Hello, readers.
Let’s talk about some word games that could be fun to play with friends!
So, what does “imminent” really mean?
A lot of chatter has been swirling around the term lately. Webster defines it as being “ready to do” or “to happen immediately.” Honestly, I used to think I had a good grip on it until recently.
If that definition is to be taken literally, then I’d say you’re in constant danger every time you hit the road. But I don’t feel particularly “imminent” just because something could happen at any moment. The idea of it happening soon resonates much more. It’s like that vague, uncomfortable moment when you ask your mom about something for the umpteenth time and get back: “Soon.” What does that even mean?
Recently, I found myself at a lunch, surrounded by various right-leaning communicators. One asked me directly, “What’s your take on Joe Kent’s resignation letter?”
I started off with the thought that several high-profile departures during the Trump era seemed pretty obvious. People can flip their loyalties in an instant, just as Kent did. They can turn from being staunch supporters to those who rebel out of a sense of self-righteousness. Because of that, we often see Trump try to undermine his critics’ credibility.
We saw this same dynamic with John Bolton.
Now, Trump’s camp says Kent has been out of the loop for months. They claim he was never reliable, while loyal supporters dive deep into dissecting his past to uphold their leader’s image.
But that leads to a nagging question: why was he brought on board to begin with? It’s like Trump just bulldozed over that.
(About Bolton, Trump had even told me, “I liked Jon because the bad guys were scared of Jon.”)
But she interrupted my train of thought, asking, “But don’t you think that’s true?”
“What exactly?” I replied.
“Are you saying there was no ‘imminent threat’ from Iran?”
Okay, I should’ve seen that one coming. As the only veteran at the table and someone who reported on national security, I really should have anticipated the question. Trying to sound somewhat articulate, I replied, “Well, it really depends on how you define ‘imminent.'”
It’s something my boxing coach always says.
“There’s no such thing as the worst punch,” he often remarks. But of course, there is, right? Yet, in his view, it all boils down to winners and losers. Some people get knocked out, and others hang on, still standing. Winners.
He believes the idea of “never strike first” is nonsensical. “Sure, you’re the first to hit,” he says, “especially if it’s clear that violence is brewing.”
I’m not here to dissect the war’s complexities or its implications. I just want to touch on the hard realities of money.
When you look at it, it seems Iran was definitely gearing up, and China played a supporting role.
This relationship has transformed into a looming threat to global commerce, quite rapidly. I’d call that “imminent.”
(Some would argue that we initiated this by attacking Iran last year. I think it’s more accurate to say we just accelerated an existing situation. China has its own motives and resources, after all.)
Now consider the concept of cost asymmetry. The stakes are heavy—defending against missiles and drones is incredibly more expensive than producing them.
If unchecked, it looks like Iran could potentially hold the region hostage in a matter of months.
Moreover, Israel has shown intentions to strike first. Who could fault them for that?
Sure, Trump pulled back on that, and politically, he made the right call to obfuscate things. But there’s also a reality in the State Department that suggested they were aware Israel would likely act, which could provoke Iran to retaliate against the U.S.
Does that fit the bill of “imminent”? In my book, absolutely.
What does “America First” really mean, anyway?
For some in the anti-war faction, it translates to shutting down all bases in the Middle East. I get that perspective, especially after witnessing two wars and their fallout. It wasn’t just the human cost; the wealth transfer was staggering.
(People often say the housing crisis was worse, but I have my doubts.)
Fans of Trump’s stance against Iran point out that his comments go back decades, emphasizing that he found success back in the ’80s. Yet, at his core, Trump is a real estate guy. There’s only so much land available.
Anyone who’s shopped for a house knows this: square footage remains constant, but value fluctuates based on its location.
So, how much square footage lies in the Strait of Hormuz?
Should the U.S. manage the energy flow in that area? Is it in the best interest of future generations of Americans to seize complete control of that territory?
Or will we take a backseat to China and Iran?
Just like the term “imminent,” it all depends on your definitions, my friend.
According to Trump, he gets to dictate what “America First” really means.
He decides what’s right or wrong.
