The Case Against the US Attacking Iran
As strong as the arguments are for going to war, the Trump factor is simply too much to overcome.
If you are a free subscriber and you like what you’re reading, maybe it’s time to upgrade to a paid subscription.
This newsletter is 100% reader-supported, and your subscription helps me continue publishing.
When you become a paid subscriber, you receive access to all my posts, the ability to comment on posts and engage in the Truth and Consequences community, and, above all, you get the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes with supporting independent journalism.
If you’re enjoying Truth and Consequences and find my work valuable, informative, and entertaining, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
There’s No Solution For Stupid
The other day, I looked at the arguments, pro and con, for the US to join forces with Israel in attacking Iran. As I noted, while I think the arguments for war are strong, two factors, however, are leading me to oppose it.
From a theoretical standpoint, the argument for war is compelling
Israel has gained near-complete air superiority over Iran.
Iran has never been weaker or more diplomatically isolated.
Israel cannot destroy the Iranian nuclear facility at Fordo without US bunker-busting bombs.
If the US entered the conflict, it could set the Iranian nuclear effort back years.
US involvement would give them leverage on Israel that could be used to prevent Israel from expanding the war to include regime change.
But, there’s a major fly in the ointment: the Trump administration would implement this military and diplomatic campaign, and as I noted a few days ago, “the people in charge of American foreign policy right now couldn’t strategize their way out of a paper bag.”
Or, as one national security analyst said to me, “Taking out the cancer of the nuke program while making clear our war is not with the PEOPLE of Iran requires nuance, a top diplomatic team, excellent intel, and a president who isn't barking mad.”
One could argue that Centcom, the military combatant command responsible for the Middle East, and the Air Force are sufficiently capable of executing a successful military operation, despite the shortcomings of our civilian leadership. But that feels like an awfully thin reed. There are numerous ways that an operation like this can go awry, and steady and sober American leadership is crucial.
Right now, we simply don’t have that.
Indeed, according to a report in the Washington Post today, Trump isn’t even including two of his top national security aides in the discussions about Iran.
As Trump faces a critical decision about whether to join Israel’s military strikes against Iran’s nuclear program, perhaps the most momentous of his presidency, neither Gabbard nor Hegseth are playing starring roles as members of Trump’s inner circle of advisers.
… Trump instead has turned to a small group of lower-key but more experienced aides, these people said. The “Tier One” group advising on a potential U.S. strike on Iran is composed of Vice President JD Vance, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
… Two current U.S. officials said Kurilla and Caine have taken the lead on discussing military options with Trump, largely sidestepping Hegseth and his team at the Pentagon. “Nobody is talking to Hegseth,” one official said. “There is no interface operationally between Hegseth and the White House at all.”
On the one hand, I’m thrilled that Pete Hegseth is not involved in decision-making on matters of war and peace. But, Gen. Kurilla is a serious hawk who wanted to go balls to the wall in Yemen earlier this year and is a less than ideal choice to be whispering in Trump’s ear. But what does it say about the national security aptitude of this administration that the civilian Secretary of Defense is not in the president’s inner circle when it comes to the use of military force?
But in the end, the ultimate decision about the war comes down to Trump, and he's treating this fraught situation as if it were an episode of The Apprentice. Earlier in the week, he glibly said, “I mean, you don’t know that I’m going to even do it. You don’t know. I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do.”
Then on Thursday, the White House released a statement that read, “Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.” Let’s put aside the fact that the first clause of that sentence makes no sense. (Saying there's a substantial chance that negotiations "may or may not take place" is like saying if I flip a coin there's a substantial chance that it may or may not be heads or tails).
What is Trump waiting for to make a decision? Sweeps week?
If anything, the moment calls for putting pressure on Iran to reach a diplomatic agreement that will avoid future conflict. Trump could offer a diplomatic olive branch to the Iranians and explore the possibility of a negotiated solution. Hoping that Iran comes to the bargaining table makes little sense. Moreover, in two weeks, Israel’s strategic reserves could begin to decline (at some point, they will run out of bombs and interceptors that are stopping Iranian ballistic missiles).
It seems apparent that Trump doesn’t want to make a decision, and by saying “two weeks,” he is likely hoping that events will magically resolve themselves. This is not a serious person and certainly not a wartime president.
Public Opposition
There’s another issue to consider, which I did not mention in my post earlier this week: Americans do not want to go to war with Iran.
60% of Americans think the U.S. military should not get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran, according to an Economist/YouGov poll released this week. Only 16% support U.S. military action, and 24% are unsure.
That largely holds up across party lines, with 65% of Democrats, 61% of independents and 53% of Republicans opposing U.S. military intervention in Iran.
About as many people see Iran's nuclear program as a threat as those who oppose military intervention in the Israel-Iran conflict: 61% of Americans view Iran's nuclear program as either an immediate and serious or a somewhat serious threat to the U.S.
Similarly, most Americans think the U.S. should engage in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program — that's true across 58% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans.
Generally speaking, I struggle to support the use of military force when a majority of Americans are opposed to it. Since Congress doesn’t declare war anymore, it’s even more critical that there is broad public support for using military force, and the only way to judge that is via public opinion polling.
The numbers above are stunningly negative. Granted, it’s just one poll, but I’d be surprised if we see numbers any time soon that show an increase in support for US involvement. What is perhaps most telling is that even a majority of Republicans are opposed to war with Iran. To be sure, public opinion can be moved on matters of foreign policy — the presidential bully pulpit is a powerful megaphone. But see my point above. Is there any reason for confidence that Trump can rally the country to support the use of military force? Going to war when six out of ten Americans are opposed — and Congress likely not exercising its constitutional mandate to declare war — seems like a terrible, undemocratic idea.
So while I think the argument for US involvement in the Iran war is strong, I can’t support it. Donald Rumsfeld once infamously said, “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have.” Well, even if the case is strong for war, you don’t go to war with the president you have … especially if that president is an idiot.
What’s Going On
Dan Drezner thinks Trump has no intention of attacking Iran.
Pete Hegseth is deferring to the generals on military operations, which on the one hand is good since Hegseth is an idiot, but it is also bad for civ/mil relations.
A Florida woman who has lived in America for 27 years and regularly checked in with immigration officials was deported to Mexico. Pedro Luis Salazar-Cuervo, a 28-year-old from Venezuela with no known criminal record, was deported to El Salvador because on his phone there was a picture of him standing next to someone with tattoos. ICE agents arrested an Afghan man who was a translator for the US Army at his asylum hearing. The Trump administration’s campaign of mass deportation is horrendous.
President Trump continues to grant an extension that is keeping TikTok on American phones. No provision in the law allows him to do this. He’s ignoring a Supreme Court ruling by keeping TikTok afloat.
Interesting deep dive on how Dave McCormick beat Bob Casey in the Pennsylvania Senate race.
Musical Interlude
After Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, Trump posted "The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran." Two days later he was claiming credit for the attack, saying "we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran." After that, he suggested he was the one who ordered the attack. "I said, Let's go!" Would any person of sound mind and judgment feel comfortable going to war with this madman at the helm, and God help us, there's the nuclear codes!
He'll decide on Iran within the next "two weeks", the same deadline he's used time after time for years. If you've seen "The Money Pit" with Tom Hanks, "two weeks" was the laugh line - still is.
I tend to think that the US needs to diplomatically deal with Iran's nuclear program, not militarily. We should not want to occupy the country and while yes we can set them back that's not a solution. The next regime to capture Iran will likely want the same nuclear umbrella that North Korea (and Russia) have, which means we'll be doing the same song and dance with a military junta instead of a theocrat. Maybe we prefer the junta, but that does not make the region safer.
On the flip side while I have zero faith that Trump can run a war well: I doubt he can negotiate a treaty any better. Blowing up the program delays the inevitable but delaying the inevitable until we (God willing) have a shrewder civilian government could make sense too.