Peter O'Brien has a topical Quadrant piece on Trump, Iran and the tendency of so many commentators to assume their views should count. As O'Brien points out, that's not Trump's view and there is no reason why it should be.
Attack of the Opinion-Page Generals
I watched President Trump’s address to the US nation last week on Sky News. My immediate reaction was that he had done a pretty good job. So, I was startled at the overwhelmingly negative reaction of commentators Laura Jayes and Jonathan Kearsley. It seems that the President had failed to answer their questions. That he had added nothing new to what he had already told them. They seemed genuinely puzzled by this dereliction on the part of the leader of another country. Did it occur them, I wonder, that they were not included in Trump’s intended audience?
A few minutes earlier, Jayes had expressed the view that the Iran incursion might just be the next logical step in a strategy that involved the US becoming even less dependent on the Middle East for oil. The lightbulb glowed, however dimly, with the appreciation that there might be method in his madness. But that thought seemed to evaporate immediately post Trump’s address.
The whole piece is well worth reading as a reminder that Operation Epic Fury was not intended to please anyone Trump and the US do not need to please at this time. This includes numerous journalists, celebrities, pundits, politicians and national leaders such as Keir Starmer.
If only President Trump had stuck to the ‘rules-based order’ and acted with the steely determination of, say, President Obama or the crystalline moral clarity of, say, President Biden, oil would still be below $100 a barrel. That has been the maysayers’ chorus. Of course, Iran would be that much closer to having a nuclear bomb. But would they use it? Probably not. Maybe not. Fingers crossed.
No comments:
Post a Comment