Trump dodges 'dictator' accusations over Iran - The Times

A key factor has emerged in President Trump’s decision-making process about taking America to war in the Middle East: the importance of his gut feelings.

Trump’s explanation for launching the assault, that he “felt strongly” Iran was about to attack first, was backed up by Karoline Leavitt, his press secretary, who said the president had “a feeling … based on fact”.

The emphasis on Trump’s personal instinct has raised concerns about a lack of analytical process and strategy from a White House which last year cut back staffing at the National Security Council from 350 to fewer than 150.

• Sign up for The Times’s weekly US newsletter

One example of a lack of foresight quickly emerged when thousands of Americans suddenly wanted to leave the Gulf region and the State Department had to scramble to put in place a process to help them. Nor is the endgame clear: Trump has veered from accepting a Venezuela-style, US-friendly version of the regime to wanting a role in choosing a new leader, while also seemingly stoking Kurdish forces to start a civil war.

Trump’s cast-iron confidence in his personal instinct for making effective decisions was memorably expressed in 2018 when he declared that “I have a gut and my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me”.

He set out his credo in May last year in a commencement address at the University of Alabama when he advised graduates to “follow your instincts” over and above what anyone else told them. “Listen to your parents, they’re very wise, but you have to follow your instincts and your heart, your soul, and you want to be the very, very best you can be,” Trump said.

His next piece of advice was: “Fight like hell and enjoy doing it,” and “think big” because “America doesn’t aim small”.

Trump is known not to read long, analytical briefing documents and to rely on short summaries or verbal updates from his trusted inner circle. This has led to concerns that he is not absorbing full details of the complicated mosaic of the Middle East and the ramifications of starting an existential war with a large country that has been preparing for this for years.

• Iran live: follow the latest updates

The four military aims of the attack have been set out — to end Iran’s missile threat, destroy its navy, stop its nuclear ambition and prevent it from funding terrorism abroad — but Trump’s lack of discipline in sticking to this formula suggests a lack of focus. His frequent references to Venezuela being a model are seen as unrealistic, as was his Truth Social post urging the hard-line Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to lay down their arms.

On Thursday members of the House armed services committee quoted from the national defence strategy during a hearing with Elbridge Colby, the under-secretary of war for policy, who wrote the document. It states that the Department of Defence would “not be distracted by interventionism, endless wars, regime change and nation building”.

John Garamendi, a Democratic congressman from California, said: “In the last three months, however, the president … has started wars of choice in South America, the Middle East, and he’s failed to lay out any strategic plan for an end game or a consistent justification for these efforts. All of this raises the question of what in the hell is going on? What is the strategy? What is the purpose of all of this?”

Colby replied: “I’m honoured to be here as a representative of the president and to explain that I do think he’s advancing American interests and putting them first … in the Middle East, he’s taking action against the noxious Islamic Republic of Iran, which I know on both sides of the aisle, there’s a shared sense of threat [about].”

• New wave of Iranian migrants swap war at home for Calais Jungle

Frustration in Congress arises from being bypassed over the launch of the Iran assault despite having the legal responsibility in the US constitution for declaring war. Garamendi added: “We’re concerned that the president and his staff … are disrespecting the Congress of the United States, this committee, and simply going to do whatever a dictator wants to do.”

In the event the Senate and House voted almost entirely on party lines not to restrict Trump’s actions in Iran. But the constitutional position may explain why the White House and Republicans defending the attack this week were trying to avoid calling it a war.

“It’s not a war,” said Randy Fine, a Republican congressman from Florida. “The way you are officially at war is Congress declares war, and we haven’t declared war.”

Mike Johnson, the House speaker, said: “They declared war on us … we’re not at war right now. We’re four days into a very specific, clear mission — an operation.”

These verbal gymnastics are only adding to confusion over the nature of the Iran mission, especially as Trump returned to the subject of regime change on Thursday after several days when he and other officials downplayed it.