And now for something completely different . . .
President Trump Does Not Shop At Pier One
My gut tells me that the joint US-Israeli strike against the evil Iranian regime is an event to be celebrated by all decent people. That feeling is reinforced tenfold by the cast of characters lamenting the “aggression”: Mamdani, Omar, Carlson, Owens, Greene.
But it is always difficult to predict the outcome of complex events at their outset. That is why the sages set such a high value on those who were able to foretell future consequences based on their origins: haro’eh et ha’nolad. “Who is wise? He who sees what will be.”
Who could have predicted that the outcome of Yahya Sinwar’s depraved October 7 massacre would result in the devastation of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, as well as the death of the leaders of those malign entities? And who could have known that initial victories in Iraq and Afghanistan by the United States would lead to such ignominious exits?
So we celebrate cautiously. Amid the euphoric jubilation at the victories of the Great/Little Satan team, there is a sobering concern: what will be the end of the chain reaction we have set in motion?
We are ever mindful of the “Pier One” metaphor Colin Powell employed to describe the risks of military intervention: “You break it, you own it.” Thus Powell reminded us that when the United States destabilizes a country, it becomes responsible for the consequences, including reconstruction and long-term stability. In recent history, we have been successful in the initial military campaign, but woefully deficient in the “day after” planning and execution.
Powell’s message was clear, if unheeded. Political leaders must consider long-term obligations. Military action must have clear objectives, yield a decisive victory, and include a workable exit strategy. And, as painfully demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly even in Gaza, failed nation-building can have highly negative and undesirable outcomes.
So . . . I’ll bet that you think this is one of those doom and gloom assessments that strip all the joy from this momentous victory over the forces of evil.
Not a chance. This is not the time or place to look a gift miracle in the mouth, to mix a metaphor or two. It is another miracle in Adar and we must be grateful for it.
But what of Colin Powell and Pier One?
Fortunately, President Trump does not shop at Pier One. It is highly unlikely that he has ever shopped at Pier One. If he did, and he broke something, he would just keep walking. When he breaks things, he looks around to see who is going to clean up after him and proceeds to his next glorious event for a victorious hockey team, or brave firefighter, or courageous Medal of Honor winner.
So much winning.
If all goes well after the rubbish at the top has been eliminated, Iran will become a better place for its long-suffering residents. And if it doesn’t, Great Satan and Little Satan still have the best air forces in the universe.
Instead of Colin Powell, President Trump is more reminiscent of Tom Buchanan in that great American novel, The Great Gatsby. Fitzgerald describes Tom and Daisy Buchanan as people who “smashed up things and creatures” and then retreated into their wealth without being compelled to pay for their carelessness. Fitzgerald intended it as a harsh character judgment, and indeed it is for the Buchanans and the wealthy upper class that Fitzgerald envied and disdained in equal measure, but maybe not such a bad trait for a President taking on an evil empire.
Tom’s wealth, self-absorption, and lack of concern for others shields him from adverse consequences. He is morally careless and perennially entitled. He can be impulsive, selfish, and destructive, because there is never a price to pay–at least not by him.
Privilege and immunity. Sound like anyone you know?
In an American novel, and even in real life, these are a lethal combination for a character. In a President, not so much. Notwithstanding Colin Powell, and regardless of Pier One policy, Trump can break things, step back, survey the wreckage, boast at its scope and comprehensiveness, and wait to see how it all shakes out. Tom and Daisy (and President Trump, God bless him) “retreated back into their money… and let other people clean up the mess.”
The difference is that the Buchanans caused harm, avoided responsibility, and let others pay the price. President Trump caused an enormous good for the world, but, in telling the Iranian people that their fate is in their own hands, still manages to avoid responsibility and blame. Fitzgerald thought it was a terrible thing that Tom and Daisy could be careless, triumphant and impervious to retribution.
I think it is a terrific policy for the United States to eliminate the vortex of evil that was Iran under the Mullahs, and disclaim any responsibility for building a nation to take their place. In recent history, the nation-building led to disaster.
President Trump did his job. Let the Iranian people do the rest, with such support–but limited obligation and responsibility–as the United States can provide.