The Hawks Got Their War—Now It’s Trump’s Problem

Republican interventionists, notably Lindsey Graham, advocated for military action in Iran but publicly presented no clear 'step two' or 'end game' for the conflict. Their stated plan was to 'take it down' and 'degrade the government,' then 'see what happens,' a stark departure from previous interventionist strategies like Iraq which involved detailed plans for occupation and nation-building.

Will Salatin states, 'These guys are like, 'No, no, no, no, no. We're not going to do that. We're not going to make that mistake. We're just going to go take it down. Go kill the Ayatollah, right? And degrade the government.' And then, hey, we'll see what happens. That's the plan. It is no plan.'

Lindsey Graham explicitly rejected the 'Powell doctrine' of 'you break it, you own it,' stating it's 'not our job to pick the next Iranian government' and that the US would not occupy the country. However, this rejection was coupled with contradictory remarks about consulting the Saudi Crown Prince on transition ideas, undermining the idea of Iranians charting their own destiny.

Sam Stein notes, 'he was absolutely rejecting the sort of Powell doctrine of you break it you own it. In fact I think he explicitly rejected that.' Graham's clip states, 'It's not our job to pick the next Iranian government... It's up to Iran to pick your leader. It's not my job. It's not President Trump's job. We're not going to occupy the country.' Yet, he also said, 'I talked to the crown prince. He's got some ideas about transition.'

Multiple Republican lawmakers struggled to provide a consistent or concrete justification for the 'imminent threat' that compelled military action. Statements ranged from 'intention to pursue nuclear enrichment' to admitting no present-day intelligence on nuclear weapons progress, effectively rendering the word 'imminent' meaningless.

Mike Turner stated, 'they the Iranians had continued their intention to pursue nuclear enrichment. Their intention had not been abolished. They remained a threat.' Ted Cruz admitted, 'I don't have present-day intelligence on what progress they had made towards rebuilding nuclear weapons since we bombed their facilities. I I have no indication that that they were anywhere close to getting nuclear weapons.' Senator Mark Warner said, 'I saw no intelligence that Iran was on the verge of launching any kind of preemptive strike against the United States of America.'

The hosts suggest President Trump is attempting to apply a 'Venezuela model' to Iran, characterized by quick, surgical strikes with no casualties and a pre-selected replacement leader. This model is seen as fundamentally unsuitable for Iran, which is a more complex situation with no clear 'person in place' and a high likelihood of prolonged conflict and casualties.

Will Salatin explains, 'Venezuela was a day was it was done in a day right it was a surgical operation there were no deaths and we had our person in place in Delier Rodriguez none of that applies here none none of it.'