It's a Whole New Iran War... Apparently

Yesterday, Politico reported that it has seen a copy of a letter that Donald Trump sent to Congress on July 10, advising the members that the United States is "once again" at war with Iran, and that the strikes against Iran that took place on July 7 were "military action consistent with my responsibility to protect Americans and United States' interests both at home and abroad."

The framing that the White House is pushing here is entirely unsubtle. To wit:

1. There was a war
2. The war ended with a ceasefire agreement
3. Now there is a new war

Presumably, we should now be referring to the war that started back in March as Iran War I, and the war that began on July 7 as Iran War II. All we know for sure is that if Trump is not careful, he might end up starting World War III.

If you accept this framing, then it means the timer on the 60-day limit imposed by the War Powers Act (which is actually, de facto, a 90-day limit) starts over. This is, on its face, ridiculous. First of all, if you're fighting a war in a place in [MONTH X] and you're still fighting a war in that same place in [MONTH X+1], it's the same damn war. During the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, they often did not fight for several months in the winter, because it was too difficult to do so, and yet nobody then or now thought either of those conflicts was three or four or five separate wars. Second, despite the fact that a ceasefire was announced, and despite the fact that Trump declared victory at least a dozen times, the firing never actually ceased. We don't know the exact timeline, but we wouldn't be surprised to learn that there wasn't even a 72-hour period with no exchange of fire. Certainly, there was never a full week of peace, much less a month or more.

All of this said, Congress isn't going to do a damn thing to actually try to enforce the limits that Trump is supposed to be operating under. First, because this Congress never holds Trump accountable for anything. Second, because the members (including many Democrats) don't have any interest in taking the slightest ownership of these kinds of foreign conflicts. If they step in and stop the war in Iran, and then Iran starts nuclear tests 6 months later or blows up an American passenger plane or something like that, then the members of Congress get much of the blame. If they grant permission to Trump to go to war, and then the war turns into a quagmire, then the members of Congress get much of the blame (see what happened to some members who voted for the authorization of military force in Iraq).

Letting the war be entirely of Trump's volition keeps the members' hands as clean as is possible, politically. It is true that some Republican members might be punished in November for looking the other way. But most or all of those members would likely be swept up in general "throw out the bums" sentiment anyhow. As to the Democrats, they can squawk and carp about the war, and try to get enough Republican votes to pass "end the Iran War" resolutions. And those Democrats, by and large, probably do believe the war should end. But because "end the war" resolutions would have to be signed by Trump, and because neither that nor a veto override is going to happen, Democrats can be loudly antiwar without risking ownership of any consequences that might come from ending the war (see what happened to Joe Biden when he quite correctly ended the Afghanistan War).

Once the cat was out of the bag, Trump went on Hugh Hewitt's program and did some peacocking, decreeing:

We're gonna hit 'em very hard tonight, and we're gonna hit 'em hard tomorrow. And there's not a damn thing they can do about it. They have nothing—they have nothing going except they have big mouths.

By the time you read this, the hard hits promised "tonight" will presumably have taken place. That said, there is no indication whatsoever that Trump has a new strategy for winning the war. Yet again, he's falling back on "the U.S. will flex its muscles, and Iran will suffer." Of course, the U.S. has flexed its muscles plenty, and Iran has suffered plenty, and the war is no closer to a conclusion. One cannot help but think of the definition of insanity often incorrectly attributed to Albert Einstein: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

There is one new wrinkle, however. Yesterday, after revealing to everyone that the Iran War is on "again," Trump got on his social media platform for those who are compensating for... something, and made this announcement:

The Hormuz Strait is OPEN, and will remain OPEN, with or without Iran. We are reinstating the THE IRANIAN BLOCKADE, so named because it is only stopping Iran's ships or customers from entering or leaving. All other countries will have fair and open use of the Strait. The U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as "THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT," but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped, for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World. The process and formation will begin immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

This will do nothing to help end the war. However, it is ostensibly meant to address the problem that Trump actually cares about, which is oil prices. And, in a Trumpy version of trying to take lemons and make lemonade, he's trying to turn this into an opportunity to profit by shaking down the oil carriers of the world.

