Peace on Earth?

Those who hoped that Easter might usher in better times for the cause of world peace have been disappointed so far. Two recent stories from the United States illustrate how deep our troubles are.

The first is the one that everyone knows about: Donald Trump’s “expletive-laden” (as the media invariably describe it) threats to unleash mayhem on Iran. “Open the F*ckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell” and similar missives may or may not tell us anything about the president’s intentions, but it’s hard to construe them as a message of hope. Whatever they say about his state of mind isn’t good.

The second story is equally revealing, although it has had less coverage: it’s from a fortnight ago, and has right-wing propagandist Tucker Carlson enlisting in a historical controversy. Specifically, he showed himself to be a partisan of British fascist leader Oswald Mosley in his wartime clash with Winston Churchill, depicting Mosley as a great hero persecuted for leading a peaceful opposition.

It’s not the first time that Carlson – who many see as a likely contender for the Republican nomination to replace Trump in 2028 – has lashed out at Churchill, but it’s perhaps his clearest-yet declaration of allegiance to the pro-Nazi current that has become increasingly visible in the Republican Party. In all the years that the right has been parroting about a supposed crisis of antisemitism on the left, it turns out that it has been letting the real thing fester within its own ranks.

Which brings us back to Iran. More than a year ago I pointed out the difference between two groups of Trump supporters; those who were “war-mongers in mostly traditional Republican fashion, like secretary of state Marco Rubio,” and those who were genuine opponents of American imperialism, often because they preferred the Russian version. Trump himself, however, belongs to neither camp, and therefore his policy tends to oscillate between the two.

Jonathan Chait gave a good account of this last month:

These two Republican factions have polarized against each other on a cluster of issues: Russia, Israel, anti-Semitism, and populism in general. That is, rightists who oppose aid to Ukraine tend to be skeptical of Israel and at least open to having anti-Semites in the Republican coalition. Conservative hawks tend to have the opposite position on all of these points.
Trump has held both sides in place through personalist rule.

So while you might think that the Iran story and the Carlson story tend the same way – both being supportive of war crimes and hostile to what one might forlornly call civilised behavior – in fact they come from opposite sides of the Trumpist coalition. Carlson’s followers are at best sceptical of the Iran adventure, believing that it’s a case of America being seduced into following Israel’s agenda, which fits well with their narrative of a Jewish conspiracy controlling the world.

As we’ve noted here before, pro-Israel policies and antisemitism were able to coexist for a while on the right, both in the US and elsewhere:

On the one hand, [support for Israel] served as a sort of license for antisemitic behavior: far-right figures could point to their defence of Israel whenever they were accused of engaging in antisemitism themselves. On the other hand, it also kept that antisemitism to some degree in check.

But now the cat is out of the bag. Energised by a case where the conspiracy theories really do seem to have some reality, in the sense that Benjamin Netanyahu has been leading the way for Trump on Iran (not because he is a paid-up member of the Elders of Zion, but because he knows what he wants and Trump doesn’t), the Carlson wing of the party is going full-throttle on antisemitism. Hence the resignation last month of counter-terrorism official and all-round conspiracy theorist Joe Kent.

And while it’s tempting to see the more traditional Republicans as the good guys in this (as tends to happen when the other side is pro-Nazi), the Iran war is a reminder that the Republican Party’s problem’s did not start with Trump. War with Iran has been a policy goal for a large section of the party, many of them anti-Trump or at least Trump-sceptical, for more than two decades. Trump is the one who gave in to their demands, not from any considered geopolitical position but apparently on a whim.

In doing so he has exposed the insanity of the idea. As if the madness of Iraq was not enough, now the US is embroiled in a much more ambitious venture with even less international support, and with seemingly no coherent plan. The one saving grace is that just as a decision to start a war can be made on the spur of the moment with no particular logic, a decision to end it can be made the same way.

The Republican hawks had a vision of what they were doing and were committed to seeing it through: Trump hasn’t and isn’t. If the mood so strikes him, he will be shameless about abandoning any previous threats, promises or deadlines and set off on some new enthusiasm. The traditionalists will be left in the lurch, and the party’s nativists, Putinists and antisemites will gain (at least for now) the ascendancy.

Judging by this morning’s rally on the sharemarket, that seems to be what investors now expect, but they’ve been wrong before. And if nothing distracts Trump from the course he is currently on, things are going to get much, much worse.