Mediaboss Marketing

On October 6, 1980 Donald Trump was interviewed by Rona Barrett, one of Americas most famous gossip columnists, on NBC. It was several weeks before Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in the presidential election and near the end of the Iran hostage crisis in which the Iranian regime took 52 American diplomats and citizens prisoner after the embassy was stormed and then held them for 444 days.

It was a long and meandering interview about Trumps story to date (he was then 34). About half way though, Barrett asked Trump if he could make America perfect how would he do it. Trump replied that America should really be a country that gets the respect of other countries. The exchange continued:

Donald Trump: .The Iranian situation is a case in point. That they hold our hostages is just absolutely, and totally ridiculous. That this country sits back and allows a country such as Iran to hold our hostages, to my way of thinking, is a horror, and I dont think theyd do it with other countries. I honestly dont think theyd do it with other countries.

Rona Barrett: Obviously youre advocating that we should have gone in there with troops, et cetera, and brought our boys out like Vietnam.

Donald Trump: I absolutely feel that, yes. I dont think theres any question, and there is no question in my mind. I think right now wed be an oil-rich nation, and I believe that we should have done it, and Im very disappointed that we didnt do it, and I dont think anybody would have held us in abeyance.

As historians Brendan Simms and Charlie Laderman have observed, this interview is the first known comment by Trump on U.S. foreign policy.

Fast forward to January 4, 2020, a day after the U.S. drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani. Trump tweeted:

One of the puzzles about Trumps strike on Soleimani is why he did it and what he will do next. His administration has pursued a very hawkish policy on Iran beginning with the travel ban, tough new sanctions, walking away from the Iran nuclear deal, and ratcheting up pressure in the year that followed. But, in recent months Trump tacked in a different direction. He did not fire back after the September attacks on Saudi oil facilities. He has professed not to care about the Middle East beyond the oil and ISIS. He seems to want to avoid war, particularly in an election year. And, he was desperate for talks with the Iranian leadership, going so far as to try to surprise the Iranians by dialing into a meeting between President Rouhani and President Macron on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.

The historical record offers an answer. The Iranian revolution, which led to the hostage crisis and an energy crisis, was one of Trumps formative experiences in thinking about Americas role in the world. In the years that followed, he became obsessed with the symbolism of respect (and the acquisition of oil). He was furious that allies did not pay fealty to the United States. He was outraged when foreign leaders did not meet the American president at their plane. The only time he became frustrated with Vladimir Putin in office was when he looked as if he was disrespecting Trumps military strength such as when Russian planes buzzed Americas ships or when the Russians produced a map showing Mar-a-Lago within range of their nuclear weapons. Trump does not hate Iran per se his desire for talks is evidence of that but he does have an obsession with avoiding a humiliation. For Trump, the embassy protests looked like a mash-up of 1979 with Benghazi the ultimate challenge to his own perception of himself as a strongman.

There are contradictory reports of the decisionmaking process around the Soleimani strike. Some reports say that the Pentagon added the option as a throw-away to make the other option seem more reasonable. A report in the Washington Post says Mike Pompeo and Mark Esper had been trying to get Trump to sign on for some time. The Post report may be an attempt by Pompeo and Esper to claim credit and defuse charges of incompetence, but in any event, a consistent element of all reports is that Trump did not sign on to the strike until after the Iranian backed protests outside the embassy.

Trump often lashes out at people after he thinks they criticized him, even if a fight does not serve his interests think about his attack on the parents of the fallen U.S. soldier Humayun Khan or his cruel comment about Debbie Dingel. He has the same reaction to actions that undermine his own image of America as a strong and unrivaled nation while he is at the helm. He would almost certainly not have responded the same way if Iran had continued to hit U.S. allies or to make strategic gains in Iraq.

The killing of Soleimani is a strategic error. It provides short-term gratification upon the demise of a man responsible for the deaths of many Americans, but it damages U.S. interests in the region and beyond. However, many of the downsides mean very little to Trump. He does not care that Iraq might kick U.S. troops out as long as they pay him back for the base. Likewise for Iran abrogating elements of the nuclear deal. He does not mind that this undermines the protest movement in Iraq or in Iran. He cannot envisage the return of ISIS. He couldnt care less that that the Saudis now feel in imminent danger and want a de-escalation. As for international law and creating a precedent for targeted killings of government officials, forget it.

And yet, having killed the second most important person in Iran, Trump now finds himself in a bind. If Iran reacts by attacking Americans, Trump will feel compelled to respond, but that runs the risk of the wider war that he wants to avoid. So he is trying to put the genie back in the bottle by threatening fire and fury if Iran retaliates, just as he is bombastic domestically when in a tight spot. It is unlikely to succeed and, paradoxically, makes all-out war with Iran more likely. In the Barrett interview, Trump spoke about a sparkle of war in the Middle East. The phrase is an apt one to sum up Trumps approach to foreign policy he likes the sparkle and hopes others will be scared into submission. But bluster does not always work.

