The Trump Hangover: Is This America’s Victory?*
By writing about the death of civilization, the line of irresponsibility and lack of seriousness was finally crossed. Once and for all.
"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will." For a moment, the whole world trembled after Donald Trump's apocalyptic social media post. What was it supposed to mean? We asked ourselves that question, because lurking in that declaration was a threat of a far greater magnitude than earlier vows to destroy Iranian bridges and power plants. Will he resort to the genocidal tactics we already know from Gaza or Lebanon? Or will he go one step further? Perhaps he had given orders to prepare for a tactical nuclear strike?
America's Nuclear Option in Iran? Even the Experts Weren't Sure What Trump Was Thinking.
I wasn't the only journalist to raise the issue loudly on Tuesday night, hours before Trump's ultimatum expired, and he announced the death of civilization. Some might say that we have succumbed to a collective panic attack; after all, the use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict would be a violation of the fundamental rule of security that has been in force in international relations for more than 80 years. That is the ultimate taboo, and one rooted not solely in morality. The use of nuclear weapons would mark the beginning of the end of our species, because once used in a local armed conflict, they would be used again. It is like some deranged race: once one competitor lets go of the brakes, it amounts to permission for all the others to do the same. At that point, the race turns into a game of Russian roulette. Was this just a panic attack on the part of journalists? Not necessarily. The experts we asked weren't sure what Trump was thinking either. "The nuclear option? I don't even want to think about it!" I heard from some of the most respected analysts.
We sighed with relief on Wednesday morning when a 14-day ceasefire and negotiations were announced, as Trump conveyed in a much calmer, almost balanced, online post. “It could have been expected." Comments came flooding in from across the Atlantic. TACO — "Trump Always Chickens Out"— read the social media posts from the U.S. It was hard to say whether this was evidence of disappointment or just ironic comments about the American president: "He always ends up backing down.” So all that stern posturing, the most extreme threats, and the direst scenarios — were they just empty gestures and words? With nothing to do with reality? Could Trump be like Baron Münchausen, the literary archetype of the liar and the fantasist? It's hard to check. Because who can responsibly deny that the orders had already been given, only for Trump to back down “as usual”?
The Monstrous Ayatollah Regime Will Only Intensify Its Repression of Civilian Iranians
I have the impression that many of us commentators woke up with a journalistic hangover after this night of anticipation and anxiety. The balloon burst, millions of people felt relieved. Now we are all waiting for Trump to declare victory in his just and honorable war with Iran.
But the facts contradict this victory. The monstrous ayatollah regime — one you can only wish to see fall — has survived. And it has gotten stronger. After reaching an agreement with the Americans, it will only intensify its repression of civilian Iranians who were "insufficiently patriotic" during the war. They did not support the regime sufficiently. The Strait of Hormuz, hitherto free of restrictions for navigation, will become a passageway controlled by Iran (and possibly the U.S.), providing funds for the reconstruction of the country. What's more, it is possible, as a result of international negotiations, that sanctions against the regime in Tehran will be lifted.
And that would supposedly be Trump's victory? The U.S. victory? It would almost be possible to be ironic again if the matter were not so grave, because the regime — among the most brutal in the world — would gain international legitimacy for decades of terrorizing its own people and its nearest opposition. Looking for suitable comparisons, I turn to history. Wouldn't the situation be analogous to leaving the Nazi Third Reich alone after concluding a separatist peace with the free world at the cost of, for example, withdrawing from Russia after the fall of Stalingrad in February 1943? Would that have been a victory? And two more comments after Trump's post, which will undoubtedly go down in history. How can we believe in the seriousness of the world's most important politician’s words when he regularly abuses them? If he's playing Münchausen? I think that, with the post about the death of civilization, the final line of irresponsibility and lack of seriousness has been crossed. Once and for all. This is a serious problem for the U.S. president and the rest of the world.
And one last thing. Pro domo sua**. Trump despises journalists. And in his mind, he doesn't need them. Because the whole world is reading his social media posts anyway and is scared. It is a failure of our profession. A profession bound by certain rules — which, for the U.S. president, mean nothing.
*Editor's note: This article is available in its original language with a paid subscription.
**Editor's note: The Latin phrase "pro domo sua" would roughly translate as "for one's own house," or "on behalf of oneself."
