Iran-Israel war could pull in the United States, offering no good choices
Editor's note: Welcome to Double Take, a regular conversation from opinion writers Melinda Henneberger and David Mastio tackling news with differing perspectives and respectful debate.
DAVID: If Donald Trump has a superpower it is in being a disrupter. With two keystrokes, — 'W E' — on Tuesday, he sent the whole foreign policy establishment into a tizzy. 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured 'stuff.' Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA,' Trump said on his social platform, Truth Social.
I thought it was Israel that was controlling the skies over Iran and bombing the country back into the pre-nuclear age, but apparently it is 'U S,' that stands for us and United States, I guess.
I had been enjoying the irony of our proxy, Israel, taking the war to Iran's terror-supporting government after their years of supporting terrorist proxies in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Gaza (Hamas) and Yemen (Houthis) who threaten U.S. interests while Iran can proclaim it doesn't know anything about it.
Remember when the embryonic Hezbollah carried out the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed more than a dozen American Marines?
MELINDA: Sure I do. You are right about Iran's horrible history and bad intentions.
DAVID: If Trump has been consistent in one thing so far in his presidency it is that he is going to keep us out of foreign 'forever' wars, especially ones that smell like the one in Iraq, right next door to Iran. Is that all in the rearview mirror? I hope not.
MELINDA: I have a big job on my hands here, because I'm going to have to argue with not only you, but also with myself, since I don't know the right answer.
I do know a few things: Iranians have been putting up with repressive and rapacious leaders longer than I've been alive. Trump should never have backed us out of the Iran nuclear deal that was working; we used to have inspectors with eyes on at least some sites.
Trump also said no new wars would start on his watch. And wasn't one of his biggest selling points that he and Bibi Netanyahu were so tight that Israel would do whatever he said? Yet here we are and off we go. What's that saying again? Fool me 1000 times, and I guess it's because we wanted to be fooled?
I think the only time I have supported a military intervention was to end ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, and of course what we did not do in Rwanda was shameful. Like you, I very definitely do not want us in another war.
Yet even I, who barely even believe in bombs and certainly do not believe in this president or his team, have to admit that I am a little bit torn over whether a man with the impulse control of a squirrel should do the world a favor and drop some bunker-busters on the Fordow plant. Why? Because no one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
DAVID: I, too, am tempted by the idea that Trump could drop a few of those 30,000-pound bombs from a flight of B-2 Spirits on that cave full of uranium centrifuges. Maybe in a few hours we could wash our hands of the whole thing.
MELINDA: The counterargument is that we have no idea where that one act would end. Remember how quick Iraq was going to be? We have 40,000 troops in the region, and I do wish Trump hadn't run off so many capable diplomats.
Last Sunday, I attended Mass at Our Lady and St. Rose in KCK, and in his terrific homily, Monsignor Stuart Swetland, the pastor and president of Donnelly College, who is a Navy vet, noted that the doomsday clock now stands at 89 seconds to midnight. Tick, tick, tick.
First the parade, then the war? Again, like you, I really hope not.
DAVID: I sure understand where the Israelis are coming from. For far longer than a quarter-century, Iranian leaders have been saying they want to 'wipe Israel off the map.' And that's not even really what they say because they hate Israel so much they can't even say Israel. State media in Iran calls it the 'Zionist regime.'
And with the murderous baby-killing, teen-raping ways of Iran's proxies like Hamas, the Israelis have no reason not to take Iran literally. A nuclear bomb is the last step to the Final Solution.
But do we always have to join Israel in the fight? Isn't it enough that while the rest of the world has turned their backs, we have given Israel everything it needs to defeat those who threaten it?
The more I think about it, the more I think we do, whatever Trump's campaign promises. I don't want to be viewed in history like the generation of Americans who turned away Jews fleeing the Holocaust.
Do I want Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard to lead this affair? Do I trust them to make the right choices to minimize our involvement and to not start another generational occupation of a broken nation? No, I do not, but I don't think we have a choice.
MELINDA: We always have a choice, and I trust neither Trump and Co. nor Bibi.
But oh, God, you know I will never get over some of our World War II-era decisions. In 1941, the U.S. made it even harder for those trying to flee the Nazis to make it to America. FDR did so much good, yet I will never understand how he could have turned away the German ocean liner St. Louis in 1939, and refused to save those 937 Jewish refugees on that boat who were close enough to safety to see the lights of Miami.
On this, the 100th anniversary of 'The Great Gatsby,' I admit that the last couple of times I have reread what to me is the Great American Novel, I couldn't help thinking at some moments of those aboard the St. Louis looking with true yearning at those Miami lights and feeling, oh boohoo you, Jay Gatsby, staring at that green light at the end of Daisy's dock and searching for the impossible American dream of reconnecting two people who, even within the world created by Fitzgerald, really only ever existed in your own mind.
Our government said little to nothing about the Nazi concentration camps well after we knew about them, and why did we not go in sooner to save more Jews imprisoned there? So are you banging on a bruise here in saying we need to stand with Israel? Yes.