We know Trump does not think through the implications of his policy choices. Truth be told, he might not be capable of doing so in anything approaching a rigorous manner. But some of the people around him must be aware of the implications, right? Right? Assuming that is correct, is the problem that they are unwilling to challenge him? Or that they cannot persuade him? In any event, it took us all of 5 minutes to notice these five rather substantial flies in the ointment (well, in the oil):

1. Despite Trump's assertions to the contrary, the U.S. does not currently control the Strait of Hormuz. Any effort to seize control will be difficult, if not impossible, and the Iranians will resist mightily with mines, drones and any other means at their disposal. And what is the White House going to do if a U.S. ship is sunk, and dozens or hundreds of sailors die, in the name of "oil escorts"?
   
   
2. On a similar point, if the U.S. Navy does try to provide escorts, both the ship(s) doing the escorting, and the ship(s) being escorted are going to have giant targets on them. Are the insurers of the oil tankers going to be willing to bear the risk?
   
   
3. The oil business is run on tight margins. Usually, transport costs are about 2%-3% of the value of the oil being transported. Suddenly increasing costs to 22%-23% would blow a giant hole in the entire business model.
   
   
4. Trump might be aware that the U.S. toll will increase costs, and might be telling himself that the oil companies will suck it up and pay and will just pass the costs on to their customers. And since most of the oil that goes through the Strait is not headed to the U.S., he might reason, then too bad for those customers. However, the oil market is a global market. If prices outside the U.S. go way up, demand for U.S. oil will go up, such that U.S. oil prices will eventually reach an equilibrium with international prices.
   
   
5. Oh, and charging tolls for use of international shipping lanes, whether it's Iran doing it or the U.S. doing it, is a violation of international law.

It would seem our skepticism was warranted. Brent crude, which is the de facto global benchmark for oil prices, closed at $76/barrel on Friday. At the open of business yesterday, it was $77/barrel. As of this writing, around 1:00 a.m. PT, it had shot up to $86/barrel.

Since Trump keeps running the same playbook over and over, we have no idea when or how this is going to end. He seems to have given up on the idea of achieving peace in time for the midterms, and now he's trying to fix gas prices through brute force. That's not going to work, for the reasons we outline above, and the markets are already showing us that it won't work. Once Operation Shakedown fails, then what? Does he order a land invasion, which would be disastrous? Send J.D. Vance and his band of merry men to negotiate another meaningless truce? Wash his hands of the whole thing and tell the Republicans running for office this year that they're on their own? Your guess is as good as ours.

The only thing we feel confident about is that Trump is securing his place as the worst foreign-policy president in American history. Which means George W. Bush is going to live to see himself escape that particular basement, and Lyndon Johnson also gets bumped up a notch on the ladder. (Z)

ICE Guns More People Down

Donald Trump's foreign policy isn't going well, so thank goodness for domestic policy, right? Not so much, as it turns out. After the killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota, ICE pulled back a bit, and "border czar" Tom Homan was put in charge of operations. The basic idea was that border policy would still be vigorously (and even inhumanely) enforced, but that there would be no more shootings. The new approach held for a while, but the last week has seen two more killings at the hands of ICE officers.

The first victim was Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, who lost his life last Tuesday. He was a permanent resident of the United States who first arrived from Mexico as a teenager and had been living in the country for 35 years. He worked in construction, and with income from that job, was able to raise a family. His habit was to rise early, pick up his crew in his white van, and then get to the job site. On Tuesday, Salgado Araujo was confronted by ICE officers during the trip to work, shots were fired, and by the time the smoke cleared, he was mortally wounded.

After the Good and Pretti shootings, video footage appeared nearly instantly on social media platforms and other websites. By contrast, we're a week removed from the Salgado Araujo shooting, and no video of the actual incident has yet come to light (there is some video from a couple of minutes after the shots were fired). ICE claims that Salgado Araujo tried to ram officers with his van. Non-ICE witnesses say that is not true, that there was never an ICE agent in front of the van, and that the gunfire commenced very quickly and came from agents alongside the van.

If you have to judge which side to believe, based on current evidence, then the answer is clear: ICE is lying. To start with, part of the reason there is no video is that the shooting took place in a poor, heavily Latino neighborhood, where people are considerably less likely to have cell phones. Unfortunate, or deliberate? More importantly, the agents were not wearing body cams. This strikes us as the first piece of equipment that should be issued to any agent who is going to be armed, even before their actual gun. There were also no dashboard cams, which is also supposed to be standard-issue law enforcement equipment these days. Again, unfortunate, or deliberate? When asked why the ICE officers had no cameras, DHS officials blamed... the Democrats. That would be the same political party that controls zero-thirds of the trifecta in Washington.

