By: Michael Goodwin / New York Post
Translation: Telegrafi.com
American power can manifest itself in many ways, as Teddy Roosevelt so aptly described with his famous quote: "Sleep tight, but carry a big stick."
Truth be told, Donald Trump has never been a fan of eloquent articulation, but his comments on Tuesday about the unrest in Iran came close to that - for now.
In an extraordinary post on the Truth Social platform, addressed to “Iranian Patriots,” the president urged them: “KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!”
He then continued with what appears to be a promise to use the Great Wand, saying:
"Remember the names of the murderers and rapists. They will pay a heavy price."
He added that he had canceled all meetings with regime leaders, "until the massacre stops," and concluded with a strong phrase: "HELP IS COMING."
But what kind of help? And when does the Big Stick come into play? The lack of detail is deliberate, because it gives the president the opportunity to increase pressure while maintaining the flexibility to negotiate - or to use the military if all else fails.
Thus, this statement could be read as a final warning that comes after reports that the mad mullahs had changed their tactics on the ground - with very bloody consequences.
“Shoot to kill” orders are said to have led to more deaths, with an estimated three thousand civilians killed by government forces. According to media reports, troops were ordered to execute unarmed protesters and shoot random civilians in the streets, even those who were not protesting.
Doni changes his tone.
The dramatic increase in the use of force appears to have forced Trump to change his tone and add a possible threat of military intervention on Tuesday.
His language represented a clear turn toward harshness compared to Monday, when he had focused more on economic pressure, threatening to impose 25 percent tariffs on any country that continued to trade with Tehran.
This effectively means an embargo, because few countries, if any, would accept such an agreement.
The embargo will also further fuel the protesters' discontent, given that it was primarily the economic crisis - including the collapse of the Iranian currency - that sparked the unrest at the end of last December.
According to ABC News, Since then, protests have taken place in 187 cities across all 31 provinces of Iran.
Meanwhile, the exchange rate continues to fall, reaching an extraordinary level of 1.45 million rials to one US dollar on Monday. The inflation rate in December was measured at 42.5 percent.
To be clear, the White House has been suggesting for days that the president is weighing the use of military action in response to the harsh crackdown. But instead of pushing back, the mullahs have stepped up attacks and also shut down the internet to keep the world in the dark about events.
Gazeta The Wall Street Journal reported that the service Starlink Elon Musk was blocked by the government to prevent civilians from sharing videos of the growing protests and brutal repression.
Despite the escalation of events, using the US military to bring about regime change would be very dangerous.
The circumstances are now very different from last June, when Trump used American military power against Iran. In that case, it was limited to coordination with Israel and the use of several American B-2 bombers to strike three of the country's nuclear facilities with large, bunker-busting bombs.
That move came after talks with the mullahs about these facilities failed to yield results, and it seemed like a warning, but also an invitation for Iran to enter into serious negotiations to halt its nuclear program.
Throughout, Trump did his best to make it clear that he wanted to reach an agreement, delegating the task to close adviser Steve Witkoff. But despite the president’s hopeful statements and numerous meetings, Ayatollah Khamenei rejected the president’s offer and continued to threaten Israel and the United States.
This left in place strict sanctions on oil and the banking system. Since then, the Iranian economy has stagnated and there have been reports of shortages of electricity and clean water, contributing to economic decline and public despair.
Moreover, Trump's capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro removed Iran's main ally in the Western Hemisphere and further cut into the mullahs' income from oil and arms smuggling.
Members of Hezbollah, the Iran-funded terrorist group based in Lebanon, also set up bases in Caracas, which worried Washington.
However, the Iranian Islamist regime has weathered previous turmoil, and there is no guarantee that the current turmoil means it is destined to fall.
One possible difference this time around is that the spread of protests across the country has led some observers to believe that the uprising poses a real threat to clerical control and strict rules on public behavior and dress, especially for women and girls.
However, this is not a compelling reason for the US to engage in regime change, which would not be easy at all.
The experience in Iraq still haunts even American warmongers, and Trump himself has called the invasion of Iraq, under the leadership of George W. Bush, an idiotic war that cost America dearly, both in blood and treasure.
The wheel of history is turning around now, with Trump facing warnings that an equally tragic outcome could occur if he helps topple the ayatollah.
Among the skeptics is Jon Hoffman, a researcher at the Cato Institute, who believes such a mission would backfire.
"Attacking Iran risks embroiling Washington in this internal turmoil without a clear end goal, as well as endangering American troops stationed throughout the Middle East," Hoffman said in a statement.
Internal affairs
He stressed that "US warmongering policies towards Iran have historically empowered the strongest elements" and that military action "risks shifting the topic from Iranians' reasonable grievances against the regime to its international adversaries," namely Israel and the US.
"Attempting to internalize the opposition in Iran risks damaging it," he added, and asserted that "a pragmatic approach, without direct intervention, should guide American policy in the days ahead."
Moreover, with Washington increasingly focused on the midterm elections, Trump faces domestic controversies, such as the crackdown on ICE [the immigration agency], and - most importantly - poor public opinion figures on his approach to the economy.
An average of polls published by Real Clear Politics shows that 41 percent of respondents approve of his economic policies and actions, while 56 percent disapprove.
Against this backdrop, and with events in Venezuela still unclear, military involvement in Iran would probably not be popular at home.
This does not mean that the United States should turn its back on the regime's brutal repression. But the political reality is that the president cannot afford to distance himself too far or for too long from the economic and social issues of American citizens. /Telegraph/
