Trump's Midterms Dodge Over Iran Is More Nixon Than Lincoln

It is increasingly clear that President Donald Trump is constrained in what he can do against Iran between now and the midterm elections. Americans have little appetite for a wider war, and Trump knows that escalation could cost Republicans dearly in tight Congressional races in November. Iran knows it too, obviously, which explains its outrageous behavior. We all know that after the midterms Trump may have a freer hand—but think about what that means. Trump is constrained now because the American people are about to vote, but that constraint largely disappears after they do. If he then pursues a course he feared pursuing before the election, he will have used the election to escape judgment for it. Put simply, he will have fooled the American voter. Clever politics, sure. But not leadership. Trump should have made the case long ago—as he should be now—about what he proposes to do with the Iran problem. That's because unlike his fights over Greenland or Canada or NATO, it is not a MAGA fever dream but a real problem. It is a problem which requires some sacrifice and tolerance of pain to fix. And it may not wait for the midterms to play out. Tehran can and will ignore the American electoral calendar. It continues to press its claim to control over the Strait of Hormuz, and there is little reason to assume it will indefinitely absorb the economic warfare being waged against it without lashing out. Iran should be facing a reasonably united American electorate and a totally aligned array of American allies. But Trump has spent his second term insulting and provoking allies and is in a kind of domestic cold war with Americans who didn't vote for him. War against Iran made sense only if regime change was the goal. The regime itself is the source of the problem, both for the region and, above all, for the Iranian people. But regime change could mean a long war, higher oil prices, American casualties and Iranian retaliation across the region. Yet Trump has been promising Americans triumph without pain. He has never seriously prepared them for any difficulty, and with the midterms approaching, he is clearly choosing to try to divert them elsewhere, like his trade war with Canada. And he went to war, expecting the support of NATO allies, having not consulted or warned them. Americans deserve to know what Trump plans before they vote. If he believes the blockade may lead back to war, they deserve to know that too. If he believes the Islamic Republic ultimately has to fall, he should say so. And if he believes Americans may have to accept casualties, economic disruption or a sustained military commitment to accomplish that, he should make the case for it now rather than discovering the necessity of sacrifice on November 4, the day after the midterms. If stronger action is genuinely needed now, postponing it for electoral reasons carries strategic costs and may actually encourage Iranian behavior that makes escalation necessary. If stronger action is not needed now, it will be difficult to explain why it suddenly becomes necessary once the votes have been counted. 5 Hard Truths After AfD Wins German State Election Is it OK for Trump to be so cynical? To make massive geopolitical decisions based on the domestic political calendar? Yes, history supplies some company for him. Lyndon Johnson entered the 1964 election presenting himself as the more restrained choice on Vietnam while his administration was already contemplating a much larger American commitment. He won overwhelmingly, and the great escalation followed. Richard Nixon left an even clearer record. In September 1972, Henry Kissinger discussed with Nixon what might happen if the Vietnam negotiations failed. 'If we can't end it this way, we've got to go all-out after the election,' Kissinger told him. Nixon replied, 'I understand that.' Nixon won re-election in November; the Christmas Bombing began soon after. The difficulty of persuading the public comes with the job, particularly when the policy will ask something painful of them. Lincoln understood that in 1864. He believed for a time that the Civil War would cost him re-election, yet he continued pursuing the course he believed the preservation of the Union required. He placed his policy before the electorate along with his presidency and accepted the possibility that voters might reject both. The Iran situation is complicated by a devil's workshop of international considerations. Any sustained campaign affects oil markets, shipping, Israel, the wider Middle East, Russia and China. This kind of landscape requires a serious international alliance. Building an alliance required Trump to be serious from the beginning. He needed to say what the U.S. was trying to accomplish, what victory would look like and what the exit strategy was. He needed a plan for the obvious Iranian responses: attacks on shipping, attempts to close the Strait, retaliation against American forces and allies, terrorism and pressure on oil markets. These were questions to answer before the first bombs fell, not as each new crisis arrived. Instead, we have had bluster, threats and laughable declarations of victory that events have contradicted. Assembling the alliance, defining the objective, preparing for the obvious contingencies and leveling with the public about the cost: that is true leadership. Trump could still do it. He can follow Lincoln and put his policy before the voters, consequences and all. Or he can follow Johnson and Nixon, wait until the election is safely over, and try to fool enough of the people enough of the time. Dan Perry is the former London-based Europe-Africa Editor and Cairo-based Middle East Editor of The Associated Press, chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem and the author of two books. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own . Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Gray R. Thomas