All-out war between the United States and Iran is unlikely, primarily because it would not serve Irans interests. Iran may bide its time, target U.S. allies instead of Americans, or press the United States in other ways (such as by forcing it out of Iraq). If it does directly attack Americans, Trump might try to wriggle off the hook he has hoisted himself upon.

However, its easy to imagine how the situation could easily spiral into a war. There is little doubt that Trump is uniquely ill-suited to be a commander-in-chief during war time. He has no attention span, does not process information normally, is particularly prone to bad advice, and is deeply insecure. He has one of the weakest and least experienced national security teams since the United States became a global power. He will be fighting this war without many allies. Even the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was careful to distance himself from Trumps drone strike. Given his demonstrated proclivity for war crimes, if he were to decisively win the war, he would very likely do so in a way that would leave a permanent stain on the nations honor.

Trumps Iran crisis fits perfectly within his narrative arc. His administration has had three identifiable phases. The first was the age of constraint, as the so-called Axis of Adults shaped and limited Trumps options. The second was the age of hubris as Trump got rid of anyone who stood up to him so he could act as he wished this came in two variants, maximum pressure and deal-making. The third is the reckoning as Trump is forced to face the consequences and contradictions of his own actions. There have been inklings of this third phase for some time. It has now well and truly arrived.

Here is the original post:
How Donald Trump thinks about Iran - Brookings Institution

The Trump administration has been preparing to expand its travel ban which bars individuals from seven countries from entering the US to restrict certain immigrants from several more nations around the world, according to internal government documents obtained by BuzzFeed News.

It is unclear whether the administration will issue the restrictions. But the draft documents suggest it has been actively preparing to do so by creating materials to engage with the media, alongside a draft presidential proclamation.

The draft materials obtained by BuzzFeed News do not contain the names of the countries being considered, but the proclamation includes seven slots that contain descriptors for each nation and varied restrictions. The move would represent just the latest in a series of unprecedented efforts by the Trump administration to tighten immigration and could pointedly come in a reelection year.

While the countries are not listed, the descriptions included do list some indicators. Several countries are listed as not providing the US with identity information and presenting a risk of terrorist travel. One country is an important strategic partner in the global fight against terrorism but nevertheless is failing in identity management issues. Another country does not work with the United States on border and immigration security issues.

CNN first reported in October that the administration was considering restricting travel from certain countries. The Associated Press reported Friday that the administration was also considering a new travel ban.

Sen. Chris Coons and Rep. Judy Chu, both Democrats, "un-American" and "dangerous."

"Thousands of families have already been torn apart because of President Trumps discriminatory Muslim Ban that does not make us safer. Now, thousands more spouses, parents, grandparents, children, siblings, and friends could be separated by the expansion of this senseless ban, Coons said in a statement. This policy is wrong, it is un-American, and I will fight it."

Chu called it a "dangerous policy rooted in bigotry and xenophobia, sold to the American public through misinformation and innuendo."

The draft presidential proclamation details how, after a review conducted by the Trump administration of the identity management and security protocols for 200 countries, the Department of Homeland Security recommended Trump place travel restrictions on countries in addition to the seven already banned, which include Iran, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, North Korea, Yemen, and Somalia.

In addition to maintaining the current restrictions, the Secretary recommended restrictions on additional countries that failed to satisfy the baseline criteria, as informed by the outcomes of the new, enhanced methodology, the draft proclamation reads. Now, therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act...hereby find that, absent measures set forth in this proclamation, the immigrant entry in the United States of persons described in Section 1 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations and exceptions.

Five of the countries listed in the proclamation would have more expansive blocks, according to the draft. The draft materials state that the restrictions would impact approximately 2.5% of all immigrant visas issued by the U.S. Department of State.

The entry into the United States of nationals of [Country 1] as immigrants, except as Special Immigrants, is hereby suspended, reads one section. Special immigrants are religious workers, physicians, and those who worked for the US military abroad, among other specific categories. Two other countries would have their nationals banned from obtaining diversity visas, meaning random visas given to those from countries that have low rates of immigration to the US.

In January 2017, the Trump administration initially banned those from six Muslim-majority countries before federal courts across the country blocked the order. Later, Trump instituted a separate ban and the US Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional. A waiver process for those included in the ban has led to more than 7,600 immigrants from the barred countries being allowed to enter the US, a 10% clearance rate, according to a US State Department officials testimony in a September House hearing.

The initial travel ban also called the Muslim ban after Trump pledged during his first campaign to stop all Muslims from immigrating to the US targeted only Muslim-majority countries. The DHS media team appears to be preparing for such questions.

Q: How many of these countries are majority Muslim? A: DHS did not consider or even research the predominate religion practiced in these or any country as part of its review. As a result, we would refer you to publicly available information about the demographics of these countries, read one answer of a document titled response to queries.

The document appears to be a set of questions the agency predicts it will receive as the proclamation is announced and includes questions like why are these countries facing travel restrictions? and why the new restrictions include fewer visa categories than the initial travel ban.

The answer states that, like the already banned seven countries, the new countries are some of the lowest performing in the world. The US government, however, has found that the to-be-restricted countries have prospects for improvement.

Each has a functioning government, control over its territory, and maintains relations with the United States. Most of the new countries have expressed a willingness to work on correcting their deficiencies, although it may take some time to identify and implement specific improvements, the answer reads.

See more here:
The Trump Administration Has Been Preparing To Expand The Travel Ban, Documents Reveal - BuzzFeed News

Much of the work of H.P. Lovecraft, an American horror and science fiction writer who worked during the first decades of the 20th century, is defined by individual encounters with the incomprehensible, with sights, sounds and ideas that undermine and disturb reality as his characters understand it. Faced with things too monstrous to be real, but which exist nonetheless, Lovecraftian protagonists either reject their senses or descend into madness, unable to live with what theyve learned.

It feels, at times, that when it comes to Donald Trump, our political class is this Lovecraftian protagonist, struggling to understand an incomprehensibly abnormal president. The reality of Donald Trump an amoral narcissist with no capacity for reflection or personal growth is evident from his decades in public life. But rather than face this, too many people have rejected the facts in front of them, choosing an illusion instead of the disturbing truth.

The past week has been a prime example of this phenomenon. On Thursday night, the United States killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani of Iran leader of the Islamic Republics Quds Force and one of the most powerful military leaders in the region. The strike was sudden and unexpected. The White House notified Congress only after the fact, with a brief, classified document.

The assassination of Suleimani was tantamount to a declaration of war and has escalated tensions between the United States and Iran. Tehran has already promised harsh revenge against the United States, while Trump said he would HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD if Iran made good on its threat, vowing an attack on 52 Iranian sites including locations important to Iran & the Iranian culture.

This standoff, which in its latest incarnation saw Iranian missiles sailing toward bases in Iraq on Tuesday night, is so consequential that its been hard not to impute some logic to the presidents actions, even as many observers acknowledge the lies and dysfunction surrounding the attack. Its only natural. As humans, we want to impose order on what we see. As Americans, we want to believe our leaders understand the gravity of war. Traditional news outlets published detailed descriptions of the presidents decision-making process. Sympathetic observers, like Matthew Continetti of the Washington Free Beacon, hailed the strike as a stunning blow to international terrorism and a reassertion of American might. Cable news analysts spoke as if this was part of a considered plan for challenging the Iranian government.

But weve learned since that the strike on Suleimani was almost certainly another impulsive action from an impatient president. Pentagon officials have said they were stunned by the decision. According to reporting in The Times, they gave Trump the option of an attack with the expectation that he would reject it for being too extreme. Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have been pushing for an attack on Iran for some time, but the past few days of confusion of mixed-messages and shifting rationales are evidence that this strike was made with little thought to the consequences, justified after the fact with claims of imminent danger.

This is reckless but it isnt shocking. Trump is not a steady hand. Hes never been one. Three years in office have neither changed his character nor enhanced his capabilities. He is as ignorant and incurious as a president as he was as a candidate (and as a would-be mogul before that). His main goal is self-preservation, and hell sacrifice anything to achieve it. His current assault on the authority of Congress his refusal to have the White House or members of his administration release documents or obey subpoenas is an attempt to escape responsibility for his own unethical (and potentially illegal) actions. He is self-involved, unethical and unstable a dangerous combination to have for the commander-in-chief of the worlds most powerful military forces, under pressure from impeachment and a re-election campaign.

I think most observers know this. But the implications are terrifying. They suggest a much more dangerous world than the one we already believe we live in, where in a fit of pique, a single action taken by a single man could have catastrophic consequences for millions of people. This isnt a new observation. When he was still a rival and not one of Trumps most reliable allies Senator Marco Rubio of Florida warned Republicans that they shouldnt give the nuclear codes of the United States to an erratic individual. Hillary Clinton said Trump was temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility and that a man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.

Fear of what Trump would do with the power of the presidency was so acute that his defenders actually urged critics to ignore his actual words in favor of symbolic understanding, to take him seriously but not literally. You can even understand the constant drive to normalize Trump as an attempt to turn away from the reality of what he is for fear of what it means.