Beyond that, as local authorities have tried to investigate, ICE has stonewalled and stonewalled and stonewalled some more. They have provided no evidence whatsoever, and have refused to answer questions or to identify the agent responsible for the shooting. ICE spokespeople won't even say if that agent has been placed on leave, or if he or she (although, let's be honest, it's gotta be a he) is still on duty. Also, Salgado Araujo was sent to the hospital with no ID, and so was admitted as "John Doe," making it much harder for reporters to track him. ICE also won't explain what put them on Salgado Araujo's scent, other than a "tip" from some law enforcement agency, an agency they refuse to identify.

In short, ICE is behaving like an agency that is guilty as sin and is engaging in a cover-up. In fact, they're behaving the same way they did after the Good and Pretti shootings. And, in those cases, we all saw the footage, and we could all see that the ICE version of events was a fantasy. Again, there is much unknown about the Salgado Araujo shooting. And it's possible that video will come to light, and will give some useful insight. But given the currently available information, the conclusion has to be that ICE is lying through its teeth.

The second shooting, meanwhile, took place yesterday, in Biddeford, ME. The victim, whose name was only made public late yesterday, was 26-year-old Colombian national Joan Sebastian Guerrero. As with Salgado Araujo and Good, he was in his vehicle at the time he died, with the responsible ICE officer firing into the car. As with Good, Guerrero was killed as family members looked on; in this case, his 3-year-old daughter. As with Salgado Araujo, ICE claims Guerrero "weaponized" his vehicle, but no video has yet been made public, and the agents and their cars were apparently without cameras.

After Guerrero's death was made public, noted radical Sen. Angus King (I-ME) was furious, and called DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin to demand answers. Mullin refused to give the victim's name, which only became known when neighbors identified the dead man to reporters. Further, the Secretary initially told the Senator that the then-unnamed victim was in the country illegally and was the target of an arrest warrant. King was apparently skeptical, and later Mullin "corrected" himself, and said that it was a case of mistaken identity, and that Guerrero was not the target of the ICE operation. It is still unknown what Guerrero's immigration status was.

Note that we do not believe that ICE is actively looking to kill people in cold blood. However, we do believe it's a badly run agency, and one that is relying on many poorly trained, inexperienced agents. That is how you end up with 20 shootings and 4 fatalities in less than a year. We also believe that the Good and Pretti shootings created enough political blowback that DHS is doing everything it can to avoid accountability. Our evidence for these conclusions is laid out in the previous paragraphs; readers can decide for themselves if they agree with us.

In terms of politics, ICE's misconduct had moved to the backburner in terms of the attention it was getting, primarily because there are two or three new outrages from this administration every week. Will the new killings move ICE back to the forefront of people's attention? Maybe, though we tend to guess that the effect of the killings will be most profound in the states where the shootings took place. As a reminder, Minnesota, Texas and Maine all have critical U.S. Senate races underway as we speak. (Z)

Trump to Speak to the Nation on Thursday

Yesterday, Donald Trump announced that he will give yet another primetime address to the nation, this one scheduled for 9:00 ET Thursday.

There are some useful subjects that he might address. The renewal of the war in Iran leaps to mind, and so do the ICE killings. The problem is that, to be blunt, we already know the basic script here. Every time Trump speaks to the nation, including his State of the Union addresses, it's 48% braggadocio, 48% score-settling, and maybe 4% useful stuff. There's no reason to expect anything different at this point, which is why most news outlets are debating whether to even broadcast the address. If the news stations take a pass, then it might only be broadcast on Fox, Newsmax and OAN.

Relying on anonymous White House sources, reporters have confirmed that Iran will indeed be one topic of conversation during the speech. But go ahead and read our first item above. Is there any chance he tells us anything new? It's going to be however many minutes of di**-waving and bluster, as Trump desperately tries to peddle his version of reality, namely that he's in the driver's seat in Iran, and that he's calling the shots over there. MAGA will believe it, but they already believe it. We don't think a single non-MAGA American will be persuaded.