The more I think about it, though, the more I think the risks of a wider war are too great. I'm still not sure that I know the right answer, but Iran is so weak right now, and I hope that diplomatic efforts work.
'We're strong, we're prepared, we're defensive and present,' said our historically underprepared but always defensive defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. I don't know if that scared Iran, but it did worry me.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Makes Legal Threat To CNN And The New York Times Over Their Reporting On Iran Intel Assessment
Donald Trump has again threatened news outlets over coverage he dislikes, this time The New York Times and CNN over their reporting on a preliminary intelligence assessment that raised doubts that the U.S. strikes on Iran destroyed their nuclear program. The White House has been on the warpath against journalists over their reporting, even though the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, has acknowledged the existence of the intelligence assessment. Trump and his allies have go so far as to accuse CNN and the Times of denigrating the members of the military who carried out the strikes, even though their reporting was not critical of how the mission was carried out. More from Deadline Bill Moyers Dies: Influential Public Media Journalist And Commentator And Former White House Press Secretary Was 91 Peter Bart: Barbara Walters Built A Career On Trust In A Bygone Era Far Removed From Today Pete Hegseth Chides Former Fox News Colleague Jennifer Griffin As "About The Worst" During Defense Secretary's Press-Bashing Briefing Trump has insisted that Iran's nuclear capabilities were 'obliterated.' Per the Times, Trump demanded a retraction and an apology, as his attorney, Alejandro Brito, described the reporting as 'false,' 'defamatory' and 'unpatriotic.' David McCraw, senior vice president and deputy general counsel for the Times, 'No retraction is needed. No apology will be forthcoming.' McGraw wrote to Brito, 'While the Trump administration protests that the assessments were only preliminary — which, by the way, was the second word of our article — and that later assessments may come to different conclusions, no one in the administration disputes that the first assessments said exactly what the article said they did: the destruction caused by the raid was not as significant as the president's remarks suggested.' He added that the 'American public has a right to know whether the attack on Iran — funded by the tax dollars and of enormous consequence to every citizen — was a success. We rely on our intelligence services to provide the kind of impartial assessment that we all need in a democracy to judge our country's foreign policy and the quality of our leaders' decisions. It would be irresponsible for a news organization to suppress that information and deny the public the right to hear it. And it would be even more irresponsible for a president to use the threat of libel litigation to try to silence a publication that dared to report that the trained, professional and patriotic intelligence experts employed by the U.S. government thought that the president may have gotten it wrong in his initial remarks to the country.' CNN also received a legal threat. A spokesperson said 'we can confirm we received a letter and responded to it, rejecting the claims in the letter.' Trump has called for reporters on the stories to be fired, but has singled out CNN's Natasha Bertrand. On Thursday, at the press briefing, Leavitt attacked Bertrand's past reporting. The network has said that they stand behind '100% behind' Bertrand and her work. The president's legal threat is not unusual. He has previously sued the Times and CNN, but the various lawsuits were dismissed. He sued CBS over the way that a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris was edited. The network has said that the lawsuit is meritless, as do a number of legal scholars, but its attorneys are in settlement talks with Trump's team. CBS parent Paramount Global is seeking administration approval for its merger with Skydance Media. Earlier on Thursday, Trump's defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, held a press conference in which he also bashed media outlets for reporting on the intelligence report. 'You cheer against Trump so hard, in your DNA and in your blood, cheer against Trump because you want him not to be successful so bad, you have to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes,' Hegseth said to the journalists at the Pentagon. He said that he was 'urging caution about premising an entire stories on biased leaks to biased publications to make something look bad. How about we take a beat, recognize first the success of our warriors, hold them up, tell their stories, celebrate that, wave an American flag, be proud of what we accomplished.' Best of Deadline 'The Buccaneers' Season 2 Soundtrack: From Griff To Sabrina Carpenter 'The Buccaneers' Season 2 Release Schedule: When Do New Episodes Come Out? 'Nine Perfect Strangers' Season 2 Release Schedule: When Do New Episodes Come Out?
CNN
33 minutes ago
- CNN
Dem Sen Briefed On Iran: I Don't Think Trump 'Was Telling The Truth' - Erin Burnett OutFront - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Dem Sen Briefed On Iran: I Don't Think Trump 'Was Telling The Truth' Erin Burnett OutFront 48 mins A democratic senator says Iran's nuclear program was not obliterated after receiving a closed door intelligence briefing. Republicans are coming to Trump's defense. Plus, Zoran Mamdami joins to discuss his stunning victory against Andrew Cuomo in New York City.