"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will." For a moment, the whole world trembled after Donald Trump's apocalyptic social media post. What was it supposed to mean? We asked ourselves that question, because lurking in that declaration was a threat of a far greater magnitude than earlier vows to destroy Iranian bridges and power plants. Will he resort to the genocidal tactics we already know from Gaza or Lebanon? Or will he go one step further? Perhaps he had given orders to prepare for a tactical nuclear strike?
America's Nuclear Option in Iran? Even the Experts Weren't Sure What Trump Was Thinking.
I wasn't the only journalist to raise the issue loudly on Tuesday night, hours before Trump's ultimatum expired, and he announced the death of civilization. Some might say that we have succumbed to a collective panic attack; after all, the use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict would be a violation of the fundamental rule of security that has been in force in international relations for more than 80 years. That is the ultimate taboo, and one rooted not solely in morality. The use of nuclear weapons would mark the beginning of the end of our species, because once used in a local armed conflict, they would be used again. It is like some deranged race: once one competitor lets go of the brakes, it amounts to permission for all the others to do the same. At that point, the race turns into a game of Russian roulette. Was this just a panic attack on the part of journalists? Not necessarily. The experts we asked weren't sure what Trump was thinking either. "The nuclear option? I don't even want to think about it!" I heard from some of the most respected analysts.
We sighed with relief on Wednesday morning when a 14-day ceasefire and negotiations were announced, as Trump conveyed in a much calmer, almost balanced, online post. “It could have been expected." Comments came flooding in from across the Atlantic. TACO — "Trump Always Chickens Out"— read the social media posts from the U.S. It was hard to say whether this was evidence of disappointment or just ironic comments about the American president: "He always ends up backing down.” So all that stern posturing, the most extreme threats, and the direst scenarios — were they just empty gestures and words? With nothing to do with reality? Could Trump be like Baron Münchausen, the literary archetype of the liar and the fantasist? It's hard to check. Because who can responsibly deny that the orders had already been given, only for Trump to back down “as usual”?
The Monstrous Ayatollah Regime Will Only Intensify Its Repression of Civilian Iranians
I have the impression that many of us commentators woke up with a journalistic hangover after this night of anticipation and anxiety. The balloon burst, millions of people felt relieved. Now we are all waiting for Trump to declare victory in his just and honorable war with Iran.
But the facts contradict this victory. The monstrous ayatollah regime — one you can only wish to see fall — has survived. And it has gotten stronger. After reaching an agreement with the Americans, it will only intensify its repression of civilian Iranians who were "insufficiently patriotic" during the war. They did not support the regime sufficiently. The Strait of Hormuz, hitherto free of restrictions for navigation, will become a passageway controlled by Iran (and possibly the U.S.), providing funds for the reconstruction of the country. What's more, it is possible, as a result of international negotiations, that sanctions against the regime in Tehran will be lifted.
And that would supposedly be Trump's victory? The U.S. victory? It would almost be possible to be ironic again if the matter were not so grave, because the regime — among the most brutal in the world — would gain international legitimacy for decades of terrorizing its own people and its nearest opposition. Looking for suitable comparisons, I turn to history. Wouldn't the situation be analogous to leaving the Nazi Third Reich alone after concluding a separatist peace with the free world at the cost of, for example, withdrawing from Russia after the fall of Stalingrad in February 1943? Would that have been a victory? And two more comments after Trump's post, which will undoubtedly go down in history. How can we believe in the seriousness of the world's most important politician’s words when he regularly abuses them? If he's playing Münchausen? I think that, with the post about the death of civilization, the final line of irresponsibility and lack of seriousness has been crossed. Once and for all. This is a serious problem for the U.S. president and the rest of the world.
And one last thing. Pro domo sua**. Trump despises journalists. And in his mind, he doesn't need them. Because the whole world is reading his social media posts anyway and is scared. It is a failure of our profession. A profession bound by certain rules — which, for the U.S. president, mean nothing.
*Editor's note: This article is available in its original language with a paid subscription.
**Editor's note: The Latin phrase "pro domo sua" would roughly translate as "for one's own house," or "on behalf of oneself."
Previous article![]( "America’s War, Everyone’s Problem")