Further, MS NOW is reporting that much of the speech, including the Iran part, will exist primarily to justify the notion that a primetime, national address was needed. The REAL reason Trump is giving the speech, at least according to that outlet, is because he believes he has "new information" about election fraud in Georgia, and he plans to share that information with the American people, and to declare that both of the current Georgia senators are illegitimate. As a reminder, Sens. Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock (both D-GA) were indeed elected in the same election in 2020. But it took a runoff in both cases, and then on top of that, Warnock was reelected in 2022, and that one also went to a runoff. So, we're actually talking about six separate elections here (regular and runoff for Ossoff; special, regular and two runoffs for Warnock), not one. That would require an awful lot of fraud.

We will watch Trump's speech, even though we'd rather have a root canal without anesthesia, because that is what we do. And until we see it, we obviously can't be sure how it will come off. However, our preliminary guess is pretty similar to our guess about the Iran material, namely that MAGA will eat it up, and nobody else will buy it. Meanwhile, it will surely make Trump feel better to re-litigate this yet again, but we would guess that for non-MAGA Republicans and independents, it will serve to reiterate that the cheese is slipping off the cracker, and that Trump's only real concern is Donald Trump. Meanwhile, right in the middle of an election season, the people who run Georgia—all of them Republicans—will get to field a bunch of questions from reporters, in which they can either admit to being corrupt/incompetent, or they can call the president delusional/a liar. That just can't be good for the Georgia GOP's prospects in November.

At the moment, Ossoff's polling lead averages about six points, while the gubernatorial race between businessman Rick Jackson (R) and former Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms (D) is a dead heat. It is not probable that Ossoff's opponent, Rep. Mike Collins (R), can be saved by Trumpy conspiratorial thinking, or by anything else Trump does. On the other hand, anything that hurts Jackson a little, or helps Bottoms a little, could be decisive. And our preliminary guess is that calling the state's Black Senator illegitimate might just aggravate some Black voters, and cause them to walk over hot coals to get to the polls, if that is what they have to do. (Z)

Senate Won't Miss Lindsey for Long

As expected, Gov. Henry McMaster (R-SC) acted quickly to pick a caretaker to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). It's going to be Graham's sister and confidant, Darline Graham Nordone (R). She'll be the first woman to represent South Carolina in the U.S. Senate.

When we wrote up Graham's death on Sunday, we guessed that he'd largely be remembered for his lack of substantive accomplishments and his fecklessness when it came to Donald Trump. We've since read many pieces, from both left- and right-leaning commentators, that make us think we were on the mark.

That said, there is one thing we forgot to include in that piece that we really wish we would have mentioned. Graham was primarily a foreign policy guy, and a war hawk. He wanted money lavished on Ukraine and Israel, and was a big fan of war with Iran and Cuba, and of the invasion of Venezuela. Each of those five positions will please some voters and anger others. Reportedly, Graham was also a Trump whisperer who could sometimes get the president to change course. It is not clear which decisions Graham might have influenced, or in what direction, but in any case, he was one of the few senators Trump listened to. And Ukraine and Israel, in particular, could find their positions weakened by Graham's death.

Graham's departure from the Senate might also have a big effect on committee operations. Nordone has no experience in elective office, and senator is not a job you can learn in a couple of weeks or a month, so she's mostly going to do ceremonial stuff and vote "yes" when Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) tells her to do so. Graham's committee assignments will be divvied up, and the important ones will go to people who are not Nordone. In particular, Graham was chair of the Senate Budget Committee, which is about to do some tricky work, and which is likely to have Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) as its new chair. Johnson is more of a True Believer than Graham, and is less of a savvy operator, so it's possible that he'll try to intermix the SAVE Act with the budget in a way that Graham might not have done.

Graham's preliminary cause of death has also been announced; it was an aortic dissection. In layman's terms, the aorta bulged and burst like a tire that has worn out. A long plane flight can absolutely put additional pressure on the circulatory system, and so it's entirely plausible that the trip to Ukraine was the final straw (though it was just a matter of time, even if Graham hadn't made the trip). The conspiracy theorists think that maybe Russia or Iran slipped Graham some polonium-flavored tea while he was in Ukraine, but there's no reason to doubt the official version of his death.

