Skip to content Skip to footer

Book: Pentagon Officials Withheld Options From Trump for Fear He May Start a War

One official recounted how some were cautious with Trump “because any options you put out there, he could use them.”

President Trump stops to talk to reporters as he departs the White House for a trip to Ohio on August 6, 2020, in Washington, D.C.

A new book by CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto details how several officials were reticent to provide President Donald Trump with military options out of fears he could have responded to international events by starting new wars.

The book by Sciutto, The Madman Theory: Trump Takes on the World, includes several interviews with former Trump administration officials who described how worried they were about the president’s unpredictability when it came to making foreign policy decisions.

In 2017, for instance, when Trump was having a back-and-forth with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the Pentagon was hesitant to give Trump military-based response options out of fear that he might take a more aggressive approach, if one was offered to him, according to Joseph Yun, who served as Trump’s former representative for North Korea policy until 2018.

“We used to only think of Kim Jong Un as unpredictable. Now we had Trump as unpredictable,” Yun told Sciutto.

Officials were also worried about Trump being given military options when it came to dealing with Iran, other former officials said. In 2019, in response to that nation shooting down a United States surveillance drone in the Persian Gulf, Trump took the extreme measure of ordering a military strike against one of that nation’s military bases, but halted the operation moments before it was set to begin.

Mick Mulroy, the former deputy assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, told Sciutto that he had to try and explain what Trump’s next moves in the region would be to allies, and that he couldn’t readily do so.

“We told allies that we did not know what the President would be willing to do against Iran,” he said. “It was possible he could make a decision that would lead to an escalation of the conflict, and that escalation could lead to war, so they needed to relay that to Iran so they realized not even his staff knew what would happen if they attacked another oil facility, for instance.”

When mortars landed near the U.S. Embassy in Iraq in September 2019, officials from the Pentagon were flabbergasted when the White House made a request for military response options.

In Sciutto’s book, an unnamed former U.S. senior military official recounted a conference call between the White House and the Defense Department, with vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Paul Selva briefly muting the call to express confusion over what was being requested to those in the room with him.

“He said, ‘Is this a joke? They really want us to propose direct military action into Iran, against Iran, based on this?'” the former official said.

After the call, Selva and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood, who was in the room during the call, let their colleagues know they wouldn’t craft any military options until directly ordered by the president to do so.

Trump’s unpredictable nature on foreign policy is no secret to most, but his policy choices tend to focus on how it can benefit himself more than how it will keep the country safe.

Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a Republican who served in that role under former President Barack Obama, was also interviewed by Sciutto about the stark differences in philosophy between the two administrations.

“In all my years dealing with national security and intelligence and foreign policy I’ve never heard any senior military leaders express concern about a president’s decision-making,” he said. On the other hand, while serving as Defense Secretary, “my Pentagon colleagues and I always knew that President Obama had studied the issues, was well informed and wanted our opinions and recommendations.”

Trump’s catastrophic foreign policy was on full display earlier this year, after he ordered the assassination of an Iranian general whom the administration accused of orchestrating attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

War was averted following the strike, but as tensions escalated, it wasn’t clear to the world, nor to military experts in the U.S., what strategy Trump had in mind following the action. According to polls at the time, a majority of Americans also felt less safe due to the president’s actions.

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.