On June 12, Axios reported, the US regime refused to support Israeli strikes on Iran … but US president Donald Trump said such strikes “might very well happen” even though he wouldn’t want Israel to “blow it” (“it” being a new nuclear deal to replace the one Trump began violating in 2018).

Hours later, Israeli aircraft attacked, apparently damaging Iranian nuclear facilities and killing top military figures. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the action as “unilateral” and emphasized that “we are not involved.”

Within hours, however, Trump described the Israeli strikes as, effectively, an outsourcing of US policy. “We knew just about everything,” he said. “We knew enough that we gave Iran 60 days to make a deal and today is 61, right? So, you know, we knew everything.”

After which US forces put its air defense capabilities in the region to work helping Israel blunt the impact of Iranian counterstrikes.

One reasonable conclusion, drawn by any number of reasonable people, is that Trump and Rubio were lying to begin with and that the Israeli strikes enjoyed US approval and possibly even active, direct US support (such as the use of US aerial refueling for the Israeli aircraft).

That certainly seems possible, but I’d like to offer a different theory: Trump got played. The Israelis said they intended to strike. Trump said not to. The Israelis struck anyway, betting that Trump would circle back to claim prior knowledge and tacit approval, then throw in to defend Israel from the consequences of its actions.

I don’t know that either theory will ever be fully proven as correct, but the latter theory tracks with everything we know about Trump’s history and method.

As a “leader,” Trump is congenitally incapable of admitting either of two things: Error or weakness.

Prior to running for politics, he operated entirely on “brand,” not actual accomplishment.

Over decades as a real estate developer, casino operator, etc., he racked up multiple business bankruptcies and built a smaller fortune than he’d have earned from investing his inheritance in an S&P 500-indexed mutual fund and going on permanent vacation.

When sequential failures in real business moved him to go  full Hollywood with The Apprentice, the focus was on being a “boss”  dispensing sage advice to (or yelling “you’re fired” at) future business moguls (most of whom subsequently sank from view).

Having failed upward into the presidency, his strategy remains the same: Promote a Trump “brand” built on the pretense that he’s competent and in charge. When both prove false, just change the story to fit the image.

In my opinion, the Israelis correctly saw Trump as an easy mark and acted accordingly. We’ll get stuck with the bill, in treasure and quite possibly blood.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“[F]rom now on,” US president Donald Trump wrote in his Truth Social temper tantrum over anti-ICE protests in Lose Angeles, “MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests.”

I agree with what Trump’s saying … but not with what he means.

He’s ordering protesters not to wear masks (they’ll ignore him, as they should).

He should be ordering the police and military personnel across from those protesters to uncover their faces.

Over the last several years, it’s become common to see photos and videos of supposed “law enforcement personnel” conducting operations while wearing balaclavas and other face coverings to hide their identities. Not just while working “crowd control” at demonstrations, but when busting into homes and businesses to investigate alleged crimes, serve warrants, etc.

That needs to end, now, for two reasons.

The first reason is that it’s unsafe for everyone involved.

Hypothetical:

You’re going about your lawful personal business when someone wearing a ski mask and dark jacket with large lettering on the back runs at you, waving a gun and yelling “Freeze! Police!” (or “ICE!” or “FBI!” or whatever).

Is he or she actually a police officer of some kind?

Or are you about to be mugged, raped, murdered, or some combination of those things?

If you weren’t conducting yourself violently at the moment of contact,  you’d have a solid “stand your ground” case if you whipped out a handgun and put that person down. Your fear of  death or grievous bodily harm in such a situation would be entirely reasonable.

If you weren’t conducting yourself violently at the moment of contact, the proper approach by a real police officer would be to politely introduce himself or herself, with face uncovered and service weapon holstered, produce photo identification matching said face, and state his or her business with you.

We’ve seen a recent spate of arrests for impersonating ICE agents and other “law enforcement personnel” while detaining and even raping others. Those incidents may or may not have involved masks, but letting real cops wear masks makes impersonating them easier — and their jobs harder if onlookers justifiably intervene versus unidentifiable masked assailants.

The second reason is about who owes what to whom.

As a private citizen, who you are and what you look like is none of the government’s business until and unless there’s probable cause to believe you’ve committed, or are in the act of committing, a crime.

As a government employee, who a cop is and what he or she looks like is entirely the public’s business any time we want it to be. The cop at least pretends to work for — “serve and protect” — us, while collecting a paycheck from the taxes we fork over.

We’re the bosses, at least in theory. They’re our employees, at least in theory.  The idea that they’re entitled to hide their identities from us while waving guns at us and ordering us around gets that relationship completely bass-ackward.

We shouldn’t have to show your faces. They should.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

US president Donald Trump, Axios reports, “is edging closer than ever to invoking the Insurrection Act, driven by a vision of executive power free from the guardrails, governors and generals who stifled him in 2020.”

“The people causing the problems are professional agitators,” he says. “They’re insurrectionists.”

He’s not wrong. He’s a professional agitator, he’s an “insurrectionist,” and he’s causing the problems.

On June 6, members of the public confronted members of the “Immigration and Customs Enforcement” gang in Los Angeles in the act of abducting 44 people. The gang members responded to the attempted rescue  with “flash bang” grenades. On the following day, the gang escalated to tear gas and pepper balls  in nearby Paramount.

If one side was “rioting,” both were.

At that point, Trump announced he was “federalizing” 2,000 California National Guard members — to protect the ICE gangbangers from the public, not vice versa. He’s since added 700 US Marines to the Federal Gang Member Protection Task Force.

What are Trump and co-conspirators like ICE shot-caller Tom Homan, “Homeland Security” secretary Kristi Noem, and Pentagon honcho Pete Hegseth trying to accomplish in Los Angeles?

They’re hoping for a “Reichstag fire” incident they can use as an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act … not to put down an “insurrection,” but to complete the “insurrection” Trump unsuccessfully attempted in 2020-21 and resumed on his return to office.

And if they can get a Horst Wessel out of the deal, they’ll happily accept. Wessel was a German thug who engaged in similar street fighting, on a similar side. After he was killed (supposedly for his political activity, but more likely over his side gig as a pimp), he became a convenient martyr and the Nazi party adopted a song he wrote as its anthem. When, not if, an ICE thug finishes his or her shift in a body bag instead of over beer and sportsball, we’ll never hear the end of it.

Personally, I’d rather it didn’t come to that.

On the other hand, California governor Gavin Newsom’s lawsuit over Trump’s actions is weak tea. The courts have already demonstrated their deference to Trump’s lawlessness; when they don’t he just whines and tries to ignore them.

The better answer to the occupation of LA is to greet it with institutional boycotts and individual ostracism.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power should cut off all services to facilities used by the occupation forces. Make them truck in their own water and generators if they insist on staying.

Local institutions should refuse service to those affiliated with the occupation forces.

“No, that bottle of water / cheeseburger / latte isn’t for sale … at least not to you.”

“No, you can’t use the restroom.”

“No, this church does not serve communion to those in an unrepentant state of mortal sin.”

“We reserve the right to refuse service.”

“Out. Now.”

Residents shouldn’t offer them anything but the cold shoulder.

When your opponent has heavier weapons than you, nonviolent methods work better than “rioting.” Don’t give Trump the excuse he’s after.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY