Iran ignored his deadline to reach a nuclear deal, he obliterated its nuclear enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz. All that hard-won credibility would be shattered if Trump now allows the same regime to get away with defying his warning not to massacre its citizens.
Some are now urging Trump to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. That is precisely what Obama did to avoid enforcing his Syria red line. He negotiated an agreement, brokered by Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, for Syria to relinquish its chemical weapons — which the Assad regime violated. If Trump fails to enforce his own red line with Iran and negotiates a nuclear deal instead — a deal that Iran is certain to break — he would be repeating Obama’s display of weakness.
In fact, a nuclear deal now would be worse than simply failing to take military action. Any deal would necessarily involve some form of sanctions relief, and would thus reward the Iranian regime financially for defying Trump and massacring its citizens. At a moment when the regime is weaker than it has ever been since the 1979 revolution, it would provide Iran’s leaders a lifeline, allowing them to recover and reconstitute themselves.
The best way for Trump to reach a nuclear deal with Iran is to take out its leadership and then negotiate with the transitional leadership that follows. Even if the regime does not fall, Trump will own its remnants — just like he has leverage over the remnants of the regime he toppled in Venezuela today. After removing Maduro, Trump warned his replacement, Delcy Rodríguez, that if she did not follow orders she would “pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro.” Today, she is utterly subservient to Trump. He can reach a nuclear deal with an Iranian transitional leader.
Finally, there is the risk of passing up a historic opportunity to rid the Middle East of the source of almost five decades of violence and instability. The Iranian regime bedeviled seven U.S. presidents. It is responsible for the deaths of more Americans than any terrorist state on earth. It is the source of arms and funding for terrorist proxies that threaten the U.S. and its allies across the region. But now, thanks to Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the regime is more vulnerable — politically, militarily and economically — than it has been in the 47 years since its founding. No other U.S. president has had this kind of chance to decisively end the threat posed by Iran and open up the possibility of enduring peace and stability in the Middle East. If Trump seizes that opportunity, it would be the greatest foreign policy achievement of any president since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Let’s be clear: There are risks to military action in Iran, just as there were risks to the military action in Venezuela. We take the success of the Venezuelan operation for granted today, but it could easily have gone sideways: A helicopter could have crashed, Americans could have been killed, and U.S. forces could have failed to achieve their objective. Deposing the Maduro regime by force was a bold and courageous decision. And deposing the Iranian regime by force will require similar presidential courage. Though a weakened Iran cannot stop the U.S. military, it could inflict damage on both the United States and Israel. In Venezuela, Trump concluded that the risks of inaction outweighed the risks of action. That is doubly true for Iran.
Trump faces a stark choice: He can either give the Iranian regime a lifeline, or put it on the path to destruction. He can repeat the mistakes of Biden and Obama, or take his place alongside Ronald Reagan and Franklin D. Roosevelt as one of the few U.S. presidents whose decisive leadership transformed the world.
In his inaugural address, Trump said the he believed he was saved from an assassin’s bullet for a reason — to help America “reclaim its rightful place as the greatest, most powerful, most respected nation on earth.” Well, these are the decisions from which greatness is made. Providence has placed this opportunity in his hands. I trust him to make the courageous choice.
The post The choice that will define the president’s place in history appeared first on Washington Post.
