Trump's (and Bibi's) War Against Iran

by David Bernell and Ambassador Thomas Graham (Retired)

The United States and Israel have joined forces to once again wage war against Iran. President Donald Trump announced to the American public in a social media post in the middle of the night (when he was vacationing at Mar-a-Lago) that he had begun a war. There was no public deliberation about starting this war, no debates in Congress, not even any pretense about making a case domestically or abroad about attacking Iran. The only real lead-up to the war was reporting that US military forces were on their way to the Middle East. The American people just woke up one morning to discover they were at war. Trump’s actions are inconsistent with American law and the Constitution, so they are at once both illegal and unconstitutional.

The American and Israeli military objectives seem to involve killing as much of the Iranian government’s leadership as possible, and destroying as much of Iran’s military capability as possible. This will most certainly degrade Iran’s military capabilities and threats. For Israel, this is of the highest importance, as it has seen Iran as a long-term threat for years. After all, Iran’s government has repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction and elimination. However, for the United States, the considerations are somewhat different, as it does not face the same level of threat from Iran. To that end, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu has either found (or perhaps convinced) an American president to do something no previous president would do: directly attack Iran.

The airstrikes have done significant damage in Iran. However, the excellence of the American and Israeli forces in carrying out their operations does not offset the strategic incoherence of the Trump administration in identifying and articulating the goals of the military operations. Operational success does not constitute a strategy in itself. If there is any longer-term strategic plan for the United States, it has been kept well-hidden.

Of course, one shouldn’t expect a long-term plan or larger strategy. This is the Trump administration, which has been run largely by presidential whim and impulse. The rationales offered for the war are numerous and often internally incoherent or contradictory to one another, such that the American people do not really know why they are at war or what the objective is. Possibilities include:

• Iran’s nuclear capabilities are significant and the country is on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon. However, this is the same nuclear program Trump claimed was totally obliterated by the US strikes last June, and intelligence assessments do not support this conclusion.

• Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities are growing and the country would soon have long-range missiles it could fire directly at the United States. Again, US intelligence has found that Iran was several years from having such capabilities.

• The country poses an imminent threat to American security, and Iran was about to attack the US. American bombing was, therefore, a pre-emptive response to immediate dangers. Once again, no intelligence (much less common sense) supported this. The destruction of Iran’s air defenses last year by the United States and Israel, along with the weakening of Iran’s proxies – Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon – has left the Islamic Republic as weak and exposed as it has ever been. Also, as recently as last January, the regime was fighting for its very survival against widespread protests, and only stamped out the demonstrations by inflicting the deadliest repression it ever has used against its own people, killing perhaps as many as 30,000 people.

• Regime change. This rests on two points, both of which are certainly true. The first is that the Iranian regime has been a scourge in the region and around the world since 1979, when it came to power. It has supported terrorism, sought to destabilize governments in the Middle East, and it has funded and armed Hamas, Hezbollah and other organizations to wage war by proxy against the US and many of its allies. The second point is that the regime oppresses its own population, violating human rights, killing and imprisoning people in large numbers, snuffing out protests, and destroying any chance for freedom. “All I want is freedom for the [Iranian] people,” said President Trump soon after announcing that war had begun. What is not self-evidently true is that the horrible nature of the Iranian regime has justified this war at this time. This is particularly salient when considering that there are many who will pay the price for this war but have had no say in launching it: American soldiers, citizens, and taxpayers, as well as governments and people in the Middle East who are friendly to the US and are now under attack, such as The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

The Trump Way of War

The world is now getting familiar with the Trump way of war: 1) verbally attack those who he sees as a problem; 2) engage in some combination of making threats, applying pressure, or inflicting a cost to maintaining opposition to whatever Trump wants; 3) continue this until such actions have forced concessions, a “deal,” or some type of compliance; 4) if no deal or compliance is achieved, declare victory anyway and move on to the next thing. This approach isn’t applicable only to foreign policy and other countries. This is the same playbook Trump uses for law firms, media outlets, universities, and domestic political opponents too.

This method does not require a long-term strategy, regime change, cleaning house, or other fundamental change to the countries, governments, or organizations Trump targets. It only requires compliance, a willingness to give in to Trump’s demands, either by existing or new leaders. Trump believes he is smarter and more capable than others. He believes in the legitimacy of his choices, unconstrained by any other considerations. And he certainly seems to enjoy exercising his power, while ordering what he considers to be “his” security forces – the military, ICE, Border Patrol – to enforce his will. All of these features point to a distinctly Trumpian way of doing things. Besides, this allows Trump to move on after he takes some action that he says resolves whatever situation he is addressing. It fits with his attention span and his continual movement from one topic to another.

Trump has been criticized by many of his own MAGA supporters who have focused on the fact that during the campaign, Trump said his goal was getting out of wars, not starting them. But in only the past eight months, Trump ordered bombing in Nigeria, military action to blow up boats in the Caribbean it says were involved in drug smuggling (and this is still going on), the operation in Venezuela to remove Nicolas Maduro from office, and two military operations against Iran – the strikes on nuclear facilities last June and the current bombing campaign.

The administration seems to be trying to make its case in two ways. One is to reply to this criticism from his own camp by pointing out that Trump’s concern was not with military action abroad per se, but about avoiding protracted military engagements overseas. With the actions in Venezuela and Iran, the administration is arguing that Trump is taking care of big problems quickly at little cost. His policies, so it is argued, offer the best of both worlds, replacing troublesome leaders without engaging the United States in more “forever wars.”

A second argument Trump and his supporters make in defending his policies is that he makes things happen, he gets things done. This posits that in dealing with Iran, Trump is taking care of unfinished business that others ignored and left to him. Past presidents weren’t strong enough, capable enough, or smart enough to eliminate the problems posed by Venezuela’s Presidents Hugo Chavez or Victor Maduro, or by Iran. And it may be that the next such action involves Cuba. American naval ships have shut off the flow of oil to the country, blocking energy shipments for months. This is causing shortages of fuel and electricity, which have impacted hospitals, schools, government operations, international flights, tourism, trash collection, just about everything. Trump has already ousted two political leaders hostile to the United States, and if he does this with three governments (maybe in less than a year) that have been considered illegitimate, repressive troublemakers for decades, this will be touted as a significant accomplishment. It might convince not only Trump’s supporters, but some of his detractors and opponents too.

Undermining Democracy: A One-Man Show

The initial promise of cost-free gains may seem attractive, but Trump’s war on Iran presents a great many problems that offset the perceived gains. The first of these is that the United States has launched a war without even a hint of decision making beyond one man. There was no consideration whatsoever by the public or Congress, and not even a nod toward the Constitution or democratic governance in general. Nor was there any consideration or consultation with allies and friends, or any acknowledgement of international institutions.

Of course, it has long been the case that presidents of the United States order military action without informing or consulting Congress beforehand, and Congress certainly has had little interest for years in carrying out is Constitutional responsibility of declaring war. Congress often refuses to weigh in at all with support for or opposition to military engagements. The House and Senate, and members of both parties, have avoided responsibility in that regard. By the same token, the United States has very often taken military action without regard for international opinion or approval.

However, these circumstances have usually involved limited military actions or one-time strikes against particular targets of opportunity. With regard to more substantial actions, such as the Gulf War or the war in Iraq, there have been public debates and conversations – in Congress, certainly among the American public, and even in the United Nations Security Council. And in both 1991 and 2003, the United States government asked both Congress and the UN for authorization of military action against Iraq. Even if presidents had already made up their minds about taking action, as George W. Bush did in 2003, there was at least a recognition that something as important as launching a major war that would greatly impact the United States and many other countries necessitated some level of approval, or at least deliberation.

It is not even the case that Trump’s political base offers much support for him. MAGA opposition to yet another war in the Middle East has emerged, as Trump runs roughshod over the view, embodied by J.D. Vance, that the United States has no business in changing regimes and meddling in the affairs of far-away countries. The main voices from the Republican party in support of war in Iran are the neoconservative hawks of the Reagan and Bush eras who have long called for a muscular foreign policy to shape the global system and punish rogue nations like Iran, Syria, and North Korea. These are people like John Bolton who Trump turned against and made sure were not included in his second administration.

None of what passed for even limited engagement with the public, political supporters, a foreign policy establishment, or Congress that occurred in the past has happened in this case. It was only Donald Trump, the man who says that the only constraint he faces as president is his own thinking, who says that “I alone can fix it,” and whose self-regard about his intelligence (and disregard of others’ intelligence) is excessive, to put it mildly. To that end, Trump’s war is one more step in the direction of undermining democracy here at home.

Unleashing the Unpredictability of War

There are additional risks as well. The big danger in starting a war is unleashing all the consequences that may or may not have been foreseen. The hubris in doing so is believing that all of these uncontrollable consequences can be controlled. Donald Trump’s success in Venezuela, his ongoing attempts to squeeze Cuba economically, and the strikes on Iran last June (which caused significant destruction and did not prompt major retaliation or a wider regional war), and his views that he is saving American industry with tariffs and protecting American security by souring relations with NATO allies, all point to the fact that Trump is “getting high on his own supply.”

This time, Trump may have overplayed his hand. By telling the Iranian people that “help is on its way,” and that the war is giving them the chance to overthrow their government, he has communicated to the Iranian regime that they have nothing to lose by throwing everything they have at the United States and the region.

The Supreme Leader of Iran has been killed, as has much of the political and military leadership of Iran. In addition, the United States and Israel are continuing their attacks on Iranian forces and their allies in Lebanon. But Iran can still fight back and is doing so. After only a little more than a week of fighting, the consequences of war are already proving costly. Iran has retaliated against American military forces in the Middle East, and it has fired missiles at Israel and several countries in the region are friendly to the United States and host American military bases – Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. Even NATO ally Turkey has been attacked, though NATO air defenses shot down the missile before it hit its target.

