With the Trump “classified documents” audio tape leak to CNN spreading like wildfire, Democrats are exulting. We finally got him! But the tale of the tape told in its proper context is one that should make Trump look like a hero, not a villain, to both his populist base and the broader American public.
This is a classic case where seizing control of the narrative is key. Thus far, the pro-Trump crowd has done a mostly poor job of telling the story from an America First national security perspective.
Trump’s critics say he showed highly classified Department of Defense documents to a journalist, putting America’s safety in grave peril. Trump and his allies have explained that the documents he displayed were newspaper articles reporting about classified information, not the documents themselves.
This seems like a good defense but it misses the bigger picture and a much better story.
What exactly were the documents at issue? They were plans drawn up by the Department of Defense to launch an attack on Iran without a declaration of war from Congress.
So who exactly is the grave threat to the security of the American people? Is it the guy who told a journalist about some crazy war plans? Or is it the Military-Industrial Complex gang that repeatedly tells Americans that waging war in faraway lands like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Ukraine is good for America’s safety and prosperity?
Since the documents concern military action against Iran, Trump supporters should put the story in the broader context of the Iranian attacks that led to the war plans and Trump’s responses to those provocations.
Yes, America has had a contentious relationship with Iran going back to 1979, but Trump dealt with Iran more effectively than any other President from Carter to Biden.
Here is how the story should be told.
Trump inherited a messy situation with Iran. Under Obama, the United States was blackmailed in humiliating fashion. The pallets of cash to Iran in exchange for a promise not to develop nuclear weapons was reminiscent of ransom paid in 1796 so the Barbary Pirates would stop kidnapping our sailors and hijacking our ships.
When Trump took a harder line, Iran tested him by shooting down an American drone worth over $100 million in June of 2019. The foreign policy establishment dangled its approval of Trump if only he would meet the moment and attack Iran. The war hawks, led by John Bolton, rubbed their hands together in expectation as the battle plans were drawn up.
Then, just when the missiles were ready to fire at the Commander-in-Chief’s say-so, Trump posed a question, as he recounted on Twitter: “We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sites when I asked, ‘How many will die?’ ‘150 people, sir,’ was the answer from a General.”
So Trump called off the attack because he said it would not be “proportionate” to kill 150 human beings in response to shooting down an unmanned piece of equipment. But it would be a whole different story, he warned, if they killed an American.
Fast forward to December 2019 and an Iranian rocket attack killed an American contractor at a military base in Iraq. The war hawks pointed to Trump’s weakness in the face of the drone attack as the cause of death. They dusted off the battle plans. Trump has no choice, they claimed. This is war.
So a nation still weary and wary from the prolonged conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan thought, “This is it. They’ve got Trump in a corner and we’re finally going to plunge into the big one in the Middle East.” Iraq and Afghanistan cost between $4 trillion and $8 trillion, depending who you ask, plus all the lives and limbs lost. How much will this one cost? When will it end? How many will die? Those were the anxious questions among the war skeptics.
Then Trump plunged a dagger into the heart of the problem and quickly dispensed with all the war talk. He did the unthinkable and assassinated Iran’s top general, the architect of its terror attacks, Qasem Soleimani.
Let’s pause to consider the significance of Trump’s bold action. Critics of war — it’s barbarity, its human costs, its unpredictability — have dreamed of a world in which the leaders, the ones who send young folks off to die in battle, could be held swiftly and directly accountable for their actions. We would have a lot less wars if the leaders had to do the fighting is a common way to frame the argument.
Well, Trump took a big step to bring that world into being by killing Soleimani. And it’s obvious but worth stating that Trump put himself in the line of fire by assassinating the top general and arguably number three in the chain of command of the entire Iraqi leadership. Trump increased his own odds of being targeted for assassination in order to snuff out the prospect of a war between nations that would lead to death and destruction on a much larger scale.
So getting back to this classified documents thing. Who, again, was the bad guy here?
Was it the Military-Industrial Complex that was fanning the flames of war and drawing up plans for the next multi-trillion dollar conflict that would kill and maim more than a few good men while adding to the already crushing debt burden borne by future generations?
Or was it the guy who mocked these insane war plans to a journalist? You know, the billionaire businessman turned president with the palace at Mar-a-Lago and the supermodel wife who was willing to put his own neck on the line so others don’t have to fight and die in some ill-advised and unpredictable war in the Middle East? Yeah, that guy.