foregoing what we have come to expect, he addressed the country for the first time about the on-going crisis in iran. on the plus side it wasn't turned into one of his traditional rants, reading his statement and keeping on script without going off on any of the tangents we've come to expect from such appearances. backed by his 'handlers' and perhaps for a moment taking their advice, he seemed subdued (dare i say medicated?), he stayed on topic and only once, if i remember correctly, attempting to shift the blame for the entire situation to obama when he said the missiles fired at american bases tuesday night were 'paid for' with the money 'given' (actually, returned, since it was theirs to begin with) to them by the previous administration. that attempt to shift blame was the one time he returned to form since he's not known for taking responsibility for anything that doesn't add a polish to him personally.
i'm not sure how this is going to play to the most rabid segment of his base, that part who were cheering the death of soleimani and calling for harsher actions against iran. i'm sure they were drooling in hopes of hearing him announce we were sending THE BIG ONE to be dropped on tehran but they will have to be satisfied with hearing (again) how much the military has been grown and strengthened under his watch. i can only wonder, should a call to arms be issued, how many of those so-called patriots will don their maga hats and rush to put their lives where their mouths are. after all, it'd mean free guns.
though not entirely threat- or insult-free, it included enough to actually be considered one of his more hopeful addresses. while not given any more information as to what these 'imminent' actions being planned were or who they would be against or where they were to occur, it was definitely somewhat of a walk-back from what he said in his previous tweets. now, with his record of not remembering and denying what he's said, despite being in front of witnesses and/or camera, one can only wonder if the man we saw today will say the same thing tomorrow.
one major question still hangs in the air: though he seems to be in a more conciliatory mood (for now) towards iran, what's going to be done with the several militias (like hezbollah) operating in the area? since to my knowledge (and i very well could be very wrong on this) but does the central government of iran have much influence over them? and if any one of these militias take some action against the u.s. forces or their allies, who exactly is going to be held to account, or will it just be assumed that they're acting with the consent of iran? then what do we do and how far do we take the response? he's spoken today and maybe for the moment some fears will be allayed and some nerves be temporarily soothed, but what next? more troops are being sent back into an area from which many were recently withdrawn. since the death of soleimani occurred in iraq, their parliament has voted on a resolution to 'ask' american forces be withdrawn en masse, though at this time it seems to be non-binding, while the iranian parliament voted to declare the u.s. military a 'terrorist organization'. could the addition of more troops in the area be considered by some to an act of aggression and how will they react and who will 'they' be? that leads us back to who will we eventually blame and again what will our response be? we seem to be back on a never-ending cycle we were promised before the last election we were going to be removed from.
sorry, that was more than one question, but it probably can be summed up by the one question i had in mind, the one question i started this whole thing off with: where do we go from here?
No comments:
Post a Comment