The WSJ editors are worried that Trump might back down without killing enough Iranians and without destroying enough of Iranian society. They know their man, who’s infamous for his short sightedness.

Trump ordered an attack on Iran thinking it would be as easy as the attack on Venezuela. One of the two main wings of his base – represented by the Wall St. Journal editorial board – immediately applauded him but also immediately warned him It’s Too Soon for Iran “off Ramps”. Ending the first Gulf war “was George H.W. Bush’s mistake in the Gulf War,” they wrote. Then on March 19 they repeated this theme in another column  entitled Will Trump Finish the Job in Iran? The columnists questioned whether Trump has the will to finish the job and then wrote:“Mr. Trump… will need to summon his reluctant countrymen to stand sentry in the Gulf.” In other words, from the very first day of the war, they saw what the famously short sighted Trump couldn’t see – that Iran is not Venezuela and that pressures against the war were going to mount from within his own base.

And mount they have, with the resignation of Joe Kent being only the tip of the iceberg. But one thing we must admit about Trump – he is a master orchestrator and knows how whatever he does or says will play to his audience. If he backs down now, he’ll still be seen as having pursued another “forever war”; what’s even worse, from his point of view, is that he’ll be seen as being weak. He knows that is the one unforgivable sin for his crowd. So, he blundered on, heading toward sending troops into Iran.

Knowing that he is as reliable as the Pacific Ocean’s Trade Winds during an El Nino (meaning not reliable at all!), the WSJ editors couldn’t wait to egg him on. The very next day of their publication after his “boots on the ground” threat – today, Monday March 23 – they unleashed a salvo.

First was their editorial recounting the crimes of the Iranian regime. “We report all this because the brutal nature of Iran’s regime has been all but ignored as the war continues…. Writers who devote entire forests to worrying about Gaza have nothing to say about the plight of the Iranian people. Mr. Trump at least understands who the real enemy is.” In other words, they flatter Trump while simultaneously trying to boost support for his war.

Seth Cropsey, follower of Leo Strauss, warns Trump

In an opinion piece entitled American Credibility is On the Line, Seth Cropsey writes, “The Trump administration finds itself in a larger war than it expected, facing a profoundly hard decision. President Trump must put boots on the ground to open the Strait of Hormuz and demonstrate the unquestionable supremacy of American power. If he fails, his legacy will be one of American collapse….

“Yet the job, while admirably executed, is unfinished. The president wrote on Truth Social Friday that “we are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East.” The same day he told reporters he isn’t open to a cease-fire. It’s a familiar Trumpian combination of chest-thumping and misdirection….

“Halting now, however, would be a cataclysmic mistake with repercussions well beyond the Middle East….”

In other words, the WSJ editors are using Cropsey to warn Trump not to back off. (According to Wikipedia, Cropsey, is a student of Leo Strauss, who was “a theorist of counterrevolution… [and who] wished for a world in which people would once again find a natural place in a natural order – assigned to them by their rulers and philospher king advisors.”)

Then the WSJ editors pile it on. They warn Trump against a fifth column within his own administration. That fifth column is… Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard! Tulsi Gabbard’s Resistance Shop they entitle their next piece. “The Director of National Intelligence hires another Iran policy opponent,” they write. They excoriate Gabbard for having hired Joe Kent in the first place, and then for hiring Dan Caldwell as Kent’s replacement. Caldwell, apparently, is not convinced of the correctness of Trump’s war. The real problem is Gabbard herself:

“Ms. Gabbard was cagey in a Wednesday hearing on the threat from Iran, preferring to hide behind Mr. Trump’s assessment, which most assume she doesn’t share….” they warn, before concluding: “it isn’t healthy at a time of war to have what essentially is a resistance movement inside the Administration.” Before you conclude that Gabbard is some sort of hero, don’t forget that she’s a supporter of India’s ethnonationalist Narendra Modi and of Israel. She also made her links with the fascistic Assad when she visited him secretly in 2017.

The most recent news is that the WSJ editors’ fears appear to be well founded and that Trump is backing off from not only bombing Iran’s power plants but also putting boots on the ground. As of this morning, he’s announced that he’s “postponing” the bombing because he’s having frutiful negotiations with some top figure in Iran. Who that top figure is, Trump refuses to say because that person “might be killed.” Killed by whom? The Israelis? In fact, whether that person even exists except in Trump’s own head is open to question.

The WSJ editors and the forces they represent must be pulling their hair out!

What is Trump going to do? He can’t please everybody in his base. Will he live up to his nickname: “the TACO president”? The reason for that nickname is that he lacks all vision except for the one of himself as god. So, now, it seems that either way, he’s headed for a fall. The question is “will he take everybody else down with him?”