Iran is led by bad guys. No disagreement there. But it's inarguable that the world is full of countries led by bad guys...including the United States. And from a strict viewpoint of who has the ability to bomb the United States, Iran isn't on the list.
Why are we bombing Iran? Why have we, by way of our ally, Israel, intentionally killed their top leadership? The consensus is that no one wants Iran to have nuclear weapons (or nucular ones either). Smaller nations might reasonably ask why The United States, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, The United Kingdom all get to have nuclear weapons in order to defend themselves, but no one else can? I can understand why Israel, Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni-dominated nations might be nervous about a nuclear-armed Iran, but why is it our business? Especially since this regime was so adamant about ditching our allies and withdrawing into our borders (which it hasn't done).
Something that often gets overlooked is, despite public revulsion of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, how nations that voluntarily give up their quest for nuclear weapons end up getting invaded. Ukraine gave up it's bombs left over from Soviet Union days in exchange for pledges from Russia to respect their independence. Libya's government was bombed out of power with no way to respond, with no threat of reprisal available to hold off attacks. North Korea's Kim dynasty is still in power because they have nuclear weapons.
During President Obama's time in office, a coalition that included the United States, Russia, China and the European Union negotiated a treaty with Iran whereby they would foreswear their nuclear weapon ambitions in exchange for a lifting of economic sanctions. There was no evidence that Iran was violating their end of the agreement, but Trump unilaterally canceled it during his first term. Unsurprisingly Iran resumed work on a nuclear weapon. Trump acted offended that they would do so...but it wasn't Iran that violated the agreement, it was him. He could have kept the agreement in place while seeking diplomatic avenues to improve it, but the resumption of sanctions gave Iran the excuse to do the very thing they had agreed to stop doing.
Trump's idea of diplomacy has never involved consensus or middle ground. Even with inter-governmental dealings, he has always viewed bipartisanship as the other partisans agreeing to his demands. His fumbling attempts to mediate the Russia-Ukraine War have mainly been telling the two sides what he wants them to do. His "diplomacy" in the talks with Iran were more of the same. There is evidence that Iran's negotiators were acting in less than good faith as well, but Trump had evidently decided that he was going to attack Iran unless they in effect dismantled their military and perhaps their theocratic governmental structure. Of course Iran was never going to agree to that — they would be leaving themselves open to attack by Israel at Israel's convenience.
One of the few things I agreed with Trump about was his promise to end "forever wars" and to concentrate on domestic concerns. I'm no isolationist. I know that sometimes it's in our national interest to get involved internationally — whether by intervening militarily or by supporting financially. But our track record hasn't been good when it comes to regime change. We invaded Iraq because our leaders lied about the presence of "weapons of mass destruction" that allegedly were a threat to us. We quickly defeated the Iraqi Army and overthrew the government, but spent eight years occupying the country and fighting off various insurgencies as we propped up the corrupt successor government. After we were back in Iraq after a few years to fight the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. We quickly dislodged the Taliban government in Afghanistan, but spent 20 years occupying that nation and propping up its corrupt government. The Taliban regained power as soon as we left. Limited involvement was no better. Our bombing campaign led to the execution of the Libyan leader, but the country is governed by competing warlords who each control their own territory. This was no secret to the American people and Trump's pledge to keep us out of this kind of adventurism appealed to many.
Oops.
Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize. Obama got one, so he wants one. He has been lobbying for the award since his first term, styling himself as the "Peace President", and falsely claimed to have ended eight wars. He has (unofficially) renamed the Department of Defense the Department of War; killed over 100 pilots of small boats in the Caribbean, bombed Venezuela and kidnapped its president, bombed Nigeria because supposedly Christians were being killed, dropped a giant bomb on Iran's nuclear research site last summer and now has started a full-fledged war with Iran. His administration has been cagey about the use of the term "war". When he started blowing up boats of alleged drug runners, it was characterized as a military operation to avoid due process, but was also termed not-a-war to avoid getting permission from Congress.
Constitutionally, Congress has the responsibility and authority to declare war while the president has the responsibility and authority to command the military. The War Powers Act allows the president to send the military into action in the case of an emergency, i.e. an attack or imminent attack on the United States. The Act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours and requires an end to the military action within 60 days. In recent decades presidents have acted with impunity or skirted the requirements regularly, Trump is not the first one to do this, however, it's unique in that there was no effort to convince either Congress or the American people of the necessity of action at this time. It's appears to me to me a combination of doing a favor for his buddy Netanyahu and a reaction to not getting his own way. Either way, sober thinking, and even sanity seems to pay no role.
The MAGA double talk has already begun. Despite the fact that the United States under President Trump started a war, it is being framed, not as starting a new war, but as ending a "forever war", one that Iran started a generation ago with the taking of American hostages in 1979. Supporters of the Iran War point to Iran's support of Shi'a militias in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza over the years, as well as Iraqi militias who were funded by Iran being responsible for American military deaths. It is conveniently ignored that these groups were fighting a power that was occupying their country...us.
Already there are casualties. Many among regular Iranians, in addition to Iranian military. There have been deaths in Israel and in some of the Gulf nations. Several U.S. service members have died. Kuwait "accidently" shot down three of our F-15s. What comes next? Will the opposition take over? Will the Kurds declare independence? Will Iran get lucky and sink one of our ships? Will there be troops on the ground? Will we just bomb the shit out of their infrastructure for a few weeks and then hallucinate a victory? Who knows. But it's never as easy as the politicians think it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment