The Iran War

Nuclear War is our biggest existential threat.

Iran’s current regime is determined to have nuclear weapons.

Therefore, this is a war for regime change to avoid Iran having nuclear weapons.

The current Iranian regime is also the biggest exporter of terrorism.  And it has called for “Death to America” incessantly for nearly 50 years.

I have documentation of being a “never Trumper” since 1988.  I have repeatedly lauded                Separation of Powers as the key to our national success and have consistently, under both Republican and Democratic presidents, objected to Congress relinquishing power to the President.  Below I note some criticisms of President Trump and why the Republicans’ comparison to Libya is inaccurate.

Despite the previous paragraph, the world will be much safer if we topple the Iranian regime.

Many in the liberal press and many Democrats instigate opposition to the war by focusing attention on its disadvantages.  Their efforts are damaging:

1.      Because of the emphasis on the increasing price of oil, President Trump temporarily released sanctions on Russian oil, to the detriment of Ukraine.

2.      If President Trump curtails activities prior to regime change, the world will be much less safe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments drill down.

President Trump is consistently not being interested in spreading democracy, neither in Venezuela nor Iran.  Iranian dissatisfaction with the regime is a strategic asset in his eyes.  This is very different from most previous “regime change” wars.

Instead of rallying the nation by noting that higher temporary oil prices are a small price to pay for removing Iran’s nuclear capability, many press/Democrats focus on oil price increases.  CNN has stated multiple times that oil prices have never been higher during Trump presidencies.  A more appropriate (and simpler) message is that oil prices are still lower than under President Biden.  CNN preferred contorted language to cast the price increase in a bad light.

I created the following cartoon using AI.

Ukraine has helped us in the Iran War by providing anti-drone expertise.  Ukraine benefits from the Iran War to the degree that the war cuts off a source of drones for Russia.  However, suspending sanctions on Russian oil undermines Ukraine.

President Trump wisely boosted our energy independence.  His “all of the above” approach is faulty in overly reducing attention to renewables (which I believe will grow, albeit more slowly, despite his efforts).  President Obama opposed fracking (but took credit for the economic growth it created).  President Biden tried to close all carbon power plants and block liquid natural gas exportation.  We, and our allies, are safer with Trump’s energy strategy.

To stimulate opposition, many press/Democrats claim there is no clear goal for the war and no plan.  Despite President Trump’s communication flaws, I think the goal is clear (see above).

Many press/Democrats focus on our military deaths, rather than recognize there have been impressively few deaths compared to the impact of our bombing.  We don’t know whether there is a complete plan, but clearly there has been a well-coordinated plan of attack so far.

CNN says the war has caused Americans to feel insecure due to radical Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks.  On 9/11, we joined the rest of the world in recognizing our vulnerability to terrorist attacks.  We’ve had domestic shootings, as well as terrorist attacks, that cause us to feel insecure.  CNN should encourage us to be vigilant to maximize safety and should explain that success will increase safety.

Many Democrats/press still tout President Obama’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) deal with Iran.  The deal had various 10-15-year limitations on Iran and required Iran to reduce (not eliminate) stockpiles of enriched uranium and centrifuges.

These press/Democrats fail to mention that President Obama essentially recognized Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons and had no plan to forestall Iran’s development of nuclear weapons after those short-term limitations expired.  What was he going to do?  Continue our history of rewarding nuclear development by bribing them to stop, with funds that would support more terrorist activity?

President Obama stated repeatedly that ”every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off”.  However, as I noted at the time, it did nothing to restrict Iran from developing nuclear weapons outside Iran.

Many press/Democrats say the attack on Iran is illegal because there was no “imminent” threat.  While I favor the “imminent threat” philosophy and agree that Congress should declare war, Trump, like many Presidents, justified his action under the War Powers Resolution, which does not require an “imminent” threat.  It deals with hostile action (regardless of imminent threat) and, secondly, placing the military in a position where they might be subject to an imminent threat.

Nonetheless, Secretary Rubio addressed the “imminent” threat issue.  He said Israel was about to attack Iran and our government concluded Iran would respond by attacking us.  He stated we attacked Iran at that time not because Israel pushed us to do so, but because of the imminent threat that Iran would attack us.  It affected, as he expanded later, the timing of the attack, not whether to attack.

I’m not entirely comfortable with the above rationale, but I think it is terrible that many press/Democrats have chosen to mischaracterize it.

I don’t criticize government every time something goes wrong.  We can’t control everything.  Imagine what these Democrats/press would have said if Israel attacked Iran, as we sat on the sideline; Iran then attacked us, inflicting casualties; and it became public that the Trump administration anticipated Iran’s attack and our losses, but decided to take no proactive steps to thwart it.

On March 5, 2026, the House of Representatives passed Resolution 1099, affirming that “Iran continues to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism”.  It made no mention of attacking Iran. 

Adam Smith (D, WA), Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, released this statement: “I agree with the principal assertion of this resolution that Iran is a bad actor.  Iran’s malign and destabilizing actions in the region and treatment of its own citizens should be denounced.  I have never contested this.  What I do contest is that going to war is the reasonable response to this assertion.  I support this resolution.  I do not support the president’s war of choice with Iran.”

Yet 53 Democrats (25%) opposed this resolution.  Why?  Congresswoman Lateefah Simon said, in part,  ”I voted against H.Res 1099, a Republican resolution that contains inaccuracies and is designed to justify the President’s actions in Iran…. That is already U.S. policy.  This resolution … puts Congress on record as giving the Administration further pretext for a war that should not have been started in the first place.”

She cited no inaccuracies in the brief resolution.  How can the resolution provide “further pretext” if it simply restates what “is already U. S. policy”?  If she, and the other 52 Democrats, agree that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism but oppose the war, why not take the same approach as Adam Smith?  Why vote against a resolution that precisely states their position?  Might their vote encourage Iran to continue resisting?

President Trump’s defenders cite President Obama’s action in Libya as precedent.  However, President Trump is, as he continually does, hugely expanding on past precedents.  Some key differences between the current war in Iran and the 2011_military_intervention_in_Libya:

1)      We were part of a broad-based consortium in Libya.  President Trump has stupidly and frivolously eroded support from our allies.

2)     United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized the action.  NATO led it.

3)     Fighting was occurring in Libya; the stated goal was to end that fighting.

4)     Secretary of Defense Gates discussed the intervention in advance in a Congressional hearing.

5)     Hopefully, unlike NATO, President Trump will not cease our efforts too soon.  President Obama said the "worst mistake" of his presidency was "probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya."

However:

a)      The Libya effort lasted 7.5 months.

b)     It accomplished regime change with only minimal special forces activity on the ground.  Note: While regime change was NOT part of the U. N. Resolution, it appears to have been a goal.

c)      Involvement of special forces violated the U. N. Resolution. 

d)     On June 24^th, 2011, the House of Representatives voted down Joint Resolution 68 which would have authorized U. S. involvement for up to 12 months.  Even 38% of Democrats voted against Resolution 68, but President Obama plowed ahead without authorization.

e)     The French had initially stimulated the action, reportedly because of oil (sound familiar?).

War with Iran

Our country is at war; people are dying.  We have a human responsibility to think about this  -- to decide if we think it is right and to do what we can to support it, if we do think it is right.  Regardless of what we think about it, we should try to solve such problems, at least with our vote.  In my life, while the USA has been at war, citizens have often been oblivious to it, living their daily lives without thinking about it.  Politicians like that because they are afraid of being criticized because of wars.

Destroying Nuclear Proliferation

I have long believed that nuclear weapons pose our most existential threat.  Thus, a consortium of countries should band together with the intent to destroy new nuclear weapons facilities, thereby dissuading further development.  (See Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.)

Although I was disappointed that the consortium consisted of only the USA and Israel, I strongly supported the summer 2025 strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Unfortunately, the world is still not united in thwarting nuclear development.  It seems that Iran was resuming efforts to build nuclear weapons or at least wanting to give that impression.

However, the current attack on Iran goes beyond nuclear weapons.  It has the goal of regime change, which is a different issue.

Defensive vs. Offensive Wars; Supporting our Allies

In the 20^th century, we became the strongest world power.  Our major wars were defensive wars (WWI, WWII and the Korean War), defending ourselves and our allies.  I believe in the phrase “Together we stand, divided we fall”.   We should defend our allies.

The Viet Nam war was murkier.  We were defending South Viet Nam, but the regime we were supporting was not a true democracy.  Were we thwarting the will of the people?

I supported our interventions in Bosnia and Kuwait (first war with Iraq) to protect those people.

But I did not support our second war in Iraq.  Just because you fear someone is not a justifiable reason to attack.  Such thinking could be used to justify nearly every aggression in history.

I also did not support our war in Afghanistan.  We were retaliating against a terrorist attack, fighting an amorphous enemy.  From the beginning, I questioned whether we’d be able to extract ourselves.

Nonetheless, I was very critical of our Departure from Afghanistan.  We are developing a history of abandoning countries we say we will support (Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Kurds, Ukraine).  (Note: with Ukraine, we have a treaty which requires us to step in to defend them.)  How can allies count on us for support?  Why shouldn’t they want to develop nuclear weapons, if they can’t rely on other defenses?

