Donald Trump thought it would be a cakewalk. Determined to oust his adversary almost overnight, the US President quickly discovered that he’s far more wily and tenacious than he had assumed. Far from capitulating, his nemesis seems to be on the comeback trail. Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell thus announced yesterday that unless a successor is confirmed by the Senate, he has ‘no intention of leaving’.
The bad news keeps mounting for Trump. Inflation is ticking up, King Charles’s impending visit is starting to look rather iffy, his gilded ballroom project looks as though it will be smacked down by a federal judge, and energy prices are rising precipitously. Indeed, a new sticker being plastered on petrol stations across America shows Trump pointing his finger into the sky and is captioned ‘Iran your gas prices up’.
Poor Trump. 2026 is looking like his personal annus horribilis. As an obstreperous Iran refuses to surrender and lobs missiles at Israel and various Gulf states, the President has become embroiled in what he once denounced: a forever war. His disciples are confounded. Trump’s counterterrorism chief, Joe Kent, resigned on Tuesday, contending that the President had been snookered into the conflict by nefarious forces in Israel. This line of argument seeks to exculpate Trump for the debacle, portraying his foray, or, if you prefer, excursion, into Iran as a momentary lapse in judgement. The President was having none of it. He referred to Kent as ‘weak’ – one of his favourite epithets.
Gabbard’s mandate is not to decypher threats but to function as a cypher herself
Trump’s own advisers offered a different portrait on Capitol Hill as they were interrogated about the case for war yesterday. Tulsi Gabbard, the national intelligence director and leonine of the self-styled foreign policy restrainers, performed something akin to duck and cover. In her official statement, she acknowledged that there was no compelling evidence that Iran was seeking to reconstitute its nuclear programme, which Trump had insisted last summer was ‘obliterated’ by Operation Midnight Hammer. But, in responding to Senator Jon Ossoff, she argued that it was not her duty to reach any conclusions about Iran’s intentions.
Gabbard’s mandate is not to decypher threats but to function as a cypher herself. ‘The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the President,’ Gabbard said. ‘It is not the intelligence community’s duty to determine what is and is not an imminent threat.’ Others on the hawkish right continue to view Gabbard as a threat. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, for example, complained yesterday that Gabbard’s agency remains a ‘resistance shop’ to the deployment of military power abroad.
Where Trump stands on these doctrinal disputes over the true Maga faith remains a mystery. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, ‘Rest assured, there is a plan.’ Is there?
Comments