When Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe went before Congress last week, they were grilled about the war in Iran. The nature of the grilling was revealing, as many Democrats seem focused on impropriety or strategic errors in warmaking rather than the warmaking itself.
Some Democrats pressed Gabbard and Ratcliffe about whether Iran actually posed a meaningful threat to the United States. Gabbard, in particular, was evasive on this point. She’s repeatedly said that it did not, but now she’s committed to staying in Donald Trump’s good graces, no matter the hypocrisy and humiliation involved.
Other Democrats, though, only seemed to be concerned with giving the administration a hard time about how they’re waging the war. Did Trump understand that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz? If not, why not? Did he understand how extensive Iran’s retaliation might be against American assets in the Gulf monarchies? If not, why not? Did Gabbard and Ratcliffe not brief him appropriately, or did Trump just not listen?
At times, the grilling seemed about as high-stakes as mid-level managers being dressed down in a quarterly performance review, where the company’s goals are taken for granted and only management’s competence is in question.
Even John Bolton has gotten in on this critique of how the Trump administration is waging its war of aggression in Iran. Bolton was one of the most notorious warmongers of Trump’s first administration, although like so many who previously served Trump he was discarded and became a bitter anti-Trumper. In a social media post last week, he wrote:
In 2018–19, I made the case for regime change in Iran as often as I could. Voices in Trump’s orbit often cited Iran’s capacity to close the Strait of Hormuz as a reason against regime change. Trump has been fully aware this is a possibility, and yet did not prepare.
It’s true that the administration’s decisions have been baffling in…
Auteur: Ben Burgis
