It does not add up to much
Don Moynihan at Can We Still Govern?:
Why is American attacking Iran? It helps to have a coherent reason, to justify to the American public the costs in money and blood, to allies about the potential long-term risks, and to Iranians about the future of their country. After 9/11 there was broad support for invading Afghanistan because the country hosted the attack’s mastermind. In 2003 there was less support for what turned out to be the false claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They didn’t, but Saddam stuck a belligerent tone and kicked weapons inspectors out. In 2026…Iran was at the negotiating table and we invaded…for reasons. [...]
1. Iran was working on nuclear weapons
Trump discussed the potential for Iran acquiring nuclear weapons in his state of the union address. How close was Iran? We don’t know. Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff said Iran was “probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb making material.” Trump himself claimed Iran was just “a few weeks away” from having a nuclear weapons. But last June the Trump administration said it had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities, and cited Israeli officials who said the nuclear program was set back by “years.” How do you go from years to weeks in months?
There is also the point that Trump inherited a credible and carefully developed agreement to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons but tore up that agreement because it was negotiated by Obama. Recreating that agreement might have been on the table, but we will never know.
[...]
2. Iran interfered in US elections!
Trump has complained that Iran interfered in US elections. Well, yes they did, but to no effect. And so did China and Russia, and we are not attacking them. Indeed, we are attacking anyone who implies that Russia tried to influence US elections. A bit more backstory. Stanford academic researchers and government investigators who identified the role of Iran’s election interference in 2020, which included social media manipulation, were pilloried by the Twitter Files brigade as censors, hauled before Congress, and sued by Stephen Miller’s American First Legal. CISA, the part of the federal government that monitored election interference, was gutted by the Trump administration and the Stanford Internet Observatory was shut down.
[...]
3. Iran actually started the war
Ok, I don’t really understand this either. The US clearly started the conflict, along with Israel, start the conflict by sending warships to the region and then bombing the shit out of Iran. But what if, and bear with me here, the words “war” or “conflict” could mean whatever you wanted? With this linguistic freedom, we can say that Iran started the war by being an antagonist of the US, and having some low-level conflict with it. [...]
What happens when you don’t have a clear rationale
None of these feel like legitimate reasons, and the multiplicity of the reasons makes things worse. To be fair, its not unreasonable to have multiple goals with a military engagement, but Trump’s tendency to exaggerate and undercut his rationales with contradictory statements creates a sense of incoherence. And the fact that Trump did not present his case to Congress further weakens the legitimacy of his efforts. The reality is that this is a war of choice. Trump wanted to pursue it, and Middle Eastern allies who are sick of Iran’s funding of terrorists encouraged or went along with the attack. According to reports, both Israel and Saudi Arabia, Iran’s regional foes, urged Trump to attack. In part, this is because Iran is in a weakened state — already attacked by Israel, losing allies like Syria, and with its terrorist arms decimated — not because it is an imminent risk. There might be a bunch of other, less articulated reasons, such as oil extraction (like Venezuela) and investment opportunities. “We think Iran is a bad actor without an immediate threat to the US” or “our regional allies really wanted this” are not especially compelling reasons for action. This has a couple of consequences.
First, there is not public buy-in for the war. It is worth remembering that the pattern of Middle Eastern wars is that they start as popular, and then become calamitous as time goes on. This one starts as unpopular because there is no compelling justification to rally around the flag.
I believe that Donald Trump’s motives to attack Iran are about distracting from his domestic troubles.
See Also:
Let's Address This (Qasim Rashid): United States and Israel Launch Illegal War on Iran
