Victor Davis Hanson (3:47)
I don't know why anybody would be in Baghdad right now myself, but that's tragic. I hope we can get her back without giving up leverage that'll endanger lives. But Marco Ubu gave a talk. I'm speaking on Wednesday. Last night I followed him on Hannity and he outlined exactly what we were doing in Iran. And he made a very subtle point. He said, we're going to destroy their air force, we're destroy their navy, their ballistic missile capability, both fabrication and the exist stocks of them. He implied that we're going to stop them from killing Americans and disrupting the Middle east by attriting their military infrastructure. What he didn't say explicitly was we were going to ensure they didn't have a bomb. But it was implicit because he said, you know, we don't know where it is, but we've been bombing and bombing. And the Israelis have said that the Americans have been trying to seal that suspected Kosh of enough enriched uranium to make 11 bombs. So they said, and so they can never get it. So what was left onset that everybody's asking about? Well, the first is regime change. It was never an explicit. I went back and looked. Trump never said, we're going in there to change the government. What he did was very unique. He had these other objectives. But then by extension he said, we're here to help is on the way. So the idea is that he's going to so devastate the military architecture of Iran, which he's almost done, but not destroy the power, the water, the communication so the people won't starve to death. And therefore the Revolutionary Guard Corps will be weakened and the dissidents and protesters will be empowered. And that process can go on and on and on after we leave because they're in a dilemma. If they want to reestablish credibility, they're going to have to get their hands on oil revenue. They're going to have to open the strait to everybody. And then if they do get their hands on oil revenue, the people are not going to sit there while they spend another half trillion dollars to buy missiles from North Korea and give $100 billion a year to terrorist proxies or something. They're not going to do that. Well, they're starving, so they're going to really a terrible place. So then he has come up with the Venezuela rather than have a revolution or rather than arm that and have a big mess that is Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. He's basically saying, we're going to only talk with strong men or who have credibility that were elected in some primitive fashion and that will ostracize the theocracy and the Revolutionary Guard. But that's only half of the equation. The Israelis are killing them. Anytime a person identifies himself as a chief leader of either of those two groups, they get killed. So what Trump is saying, we've had an almost internal regime change, kind of like Venezuela. Instead of kidnapping Maduro, the Israelis are killing them. And then the people who are left, we tell the Israelis, these people want to cut a deal. And if we can cut a deal with them and they can remain in power, they will not rebuild the arsenals and the bomb. They just want to be prosperous. They're just autocratic thugs. But it's better than nation building and it's better than not doing anything at all. So that was interesting about the regime change. The other two things that everybody's asking about Strait of Maharmut, Strait of Hormuz, Strait of Mahmuds. Well, Trump and Rubio basically said we get no oil out of there and it's international water. So Iran is breaking it. And the Europeans say, well, they weren't breaking it till you came in. Yeah, they weren't breaking it till you came in. Till we came in because you were appeasing them and they were building a bomb and they were building ballistic missiles could hit every one of your capitals, you fools. So Trump is saying, you all they have to do is say, I'm France, one frigate, I'm Britain, one frigate. I am Italy, one frigate, I'm Germany, one. That would be all, just 10, 12 ships as a show. But they won't even do that because their restive populations are 15 to 16% Muslim. And by the way, the Muslims in Europe are more radical than the Muslims in Iran. I don't mean the government, but the average Iranian on the street is more Pro Western than the average Muslim in Europe, no doubt about it. So they are shackled in the straits. There's two or three solutions. The most severe and dangerous is taking Carg island, cutting off their oil revenues way in the north and then making a sanitary corridor along the the northern shore. But why do that? The best way would be to get an international coalition of people who use the strait and have them go by and say to the Iranians, these are your customers. If you want to fire on them, we're going to destroy you. And then have a sky full of Apaches and Warthogs going up and down the coast to get tactical weapons and drones. I think that's very doable. The other long term solution is Saudi Arabia could easily build two pipelines, one to near a lot right on the Red Sea, that little eddy, that little bay on the Red Sea. And they could ship all of their oil either out the Suez Canal or out the Suez Canal. Or they could go out to Indian Ocean, to India, I mean to India and China or, and not exclusively, but complementary, they could build a shorter line right across from the oil fields through Jordan, the West bank to Israel, right around Haifa or somewhere, and the Israelis could protect it for them and they could charge them a modest fee or they could be paid in oil. And the Saudis then would have two alternatives to the straight Hormuz. So that would be the best, the best solution. And then they could have other Gulf states tap into it and just make the Strait of Hormuz Irrelevant in 10 years. And that would hurt Iran, unless they wanted to, you know, reform. The final thing is the NATO countries. Rubio mentioned that. The Wall Street Journal is very disappointing. They have a story today by two Europeans basically saying people don't know all the good things that we're doing. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We know all the bad things that you are doing. The Spanish not only denied us the use of a NATO base, but we can't even go into their airspace. Then the Italians, our ally Maloney wouldn't even in Sicily let us land bombers to refuel on their way. The French won't let us use their airspace. The British hemmed and haw well, today I don't think you could use Diego Garcia. Tomorrow you might, maybe not. Oh no, our Muslim populations are angry us, they might. You can't. So then they're saying to us, this is what they said. You did not consult your NATO partners and you staged a unilateral NATO mission. Not NATO, American Mission now that when you're in trouble, you want us for cover? No way. Well, first of all we're not in trouble. And second of all, this is a pattern by the Europeans. So in 1984-88 and then for the next 20 years the French came to us and said it's in the world's interest to make sure Gaddafi doesn't export his revolution to sub Saharan Africa. So our post colonial presence in Chad is, is in danger. We don't have the lift capacity, we don't have the refueling capacity, we don't have the satellite technology, we need resupply. So we're going to go there unilaterally. Would you help us? And the United states finally in 2007 said, well, Gaddafi gave up his nuclear arms after we went into Iraq and he's reforming, he's turning over power. So I don't know, but if you're an ally, we'll help. And then in 1991 they came and said there's genocide in Europe, Milosevic is killing all of the Muslims in Kosovo. There could be a theater wide war, we need to bomb. We said, well, it's a European problem and it's not. None of these countries are NATO countries. So you want to use NATO for your own particular mission for the world? Yes. When we want you to lead it, you talk to pilots and I have that flew there. They will tell you that The Americans flew 90% and they were the people who flew in the dense fog and the terrible weather and the most dangerous anti aircraft corridors. So we went over there for them and in less than three months we got rid of Milosevic and they were happy and we kind of destroyed any type of detente with the Yeltsin government and the Russians because it was 19 or Putin I should say. And they were in transition and there was still hope that Russia might liberalize. But after that they said, you attacked our orthodox ally, Serbia. I think Wesley Clark rushed to the airport and one of the British general, what do you want? I'm not going to obey your order and start world war three and all that. So it wasn't in our necessarily. It was our humanitarian interest because of the genocide, but not our political interest. So that was 99. And then they decided that it would be wise to go into Libya. Gaddafi, as I said, had reformed. But in 2011 the French and the British said, we're going to go in there. We got a UN resolution that he's committing genocide. He wasn't. He was just a thug who was giving up his nuclear weapons. He was terrified of the United States. I was there in 2007, I stayed 10 days there. I talked to everybody. I left my appendix there. So I talked to members of his government. I had two Libyan minders. All they did is tell us how much they liked America and they were going to reform. And Gaddafi was demented and old and his kids had soccer interests and were western educated. Okay, so we went along with it. Remember that Samantha, the big triad. Susan Rice, Samantha Power. Hillary Clinton went to Obama. We've got to bomb them into Smith. They bombed for seven months. Not one month, seven. The left wing media said nothing. Nobody said, the Europeans said nothing. And all they did was destroy that country the last day in office. Over a year later, Obama bombed some live out people in the desert. So we went along with it. That was not our idea. We didn't want to do it. And then we remember the 1982 Falklands. So the British came to us and said, they took the Falkland Argentine dictator. And Haig, who was Secretary of State didn't want to get involved. Said, well, we're trying to build bridges in the western hemisphere with our Spanish speaking neighbors. Now Galatieri is a dictator, we understand that, but we're working on them and we have good relations with them. And we've got 5 or 6% at that time of the population that's Spanish speaking here in the United States. So it's a little tricky. Maybe you should just, just kind of do it your own. And then they went around his back and went to Reagan, Thatcher did, and they said, we can't do this alone. We only have one aircraft carrier, two. And we got to go all the way across the world. We have no satellite reconnaissance. We don't have necessary. We don't have enough Tomahawk missiles for a long campaign. And we don't have any gasoline. So Reagan said, we'll give you 2 million gallons of gas. We'll give you all the Tomahawk missiles you want. You have complete access to our reconnaissance satellite technology and we'll even have a marine carrier. We'll put it right on ice. And if anything happens to your carrier and your Harrier, you can have it. We did everything. And now. So my point is that when we're doing a unilateral attack on Iran and it's for the western benefit because the missiles can't hit us. They can hit every European capital in the west and yet. But they won't do anything. Instead they are two faced. They talk to their domestic constituency and Damn the United States. I'm not using that as a pejorative, by the way. The United States is a warlock. And then they come around to us and say we understand that we're helpful, we just don't want to be involved. Well, you're involved whether you're not. So then the question I'm leading to is Ukraine. Ukraine is not a NATO ally. So Russia attacks Ukraine and Trump had tried to revive detente with Putin and turn Putin against China. Not detente that we like Putin for all what the left said he was Putin's poodle. He wasn't. He was trying to triangulate in the Kissinger model. Okay, so then they said they're going to overrun Ukraine and we're disarmed and we should have listened to you about the 2%, but we're not able to. So we need a couple hundred billion dollars and we need some Abrams tanks and we need to missiles and we need reconnaissance. So we did himars a whole thing. And so what Trump and Rubio are saying is the Balkans are a long way from the United States and there's some issues there with Russia. We're trying to stop a nuclear war with Russia. We had a cold war detente with them and not that we want Milosevic to win. Okay, we'll stop him. The Balkans were a long way, but Ukraine is a long way. And maybe we could get along with Putin and flip him, but not now if we're an active participant. And he invaded because of a liberal American president and a weak Europe and your stupid Nordstrom pipeline. So we got involved. We got involved with the French at Chad. We got involved with the French in English, in Libya. We got involved with the British and the Falklands. At some point people are going to say, is there any reciprocity? No, there's not. We should not expect them. They came, some of them came into Iraq and Afghanistan, but most didn't go into Iraq. The Aussies did, the British did, but not too many others in full force. So the point I'm making is at some point, way after the birth of NATO, whose motto was Russia out, Germany down, the United States in. Well, Russia's pretty down now and Germany is up and we're halfway between in and out after this. And a lot of Americans are saying to themselves, if they won't let us use our airspace and we help pay for these bases and they won't let us use the bases and they want us to go halfway around the world and defend them from the Russians because they won't arm, even though their population is 100 million people larger than our own, and their GDP aggregate of the NATO European members is 10 times out of Russia. If they won't do that, well, then what? What's the purpose? What good are they? And that's where we are.