Short thread on domestic political implications of Soleimani strike:
1) Trump's base loves a successful hit-job vs a bad guy & they don't care (nor perhaps does he) if the Middle East goes up in flames as a result. It's totally on brand Trump =>faux toughness+opposite of Obama
1) Trump's base loves a successful hit-job vs a bad guy & they don't care (nor perhaps does he) if the Middle East goes up in flames as a result. It's totally on brand Trump =>faux toughness+opposite of Obama
2) For 2020 campaign, Trump doesn't need a diplomatic breakthrough in the Middle East. The region can remain in turmoil. His base doesn't care. (Neither tbh do most Americans of any political stripe.) He can tout Soleimani strike, Jerusalem embassy move etc as his 'achievements.'
3) But Trump's base won't rally behind war. Starting yet another messy, costly Middle East war might be the 1 thing that could sink his reelection.
He knows that; he's been campaigning vs Mideast intervention forever.
Of course the Iranians know it too. Therein lies a problem.
He knows that; he's been campaigning vs Mideast intervention forever.
Of course the Iranians know it too. Therein lies a problem.
This point👆 is one of the many reasons why the facile (& politically motivated) comparisons to Iraq 2003 & Bush admin are so wildly off-base. US domestic political context was diametrically different then. Today there's no appetite among US electorate for any kind of war.
The wild card here is Tehran. The Iranian leadership is comprised of rational actors, motivated by regime survival. The Islamic Republic has lasted 40yrs precisely bc its leadership knows how to avoid battles they can't win. But that doesn't mean they'll never miscalculate.
