Wag the Dog
In past years the phrase “wag the dog” has been used to characterize the action of United States presidents, who—besieged by domestic tumult and challenges—might seek foreign adventures (perhaps foreign war) to distract the public and thereby get himself out of hot water. Bill Clinton was suspected of just such a motivation when he unleashed bombing attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan in August 1998. A headline in the Baltimore Sun read, “Clinton’s Airstrike Motives Questioned: Many Wonder if Attack Was Meant to Distract from the Lewinski Matter.”[1] The article that followed referred to the wag-the-dog scenario, popularized in a recent movie by that name, in which a U.S. president embroiled in a sex scandal stages a way to distract the nation.[2] In reality the Clinton bombing raids—which he defended as important to confront Al Qaeda—appeared to have no effect, one way or the other, on the evolution of the Clinton/Lewinski matter.
Trump pulled the United States out of the Iran Agreement, formally known as the Joint Program of Action (JCPOA), saying that it was a terrible deal and Iran would agree to a better one on his watch. Instead, as we now know, Iran went back to its former policies and has now stockpiled low-enriched uranium for power reactors far in excess of what they were allowed under the JCPOA. Also, Iran is in the process of buying and installing improved uranium centrifuges to make more enriched uranium—thus moving (at least technically) closer to having a bomb production capability. Trump’s policy there, like most other parts of his foreign policy, has been a complete failure.
Trump has decapitated the top levels of the Defense Department and replaced them with stooges who know nothing about defense or national security. Our military naturally worries that with all the disarray created by Trump’s blatant attempt to overturn our free and fair election—itself a would-be coup and a direct assault on the Constitution—that some foreign enemy might seize this moment to launch an attack. A B-52 strategic bomber task force recently flew a sortie from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to the Middle East and is planning to send an aircraft carrier task force to the Persian Gulf.[3] These moves appear to be cautionary at this time.
President-elect Biden has said that, when he assumes office, he will seek to revive American participation in the JCPOA. The Iranians say they are open to considering a rapprochement. Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said recently that “Iran would revert to the 2015 limits [set by the JCPOA] if the new administration returns to the deal, too. ‘This needs no negotiations and needs no conditions,’ he said.”
Anti-Iran hawks in the United States and Israel see the window closing on the possibility of a preemptive U.S.-Israel strike against the Iranian nuclear program. Likely supporters of such an attack include Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and some hardline officials around Trump. Netanyahu has said often that the potential Iranian nuclear threat represents an existential issue for Israel, and the chance to land a knockout punch may expire Jan. 20.[4]
So, might the current administration move against Iran? Do Trump and the senior officials around him believe that the Iran program could be terminated with one strike, even a day-long attack involving waves of bombers and missiles? The answer to this question is, almost certainly, no. The surgical-type strike is a myth. To actually stop the Iranian program, it would likely take a war of several or many months and perhaps occupation. Iran’s program is too big and too dispersed for a small special forces attack to be effective. And what of the wag-the-dog effect? Does Trump think that the American public would respond to an on-going war by accepting the need for him to stay in place until the emergency is over? Not likely. The American people do not want war with Iran. If the president dragged the United States into a war with Iran to stay in office, the American people would want Trump gone sooner than January 20 rather than later. If there is an emergency, let Biden handle it. There would be no wag-the-dog effect. The American people might be distracted from other things but not from ousting Trump as soon as possible. Perhaps Trump is thinking in terms of a limited attack—just enough to make revitalization of the JCPOA more difficult, like the Israeli assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist, Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a few days ago. But, a bombing attack is not the same as an assassination. Even a limited strike would likely spiral unpredictably out of control. At a Washington Post editorial puts it:
The people who do right by the country have one thing in common: They are guided by real-life experience, not by loony conspiracy theories tapped out on a keyboard somewhere. Their service is based on an idea expressed in the title of a long-enduring definition of purpose from the American Revolution: Thomas Paine’s ‘Common Sense,’ which is still a bestseller. It is common sense that has got us through dangerous times in the past. . . . It is common sense that we must now hope will prevail in days and years to come.[5]
“…war contains so much folly, as well as wickedness, that much is be hoped from the progress of reason; and if any thing is to be hoped, everything ought to be tried [to avoid it].” — James Madison, 1792
“War is an instrument entirely inefficient towards addressing wrong, and multiplies instead of indemnifying losses.” — Thomas Jefferson, 1798
“War is not the best engine for us to resort to, nature has given us one in our commerce, which, if properly managed, will be a better instrument for obliging the interested nations of Europe to treat us with justice.” — Thomas Jefferson, 1797
John Jay
[1] Susan Baer, “Clinton’s Airstrike Motives Questioned: Many Wonder if Attack Was Meant to Distract from the Lewinski Matter,” Baltimore Sun, August 23, 1998, https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-08-23-1998235021-story.html.
[2] Ibid., https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-08-23-1998235021-story.html.
[3] David Ignatius, “A Lame-duck Test of Wills with Iran,” Washington Post, November 26, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-remains-in-a-battle-of-wills-with-iran/2020/11/26/d79aa046-3020-11eb-96c2-aac3f162215d_story.html.
[4] Ibid., https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-remains-in-a-battle-of-wills-with-iran/2020/11/26/d79aa046-3020-11eb-96c2-aac3f162215d_story.html.
[5] “This Tragic Year, Give Thanks to Those Who Safeguard our Health and Democracy, editorial, Washington Post, November 25, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-tragic-year-give-thanks-to-those-who-safeguard-our-health-and-democracy/2020/11/25/6c00b076-2e60-11eb-96c2-aac3f162215d_story.html.