2 hours ago
2
“I had to stop them [the Iranians] because if they had a nuclear weapon, they would use it. And you want to see bedlam, let them blow up a couple of cities someplace, like they would've blown up Israel. If it weren't for me, Israel would not exist today, because I terminated the Barack Hussein Obama deal, the JCPOA (the 2015 international agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program), which was a road to a nuclear weapon. They [the Iranians] would've had it five years ago. They would've used it within the first week, in my opinion. And Israel would no longer be with us. Israel would've been gone years ago had I not done that.”
That was President Trump speaking last Friday on The Axios Show, where his interviewer, Marc Caputo, said it was to be a conversation on “power, and how you [Trump] think about it, and how you wield it.”
Over the next 34 minutes, Trump was direct in his views on war, people and negotiations though what he said at times was not totally factual or he left out relevant information. There were also instances where he seemed to be speaking honestly.
Why does Trump say things that many – if not most people – know are wrong? Also, the President, who in the past has sought to portray his role as a man seeking to end wars – and get the Nobel Peace Prize – during the Axios conversation bragged about his various military operations, including the killing of people. Why?
These are things worth discussing because no matter what he says or does in private, it’s what Trump says or does in public that has an impact and affects how people see him, both friends and enemies including foreign leaders.
For example, had Iran developed nuclear weapons, I believe it is highly unlikely they would have quickly used one or more against Israel. That’s because I know, and Iran’s leaders in Tehran certainly know, although it was not widely publicized, that Israel has for decades had a nuclear arsenal of its own, including more than 90 nuclear bombs and warheads. Some of them are on cruise missiles deployed on Israeli submarines, which means they would likely survive a first Iranian strike and potentially be in a place to strike back.
In short, even if Iran had nuclear weapons, I believe even Tehran’s religious leaders would be deterred from using any of them against Israel because they know that Israel could respond with nuclear weapons of their own.
President Trump, I’m sure, knows about Israel’s nuclear arsenal and the theory of mutual deterrence. A country with nuclear weapons has that kind of protection against other countries with such weapons. Think of North Korea, for example.
Back in 2017, Trump threatened North Korean leader Kim Jong Un with “fire and fury and frankly power the likes of which the world has never seen before.” At that time it was doubted that Pyongyang had a nuclear warhead and missile that could reach the U.S. Since then, it’s clear, the North Koreans do have nuclear weapons that can hit American territory and Trump these days speaks of friendship with Kim.
To me, Trump’s repeated claim that his actions against Iran have “saved” Israel are designed to support his own popularity in that country and, at the same time, imply that the radical Iranian religious leaders are crazy enough to use nuclear weapons against a nuclear-armed Israel.
It reminds me that back in the Cold War period, some top Reagan administration officials promoted the idea that the Soviet Union was considering a nuclear “first strike” against the U.S. because the Russians were constructing their Moscow subway system to serve for civil defense sheltering should we Americans strike back with any nuclear weapons we had remaining.
At another point during the Axios interview Trump said, “I destroyed their general. OK.? [Qasem] Soleimani, [who] was the father of the roadside bomb…It was his favorite weapon. And I killed him. And he killed thousands of [American] soldiers [during the Iraq war] and thousands of other people, tens of thousands of other people.”
Trump went on to describe the details of how he directed the U.S. Special Forces and CIA to carry out Soleimani’s January 2020 assassination in Iraq by blowing up a car he was traveling in, even after Israel backed out of assisting in the operation.
“And it was a flawless attack,” Trump said, adding, “Now, that was one of the biggest moments in the history of the Middle East, because he was the most feared man in 100 years…He was a bad guy, but he was smart. He was a very tough general. You know what he was going to do? He was going to blow up five of our military bases. I got him one week ahead of that attack.”
As for more recently in Iran, Trump said, referring to the U.S. and Israeli February 28 attacks, “I killed the Ayatollah (Ali Khamenei). And a number of IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard) officials. And I sadly hurt the other Ayatollah (Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the former Supreme Leader and now Supreme Leader), who I will tell you, I did not meet him. I did not speak to him…But he's got a certain braveness because he was, he’s badly injured.”
Trump described what led him to stop the bombing that, I believe, has some truth in it.
“If I were hitting them [the Iranians] right now, when you stopped, if we're not going to put boots on the ground, I mean you don't want [U.S. military] boots on the ground, right? If we're not going to put boots on the ground, probably the same people , they go deep into the caves. They're called granite caves. They're very powerful. They go deep and then when we stop, they'll come up and they'll probably be the same leaders. So nothing, okay?”
As Trump himself emphasized, he wants no part in putting American military on the ground in Iran, or really anywhere in any numbers for any extended time period. Despite his recent turn to military operations, he fears having to take responsibility for American troops being killed or wounded.
He also appears to have learned the limitations of just bombing or using missiles.
Trump said, “When I knocked them [the Iranians] out, we knocked them out so powerfully, we would right now have the Hormuz Strait totally closed. It would have mines all over it and it would have missiles flying over billion-dollar ships. And those ships will never sail.”
Then Trump summed up why he stopped bombing Iran and turned to negotiations.
Trump said, “I just looked. [The price of] oil is tumbling. The ships are roaring out of there [that] they want to go home. They want to go home. They're all full with oil. There's a gusher. I mean, we have seven [hundred] or eight hundred ships are leaving, but if I attack them, none of those ships are leaving. The stock market is way up, way, way up. The stock market is up over the last four or five days when it looks like we're going to make a deal. Stock market's up thousands of points. Everybody's richer. Now, would you rather have that or be like some stupid people?”
He then described “hard liners” who were telling him, “Oh, you got to take 'em [bomb Iranians] out yet.” Of which Trump said, “Well, what lemme tell you. And plus, I'm not looking to kill people. I have one primary wish as president, in terms of people. I never want to be the late great Herbert Hoover. So this is the kind of thing that could cause a worldwide depression.”
In his own words, Trump seemed to recognize the Iran war he started had to be ended before it caused, what he apparently feared coming, “a worldwide depression.”
The outcome of the current 60-day cease-fire negotiations is unclear, but I notice the third item of the Memo of Understanding reads, “The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days, extendable with mutual consent (emphasis added).
The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.
Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief
English (US) · 