The second war in Iraq was an offensive war rather than a defensive war.  When countries engage in offensive wars, they justify the fears of other countries.  The more that individual countries fight offensive wars, the more strongly other countries can justify developing strong defenses, including nuclear weapons.

That’s why I am a strong believer in a rules-based world order with international cooperation.  I do NOT support President Trump’s “might makes right” philosophy.

The Constitution and the War Powers Act

Our presidents do not have the right to go to war on their own.  I’ve long maintained that the USA became a great country because of Separation of Powers, more so than democracy.  Our constitution gives Congress the right and responsibility to declare war.

The last time Congress declared war was in WWII.  Since then, Presidents have chosen to engage in military action without Congressional approval.

In reaction to bombings of Cambodia during the Viet Nam war, Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973.  It requires the President to consult with Congress, in every possible circumstance, before sending USA military into hostilities or into situations which are likely to quickly turn hostile.  

Any such use of the USA military must be reported to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate within 48 hours (and at least every six months thereafter), detailing the circumstances, the estimated scope and duration of such hostilities, and the constitutional and legislative authority under which President acted.  The report is to be forwarded to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for appropriate action.

Such action must be terminated within 60 days unless Congress approves and “immediately” if so instructed by Congress.  However, the President can require an additional 30 days to process termination safely. 

Although Presidents have complied with the law by filing reports more than 130 times, Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Obama defied it.

The “in every possible circumstance” creates some wiggle room, but President Trump did “consult” with the Gang of Eight prior to this attack on Iran.  The “Gang of Eight” includes the leaders of each of the two parties from both the Senate and House of Representatives, and the chairs and ranking minority members of both the Senate Committee and House Committee for intelligence.  I’ve put “consult” in quotation marks because I don’t know the nature of the discussion.

 So, at least so far, President Trump has acted legally in this   Iran war.

It clearly would be dangerous to let one person make such a momentous decision.  Even if the President consults with his/her Cabinet and military staff, the President is a sole decision-maker and an administration is vulnerable to group think.  Thus, requiring that the President consult the Gang of Eight is important.

However, if a rogue President pushes ahead despite opposition from the Gang of Eight, a lot of harm can be done.  I have consistently expressed such concerns regardless of then-current President’s political affiliation.

President Trump is an extreme example of the danger in allowing one person to make such decisions.  As I have maintained since the 2016 election, considering President Trump to be an isolationist gives unwise weight to his words, ignoring his personality.  President Trump is most motivated by wanting power.  He is mercurial, easily insulted (and easily cajoled by flattery) and seeks revenge.  Allowing such a person to declare war is literally playing with fire.

Unfortunately, I am concerned that President Trump may feel he can get away with anything he wants to do.  He has, of course, said such many times in one way or another.  Republican legislators have encouraged him to have such blind confidence as have weak-kneed law schools and universities.

The Current Situation with Iran

President Trump has relied on surprise to maximize his military efforts and to minimize USA deaths.  That has been true for both strikes against Iran and the decapitation of Maduro in Venezuela.

Sadly, in today’s world, the President has a reasonable concern that if he/she goes to Congress for permission, the element of surprise will be lost because:

1.        Many people in Congress are political partisans rather than patriots.

2.        The press doesn’t use good judgment in what it reports.  (I hope that controversial statement is not a distraction to the flow of this blog.)

3.        It is harder to have secret meetings and votes in today’s world of surveillance.

Consulting with the Gang of Eight has avoided that problem, at least for now.

Securing international support can also undermine secrecy but is important.

Congress could authorize the President to engage in police actions against nuclear installations if the USA is part of a consortium that represents at least x% of the world’s population.  However, generally, such authority should not be granted.

This Iran war is clearly NOT focused solely on stymieing nuclear weapon development.  It is about regime change.  It might be justified in either of the following ways:

a)        Regime change is necessary to thwart nuclear weapon development because the regime has proven that it will simply start over if nuclear capability is destroyed.

b)       It is defensive because of Iran’s numerous aggressions since 1979.

c)        It is supporting the freedom of Iranian citizens.

I’ll discuss those arguments, but my main point is that these issues are not clear, which is why we should rely on Congress.  I feel much more comfortable knowing that the Gang of Eight were involved.

I’m not able to judge whether Iran has resumed efforts to build nuclear weapons.  However, if a diverse group of our leaders tell me that is their assessment of the evidence, I will trust them.

Iran has had an oft-repeated slogan of “Death to America”.  I don’t consider such statements to justify our attacking them.

However, Iran has broadly supported terrorism through Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraqi militias, Islamic Jihad, etc.  An international consortium police action against such terrorism is clearly justified in my mind.  In the absence of a consortium-as-broad-as-desired, individual nation action may be justified.

