Donald Trump star Hollywood Walk of Fame.JPG
(Image by Wikipedia (commons.wikimedia.org), Author: Neelix: I am the originator of this photo. I hold the copyright. I release it to the public domain.) Details Source DMCA
On June 12, Axios reported, the US regime refused to support Israeli strikes on Iran ... but US president Donald Trump said such strikes "might very well happen" even though he wouldn't want Israel to "blow it" ("it" being a new nuclear deal to replace the one Trump began violating in 2018).
Hours later, Israeli aircraft attacked, apparently damaging Iranian nuclear facilities and killing top military figures. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the action as "unilateral" and emphasized that "we are not involved."
Within hours, however, Trump described the Israeli strikes as, effectively, an outsourcing of US policy. "We knew just about everything," he said. "We knew enough that we gave Iran 60 days to make a deal and today is 61, right? So, you know, we knew everything."
After which US forces put its air defense capabilities in the region to work helping Israel blunt the impact of Iranian counterstrikes.
One reasonable conclusion, drawn by any number of reasonable people, is that Trump and Rubio were lying to begin with and that the Israeli strikes enjoyed US approval and possibly even active, direct US support (such as the use of US aerial refueling for the Israeli aircraft).
That certainly seems possible, but I'd like to offer a different theory: Trump got played. The Israelis said they intended to strike. Trump said not to. The Israelis struck anyway, betting that Trump would circle back to claim prior knowledge and tacit approval, then throw in to defend Israel from the consequences of its actions.
I don't know that either theory will ever be fully proven as correct, but the latter theory tracks with everything we know about Trump's history and method.
As a "leader," Trump is congenitally incapable of admitting either of two things: Error or weakness.
Prior to running for politics, he operated entirely on "brand," not actual accomplishment.
Over decades as a real estate developer, casino operator, etc., he racked up multiple business bankruptcies and built a smaller fortune than he'd have earned from investing his inheritance in an S&P 500-indexed mutual fund and going on permanent vacation.
When sequential failures in real business moved him to go full Hollywood with The Apprentice, the focus was on being a "boss" dispensing sage advice to (or yelling "you're fired" at) future business moguls (most of whom subsequently sank from view).
Having failed upward into the presidency, his strategy remains the same: Promote a Trump "brand" built on the pretense that he's either competent or in charge. When both prove false, just change the story to fit the image.
In my opinion, the Israelis correctly saw Trump as an easy mark and acted accordingly. We'll get stuck with the bill, in treasure and quite possibly blood.
