Trump’s ‘President Badass’ cred makes US foes think twice

The word “badass” was bandied about a lot after the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump last year.

Famously, the bloodied Republican candidate raised his fist in defiance.

In a different context, the same pungent word applies to his 2 a.m. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Trump the TV star has a knack for the theatrical and grand gesture.

That obviously matters in domestic politics, but in international affairs, too, where projecting strength and command are just as important.

We don’t know where the war heads from here, and need to learn more about the damage that was inflicted.

Still, it was an operation with a distinct and very useful element of Trump badassery.

It’s not that Trump always follows through on his threats: He doesn’t, with his on-and-off “liberation day” tariffs an ongoing example of backing off and recalibrating.

But when he makes good on a threat, it leaves a mark.

He’s said how foreign adversaries in his first term didn’t always believe his threats 100%; they might believe him some percentage less than that, but it’d still be enough to make them wonder.

After this, whatever that number is just went up another 30% or so.

Trump’s signature military operations haven’t been particularly complex: smashing ISIS, killing Iraqi Gen. Qassem Soleimani, bombing Fordow and other Iranian nuclear facilities.

They haven’t required mustering big international coalitions or launching, say, amphibious landings.

But they achieve an outsized effect, thanks to the stark terms in which they are promised (e.g., bombing “the s–t” out of ISIS), or the sheer audacity of the operation.

Killing Soleimani was a very limited action, but one that was shocking all the same.

Bombing Fordow and the other sites was also quite focused, but the operation came as a strategic thunderclap.

One way to put it is that the “shock and awe” bombing campaign before the second Iraq war was much less awesome than advertised, and a prelude to a grinding, drawn-out conflict.

Trump’s operations tend, in contrast, to be all shock and awe, and for real.

He represents the opposite approach of Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War.

Basically, the former business executive and LBJ defense secretary believed that talented managers could micromanage their way to success in government — complicated problems required complex analysis, shorn of a human element.

The Trump method is to simplify everything and apply blunt-force solutions, undergirded by a very human psychology of dominance.

To wit, Iran can’t have a nuclear bomb: Diplomacy would be ideal, but if it doesn’t work, military force will be necessary.

Tinker to Evers to Chance. QED.

Trump proved immune to any subtle and counterintuitive theories about Iran, displaying the attitude toward the regime that you’d expect of any commonsensical American who’s lived through the last 45 years.

Another way to look at Trump’s strike is as the bookend of Desert One in 1980, Jimmy Carter’s misbegotten hostage-rescue operation.

The failure of that attempt represented a humiliation that was another blow to our national self-confidence and was a symbol of the reduced state of the post-Vietnam US military.

It also spoke to the staying power of the Iranian regime at its inception.

This is the opposite. The strike showcased the remarkable reach and proficiency of the US military, and a president willing to wield it as necessary.

The operation may eventually — although this is less certain — be seen as a prelude to the end of a decrepit regime.

Again, who knows how this all plays out, and it may be that there are unanticipated downsides and mission creep. Trump posted the other day about regime change.

The Iranians might believe that’s merely bluster — but they need to take it more seriously than only a couple of days ago.

Such is the effect of Trump’s badass move, and we should hope it is being felt not just in Tehran but in every capital of a country that wishes us harm.

Twitter: @RichLowry