Operation Epic Quid Pro Quo by Geoff Carter

Attribution: White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

By Geoff Carter

On a Sunday morning eighty-five years ago, December 7^th, 1941, our nation awoke to the news that the U.S. was at war. Last Sunday, we awoke to learn that we were at war once again, and that this time we were the aggressors. The Trump administration, without approval from Congress, had launched a massive air offensive against the country of Iran.

According to SOF News, hundreds of missiles, along with drone attacks and fighter jet attacks, had been launched at over one thousand Iranian targets. First news of the attack came via a video posted on Donald Trump’s social media site. Apparently, he had not been in the White House situation room leading the charge but was instead hosting a fund-raiser at his Mar-a-Lago residence at the time of the assault.

“Among the initial strikes was a barrage of Tomahawk cruise missiles and air-launched missiles fired from U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force jets. Hundreds of strikes were carried out by the U.S. in the first 12 hours. The operation appears planned as a multi-day campaign, one that required joint U.S.-Israel planning over several months. (SOF) ” And so, the American people found themselves once again involved—mired—in a Middle Eastern conflict. Not a strike. Not a police action. A war.

Even though the Trump administration had been engaged in saber-rattling and had assembled a massive strike force in the region, the strike still came as a shock because the U.S. had been involved in negotiations with Iran concerning their nuclear program, and apparently, positive progress was being made—right up to the day of the attack. And so, the reasons for the aggression are unclear—and all the more puzzling because since the offensive began, the White House has been spewing out specious and sometimes conflicting explanations for going to war. Most were predicated on the valid premise that Iran was developing nuclear arms, although experts agree this was not an immediate threat.

During the first video announcing his war early Sunday morning, Trump mentioned the word “regime” nine times, but in subsequent press conferences, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth vehemently denied that regime change was the reason for the attack, citing instead that Iranian capability of developing nuclear weapons had reached a critical stage—a claim that has since been roundly debunked. So, it wasn’t regime change.

From there, White House messaging pinballed to the statement that the attack was necessary to protect our troops in the region, that it was in fact a preemptive strike—another claim which lacks credibility. While the Trump administration said that American soldiers were at risk from an imminent Iranian attack, this assertion is—to be generous—a little exaggerated.

According to the AP , “Trump administration officials told congressional staff in private briefings Sunday that U.S. intelligence did not suggest Iran was preparing to launch a preemptive strike against the U.S., three people familiar with the briefings said.”

“Whatever imminent threat they’re posing was likely in reaction to our unprecedented military buildup in the region,” said Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.). “This is an example of the president deciding what he wanted to do, and then making his administration go and find whatever argument they could make to justify it (Politico).” So it wasn’t to protect our soldiers.

It’s true that Iran is governed by a brutal authoritarian theocracy that has put down a number of public demonstrations resulting in the deaths of thousands of people. In yet another war excuse, Trump has said the attack was to help the Iranian people and that they should “rise up and take the government.” Trump is hardly known for his humanitarianism. Right. So, we’re back to square one: regime building again. That wasn’t it.

This lack of consistency and continuity suggests that there was either no clear intent for the strike or that it had not been thought through at all—or that the reasons behind the attack had little or nothing to do with American interests.

Donald Trump and his family have long had business interests in the Middle East, particularly Saudia Arabia. According to The New York Times, the Trump family plans to build a Trump Tower in the city of Jeddah, and has two projects planned in the capital city of Ridayh, including “a ‘“Trump Plaza”’ development in Jeddah, describing it as a $1 billion project with ‘“premium residences,”’ office space and a “Central Park-inspired green spine.” This is in addition to a $2 billion Saudi contribution into Jared Kushner’s investment fund. These sorts of business dealings constitute a conflict of interest and are prohibited by law—but Donald Trump has demonstrated time and again he has little use for the law.

Saudia Arabia is not Trump’s only friend in the area. Remember the nation of Qatar “gave” a $400 million luxury jet liner to the president—which he says he plans to keep after he leaves office. Trump has also brokered real estate deals with Oman and the UAE has also invested into Kushner’s investment fund. And don’t forget that Trump has commented that he thought Gaza would be an ideal location to build luxury resort hotels.

Trump’s relationship with Israel was a bit more complicated than a simple monetary quid pro quo. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been lobbying Trump for months to combine forces in an attack on Iran.

According to The New York Times, “The U.S. decision to strike Iran was a victory for Mr. Netanyahu, who had been pushing Mr. Trump for months on the need to hit what he argued was a weakened regime.” Apparently, Netanyahu did everything in his power to sabotage the diplomatic negotiations between Iran and the U.S. and publicly called for strikes against Iran while, according to The Jerusalem Post, Saudia Arabia’s Prince Mohammed Bin Salman lobbied Trump with a series of private phone calls encouraging military action against Iran, saying they were dangerous.

It would seem that American interests and lives were not at immediate risk from Iran and that a negotiated peace would have been sufficient to protect our regional interests. So why the attack?

Apparently, it would seem our president is willing to put American lives at risk in order to protect his business interests. There is no other plausible reason for him to launch this massive air attack. Perhaps encouraged by his military incursion into Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Maduro—and his subsequent pirating of Venezuelan oil, it could be that Trump felt a military decapitation of the Iranian state would bear the same results—a clean in and out operation. This is not proving to be the case

According to CNN, Trump said “that so far… ‘”the biggest surprise” has been Iran’s attacks against Arab countries in the region: Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates” speaking to his administration’s lack of knowledge and expertise in foreign affairs.

The lack of coherent messaging, the appalling dearth of knowledge about regional politics and conflicts, and Trump’s willingness to put his own interests above those of American servicemen and interests spokes to an irresponsible and dangerous decision to go to war without adequate planning, preparation, or cooperation.

Trump never consulted Congress or—as of March 3^rd—has spoken directly to the American people about starting another war. Doing so is protocol and doing so is the law. Trump has acted unilaterally and recklessly. It is bad enough that he is corruptly using the office of the presidency to enrich himself and his family, but the fact that he is using our military as tool to further his own interests is despicable and disgusting.

How many Americans will die as a result of his selfishness, greed, and hubris?