After months of talk of the US attacking Iran, President Trump has
finally spoken directly on the matter. Unfortunately, he largely left
the question unanswered, saying he prefers to keep the matter a “question mark.“
Trump told an interviewer with Time Magazine that he would ‘certainly go over nuclear weapons,”
but didn’t want to commit one way or the other on a war against Iran
for other reasons, including free flow of oil through the Persian Gulf.
Trump has long favored having an unclear foreign policy on specifics,
leaving open the possibility of a surprise war that no one sees coming,
and also hoping to make people nervous about where the line is as a way
to try to use the perceived threat as a bargaining chip.
But leaving the flow of oil a “question mark” seems to be a change in US
military policy, as officials have long presented keeping oil flowing
across the Middle East as a prime goal of the huge US military presence
in the region.
Which isn’t to say Trump doesn’t intend to go to war if that becomes an
issue. Rather, it may be about convincing other countries in the region
to commit themselves to participating in such efforts.
Not that it is expected to come to that. Indeed, saying he’d only go to
war over Iran getting nuclear weapons is as good as saying he’s not
going to war, as Iran is not enriching uranium to anywhere near
weapons-grade levels, nor intending to attempt to do so. As ever, Iran’s
program is purely civilian, and even if the US doesn’t always approve
of it, the lack of a weapons-dimension should keep that from being a
pretext for war.
Trump Creates Doubts About What He Would Attack Iran Over
Says he would attack over nuclear weapons, leaves 'question mark' for the rest
Join the Discussion!
We welcome thoughtful and respectful comments. Hateful language, illegal content, or attacks against Antiwar.com will be removed.
For more details, please see our Comment Policy.