Trump, for his part, has responded to Graham's passing exactly as you would expect Trump to do. The interviews he's done in the last few days were about 20% saying nice things about the Senator, 20% making jokes at the expense of Graham (especially his golf game) and 60% Trump making things about himself. The President has decided that Graham, though he had no role in drafting the legislation, would love nothing more than to see the pro-crypto Clarity Act passed into law. And so, Trump is telling the members of Congress to "pass it for Lindsey."

Meanwhile, the folks who might like Graham's job have to play things carefully right now. They don't want to appear disrespectful of the dead, but they also don't want their rivals to get a head start. Here's where things stand, as of the moment:

• Mark Lynch: The businessman, who ran to the right of Graham in this year's primary and got a shade less than 30% of the vote, is in.
  
  
• Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC): Officially, he is just "considering" a run. However, insiders say he's probably going to declare today.
  
  
• Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): He has expressed interest, and is talking to the White House about a potential endorsement. He's expected to make it official by the end of the week.
  
  
• Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC): She's very crass, so it's not surprising she was the first person to hint that she'd run to replace Graham. She hasn't made it official, however, and the White House is trying to head her off at the pass, because Trump hates Mace.
  
  
• Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette (R): She had Trump's endorsement in the gubernatorial race, even before he also endorsed eventual GOP nominee Alan Wilson. Maybe she (and one or two or ten other people) could get the endorsement here, too. In any event, she says she is currently taking calls about a run.
  
  
• Mark Sanford: An anonymous person who is reportedly "familiar" with the former governor's thinking said Sanford is considering a bid. Keep in mind that Sanford did have an adultery scandal, and that his last foray into politics involved a humiliating failure in his run, earlier this year, to represent SC-01 in the House.

So, it is going to be at least a three- or four- or five-way race, if not larger than that. That, in turn, means two things. The first is that it will be bloody, since the candidates are largely going to run on how right-wing/Trumpy they are, and how horrible all the other candidates are. The second is that it will almost certainly go to a runoff, meaning the bleeding will continue until August 28 while Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Annie Andrews sits on the sidelines, watching and enjoying her popcorn. (Z)

The McConnell Conspiracies Continue

A statement and a photograph have been issued in the name of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and his wife Elaine Chao; both purport to prove that the Senator is still alive and functional. We wrote about the statement yesterday; here's the photo:

Note that the newspaper in the photo is the sports page from the Sunday Washington Post; presumably its appearance in the image is not an accident. The photo was posted to eX-Twitter, with an explanation that the Senator suffered a fall, and then developed pneumonia.

Needless to say, many people on the Internet immediately called shenanigans. Here's a non-exhaustive list of some of the conspiratorial questions being raised:

• Why are they letting him wear a shirt and jeans in the hospital?
• Why isn't he hooked to any sort of IV or monitor?
• Why was there a "cardiac arrest" call at the Senator's house?
• Why can't McConnell provide something more substantive, like a video or phone call?
• Why did it take 4 weeks to provide an update?

Naturally, the folks who aren't buying it believe the photo is AI-generated. And among the folks casting doubt on the veracity of the image are McConnell's colleague, Ron Johnson, and TMZ, which undoubtedly knows a thing or two about separating real photos from fakes.

For our part, we have no idea what the truth is. The conspiratorial version of events doesn't pass the smell test. But the McConnell version of events doesn't really pass the smell test, either. And yet, one side has to be basically correct, right? Either he's alive and functional or he's not.

At this point, the story interests us for two main reasons. The first is that as long as McConnell is holding the seat, but is unable to be in Washington, the harder things are for John Thune and other Republicans on the Hill. The Senate Appropriations Committee will be deadlocked without McConnell's vote, and anything that gets to the floor of the Senate will have a smaller margin of error if he's not there.

Meanwhile, there has been much talk in the last year or so about the harm that motivated political operators will be able to do with AI-generated content. We have wondered if that might be a short-term phenomenon, and that the real impact might be to call everything into doubt, even stuff that might be real. For example, that "James Talarico is trans" video from a month ago—are there really that many people left who can believe it's real, and who have NO IDEA that it could be fake? Probably not. Meanwhile, whether the McConnell photo is real or not, lots of people are saying "AI!" Maybe that tool won't be so efficacious for political operatives, after all. (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger