Trump's Two Front War

Military strategists have long warned about the risks of waging a two-front war. Nevertheless, President Trump intervened in Israel’s war on Iran while National Guard troops were deployed to quell resistance to immigration enforcement in California. A prudent leader would resort to military force only after attempting to negotiate with an adversary possessing significant tools of resistance. Avoiding military force would be particularly advisable if the underlying policy enjoyed only tepid support at home. If negotiations still failed, threats of force would then be used, followed by the low-level exercises of force such as sanctions. Only when this failed would military force be used.

The President arguably followed this path regarding Iran. Prior to Saturday’s attacks, the US and Iran were in active talks attempting to reach agreed-upon limits on Iran’s nuclear program. When this appeared to fail, the parties graduated to threats of force, which continued for several days. Sanctions had already been tried, and so the card of military force was played. The president appears to have successfully negotiated a ceasefire in the Iranian conflict. However, the uncertainty over the success of the bombing campaign means the temptation of “mission creep” and the risk of escalation to further military action remains.

At the time, the President was already in a low-level military conflict here at home with Los Angeles and California about the enforcement of federal immigration law. Instead of following the traditional escalation protocol, Trump immediately turned to military force despite only tepid support for the intervention at home. There is another path he could have taken that might have avoided a military confrontation and achieved a lasting solution to the immigration issue.

The administration should have first proposed a comprehensive immigration bill tightening enforcement and significantly reducing immigration levels. The legislation could have accomplished the goal of discouraging the employment of illegal immigrants and incentivizing self-deportation through

1. A 10% employer tax on the salaries of an employer’s illegal immigrant employees.

2. A requirement that those employers purchase insurance protecting third parties from injuries or damages by their immigrant employees. It would also reimburse government agencies for any welfare payments to those employees.

3. A prohibition against refugees seeking permanent immigration status until they first return to their native countries.

Employers would be forced to decide if these increased costs and risks would be worse than hiring American citizens. It would also finally force the real debate on our immigration policy that the nation has avoided for decades.

What if globalists did not take this deal? Then sanctions would be the next step, and Trump has a peaceful, but big stick, in his arsenal. He can announce that the US cannot host the 2028 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles because California’s resistance to federal authority may result in an internal military conflict and, as a result, we cannot guarantee the security of the games. The risk in such a threat would hopefully prompt immigration enthusiasts to agree on reforms that reflects today’s world and establishes an effective enforcement process. If not, the President should make good on the threat.

Partisans on both sides of the immigration debate will condemn this strategy. However, it recognizes that each side has economic and legal leverage. Admittedly divisive in tactics, it is potentially unifying in strategy by creating a road to a permanent resolution that gives American citizens hope and the peace of a better life. It is this objective, not regime change overseas, that should be the most crucial goal of the Trump Administration.