Bomb Iran’s nuclear sites? You can’t separate the mission from who’s in charge of it

Open this photo in gallery:

There’s a theoretical version of the U.S. bombing raid on Iran that one could get behind.

Granted, it’s an enormously risky proposition, and remains so even now, days after the mission was completed – less so, perhaps, given the damage Israel had already inflicted on Iran’s armed forces in the days before, but still filled with peril.

For now, Iran has been content with a largely performative attack on a U.S. base in Qatar, but it could easily still respond by blocking oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, or by launching terror attacks on U.S. territory, or in a hundred other not-so-obvious ways.

In the longer term, far from shutting down its nuclear program, Iran may respond to Sunday’s attack by accelerating its nuclear ambitions. Far from encouraging reform at home or a more conciliatory line abroad, the attack may simply play into the hands of the relative hardliners in the regime.

Nevertheless, the risks of Iran gaining nuclear weapons are so incalculable that one might be inclined to give the U.S. administration the benefit of the doubt. Yes, the legality of such an attack, without authorization by Congress, may be suspect – but similar attacks have been made before by administrations of both parties. Yes, the intelligence on how far Iran was along the path to building a nuclear weapon did not suggest an imminent breakout – but no one disputes that that is its aim.

Analysis: U.S. bombing raid on Iran raises countless questions despite apparent ceasefire

Certainly Iran’s neighbours in the region, however much they might deplore the U.S. actions in public, would be privately pleased at seeing such a barbaric and destabilizing regime brought to heel. Iran has few friends, and the ones it has – Russia, in particular – have their hands full with other matters.

So as uncertain as the further consequences of any such action might be – from a wider war in the Middle East to regime change in Iran – so long as one had confidence that the U.S. administration had properly weighed the risks, could competently plan and execute the mission, and possessed the experience and judgment to manage the military, diplomatic and economic fallout, one might be persuaded to set aside one’s reservations.

Opinion: Regime change in Iran would lead to chaos

But this is not that kind of administration; neither, in consequence, is this that kind of mission.

From the start it was evident that Donald Trump had made no such plan or assessment. Rather, he had seen the praise that Israel’s earlier attacks on Iran had received, particularly on Fox News, and decided to jump in front of the parade, pretending that Israel’s plan was really his plan. The previous administration line – that Israel had acted entirely on its own, that the U.S. was still committed to negotiations with Iran – was abruptly discarded.

There followed bloodthirsty threats to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader, accompanied by theatrical demands for “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER”; then the pretense of “one last attempt at negotiation,” with a two-week timetable; followed two days later by the sudden retrospective announcement of the attack (on social media, of course), with sweeping claims to have “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capacity.

No evidence was produced in support of this claim, but meantime Mr. Trump had moved on to declaring a “ceasefire” – without, it appeared, having consulted either Iran or Israel – later disclosing he had acquiesced in Iran’s attack on the U.S. base (“is one o’clock okay?”), as if he were sportingly offering an opponent a stroke at golf.

As the hours passed and it appeared that events were moving without him, Mr. Trump’s social media posts grew more agitated: World oil markets were forbidden to allow the price of oil to jump; Israel was told to stop bombing targets in Iran, but rather to do a friendly “plane wave”; etc.

At length it emerged that the bombing run had not succeeded in “obliterating” Iran’s nuclear capacity, that it had set it back at most by a few months – in particular, that it had left 400 kilograms of enriched uranium unaccounted for. Had the President not telegraphed that he planned to attack Iran, possibly the uranium might have been left in place; had he at least followed up with a second wave of bombings, they might have made more of a dent. But Mr. Trump was too busy running his victory lap.

That is who is attempting this dangerous, difficult, unprecedented high-wire act: not some shrewd, steely-eyed American president of the imagination, but Mr. Trump and his gang of fools, lunatics and former Fox News hosts. They did not suddenly turn into defence and foreign policy savants. They have no more clue how to do this than they do anything else.

It is true, as his defenders argue, that no previous president would have done this. That does not fill me with confidence.