How Trump’s erratic decisions are making a dangerous crisis worse: conservative

Veteran conservative columnist/author Mona Charen has long been a blistering critic of the far-right Shiite fundamentalist regime in Iran, which came to power in 1979 with the overthrow of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. During the 1980s, Charen worked in the Reagan White House as a speechwriter for First Lady Nancy Reagan — and as a syndicated columnist, she was quick to call out the many human rights violations occurring in Iran under the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomehni.

Charen, now 69, hasn't grown any less critical of the Iranian regime. But in a scathing article for the conservative website The Bulwark published on March 17, she argues that Trump's "erratic" handling of the war against Iran is only making a bad situation worse.

"The population loathes the regime, as we've witnessed many times, but most recently in January when they thronged the streets in their tens of thousands — only to be gunned down en masse," the Never Trump conservative explains. "If we had a normal administration and a normal decision-making process, those factors would have been considered. There would have been a national conversation about how imminent a threat Iran posed to us and to their neighbors. We would have weighed the risks of war against the opportunity to strike a fatal blow to a terrible regime. We would have decided upon clear aims, and evaluated the chances of success or failure."

Charen continues, "The fact of Iran being a nasty piece of work and a threat is not dispositive on the matter of going to war. A poorly planned or executed war can make things worse."

Trump, Charen laments, went to war against Iran "without planning, without consultation with allies, without congressional authorization, and without a clue about how badly things could go."

"Without a normal National Security Council, Department of State, Department of Defense, intelligence community, congressional committees, or public input, we piece together that the president made this decision for psychological rather than strategic reasons," Charen warns. "Thrilled by U.S. firepower in last summer's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, and giddy from the perceived success of removing (former Venezuelan President) Nicolás Maduro, Trump came to believe that the military was a magic wand that he could wave according to his whim. Of course, he was aware of his vows to keep us out of wars, but wars are boots on the ground, not beautiful strikes from the skies. Disregarding warnings from wiser heads about the risks to the Strait of Hormuz, Trump dove in."

Trump, Charen observes, "obviously thought he could achieve regime change" in Iran "with an air campaign alone."

"The Iranian regime is one of the worst on the planet, and we must still hope for the sake of the Iranian people and the world that it does not survive," Charen argues. "But this war is being conducted to heal psychic wounds and to boost the ego of our dangerous commander in chief, who is now obliged to plead for help opening the Strait of Hormuz from (former?) allies and enemies alike. If the Iranian regime survives, even in a weakened condition, it may be more dangerous than ever, having shown the world that it can withstand simultaneous assault from the 'big and little Satans.'"