Here’s my take on Trump’s endgame and how it would impact the Upper Valley…
This past weekend President Donald Trump unilaterally launched a massive attack on Iran. Seven days later, we still don’t know the reasons for this action nor do we have a clear picture of the objectives the Trump administration is seeking.
Substack blogger Heather Delaney Reese offered a good overview of the shifting rationales the President and his team offered for bombing Iran. In an ABC News interview with Jonathan Karl on Sunday night Trump offered a personal motive for ordering the strikes. Referring to the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Trump said: “I got him before he got me”, a reference to Iran’s alleged 2024 plot to assassinate him. Then, during a press conference with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the President offered this rationale: “It was my opinion that they were going to attack first… I felt strongly about that. And based on the way the negotiation was going, I think they were going to attack first. And I didn’t want that to happen.”
That explanation was modified a few hours later at a press conference Secretary of State Marco Rubio held, where he said: “We knew there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that would precipitate an attack against American forces. And we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them, we would suffer higher casualties.” A day later, Trump contradicted Rubio. When a reporter asked him if Israel had forced his hand, Trump responded: “No, actually, I might have forced their hand.” A week has passed and the administration has offered no clear reason for launching the attacks.
The goals the US hopes to achieve in Iran are equally murky. Initially the administration stated that they hoped the bombing would force Iran back to the negotiations table. Then the administration changed course, stating that they did not believe Iran was ever serious about negotiations. Instead, the goal was to have the Ayatollah step down and have him replaced with a leader who could work with the United States to achieve peace in the Middle East. THAT objective evaporated when a bombing mission killed the Ayatollah and all of those who the administration believed might have been able to form a new government to lead the country. The administration’s latest endgame in Iran is to encourage citizens to join armed militias to settle the ultimate leadership after a de facto civil war. Alexander Ward elaborated on this concept in the Wall Street Journal:
“President Trump is open to supporting groups in Iran willing to take up arms to dislodge the regime, U.S. officials said, an idea that could turn Iranian factions into ground forces at least rhetorically backed by Washington.
Officials said Trump hasn’t made a final decision on the matter, including whether he would provide arms, training or intelligence support to antiregime groups.
In announcing the start of U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, Trump urged the Iranian people to rise up and “take over your government,” adding “America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force.” But by offering at least conditional support to armed resistance groups, each with varying goals, Trump is going further than just calling for a popular uprising.
Many cynics suggest the REAL purpose of Trump’s unilateral decision to invade Iran was to divert our attention from the Epstein files. While that IS a by-product of the invasions, I fear that the title of USA Today’s Chris Brennan op ed piece, “Trump wastes no time using Iran war to help federalize midterms” reflects the President’s overarching objective for invading Iran: the need to create a plausible basis for declaring a national emergency and, therefore, either defer the election or seize control of voting regulations.
In his essay, Brennan noted that “Trump announced the war in a social media post at 2:44 a.m. on Feb. 28 and less than two hours into the attack, the president posted again, not with an update about the ongoing hostilities, but with a 4:35 a.m. complaint about the presidential elections in 2020 and 2024”.
Brennan then outlined the plot “Trump and his election-denying allies” have devised to “federalize” the midterm elections in November, fearing that if those elections are held using the state and/or local governments voting regulations in place, the GOP majorities in the House and Senate will be in peril. Brennan describes a draft Executive Order written by Trump’s advisors that would require voters to present specific kinds of identification to vote in the federal elections in November, ban mail ballots, set strict standards for absentee voting, and seize control of the voting procedures for federal elections before the midterm elections. As Brennan notes, even though the Constitution clearly assigns voting regulations to the States, the President has a track record of interpreting the constitution in ways that expand Presidential power. Examples of this are his imposition of tariffs, initiating earlier military actions in Venezuela and Iran, and supporting federal agencies when they willfully ignore court orders.
The consequences of such an Executive Order to residents in the Upper Valley if an emergency were declared for election to Federal offices are difficult to determine. Would there be two sets of voting rolls: one set for State and local elections and a separate set for the Federal election? Would existing voting rolls be discarded and voters required to present Real IDs, Visas, or Birth Certificates to vote? What would happen if the names on the birth certificate did not match the name on the visa? Would the local officials who currently manage elections be replaced with Federal officials? Who would appoint those federal officials?
Given the administration’s lack of forethought in their decisions to overthrow leaders in Venezuela and Iran, it is unlikely that these details have been thought through. Moreover, given the legally ambiguous basis in previous Executive Orders, it is likely that extended court hearings might be necessary. But confusion over election rules might be just what the President is seeking, for if a muddled Executive Order is issued and litigated it might make any election in the Fall an impossibility.
And if the midterms are allowed to be suspended over legal wrangling? The President will keep his promise to his most ardent supporters: the promise that if he was elected in 2024 it would be the last election our country would ever have. Keeping THAT promise, I fear, is the ultimate goal the President is seeking.