USA Today
42 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's passport policy was lifted, but these Americans are still in the dark
It took nearly five months, a federal lawsuit, and the postponement of big international travel plans before Ashton Orr received the news he'd been waiting for: his passport finally arrived in the mail with the accurate gender marker on it. This moment felt like a "huge relief" to the West Virginia resident, who told USA TODAY in early March he wasn't sure he'd ever receive a passport matching his gender identity as a transgender man following the Trump administration's January policy acknowledging just the male and female sexes, assigned at birth. The LGBTQ+ advocate received his passport on June 12 as one of the seven plaintiffs in the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, and law firm Covington & Burling LLP's lawsuit Orr v. Trump, which was brought to the courts in February. The suit alleged that the policy violates the right to travel and privacy and discriminates against LGBTQ+ people. Last Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick in Boston expanded the preliminary injunction that blocked the policy, granting passports to the plaintiffs and any impacted Americans. Orr had applied on Jan. 16 to renew his passport with an updated gender marker for an upcoming trip to Ireland for a medical procedure to avoid any issues at airport security, which he'd experienced before since his driver's license still listed him as female. Days later, the U.S. State Department suspended the processing and issuing of all passports seeking a binary gender change or the "X" gender marker under Trump's policy. Thousands of transgender, intersex and nonbinary Americans were left in limbo, unable to travel internationally, and without a critical ID document to secure jobs, housing and other opportunities. To many in the transgender community, the policy also felt like another attack by the current administration to erase them from public spaces and deny their existence. "When your basic right to move freely is denied, it's a message: 'You don't belong here.' It's bigger than bureaucracy. It's systemic erasure," transgender drag artist and RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars 10 contestant Aja previously told USA TODAY. Her passport renewal was rejected despite her current passport and other documents matching her gender identity. While the judge's latest motion offers some relief, the battle is far from over. Many of those affected are still caught in a holding pattern, trying to figure out how to receive their passports, while others have conflicting emotions as the policy's impact went far deeper than just not having a passport. "I think the first time in years, I really felt like the legal system actually saw us, you know, as trans, nonbinary, intersex people as real and as deserving of dignity," Orr said about the judge's action. 'I am exactly who God made': Why travel is a battleground for drag and trans performers Can transgender, intersex and nonbinary Americans get their passports? Legally, yes. As of June 17, the State Department is obligated to process passports requesting the "X" gender marker or a binary change and is taking immediate steps to implement the court order, said a State Department spokesperson. However, many Americans have yet to receive accurate passports and are left in limbo. "We're waiting on the State Department to tell us – and to tell everyone publicly – how they're planning on processing all of these passports that need to be processed," said Aditi Fruitwala, an ACLU senior staff attorney on the lawsuit. The ACLU has received numerous inquiries from people who need to travel internationally urgently but don't know if they need to resubmit a new application or fill out a form for an error correction. "From what we can tell, there are class members who are still unable to update the sex designation on their passport, which indicates that they have not implemented the court order," she said. Although temporary, the judge's ruling is optimistic, according to Fruitwala. "That was sort of exciting to see, that none of (the government's) arguments really carried any water," she said. The State Department told USA TODAY it does not comment on ongoing litigation. Mixed emotions for the trans community Despite the positive direction, the continued reality of not having a passport isn't lost on those impacted. Patrick, who is identified by his first name only out of safety and privacy concerns, is one of those Americans stuck in uncertainty. At the end of 2024, he applied for a passport renewal as a transgender man so he and his wife could go on a long-awaited honeymoon. In March, he received his passport with his gender listed as female on it, rendering it nearly unusable. "That's six months with a passport that I don't know that I'll ever be able to use, and it puts me in danger," he said. Not only does Patrick feel stuck in case he needs to seek asylum, but his home state of Texas recently passed a bill that bans gender marker changes on medical documents unless due to a clerical error, so any accurate ID documents are vital. He also doesn't feel comfortable sending in his medical documents, knowing they can't be replaced if unreturned. He also isn't in a place to pay the fees again. "With Texas doing what Texas is doing, it's making it to where I won't have any accurate IDs," he said. "You know, if Texas reverts my driver's license, will I ever be able to get a passport that reflects my gender identity? Because then it'll say F on there." Knowing so many others in his community are experiencing what Patrick is going through, Orr said he feels conflicted between guilt and gratitude. "I am very eager and just very thankful that I have this privilege to be able to finally leave and get the medical care that I need, when there are still so many that, you know, are navigating the system and this latest order," he said. His trip to Ireland is back on and coming up soon. After everything, Orr admits he's worried about returning to the U.S. borders. "I don't think anybody wants to make a plan for what if I'm detained, what if I'm denied entry into a country where I'm a citizen?" he said. "No one wants to have to make those plans. But again, that is the unfortunate reality of trans travelers right now." Fruitwala said it's a reasonable fear and common question for the transgender, nonbinary, and intersex community since the policy went into effect, even though valid passports are technically usable. Although it would be considered harassment to be denied entry back into the U.S., it's a good idea for travelers to write down the names of civil rights advocates and attorneys, plus to educate themselves on their rights at the border. "Again, I'm refusing to allow this country to continue to dictate my operations," he said. "You know, I am a citizen. I have rights just as everyone else, and I'm going to travel."
