It is with this dismal future in mind that he is desperate to reverse the massive tide of enmity that is consuming his presidency. To avoid this outcome, he is now exploiting national security to safeguard it. Richard Nixon found his way into the White House by doing so, Ronald Reagan via Iran Contra was almost impeached for following a similar path, and George W. Bush saved what many of his supporters feared was a lost bid for re-election in 2004 by proclaiming in effect “while the nation was at war, it was dangerous to remove a commander in chief from his post.”

Trump’s doleful first year in office demonstrated the limits of the presidency as exemplified by policy failures beginning with his “Muslim Ban.” He observed a president could be stymied by a plethora of entities—the Congress and Supreme Court and even a “Mexican judge” in one of the fifty states. But as commander in chief the Warfare State allowed him to act on his own. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union provided the rationale for a president to govern virtually without interference from other constitutional authorities. In this century, the Global War on Terrorism materialized and voila, the president was back in business free to start a new crusade in the Middle East or to vaporize Rocket Man in North Korea.

Like Trump, Bibi Netanyahu faces mounting internal threats to his regime that may be sidetracked by a war with Iran. Potential rivals for his job on the right, like Natali Bennett and Avigdor Liberman, are likeminded on this matter and many ordinary Israeli’s, even those not entirely happy with him, concede that Bibi has been a stalwart in protecting their country. That said, many members of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and political leaders in Israel—even those who are concerned about the threat Iran represents for the Jewish State—are wary of an armed conflict with Tehran. Like many of their colleagues in the Pentagon, they note that unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is a large country with a well-educated population of eighty million. It has talented engineers and scientists, and battle-hardened troops in addition to Shia fighters from other countries, like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, that guarantee Iran will retaliate should it be attacked by a joint American-Israeli force. A decade ago, the U.S. Central Command conducted a study that indicated a clash with Iran would necessitate an American fighting force approaching numbers involved in Bush’s invasion of Iraq. For their part, strategists in the IDF are not unmindful of Hezbollah’s military prowess as well as Iran’s capacity to attack Israel with sophisticated missiles. Therefore, they conclude a war with Iran will not be a cakewalk.

Against this backdrop, American strategists who see our involvement in the Middle East as problematic, nay a lost cause, have come to the following conclusion: Iran is the key to a viable America agenda in the Middle East. Reconciliation between Shia and Sunni Muslims—Iran and Saudi Arabic/Egypt—represents the greatest hope for stability in the region. Forging a military alliance between the Sunni Arabs and Israel to crush Iran is an exceedingly dangerous one that might precipitate a host of violent outbreaks that represent a greater threat to them than Iran. Shaky governments in Cairo and Riyadh may find they have created a monster that has the capacity to consume them. Even Israel with its dominant military capacity must consider that a clash with Iran may energize enemies of the Jewish State that previously were only latent threats to it.

Despite the difficulties involved and past bad blood, an attempt to dramatically reduce tensions with Iran may produce more positive security outcomes than clashes with it. The same holds true for the leaders in Tehran who badly want to end their country’s isolation from the international community. Meanwhile from the vantage point of Washington, geography and religion dictate that Iran, and not the United States, is best able to influence events in Syria, Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Central Asia. That does not mean that the United States cannot have a strong voice in a postwar attempt to pacify what has been the world’s most turbulent region, but any hope of achieving reconciliation will be nullified by a clash of arms between American and Iranian troops.

One more thing. As evidence mounts that President Trump and his circle of supporters face bad news from Mueller’s team of investigators, he is likely to find a way to confront the special prosecutor while engaging Iran on the battlefield to cover up his acts of malfeasance. Republicans who have spoken in favor of allowing Mueller to finish his business-like Trey Gowdey, query if the president has done nothing wrong he should not fear Mueller’s findings. But despite Trump’s assertions to the contrary the case against him and members of his entourage seems to be moving against that claim. Without doubt, Trump’s presidency is imperiled and, in turn, our nation’s security. In response, Congress must reassert its authority to declare war as posited by the Kaine-McCain war powers reform resolution. It is extremely dangerous to allow any president to wage war under the pretext of authority that was created to justify Bush’s response to 9/11 almost two decades ago. Furthermore, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, along with their Democratic counterparts, must take measures to safeguard Mueller and to anticipate a constitutional crisis that is certain to materialize when out of desperation, President Trump fires him.

Dick Krickus is distinguished professor emeritus as the University of Mary Washington and has held the H. L. Oppenheimer Chair of Warfighting Strategy as the U.S. Marine Corps University. His forthcoming book is America’s Tragic Crusade in The Middle East and the Trump Malignancy.

Image: U.S. President Donald Trump gestures to the media as he arrives with first lady Melania Trump and their son Barron at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, U.S., after the Easter weekend in Palm Beach, Florida, April 1, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas​