Photo by Jari Hytönen
Donald Trump stands as one of the most bizarre phenomena in modern history. Tragically, the odds that he will remain merely a figure of grotesquery are becoming ever slimmer — instead, Trump is drawing perilously close to that threshold beyond which reside the portraits of history’s true monsters.
Though he returned to the White House riding, in no small part, on a wave of anti-war rhetoric — with promises to halt ongoing conflicts and abstain from launching new ones — only the most politically dull and naïve could fail to see the imperial aggression simmering just beneath the surface. His approach may have differed in form from that of his Democratic predecessors, but the underlying ambition remained every bit as predatory.
What makes Trump even more dangerous than those who came before him is the fact that he is far less a politician than he is a political idiot — a grifter of civilization, a cheap conjurer, a grotesque showbiz caricature. Worse still, he is either a fundamentalist and a fanatic himself or has chosen to surround himself with a stable of such creatures — individuals marked not only by an insatiable greed but by a deep, messianic belief in their own historic purpose. And as history never tires of teaching us, there is no more perilous kind of fool than one who believes he has been sent by fate.
In a way that is only seemingly paradoxical, the strains of political fanaticism rooted in Tehran, Kabul, or Pyongyang are arguably less dangerous and less malign than the variant festering in Washington — and in its forward operating base, Tel Aviv. The reason is simple: Tehran, Kabul, and Pyongyang are acutely aware that they are not the centers of global power. Despite the fire of their public rhetoric, they are compelled by necessity — by the basic logic of survival — to entertain compromise.
The paradigm of today’s United States is Donald Trump — a textbook specimen of the spoiled brat born into a wealthy family, sent off to one of those notorious military preparatory schools, where boys don uniforms and pass through arcane, often homoerotic rites of initiation into secret brotherhoods. Yet despite the trappings of discipline, they remain permanently marked by a deep, festering frustration — the inescapable sense of incompletion — because they never became real soldiers.
It is entirely unsurprising that such a dilettante would be obsessed with military might and the instruments of war. Trump, too, became enraptured by this fascination — so intensely, in fact, that he has shown little hesitation in unleashing military force even against the citizens of his own country.
His conciliatory posture toward Moscow has nothing whatsoever to do with pacifism as a political principle. Rather, it is built on two dominant motives: a con artist’s gambit to wrest a favorable outcome from the war in Ukraine for Russia, and a very real fear of Russian military power — arguably the only shred of rationality present in the orange caricature that once occupied the White House.
Frustrated and bitter over his own cowardice in the face of strength, Trump seeks compensation by projecting dominance over the weak — most notably through his unwavering support for the increasingly rabid Zionist regime in Tel Aviv, a regime hell-bent on fulfilling the visions of its ideological forebears, those who once plotted in the smoke-filled beer halls of Munich.
American support — and what now appears to be an ever more likely operational alliance — in Israel’s aggression against Iran threatens to erupt into the gravest global crisis since the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the world stood mere hours away from nuclear catastrophe. Iran, without question, lacks the military capacity to confront a joint Israeli-American assault alone — but Iran is not alone.
Among the countries that may not look favorably upon Iran’s radical regime, there are many whose political leadership understands all too well what the destabilization of the region south of the Caucasus would entail — and what grim prospects such a development could unleash. That is why, should the current conflict escalate, it is more than likely that Tehran will not stand alone, and it would not be surprising if Moscow were among its allies.
Of course, the scenario outlined above remains purely hypothetical; there is no definitive argument to claim that it is inevitable or the only possible outcome. However, one fact stands clear — and it may well represent the darkest moment of Donald Trump’s presidency to date: a moment that could permanently alter the character of the United States, transforming it from a nominal democracy into a full-blown military autocracy.
The President of the United States is indeed empowered to authorize the use of military force, but only for operations that are strictly limited in scope, duration, location, and the scale of forces deployed — for instance, hostage rescue missions or similar interventions. Any broader military action — particularly one that de jure and de facto commits the United States to a state of war — requires explicit authorization from Congress alone.
At this very moment, Trump — along with his cohort of fundamentalists at the helm of the federal administration — is seeking to bypass Congress and deploy American military power in an operation of such scale and consequence that it would, by definition, constitute an act of war. Such a precedent would permanently dismantle any institutional or democratic oversight over the decision-making process regarding war.
The world has never been — and never will be — a place of perfect peace and serenity. But if Trump and his entourage succeed in their ambitions, and if the authority to wield the military might of a nuclear-armed superpower is reduced to a handful of zealots, humanity will be thrust into a new and terrifying dimension of dread.
Donald Trump, in all of this, should not be perceived as anything more than a grotesque and bizarre paradigm — the nominal head of a fundamentalist hydra whose tentacles have gripped the United States in a stranglehold from which it is uncertain whether the nation will emerge intact. Trump qualified for this role precisely because of his cartoonish nature — his senile ambitions laced with increasingly visible signs of madness, and his festering personal frustrations.
He has served his purpose and is now increasingly redundant, never truly fit for the role he nominally occupies — that of President of the United States. Were he even remotely suited to the office, he would not, as a prelude to an unjustified war against Iran — currently being waged via his Tel Aviv proxy — have waged theatrical wars against paper straws and place names, branding them historic victories.
The world has seen its fair share of fools and idiots in positions of power. Donald Trump threatens to eclipse many of them, staking a formidable claim to a top spot on the all-time list of historical caricatures. Yet, there is something even more dangerous and enduring than Trump and his fundamentalist entourage: the willingness of so many to see in such caricatures a sign of hope — simply because they’ve been seduced by a handful of slogans crafted to pierce the hearts of those whose brains refuse to do their job.
