Behind the staggering cost of Trump's weakness

Glenn Beck put up a long post Thursday justifying the ways of Donald Trump to men. He came to the conclusion that with the Iranians, the president had no choice but to play "the cards that were actually on the table." "He did exactly what a leader of a Republic should do: he listened to the people and found a way to end this. A dictator would have kept on going. At the end of the day, a president can only go as far as the people will carry him" (my italics).

Sounds convincing, except for one thing: what he did is what a dictator would do. He began an illegal war in contempt of Congress to distract from domestic troubles. That backfired so badly that he's now going to give Iran virtually everything it wants, including $324 billion in make-good money and control of the Strait of Hormuz. The details in the "Memorandum of Understanding" strongly suggest that Trump deliberately lost in the hopes of making the problem go away. It was easier than trying to win. All that's left is declaring "victory."

Actually, all that's left is paying the bill. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Pentagon is asking the Congress – the one that a dictator would hold in contempt – for an additional $80 billion to cover costs. That's on top of the $132 billion that has already been spent on a war that, by the way, Trump knew could not be ended without Iran's permission. He told reporters that he had to come to terms with the Iranians, because "the strait would never open." The owners and insurers "don't like floating billion-dollar ships down a strait when there are rockets flying over them and mines all over the place." In other words, he knew the war would end when Iran said it would end, and we're all going to pay for Trump's weakness.

A situation in which a dictator breaks the law, profanes the Constitution, commits war crimes, ruins the economy, burns up the good will of his supporters, then loses – on purpose, as a matter of convenience – all before paying the bill with other people's money, well, that seems like a situation in which concerned citizens would reasonably raise the subject of impeachment. And I stress reasonably, not angrily, though rage would be appropriate given that Trump wants tens of billions more from the American people while taking our health insurance, food stamps and other services, in addition to bleeding Social Security dry.

In that spirit, I got in touch with Nicholas Grossman. He’s a professor of political science at the University of Illinois, a senior editor of Arc Digital, and a frequent presence at the Editorial Board. In his latest, he annotates each of the 14 points in the "Memorandum of Understanding." He concludes that Trump basically surrendered. In the following interview with me, Professor Grossman said that while Trump's second term "has done more to break the Trump mystique than anything Democrats could say," Democrats could hurt him more by emphasizing how the Iran war and its painful aftermath show the opposite of strength.

"'We're paying for Trump's weakness' strikes me as a good line," he said.

Trump threatened to destroy a "whole civilization" before caving. He has always been weak, but perhaps now the public will see it? I'm not holding my breath.

With this sort of thing, it's about the margins. Some maga hardcore will stick with Trump no matter what, buying into any fiction that helps them do that, no matter how absurd. Many Republicans will try lying about what happened with Iran to support him, even though everyone can see what actually happened.

But some Americans who thought Trump was strong will recognize the reality that this whole episode has been a damaging display of weakness. There's more open criticism in rightwing media of this Iran deal than any other Trump move I can think of. That's not transformative on its own, but it'll impact some opinions, and those impacts add up.

The weakness isn't just humiliating. It's costly. $132 billion spent so far. The Pentagon needs $80 billion more. The Republicans will have to explain why they will pay for that but not Obamacare subsidies, food stamps or WIC. How do you think that will play out?

The price tag will probably end up a lot higher, especially if we include lost economic activity. That said, Republicans were never going to fund Obamacare subsidies, food stamps, WIC, or other things that help struggling Americans, no matter what happened in the Iran war. The US government is perfectly capable of funding both the military and social programs, and it's not as if reductions in military funding would automatically increase social spending.

The Democrats were already planning to run on affordability, and the US economy will likely be in mediocre-to-poor condition this November. Pointing to Trump's attack on Iran as a waste of money (on top of all the other downsides) will boost that argument.

It seems to me that the Democrats need to link Trump's weakness with the pain felt by the American people, which is to say, we're paying for his weakness.

I think so too. In a way, it's the basic playbook of every opposition party in midterm elections: "Hey voters, are you unhappy about something? It's the president's fault, vote for us." But this time it's especially fitting. American voters usually blame the economy on the president, and it often isn't the president's fault — at least not primarily — but this time it's clearly his doing with the Iran war and to a lesser extent tariffs.

The reality of Trump 2 has done more to break the Trump mystique than anything Democrats could say. But yes, I agree that "strength" and "good for the economy" are core parts of that mystique — never deserved, always based on lies and misconceptions, but still helped him get elected — and emphasizing how the Iran war shows the opposite sounds like a good political move. "We're paying for Trump's weakness" strikes me as a good line.

Trump admitted he knew the war would end only when Iran said it would. "The strait would never open," he said, if he did not make a deal. And in knowing that was the case, it seems to me eminently impeachable.

So much about this is impeachable, not least launching the war without Congressional authorization and continuing hostilities beyond the 60-day limit in the War Powers Act.

Under US law, the president can order military force without Congressional authorization in an emergency, such as an attack on US forces. Nothing like that happened, so Trump attacking Iran was illegal from the start. Then if the president uses force without authorization, he has 60 days to get the authorization, and if he doesn't, he must end the war. We're past that 60-day threshold, and the White House tried BS-ing that they changed the name of the military operation so the War Powers Act doesn't apply. Utter contempt.

A self-respecting legislative branch would impeach him over this to assert its Constitutional authority. But we don't have that at the moment. We have a Congress that is controlled by maga loyalists who put Trump above the Constitution.

Maybe after midterms.

Do you think Trump will be persona non grata if the Democrats take the House and Senate? And if so, will a narcissist accept being persona non grata for two years?

I seriously doubt it. If Democrats manage to take not only the House but also the Senate, I expect a mix of showy fighting and open defiance from the White House. We'll likely see even more lawbreaking, usurpation of Congress's power of the purse, and rhetoric rejecting Congress's Constitutional authorities. Congress can check the president, but can't govern. Even with Democrats in full control of Congress, the Trump White House will have more power, and swaths of Washington will continue gravitating towards power, as they always do.

• george conway
• noam chomsky
• civil war
• Kayleigh mcenany
• Melania trump
• drudge report
• paul krugman
• Lindsey graham
• Lincoln project
• al franken bill maher
• People of praise
• Ivanka trump
• eric trump