It seems more justified to initiate such police action against a country which is actively engaged in such activity.  Clearly, Iran’s activity has been muted since the summer 2025 attack by Israel and the USA.  However, it appears that Iran is continuing nonetheless and would resume past levels if, and when, possible.  Here, again, I’ll rely on a broad consortium reviewing the intelligence.

Some commentators note that because Iran was weakened last summer, this is a good time to attack.  Some people might then conclude that last summer’s attack was not an effort to block nuclear proliferation but rather phase 1 of a multi-phase plan.  All the more reason to involve Congress and an international consortium!

Iran also has a history of supporting attacks on USA citizens.  However, some of those have been direct, limited responses to USA strikes.

My “bottom line” remains that I support this effort, pending Congress’s vote, but I would have preferred a broader international consortium. 

I believe it is important for the world and the USA that the USA have a reputation of being a force for good.  President Trump has squandered our “brand”.  See President Trump’s Foreign Policy.

Regime change on behalf of Iranian citizens is a more difficult justification.  How do we know what a majority of people in Iran want?  Regime change has been hard to achieve and could be used to justify a lot of mischief.  It is convenient for me that I don’t have to make a decision on that basis, because Iran’s terrorism efforts would justify this attack for me.

No Labels' "Nightmare on Main Street"

For many decades, I’ve said that, as an actuary, I have no need for horror movies because reading annual OASDI actuarial reports (Social Security and Medicare financial status) is incredibly scary.

Former Senator Henry Bellmon (R-OK) and former Rep. Robert Giaimo (D-CT) created the Committee for a Responsible Budget in 1981.  It has a Fix the Debt campaign.

Seymour Durst created a US Debt Clock in NYC in 1989.  The wonderful US Debt Clock website (created in 2006) shows much other data including USA total debt ($107 trillion, including personal debt) and state debt.  I’ve always felt it understates the problem because it ignores our underfunded entitlements.  If you assume Social Security and Medicare will continue forever “as is”, we’re $95 trillion in the hole ($886,000 per USA taxpayer), not $39 trillion.

Heroes like Paul Tsongas spotlighted our economic problems (he founded the Concord Coalition in 1992), but most voters and most other politicians have continually ignored the voices of reason.

Bill Clinton gets credit for “balancing the budget”, but if you reflected the increase in underfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities, we were still falling farther behind.

In 2008, Pete Peterson created Peter G. Peterson Foundation which has banged the drum loudly regarding our unsustainable direction.

The same year, we elected a president (Barack Obama) who promised to address the issue.  In 2010, he appointed Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson to co-chair the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  Their WONDERFUL December 2010 report gave me hope.  I loved some of the proposals and hated others, but it was necessary to support the full, well-balanced package to avert catastrophe.  Sadly, President Obama abandoned the effort.

In my 2021 blog (10 Obvious(?) Lessons from the Pandemic), the first point was “To be able to spend lots of money in such emergencies, we need surpluses in other years.”  Alas, our politicians have continued to overspend dramatically.

No Labels just published a description of what could happen: Nightmare on Main Street, which I have attached.  An 884-word synopsis was published here.  Our unsustainable path will lead to disaster.   Your comments are welcome!

Government Shutdowns

In the latter half of 2025, the Democrats decided to shut down the government because they were unable to pass legislation they desired (the extension of COVID-inspired temporary increases of government subsidies for health care premiums).

Closing the government because you got out-voted is a terrible action to take.  It undermines our government, using extortion to try to get your way.  It sets a terrible precedent that could keep the government from ever getting funded because there are always a lot of bills which one side or the other would have liked to go “the other way”.

Ironically, in this case, the Democrats were objecting to a law they had drafted and passed during President Biden’s administration.  Regardless of who passed the unliked law, an unliked vote is NOT proper grounds to close the government.

However, our Executive Branch has broken international law (killing people hanging on to a destroyed boat in the Caribbean) and US law (civil rights violations by ICE).  As an effort to restrain an Executive Branch that is violating law, closing down the government seems clearly appropriate to me.  Why wouldn’t you stop funding an entity that is not doing its job properly?

If you believe that the Executive Branch has reformed and won’t commit the violations cited in the previous paragraph, the justification of closing the government becomes more blurred.  Unfortunately, there is strong reason to doubt that the Executive Branch has mended its ways.  Shutting down the government for stronger assurances seems justified.

If they believe the government has mended its ways, the Democrats might argue that a government shutdown is appropriate because the Executive Branch is deporting people who have been here many years without having violated laws (other than their immigrant status) and have been contributing to the country as parents, students, employees, and taxpayers.  The deportations are actions that the Executive Branch has taken without Congressional authorization.  From my perspective, a better approach would be to stimulate a vote in Congress.

