,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
1/4 Critical to understanding Trump’s Iran attack about-turn are his competing instincts on foreign intervention. He ran in 2016 opposing costly overseas wars and (friends say) genuinely recoils from the realities of military conflict and death. But...
2/4 ...he has been willing to use bellicose language + inflated defence budget to stare down adversaries (eg Kim Jong-un). And has acted when failing to do so would appear weak (twice striking Syria over chemical weapons ‘red line’.)
3/4 In Iran both instincts are playing out, with influential figures pulling in opposing directions - John Bolton reportedly backing strikes and Tucker Carlson of Fox News very publicly warning against another Middle East intervention.
4/4 That nuanced situation belies the ‘Trump the Warmonger’ narrative some critics push (and the president himself at times leans into). But also means there is genuine concern that if provoked enough Trump may feel he has to attack.
