Has Trump joined the IRA?

Can’t you just see it? The Donald donning a black beret, grabbing a Kalashnikov, addressing every man he meets as “my old son”, and shouting “Up the Republic!”?

No, perhaps not. But he did the next best thing by stating his support for a united Ireland, which is after all the declared aim of the IRA.

That statement was as carefully thought through as most things Trump utters, and it bore every hallmark of his style and professional experience.

The careful thought was evident in the reason Trump identified for aligning himself with IRA desiderata. The setting was perfect: the Friends of Ireland luncheon in honour of St Patrick’s Day.

Trump noticed that Northern Ireland’s Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly and Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin “get along so well”. From there it was natural to move on to a simple syllogism.

Thesis: Little-Pengelly and Martin are cordial to each other. Antithesis: both are Irish, but live in different countries. Synthesis: the two countries should unite.

What can be more logical than that? If this is the first question, then the second one has to deal with Trump’s thought process. Does he ever take the trouble of thinking before opening his mouth? Or is he so narcissistic as to believe that everything he says is clever because he is the one saying it?

Anyone who has ever seen Mrs Pengelly’s photograph will know that any post-pubescent male with a palpable pulse would find her easy to get along well with at a party. Drawing geopolitical conclusions on that basis is insane.

So much for substance. Trump’s style also provides an insight into the workings of his mind for he thinks and therefore speaks as the property tycoon he was and not as the politician he is. “I love mergers,” he declared, explaining why the two parts of Ireland should “merge”.

The lexicon of Trump’s current occupation includes terms like ‘unification’ or, in Ireland’s case, ‘reunification’. Although loosely synonymous with ‘merger’, they are the ones to use in a geopolitical context. Trump will next describe Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine as a hostile takeover.

Still, one has to compliment the Donald for knowing that Ulster and the Republic are indeed different countries. According to his former, admittedly disgruntled, aides, in Trump’s first term he couldn’t tell the Baltics from the Balkans.

“That’s the way it’s supposed to be,” he concluded his remarks on a potential merger. Not as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, it isn’t. Actually, that’s the whole point.

I’m sure there was an ulterior motive behind Trump’s clumsy remarks. It was cocking a snook at Britain in general and Keir Starmer in particular, who, as Trump keeps repeating, correctly, is no Churchill.

For once I agree with the Donald, and I also think it’s unfortunate that European NATO members are in no hurry to join the on-going war in the Middle East. We should be above such emotive issues as the slings and arrows Trump routinely uses to attack and humiliate his European allies.

The issue of going to war or not ought to be decided on cold-blooded considerations of national interest, not on politicians’ feelings, hurt or otherwise. And since Europe suffers more than America from the current damage to oil shipments, we have a vested interest in opening the Strait of Hormuz.

The politician whom Trump identified as no Churchill is, according to him, making “a big mistake” in not being “supportive” of America. Yes, he is. But Starmer’s lack of Churchillian qualities is only partly to blame for his reluctance to go in guns blazing.

Trump is learning the hard way, inasmuch as he is capable of learning anything, that he can’t treat America’s allies as skivvies he can summon or dismiss at will and then expect them to ask how high when he tells them to jump. Moreover, threatening to invade two fellow NATO members isn’t going to inspire them or their friends to go to war on America’s behalf.

Nor do Trump’s increasingly erratic and self-contradictory musings on the subject encourage America’s allies to act in the spirit of the alliance. Thus, he has been issuing declarations of victory practically every day, starting from the first day of the hostilities.

Just yesterday he wrote in his customary illiterate manner: “Because of the fact that we have had such MILITARY SUCCESS we no longer “need”, or desire the NATO countries’ assistance – WE NEVER DID!… In fact, speaking as President of the United States of America, by far the Most Powerful Country Anywhere in the World, WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!”

Splendid. So what’s the problem then? More to the point, what has changed since two days ago, when Trump implored the allies to join in?

Did the sight of a major LNG facility burning in Qatar convince Trump that America could go it alone? Or is it the sight of the Strait of Hormuz closed to all oil tankers except those belonging to Iran, Russia or China?

For all of Trump’s bravado, America does need and desire the NATO countries’ assistance – SHE ALWAYS DID! If Trump were a true statesman, rather than a jumped-up property developer with personality disorders, he’d know that – and he would have laid the necessary groundwork.

A statesman would have consulted America’s allies beforehand, explained to them why the war was necessary, identified the strategic objectives, shown how NATO in its entirety stood to benefit from victory and suffer from defeat or inactivity, had the countries’ general staffs jointly work out the means to the end – and define the desired end.

A statesman – or simply an averagely intelligent person – would have realised that unleashing hell in one of the world’s major oil-producing regions would affect energy supplies. He would have explained to the allies that such was an unavoidable cost of war, but that it would be outweighed by the spoils of victory.

Trump did none of those things. Instead, he blithely barged in, certain it was possible to force a regime change from 10,000 feet, something that had never been done in history.

From the beginning he has been dismissing such naysaying. There would be no need for a ground assault, Trump kept saying. And that’s another tune he seems to be changing. He would deploy ground troops “if necessary”, this is the current melody.

Hence yesterday a reporter posed a natural question at a press conference: “Are you afraid that if you put boots on the ground in Iran, it could be another Vietnam?”

“No,” Trump snapped tetchily, “I’m not afraid of anything.” 

He should be. The war is unpopular in the US as it is, and will become even more or so if body bags start arriving in a steady stream. It doesn’t take much for crowds, especially on campuses, to start marching and shouting “Hell no, we won’t go”, like their grandparents did.

I’m convinced that the war on Iran is just, legal, necessary and winnable. I also agree with Trump that Starmer is no Churchill. Alas, neither is he – and that’s the calibre of statesmanship required to lead free nations in wars against evil tyrannies.

Catastrophes happen when countries are led by bad politicians at a time of crisis. And no one this side of MAGA fanatics would extol the likes of Trump, Hegseth, Witkoff or Kushner as great wartime leaders. I wish them every success and hope for the best – while fearing the worst.