Sadly, Congress has rules that sometimes block votes even when a majority of the members of the House or Senate want to vote on them.  These rules should be ended.  While these rules are in place, the “solution” I recommend in the previous paragraph may be unavailable.  Under these circumstances, the propriety of a government shutdown is less clear to me.

Open Primaries

Today, Smerconish had this survey question:  "Should the 45% of Americans who self ID as political Independents be able to vote in party primaries?

I commented that his question assumed a false premise.  I have been a lifelong independent voter, but I have voted in a Presidential primary each election.  Nothing in KS has precluded me from voting.  I simply decide which primary interests me most, then register for that party.  That works fine.

I strongly agree with Smerconish that we have a problem because elections are settled in primaries where extremists dominate the vote.  We could reduce this problem as follows:

1.        Find a way to stem what I think is the worst gerrymandering: the parties agreeing on safe districts for each other.  How do we curb this?

2.        We need political, religious, and educational leadership who promote character, sincere discussion and patriotism.

3.        Implement Ranked-Choice Voting, which encourages people to vote for the candidate of their choice (even if they think that candidate will lose), selecting their preferred major candidate lower on their slate.   RCV will encourage more candidates.  It also may encourage candidates to want to be listed second on ballots of voters who are not their core supporters, which should discourage voters in primaries from selecting extremist candidates.

I’m “open” (pun intended) to discussion on open primaries.  There are a variety of ways they can work.  But groups of people with common ideas should be able to get together and select a candidate who reflects their preferences.  Such “freedom of association” is protected by our Constitution. 

Open primaries seem likely to thwart such efforts.  They generally throw all candidates into one pot and allow only the top two vote-getters to advance to the main election. 

·        That seems to make it hard for groups to get together and select and support a main election candidate to promote their ideas, even if they would qualify under traditional rules. 

·        The more candidates a party has in an Open Primary, the lower its chances of having a candidate in the final election.  I'm concerned that Open Primaries will encourage “closed door” deals ahead of the primary to reduce the number of candidates.

Some proponents of open primaries claim there is no evidence of problems I envision.  However, I think such problems have already occurred, to a small degree.  Moving to open primaries would make that much more common.

We have seen major (and, unfortunately, successful) interference in party primaries.  Democrats, while claiming to fear right-wing extremist candidates, spent $51.5 million in 2022 to interfere in Republican primaries in 12 states supporting extremist Republicans who they thought would be easier to beat.  Such interference led to more extreme candidates, not more moderate candidates.  Would open primaries make such interference easier and broader?

The rights of the following groups to associate and select and support a candidate should not be abridged.

•      People who favor trans athletes competing as their chosen gender
•      People who want to restrict athletes to compete in their birth gender
•      Pro-life voters
•      Pro-choice voters
•      Isolationists
•      Internationalists
•      Free trade advocates or tariff supporters
•      Groups with cross-sectional preferences, such as isolationists who support free trade

·        How does an “open primary” system protect the rights of people to band together to select and support a candidate?

The current KS system already allows independents to register in any party to vote in a primary. Why am I wrong to oppose Open Primaries? 

President Trump’s Foreign Policy

People have asked me what I think about President Trump’s foreign policy.

Fundamentally, President Trump does well in identifying issues that deserve to be addressed but frequently uses extremely ill-advised tactics.

The world needs the USA to be an active leader.  Trump’s activism is good in that sense. 

I was surprised that people thought he would be an isolationist.  I did not expect isolationism because Trump craves power, has boundless self-confidence, is easily offended, and seeks revenge when offended.  Nonetheless, I’ll admit that President Trump has been more broadly active than I anticipated.

While USA leadership is good, the “rules-based” international cooperation of the latter half of the 20^th century should not be disbanded in favor of “might makes right” and an Orwellian world (e.g. George Orwell’s book “1984” as noted in my blog President Trump's second term).

We need democracies to band together and support each other, which runs contrary to President Trump’s strategy.

As much as possible, our actions should be done with allies rather than singly.  Doing them singly has the following disadvantages:

1.         If the USA adopts a “might makes right” approach, it will be harder for the USA to rally other nations to support sanctions or other actions against bad actors. 

2.         While nations such as Russia and China might throw their weight around even if the USA doesn’t do so, they might be more encouraged to do so if the USA does so, because they will realize that the USA will be less able to organize successful restraints.

3.         It fractures our alliances if we act alone.

4.         There is less confidence in a rational, reliable values-based approach to world governance.

5.         The USA bears all the cost.

6.         The USA bears all the risk if things go wrong.

7.         Even if the effort is successful, it breeds ill-will focused on the USA among some people.

8.         If one country dominates the world, people in other countries think that is unfair and make efforts to erode that country’s dominance.

The United Nations has been disappointingly ineffective.  It would have been good if President Trump had pressured the United Nations to be a more positive and active participant for peace in the world.  To the degree that the UN failed to step forth, he could act in concert with other allies.  The more the USA accomplished efforts with allies, the more countries would decide to participate in his efforts.  The result would be that the UN would be more likely to step up because it would not want to be outside the power-wielding group and because more of its members would be involved with the USA, hence supportive of such UN action.

Domestically, I’m a strong believer in separation of powers and of bringing people together.  President Trump is concentrating power in the Presidency (which might be OK or good on some issues but generally is detrimental to our long-term success).  There is no reason why he could not be consulting with the Senate more.  President Trump is not alone in creating law through the use of Executive Orders, but he has gone further than other Presidents in taking advantage of laws in ways that were not intended, including declaring a series of false emergencies.

The Supreme Court helped restore separation of powers by overturning the “Chevron deference”.  Now, Congress and the Supreme Court must restore separation of powers by resisting Presidential power grabs.

Both internationally and domestically, President Trump foolishly goes out of his way to alienate people, rather than trying to bring people and countries together.

My past impression was that President Trump’s negotiating tactics were limited to brute force, but he has been creative in using economics/trade to try to resolve conflicts.  I admit that is not a strategy I envisioned and that it has some merit.  However, Trump relies on it too broadly, and it is not clear that his deals will bring long-term peace.

Venezuela: An effort such as the extraction of Nicolas Maduro requires secrecy, so broad involvement of Congress is not possible.  However, it should be possible to discuss intentions with key Congressional members and get their support.  More broadly, there is no reason not to discuss the problems regarding Venezuela with Congress and to get authority, in advance, to take action, as needed, within limits.

We should not have fired on boats in the Caribbean without Congressional approval (and preferably with international support).  Killing the survivors of the strikes was a clear violation of international law and exposes our solders to such actions in the future.  It should not have been done.

The President should, after speaking with Congress, come on TV with their support (and hopefully international support) explaining the situation and goals to the USA public.

Generally, as noted above, I favor predictable behavior.  President Trump favors being unpredictable.  There are advantages to being unpredictable, at least in some circumstances.  However, in the long run, I still prefer predictability.

Ironically, after the Maduro capture, President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio stressed that people should believe Trump when he says something is unacceptable, which is strikingly contrary to his unpredictability.  Sadly, relying on Trump’s word is inconsistent with his track record.  As an example, regarding Venezuela, the cause/intent of his action (as with other actions) was unclear.  It vacillates from oil, to narcotics, to Maduro's suppression of the Venezuelan population, …  It may well be a combination of those reasons, but that is not what President Trump communicates.  He conveys shifting reasons, making it easier for people to interpret them as excuses rather than reasons.  (2026-02-01 note: it has subsequently become evenmore clear that President Trump is quite satisfied with non-Democratic governments as long as they 'play ball' with him.  His comment to the Iranian people that "help is on the way" is very hard to understand.  He abandoned them after raising their hopes.  All he wants from the Iranians is a deal that serves his interests.  Similarly, he doesn't seem to care about democracy for the Venezuelans.)

We should support the democratic process.  Maria Corina Machado has been the main Venezuelan opposition leader for a long time.  Maduro banned her from running in the 2024 election.  Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia ran in her place and got more than 2/3 of the vote.  Clearly, they have support and Maria Corina Machado was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year.

Seemingly inexplicably, President Trump said on January 3 (the day Maduro was abducted) that Machado lacks respect and support in Venezuela.  He seemed to suggest she is incapable (“she’s a nice lady, but…”).  Instead, he said the USA would run Venezuela.  This was an unforced error on his part.  President Trump may be jealous of the support Machado and Urrutia have and not want them to eat into “his credit”.

President Trump indicated that the Venezuelan Vice President, Delcy Rodriguez has been “sworn in”, and that she agreed to “do whatever” the U. S. needed, noting that "she really doesn't have a choice".  However, Ms. Rodriguez responded "If there's something that the Venezuelan people and the country know very clearly, we will never return to being slaves."

Some people equate the current USA involvement in Venezuela to its “nation-building” involvement in Iraq, but there are major differences:

1.         Venezuela had recent elections.  As noted above, Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia (indirectly, Maria Corina Machado) got a huge 2/3 of the vote despite the pressures exerted by Maduro.  That is amazing support for democracy that did not exist in Iraq.

2.         Venezuela had a functioning democracy from 1958 to at least 1998.  Iraq lacked such history.

3.         Iraq was beset by historical strife between Shia and Shiite Muslims.  Venezuela is fortunate not to have such religious strife.

4.         Iraq has destabilizing tensions with Iran and Kurdistan that are greater than Venezuela’s tensions with neighbors.

5.         Some of Iraq’s Muslim population believe that death defending their faith leads to glorious after-death existence.  Such beliefs do not exist in Venezuela.

6.         Another big difference (contrarian to #s 1 and 2) is that President Trump seems to be working with Maduro’s administration to keep it in place.  That is a different tactic than the USA followed in Iraq.

7.        Less significantly, Venezuela is much closer to the USA.

Addendum on 2026-02-01: It now seems clear that the major impetus for the capture of Maduro was to gain access to Venezuelan oil.

Nigeria: Boko Haram abducted the Chibok schoolgirls in 2014.  Since then (as documented in my  2015-09-11 blog, Boko Haram), I’ve maintained that an international force should support the Nigerian government by encircling the area where Boko Haram operates and strangling them.

Clearly, that should be done by international forces with the support of the Nigerian government.

Boko Haram are criminals.  Most of their crimes have been committed against Muslims.  Likewise, the ISIS operatives President Trump attacked do not focus on Christians.

But President Trump decided to characterize their activity as “anti-Christian”.  Turning criminal activity into war against Christians risks triggering actions against Christians and reprisals against Muslims.  This was a huge and horrible mistake.

Israel, Iran, and Gaza:  President Trump has done very well in this area.  In his first term, he supported Israel, moved our embassy to Jerusalem, and had a tremendous breakthrough with the Abraham Accords.  During his second term, he has continued to support Israel and cooperated with Israel in the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capability.   I support all of that.

I thought President Obama’s deal with Iran was flawed but concluded that I would have reluctantly voted for it had I been a Senator asked to vote yea or nay.  It might be more accurate to say I tolerated President Trump’s withdrawal from the treaty with Iran than to suggest that I was strongly supportive. 

Ukraine: I agree with President Trump regarding two aspects of the Russia vs. Ukraine war:

1)        I believe the war  would not have occurred had he beaten Biden in the 2020 election (see 10 (Obvious?) Lessons to Learn from Russia’s attack on Ukraine).

2)        I believe he might have been able to end the war quickly upon coming back into office (Messages to Politicians).

President Biden, despite his incompetence, set President Trump up well relative to Ukraine.  Between President Trump’s re-election and his taking the oath, President Biden increased support for Ukraine.

President Trump could have approached Vladimir Putin privately during this time period or upon taking office with the following message:

·        “President Biden increased support for Ukraine.  You now have two choices:

o   You can end the war in a way that won’t be embarrassing to you, or

o   We’re going to increase support for Ukraine to force you to surrender.”

Obviously, I can’t be sure that Putin would have folded under Trump pressure, but that was clearly the way to go, in my opinion.

Instead, President Trump has been very critical of President Zelenskyy and has continually repeated Putin propaganda.  He has threatened Putin occasionally, always backing down (hugely undermining his and Secretary of State Rubio’s comments that his threats should be believed; maybe he means his threats against weak countries should be believed). 

Russia is the aggressor in this war (clearly in the wrong).  Ukraine has been defending the principles of peace and the USA’s interests, protecting its democracy and position as a trading partner and protecting Europe.  Ukraine has weakened Russia.  From Ukraine’s efforts, we have learned a lot about Russia’s vulnerabilities and a lot about how to fight a war with drones, etc.  Our economy has benefitted from selling weapons to Ukraine.  Yet, President Trump has been continually negative toward Ukraine, encouraging Putin to think that he can do whatever he wants.

Ironically, President Trump is now in the same position relative to Putin as President Biden was.  He needs to “double-cross” Putin.  As I mentioned in 10 (Obvious?) Lessons to Learn from Russia’s attack on Ukraine), President Biden gave Putin a myriad of clues that Putin could attack Ukraine without triggering a response from the USA.  President Biden fortunately rallied somewhat (albeit much too weakly) to the support of Ukraine, thereby “double-crossing” Putin.  Now, President Trump, after repeatedly indicating that he supports Putin, needs to “double-cross” Putin.

President Trump looks at everything as “economic deals”.  He negotiated with Ukraine to get rights to Ukraine’s minerals.  I would not have been likely to have done so.  As noted above, Ukraine has been defending our interests and has been taking terrible losses in doing so.  It will need to invest incredibly huge amounts in reconstruction.  But I'd support Trump's Ukrainian trade deal if he supported Ukraine.

One disadvantage of negotiating such a deal with Ukraine is that it encouraged Putin to think that President Trump isn’t supportive of Ukraine and would respond even more positively to doing economic deals with Russia.

Deals for peace elsewhere:

President Trump takes a lot of credit for creating peace elsewhere.  (He takes a lot of credit for everything good, whether it occurred or not.)  As indicated below, he deserves some credit, but only a small fraction of what he claims. 

Armenia/Azerbaijan: It is not clear that the peace deal will be successful, but, at a minimum, President Trump deserves credit for a good try.

Thailand/Cambodia: President Trump threatened each country that he will withhold trade if they don’t abide by a peace deal.   Skirmishes continue, but I think President Trump deserves credit for at least reducing the hostilities temporarily.

Rwanda/Congo; President Trump managed to get a peace deal signed, but it is not clear that it will hold.  The M23 rebels in eastern Congo were not party to the agreement, apparently on the belief that they were controlled by Rwanda.  My somewhat cursory impression is that the deal essentially gives the USA access to the Congo’s minerals in Kivu and Katanga provinces in return for the USA pressuring Rwanda to desist.  The deal is clearly in the USA’s interests.  I’d say President Trump did well, but it is too soon for a victory lap.

India/Pakistan:  Pakistan thanked President Trump for his effort, but India said that Trump did not influence the ceasefire.  It is clear that the USA made some effort, but it looks to me that Pakistan curried favor with Trump by giving him credit.  My impression is that President Trump does not deserve credit for peace between India and Pakistan.

Egypt/Ethiopia: No war has occurred.  Basically, Sudan and Egypt have relied on water originating in Ethiopia.  But Ethiopia built a huge dam which would utilize Ethiopia’s water, reducing how much would flow to Sudan and Egypt.  President Trump has not seemed to contribute to solving this problem.  He damaged his chances by cutting aid to Ethiopia (although that gives him leverage prospectively) and by suggesting that Egypt might bomb the dam if Ethiopia did not agree to a deal.  President Trump appears to favor Egypt and Sudan because he wants their cooperation on Gaza.  Sudan has softened its position on Israel.  Perhaps President Trump deserves credit for using this situation to improve the security of Israel, but he definitely does not deserve credit for solving the problem.  (President Biden may have done better on this one.)

Serbia/Kosovo: Actually, this war ended in 1999.  But Serbia has never recognized Kosovo as an independent nation.  In 2020, the first Trump administration got Serbia to agree to a one-year moratorium on its campaign to dissuade other countries from recognizing Kosovo and got Kosovo to agree to stop seeking membership in international organizations for one year.  Clearly, President Trump did not end a war here.  He did a little short-term good, however.

Taiwan: President Trump seems to have weakened Taiwan’s position by his actions relative to Ukraine and because he seems to value trade with China.

NATO and the EU: It has been appropriate to pressure NATO to increase its military budgets.  If President Trump wants to express his views to them privately about their internal politics and immigration policy, that’s his prerogative.   But we should strengthen, not weaken the alliance.

Greenland: The idea of purchasing Greenland is an excellent idea.  But Denmark should have been approached privately about the idea and President Trump should not have tried to undermine the relationship between the Greenlanders and the Danes.

Canada: The idea of making Canada the 51^st state of the USA was solely an effort to insult Canada.  President Trump succeeded in damaging our relationship with Canada.

Tariffs: Generally, I’m a “free trade” guy, but I’ve been moderate relative to Trump’s tariffs, waiting to see what happens.  I envisioned a somewhat-delayed negative impact from the tariffs and the possibility that President Trump might be able to use the tariffs as a short-term bargaining ploy.

I would have been very supportive of aligning our allies to use economic pressure, including tariffs, to pressure China relative to issues such as intellectual property and dumping.  But President Trump decided not to do that.

The tariffs have been chaotic and disrupted business planning.   Some were clearly ill-advised.  President Trump has backed off several, seemingly having accomplished little and has taken steps to protect some industries which have been hurt by his trade wars.

A big disadvantage of the Trump trade wars is that they are one of many pieces of evidence that suggest that a company’s business success is dependent on staying in President Trump’s good graces.  In my opinion, the Trump Administration is corrupt.

Why does President Trump act in such fashion?

This is my opinion based on watching President Trump from afar for decades.  But I don’t know President Trump personally.  So, you can label this “speculation”, if you’d like.

1.        President Trump’s primary motivation is that he wants power.

2.        Secondarily, he has a tremendous ego and wants to see that other people recognize his power.

3.        He cares about the power and credit optics more than about solving these problems.

4.        He is susceptible to people playing to his vanity (such as Putin, Pakistan, North Korea, etc.).

5.        He narrowly sees issues as economic and places finances, as well as power and ego, ahead of principle.

6.        He actually likes to upset people, even when it is counterproductive to his policy goals, because if he can get people upset, that is evidence of his power.  As noted, power is more important than policy to him.

7.        Obviously, he has an egotistical desire to get the Nobel Peace Prize.