Death and destruction have been extended throughout the Middle East into a wider regional war, as more than 1,300 people have died, the vast majority in Iran, including at least 160 girls who were killed by a strike on a school. And now the Trump administration may be widening the war. It is talking about arming Iranian Kurdish groups to weaken Iran’s forces and maybe even spark an uprising in Iran. (There are Kurdish populations in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria that have sought an independent state or greater political autonomy for decades.)

The economic costs of the war are already unfolding too. Energy prices have risen rapidly due to reduced shipments of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf. There is a narrow waterway to the south of Iran – the Strait of Hormuz – and about 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas goes through this strait. It is now effectively closed in the midst of the fighting. This has long been considered a strategy Iran could use to inflict high costs on the United States and the world if an attack were launched against it. It was thought of as a form of deterrence: hold the global economy hostage, threaten it with a cutoff of oil and natural gas, and thereby prevent American military action.

This entirely predictable outcome is now materializing. On March 2 an Iranian official stated that, “The strait is closed. If anyone tries to pass, the heroes of the Revolutionary Guard and the regular navy will set those ships ablaze.” While Iran has not sunk any ships at this point, the threat, along with several drone strikes near the strait, has been sufficient to bring traffic almost to a stop. Shipping companies don’t want to take the risk, and insurers will not cover ships going through the strait while the war rages. Gasoline prices have already climbed by about 20 percent since the war started, and the longer the strait is closed, the more energy prices will climb. (Every product that uses petroleum or petrochemicals will increase in price, and none of us can avoid using petroleum products. They are not just in our gas tanks, but our phones, plastics, medicines, detergents, shoes, even the transformers that bring electricity into our homes.)

Beyond direct attacks on US forces and Israel, a wider regional war, closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and economic shocks, which are all happening already, there is no shortage of scenarios being considered as possible longer-term outcomes. Unfortunately, the achievement of a democratic, peaceful, stable Iran is the least likely of them. Slightly more likely is an outcome that could be described as a partial victory for both sides. Some Iranian leadership emerging from the existing regime – but far less religious and ideological, and more focused on its own power, survival, and wealth – might be willing to “make a deal” with Trump, agreeing to be less of a regional troublemaker in exchange for an end to hostilities.

A more likely scenario (the Trump way of war) would be that Donald Trump gets frustrated with the war and calls off military action while claiming victory. In this case, the Iranian regime would remain in place, albeit with far less military capability, but still plenty of motivation to try and harm or inflict costs on the United States.

Other situations that would be considered failures for Trump and the United States are much worse. These include:

• Factional fighting or civil war in Iran, which only hastens the breakdown of government and society, and would probably prompt a refugee crisis with tens or hundreds of thousands fleeing Iran as war continues and/or civil war erupts.

• A break up of the state of Iran resulting from civil conflict, thereby creating two or more smaller states, aggressive and armed, possibly even with access to nuclear technology.

• American “boots on the ground,” as additional US forces are employed upon the realization that air power cannot bring regime change (it hasn’t worked for the US before), leading to the same conditions that characterized the “forever wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq. (This would be the hands down favorite for the Iranian regime…and for Vladimir Putin.)

• Iranian attacks on Turkey due to the presence of US or Kurdish forces there. Iran has already launched a missile at a US base in the country. If Iran should take action against Kurds who are located within Turkey (perhaps in retaliation for an attack by Iranian Kurds who seek refuge by crossing the border into Turkey), this could trigger Article 5 of the NATO Treaty and bring other NATO countries (or perhaps all 32 of them) into the war.

• A new Iranian government or political vacuum that is even worse than the existing government. The overthrow of the government in Egypt in 2011 has led to an even more repressive government, and Libya after American intervention to oust Muammar al-Qaddafi in 2011 brought Islamic militants, armed conflict over control of oil fields, widespread human rights violations, human trafficking, and a veritable “arms bazaar” for terrorists.

• More evidence that America’s promises to liberate, stabilize, and democratize another country in the region – think Afghanistan and Iraq – are illusions and will not bring about the outcomes sought or promised.

• The proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the Middle East.

The March Toward a More Dangerous World

War is inherently uncontrollable and unpredictable. It goes in bad directions. And the price is always paid – overwhelmingly – by ordinary people, who die and are wounded in large numbers. Unless the there is a significant and imminent threat that cannot be dealt with in any other way, then war has to be avoided. It unleashes more violence, chaos, misery, and destruction than we might imagine, and certainly much more than its proponents envision.

More broadly, as the United States demonstrates once again that it can and will employ its military might, with even less democratic accountability, less consideration or coordination with allies, and regard for nothing more than the wishes of its own president, global politics are likely to become even more dangerous and more violent.

The underlying “agreement” – unwritten and generally unstated – that the United States made with much of the world in the decades after World War II was it would embed itself in a system of global relationships and institutions to make its own power safe enough for others to trust it and align with it in global politics. Trump is once again proving that this agreement – which was already weakening before he arrived on the scene – is no longer operational. What exists is now unconstrained American primacy, with another three years of Trump at the helm. We should not be surprised if this has adverse consequences for the United States and the rest of the world.