Somehow, were still doing it. Everything we know about Trump says he doesnt make considered choices. Pence and Pompeo may have campaigned for an attack on Iran, but theres no evidence that Trump the actual president has planned for the consequences, or has a rationale for the strike other than his usual brand of bellicose nationalism. When Iran retaliated Tuesday night, the president did not speak, although of course he tweeted. No one knows what the administration will do next.

In his careless thrashing, the president may have started a war with no plan to end it and no regard for the lives that will be lost. The situation is precarious. Its scary to think about. But we cannot look away.

More:
The Trump We Did Not Want to See - The New York Times

Pranksters have turned Donald Trump Jr. into the poster boy forU.S. Army recruitment to remind voters who the Trumps are amid heightened military tensions with Iran.

Comedy duo The Good Liars aka Davram Stiefler and Jason Selvig pasted spoof signs featuring President Donald Trumps eldest son onto the windows of an Armed Forces Career Center in Brooklyn, New York, on Wednesday.

Im not enlisting but YOU should, the fake promo quotes Trump Jr. as saying.

Theres weak. And then theres Trump weak, is also printed in smaller letters.

Hopefully we arent going to war, but if we did, we know one guy who wont enlist, the comedians captioned Instagram images of their latest stunt.

The duo told HuffPost on Friday that in the wake of Trumps latest reckless foreign policy actions that could very easily result in more and more troops being sent to the Middle East, we thought the public deserved a reminder of who the Trumps are.

Theyre a family that have avoided military service on a generational level, they added. Don Jr. loves to fire at helpless animals and pose for pictures with them, but hed never go to war although hed expect others to do it.

The pair have made the poster available for free download via their website. A lot of people have been reaching out to ask for the file so they can print them so look for them all over the country, they said.

The comedians have a long history of pranking people close to the Trump administration. In November, they switched up the covers of Trump Jr.s bookTriggered at a bookstore in Brooklyn:

And only last month they slipped impeachment-themed postcards into the gift store at Trump Tower to do the president a favor, they told HuffPost at the time. He always brags about his accomplishments and getting impeached is a pretty big accomplishment, they said.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

See the article here:
Pranksters Unleash Spoof Army Recruitment Signs To Remind People Who The Trumps Are - HuffPost

US President Donald Trump arrives for a "Keep America Great" campaign rally at Huntington Center in Toledo, Ohio, on January 9, 2020.

SAUL LOEB | AFP | Getty Images

President Donald Trump scored a "modest win" this week in the way he handled escalating tensions with Iran, according to a former American ambassador to Singapore.

"It's not over yet, but I think Trump has more or less prevailed this past week," said Frank Lavin, who is currently the CEO and founder of business consultancy Export Now.

"I think it is a modest win, but look, Iran's not going away," he told CNBC's "Capital Connection"Friday. "Iran's been in this business of mischief and wars and terrorism for 40 years now, so they're going to have another time, another go at this as well."

Simon Baptist, global chief economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, agreed with the sentiment. "Iran is still pushing toward a nuclear bomb in the same way as North Korea," he said. "They can get there, and it's going to be tough to stop them in a confrontational way."

"Without negotiations, I see that conflict simmering for now, but probably boiling over in the future," he added.

Relations between the two countries were thrown into crisis last week after an American airstrike killed Tehran's top commander. Iran responded by firing more than a dozen ballistic missiles at U.S. targets in Iraq, but the situation appeared to ease when Washington chose to impose more sanctions, instead of taking further military action.

Lavin said: "My suspicion is (that) what Trump did, his actions were popular and I think they're going to be proven to be the right set of actions." That, however, may put Democrats in "a little bit of a difficult spot," he said.

Just two days after Iran's retaliation, the Democrat-held House passed a resolution to limit the president's war powers against Tehran.

"The Democrats and the House have trouble endorsing or supporting him ... that's sort of understandable, but I think they're overcorrecting a bit by saying we're going to formally chastise or formally reproach what he's doing," he said.

Separately, the ambassador weighed in on reports that an Iranian missile may have shot down a passenger plane headed for Ukraine from Tehran. He said that, if confirmed, it would not cause tensions to escalate.

"But if anything, it creates this image of the Iranian military being trigger happy and not being overly concerned about deaths of civilians," he said of the tragedy that left 176 people dead.

"I think it's going to subdue the Iranian military for the short run, to say think twice before you pull the trigger."

CNBC's Dan Mangan and Leslie Josephs contributed to this report.

Here is the original post:
Trump has 'more or less prevailed' this week but Iran tension isn't over, ex-US ambassador says - CNBC