According to Ken Klippenstein, “Trump is now at war with Iran”:
[O]n March 9 … U.S. B-52s flew alongside Israeli fighter jets on long-range missions, practicing aerial refueling and joint operations. Again the American press missed the story; though not the Israeli press, which correctly reported the real purpose of the operation — “readying the Israeli military for a potential joint strike with the U.S. on Iran.”
And:
Writing on Truth Social, Trump said, “Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN, and IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!”
How should we think about this?
• Is it true that we’re at war with Iran, or well on our way?
We don’t know, given that Trump often blusters and fades. There’s no fade in Netanyahu, though. According to many, Israel’s been trying to gin up a war with Iran that the U.S. will fight. He’s failed so far. Will he succeed with Trump, who’s getting the hard push from neocons and pro-Israelites like big money Trump donor Miriam Adelson? As of now, we don’t know.
• What are the implications, if this is true?
Among the many possible outcomes that others have listed — risk to thousands of US soldiers serving in the Middle East; closure of the Strait of Hormuz and a massive oil shock; risk of domestic blowback as vulnerable U.S. targets, shopping malls and the like, are attacked in return — among all these is one outcome not widely considered….
If Trump orders a direct strike on Iran in a war not declared by Congress, will the military go along? It’s certain that Pete Hegseth, Trump’s Pentagon chief, would follow Trump’s orders. I think that’s why he’s in place.
But will career generals and admirals? I don’t think that’s certain.
Consider the following interview, where retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson said this (queued to start at 1:54 for the context):
WILKERSON: I’m told with great confidence in the sources that the latest two visits by the Central Command Unified Commander were to tell him [Netanyahu] that we [the U.S.] would not be with him in the event of his going to war with Hezbollah that he provoked. Nor will we be with him going to war with Iran that he provoked. And we made it quite clear that we would know if he provoked it. [emphasis added]
Later in the clip, Wilkerson says that the Pentagon told Biden: “No dice, Mr. President. No dice on Ukraine and no dice on Gaza. We’re in charge now.”
WILKERSON: “I’ve been told, again by fairly reliable sources, that Blinkin and Sullivan — Blinkin primarily, but Sullivan too — have been sidetracked, and what’s happened is the Pentagon has taken over, essentially, diplomacy as well as any action, militarily speaking, with regard to both theaters of war.”
A few things to note:
First, though Wilkerson may be wrong, the U.S. has not been directly involved in either Ukraine or the various Israeli wars, save during the show “retaliation” of Iran against Israel. So if that discussion happened, it took.
Second, according to Wilkerson, the Defense Department does engage in diplomacy. Near the end of the episode, there’s this:
NAPOLITANO: Colonel, you once ran the State Department [as Secretary Colin Powell’s chief of staff under George Bush]. How does the Defense Department engage in diplomacy?
WILKERSON: They engage in diplomacy every day. Every day. There are four-stars in the various syncdoms, the regions that they control, the AORs [Areas of Responsibility] [who] are the true U.S. diplomats. And some of them are very good at it. I saw some of them. I worked with some of them who are very good at it, better than any Secretary of State.
But it shouldn’t be that way. That’s a parenthetical remark. We shouldn’t have the military leading diplomacy. But we often do.
And the Japanese prime minister once told me why to my face. He said, “Larry, when your East Asia and Pacific Assistant Secretary comes out here, he’s not got anything but his briefcase. When the man from Honolulu comes out here, from Camp Smith in Hawaii, he’s towing air wings, submarines, battle groups, Marine amphibious groups, Army divisions. I listened to him. This is the Prime Minister of Japan.
Finally, Wilkerson says that Biden was eventually convinced by Lloyd Austin that the generals were right:
NAPOLITANO: Who told General Kurilla to tell Prime Minister Netanyahu, “If you invade Lebanon, you’re on your own?”
WILKERSON: It was, I think, [Pentagon chief Lloyd] Austin. But that’s the chain of command. Austin conveyed that message to him [Kurilla]. But I think it was Austin that convinced Biden to give him that command so he could transmit it to Kurilla.
So maybe not exactly a coup, since Biden backed down. But if Netanyahu was told before Biden, we’ve still crossed a line.
That interview was taped last September, before the election, before Trump’s latest big noise — “IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire.” Before Trump’s love of swinging big White House pipe and letting Musk swing it as well.
What would happen if the military — not Trump’s appointees, but the long-serving career brass — refused to follow an order to attack Iran?
• First, if Trump doesn’t back down and the generals hold firm, we’d be well on the way to Egypt’s constitution-as-practiced, where the military is encouraged to step in when the public thinks the government’s gone too far wrong. Occasional military rule is the Egyptian way.
Do we want to live in a country where the military intervenes, even with good intent and better effect?
• Second, if Trump doesn’t back down and the generals comply, we’ll now have a military that, like many of our cops (Tom Homan’s a perfect example), will do any illegal deed if it’s “authorized.”
Have we then stripped Congress completely of warmaking power?
This is more than a problem; it’s a Rubicon. War with Iran would be an absolute disaster, so there’s that to deal with. And further, it’s legally justified by … what? Because Trump said to do it?
Wherever this goes, unless Trump backs down on his own, we’re done. We would have either a king (we’re already inches away), or a military coup that’s both widely cheered and opposed.
