Home » Posts tagged 'Iran'
Tag Archives: Iran
Some Thoughts on the War with Iran
All these things can be true at once.
The Iranian leadership were/are bad guys. For decades they have slaughtered their own people, sponsored terrorism, threatened Isreal and its Arab neighbors, and killed Americans. The world — and Iranians themselves — would be better off without them. And it goes without saying that it would be a very bad thing, potentially catastrophic, should that regime ever acquire nuclear weapons.
War is never a good thing. It may sometimes be a necessary thing, but even under the most justified of circumstances, it carries horrible costs. This war has already seen American soldiers and Iranian civilians wounded and killed. One need look no further than the accidental bombing of an Iranian girl’s school or the flag-draped coffins of our servicemen and women to see the costs of war. That is why war should be a last resort.
There may be a case for war with Iran. But if so, President Trump has not made it. Indeed, he has not even tried to make it. Why are we at war? And, why now? President Trump and other administration officials have given us a litany of often contradictory explanations that seem to change daily. Even more narrow questions of objectives seem hard to answer. Is this war about regime change? Is it about preventing nuclear weapons (and weren’t we told we obliterated the Iranian nuclear program last year)? Is it about destroying Iran’s military strength so that it can’t threaten us or its neighbors? Was there an imminent threat? Was Iran about to attack us? Is it all these things or none?
This entire war has an ad hoc quality about it that is deeply troubling. Our military is performing brilliantly of course. I would expect nothing less. But there certainly seems to have been a lack of long-term strategic planning. There was no attempt to build support with the American public or with our allies. Indeed, we have so alienated those allies that Trump has been left begging for help from China to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
In many ways, Trump seems like the proverbial dog that caught the car. What do we do now? Questions like “how many weeks will the war last?” are silly. Imagine someone asking that question at the beginning of World War II. Yet Trump’s statement that the war will end when he “feels it in [his] bones” is even more ridiculous. What are the criteria for “winning” this war and bringing the troops home? Are there any? Of course, at some point President Trump will declare victory (like nobody ever thought possible!). Unfortunately, though, Iran gets a vote, particularly in an age of asymmetrical warfare. The enemy always gets a vote.
Trump has now bombed or attacked at least eight countries. He is threatening others. And he is talking casually about “taking” Cuba next. Increasingly Trump is acting the bully and imperial power, stomping about the world, ready to remake it according to his whims. Few will shed tears over most of his targets, but it is not as though Trump seeks to replace the bad guys with peace-loving, democratic, good guys. If that was his intent, Maria Machado would be running Venezuela not Delcy Rodriguez and we would be fully behind Zelenskyy and Ukraine. Rather, his inclination seems to be replacing the bad guys with more pliant bad guys. What seems to matter is not whether a regime respects the rights of its citizens but whether or not it plays by Trump’s rules. For that matter, Trump can’t even get upset that Russia is providing intelligence and targeting information to the Iranians.
There is plenty of room for “what aboutism” when it comes to presidents ignoring Congress (not to mention the Constitution) when it comes to war powers. Even so, the military is not a shiny toy for presidents to play with. The president should seek congressional authorizations for his actions, or Congress should step up and perform its constitutional duties.
Finally, the locker room braggadocio and pseudo-tough bro talk coming from the president and Pete Hegseth is unworthy of a great nation, our military, and the sacrifices being made by the men and women who are fighting this war (not to mention their families). Bombast only makes us look weak and diminishes support for the war at home and abroad.
The Human Heart Still Sings for Liberty
Not so very long ago, many astute observers thought that liberal democracy was in decline globally. Enlightenment values of individual rights, liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, and constitutional government were outmoded, irrelevant to the needs of modern society, and threatening to long held beliefs and traditions. Populist authoritarianism was in ascendence and providing a new model for the world. Counties like Russia and China were increasingly seen as providing a more efficient mechanism for “getting things done” without all the messiness of individual choice and democratic rule.
Yet, if one looks around the world today, authoritarianism is being challenged everywhere. The struggle for – and desire for – liberty is seeing a rebirth.
In Ukraine, a liberal democracy, admittedly flawed but fundamentally embracing ideals of liberty and self-determination, has proven more than a match for the authoritarian behemoth that invaded it. The Ukrainian success, of course, owes much to western aide and Russian incompetence. But the ultimate key to the Ukrainian fortitude we are witnessing in the face of hardship and atrocity has been the belief that they are fighting for freedom and independence. Compare that to Russian conscripts forced to fight for a system that they neither care about nor cares about them.
Meanwhile, women and others have risen up in Iran in the wake of the death of of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old student likely murdered by the regime’s infamous morality police. The authorities have responded with brutal force, arresting thousands, and killing more than 300. Yet, the protests have continued for nearly four months, if anything growing larger, under the slogan, “Women, Life, Freedom.”
Even in China, long considered the epicenter of the authoritarian alternative, is now experiencing unprecedented protests that have sprung up across the country. The protests, small by international standards, have not been seen since in China since the 1989 protest in Tiananmen Square. These latest protests started in opposition to the country’s draconian “zero COVID” policy, but now the demonstrators are calling for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and “the democratic rule f law.” Some have even called for President Xi and the Chinese Communist Party to relinquish power.
Of note, in this country, voters in the midterm elections largely rejected the most extreme candidates and delivered a strong rebuke to those who flirt with anti-democratic norms.
Of course, to differing degrees, all these pro-liberal movements may fail. It seems unlikely but Russia could get its act together enough to complete its conquest of Ukraine. The Iranian protests may fizzle out the way others have in the past. China’s demonstrations are almost certainly not going to topple Xi. In the US, troubling strains of extremism remain among both political parties. New threats to freedom will arise, and old ones will have their triumphs.
Yet, successful or not, we are seeing that the desire for liberty is unquenchable. We should have understood this. After all, we’ve been through dark times before. We’ve fallen short of our ideals and seen liberty stumble and be momentarily eclipsed. But always the spark has rekindled.
We should remember. We should continue to fight the good fight and to support those who share our struggle. And we should be optimists. In the end, liberty will triumph.
TannerOnPolicy 