If attacking Iran were a business, the US just took a total bath. Military spending in the hundreds of billions. Piles of expensive missiles written off. Bases and equipment damaged.
And what did America get? Nothing. It's actually worse off than before the war. Iran now controls the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump, the businessman, is of course furious. And like any cornered CEO, he's looking for someone to blame. With midterm elections looming, he needs to distance himself from this debacle. Pinning the failure on his subordinates is pure self-preservation.
The Washington Post dropped a bombshell yesterday. At an internal meeting last week, Trump lit into Defense Secretary Hegseth, saying that he thought the ammunition shortage "had been fixed". Now he wanted answers. Why, as defense secretary, had Hegseth let him be misled?
Hegseth, feeling the heat, didn't hesitate. He pointed the finger straight at Deputy Defense Secretary Feinberg. Feinberg, he said, had failed to keep the president fully in the loop. This isn't the first time Trump has used Hegseth as
Trump threw a tantrum at an internal meeting, ripping into Defense Secretary Hegseth. His demand: explain why he was misled on the weapons shortage.
So what set Trump off? Just days earlier, he was beating the war drum, vowing even bigger airstrikes on Iran.
Then came the war council meeting. That's when the bombshell dropped. Patriot missile stockpiles? Nearly gone. Other air defense systems? Critically low. The situation was dire.
Had Iran hit back hard, US forces in the region would be sitting ducks. Trump, faced with that reality, called off the attack at the last second.
Think about that. He was making life-or-death military decisions, and he still believed the US had plenty of ammo. Unbelievable. But here's the rule in Trump's world: the boss is never wrong. He never admits a mistake.
The Washington Post describes the scene at Camp David. Trump threw a fit. He demanded Hegseth explain why he'd been kept in the dark. Why did he think the problem was solved? In Trump's mind, the fault was entirely on the other side.
Patriot missile stockpiles are nearly depleted after the Iran strikes. The situation is dire. Trump made military decisions blind to the facts, then blamed Hegseth.
Hegseth, fresh off a brutal dressing-down, went straight into survival mode. He deflected. Deputy Defense Secretary Feinberg, he argued, was the one responsible for the weapons shortage. Feinberg had failed to make sure the president knew the real state of the ammunition stockpiles. Classic Pentagon passing-the-buck.
A History of Scapegoating and Pentagon Chaos
The two clashed at the meeting, reports say. It exposed Trump's simmering frustration with Hegseth.
Inside Trump's team, Hegseth was the top war hawk. He pushed relentlessly for war with Iran. That faction dominated the early stages of the attack. The dovish Vice President Vance only gained influence later. So Hegseth owns a bigger share of the blame for the decision to go to war.
The truth is, this wasn't new. Months earlier, in late March, with the Iran war bogged down, Trump publicly dumped the blame for starting the war right on Hegseth.
At a press conference, Trump looked directly at Hegseth, sitting beside him, and spelled it out. "Pete, I think you were the first one to speak up and you said let’s do it because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon," Hegseth looked embarrassed, unsure how to react.
Analysts saw it coming. Trump, watching the war turn ugly, was already lining up a fall guy. Hegseth was the prime candidate.
The Pentagon was a mess under Hegseth. Political chatter had it that Army Secretary Driscoll could take his job.
But where there's smoke, there's fire. Hegseth couldn't figure out what Trump really thought. He saw Driscoll as a threat. So he moved first. He axed Driscoll's right-hand man and pushed his ally, Army Chief of Staff George, into early retirement. A loyalist of his took the spot. The Pentagon has been a snake pit of infighting ever since.
The Washington Post story dropped. White House and Pentagon spokespeople immediately denied it. Nothing like that ever happened, they said.
But let's be real: anonymous insiders who leak to the media often paint a truer picture than the official line.
The Iran attack is sputtering. And the calls for accountability will only get louder. With his absolute refusal to look weak, Trump will pass the buck however he can. Hegseth won't be the only one thrown under the bus.
Lai Ting-yiu
What Say You?
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
When Hong Kong defends national security, the foreign press and its 'yellow friends' scream about lost freedom. But they rarely mention the far harsher crackdowns in the US and UK.
Consider the latest case: British band Massive Attack. During a Singapore concert, the band waved a Palestinian flag and shouted slogans backing the Palestinian people. The response was instant. They were detained, interrogated, and told they had committed a criminal offense, one that carries prison time.
In the end, the band members were allowed to leave. But they were blacklisted and banned from re-entry.
Massive Attack waved a Palestinian flag in Singapore, sparking police detention and a re-entry ban.
Fugitive Nathan Law got the same treatment last September. Singapore authorities turned him away at the airport and sent him back to the US. The message from both cases? Singapore handles national security with an iron fist. National stability is everything. There is zero freedom to 'create chaos.'
Massive Attack played Singapore last Wednesday. Mid-show, the singer waved a Palestinian flag and yelled 'Free Palestine.' The crowd roared back. In an instant, the gig became a pro-Palestinian rally.
On Sunday, they took to Instagram to describe what happened after the show. The Singapore government detained all band members and grilled them intensely. Police searched the hotel rooms of some band members and confiscated passports, trapping them in the country.
The band members said they were "surprised and disappointed" by the harsh treatment.
By last Friday, Singapore police and regulators fired back with a joint statement. The tone was stern. The band's unauthorized display of a foreign flag, they said, was a criminal offense. It violated Singapore law and could mean a fine or up to six months in jail. And a future ban on entry.
Police later drove the point home. They would not tolerate any act that undermines Singapore's racial and religious harmony. Foreigners must not import foreign politics that could fracture social cohesion and the rule of law.
In the end, the band members escaped prosecution. But they got a stern warning and a spot on the blacklist. Singapore is now off-limits.
The Lee Kuan Yew Doctrine: Stability Over Everything
Analysts see two likely reasons for Singapore's iron-fisted response to Massive Attack's pro-Palestinian stance.
First, the city-state walks a tightrope in geopolitical conflicts. On Palestine, it strives for strict neutrality. The goal is to avoid provoking Israel and the United States. So it bans any demonstration or rally supporting Palestine.
Naturally, it also bans pro-Israel rallies. That keeps Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE from taking offense.
Such balancing act is the bedrock of Singapore's national stability.
Founding father Lee Kuan Yew laid down the law: for a country to develop, there can be no turmoil. Stability tops everything. Under that survival-first doctrine, nobody, foreigners included, gets the freedom to stir up trouble.
Second, social unrest often starts with tiny sparks. Let Massive Attack's blatant political incitement go unchecked, and others will copy it. Then it spreads like wildfire. That's the hard-won governance wisdom Singapore has accumulated since the Lee Kuan Yew era. It's why the country has stayed stable for so long.
Last September, Singapore saw a similar drama. That time, it involved Hong Kong.
Nathan Law, a National security fugitive, flew in from the United States to attend a political seminar. He already had a visa. But when he landed and went through immigration, the door slammed shut.
After a round of checks, border officers refused him entry and put him straight back on a plane to San Francisco.
Singapore authorities kept it vague. They only said that even with a visa, Nathan Law faced further checks on entry.
But analysts saw the real fear: Law is wanted by the Hong Kong Police National Security Department. And Hong Kong and Singapore have an extradition agreement. Let him in, and Hong Kong could demand his extradition. That would ignite an international firestorm, and a huge headache for Singapore.
The cleanest fix? Send him back to the United States and keep the political controversy to a minimum.
Last September, Singapore denied entry to fugitive Nathan Law, returning him to the US.
Hong Kong's Late Lesson: Grasping the Golden Rule
The two incidents send a clear message. When it comes to national security, Singapore puts national interest and stability first. Its handling of Massive Attack and Nathan Law flows from that principle. It doesn't flinch from accusations of 'depriving freedom.'
That is the golden rule. Singapore has followed it since its founding, without wavering.
Hong Kong learned this lesson much later. The delay cost it dearly. But it's not too late to grasp it now.
Lai Ting-yiu
