I often wince at the things President Trump says.
Trump recently warned Iran that “… a whole civilization will die tonight” unless “something revolutionarily wonderful” occurs. I think he was bluffing in the hopes that he wouldn’t have to use any more conventional military attacks to get their cooperation. He wanted them to think he was going to nuke them, even though he would never do that, in this type of a conflict. He didn’t care that the rest of the world would assume he meant it and would use it against him. He wagered that the benefit would be worth the cost, if it brought about a peaceful resolution.
Unlike the implied nuclear threat, he often makes explicit threats and then doesn’t follow through, causing his enemies to call him chicken. I think his reasoning was the same as it was with the implied nuclear threat.
I think imposing a naval blockade was a brilliant way to pressure Iran to capitulate without using more missiles and bombs on their infrastructure, like he was threatening to do.
Instead of responding to the pope’s criticism with insults, I think he should have laid out a detailed justification for attacking Iran. That would have clearly demonstrated that we are doing this out of self-defense and that many other peace-loving countries would benefit from a weakened and politically reformed Iran.
Dave Sobek
McMurray