Early on Saturday, the United States and Israel initiated a military campaign aimed at overthrowing the governing regime in Iran. This action has already resulted in an unknown number of Iranian casualties, both leaders and civilians. Iran has responded by striking American allies in the Middle East and an American naval base in Bahrain, escalating regional tensions significantly.
The justifications for this latest conflict are, at best, a moving target. Claims from June that Iran’s nuclear capacity had been 'totally destroyed' were quickly exposed as false by leaked intelligence. Now, the administration cites a 'dangerous again' nuclear program, alongside Iran's unexpectedly rapid reconstitution of its missile capacity, as primary drivers for the attack. This 'buffet of reasons' approach, where various pretexts are offered without a consistent, coherent case, is reminiscent of the lead-up to the Iraq War.
The underlying strategic shift appears to be rooted in a regional security doctrine that asserts only Israel has the right to defend itself. Iran’s defensive, albeit retaliatory and indefensibly used, missiles are seen as an 'unacceptable constraint' on Israel’s ability to strike at will. This perspective, now clearly backed by the Trump Administration, fundamentally redefines the parameters of regional stability.
This isn't a mystery that needs to be solved. This is not the case of the missing casus belli.
What is particularly striking is the Trump administration's minimal effort to construct a coherent case for war, either to the American public, Congress, or the United Nations. This approach makes the Bush administration's efforts before Iraq seem robust by comparison. There is a palpable disregard for the necessity of congressional authorization or international multilateral support, highlighting a unilateralist posture that carries significant long-term implications for global trust and alliance structures.
Internally, the Iranian regime is undeniably repressive, employing enormous violence against its own people. However, historical observation suggests that Iran's internal repression tends to worsen when it perceives external threats. Conversely, a reduction in U.S.-Iran tensions has historically created space for internal reform. The current violent regime-change operation, therefore, runs contrary to the stated goals of improving the welfare of the Iranian people, a strategy with a historically poor track record.
The Diplomatic Void
The Obama administration's approach, centered on aggressive diplomacy with international partners, offers a stark contrast. The Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) was a strong non-proliferation agreement, establishing heavy inspections and surveillance. Crucially, it also built lines of communication that proved vital in de-escalating potential flashpoints, such as the seizure of American sailors in the Gulf. This deal was not just about nuclear weapons; it was an opportunity to begin addressing other challenges posed by Iran, including its support for regional extremist groups and internal repression.
That opportunity was squandered when the Trump administration withdrew from the JCPOA during its first term, signaling to Iran and the world that the U.S. could not be trusted to uphold its agreements. The Biden administration, despite unequivocal promises to rejoin the agreement, then made an 'enormous error' by slow-walking negotiations, aiming for a 'longer and stronger deal.' This delay, driven by a perceived lack of investment in Obama's achievement and hawkish elements within the Democratic party, allowed a more hard-line government to come to power in Iran, effectively closing the window for re-engagement.
The cumulative effect of these diplomatic failures is now starkly evident. The abandonment of the JCPOA, followed by a hesitant and ultimately unsuccessful attempt at re-engagement, has systematically eroded the mechanisms for de-escalation and trust-building. This vacuum has been filled by a more assertive Iran, rapidly reconstituting its defensive and retaliatory capabilities, and a U.S. administration willing to engage in unilateral military action without clear international or domestic consensus. The current situation is not merely a consequence of immediate events but the logical, if unfortunate, outcome of a decade of inconsistent and often counterproductive U.S. policy. The belief that a violent regime-change operation will yield a better outcome for the Iranian people or regional stability is deeply challenged by historical precedent. Such interventions often lead to prolonged instability, humanitarian crises, and the empowerment of even more extreme elements, rather than fostering democratic reform. The current military campaign, therefore, represents a doubling down on a strategy that has repeatedly failed to achieve its stated objectives, instead creating further cycles of violence and distrust. It also highlights a profound miscalculation of the internal dynamics within Iran, where external threats have historically solidified, rather than weakened, the ruling establishment's grip.
The response from Democratic leadership in Congress, exemplified by calls for the Trump administration to 'explain itself' and involve Congress, is widely seen as 'pathetic.' This isn't a procedural mystery; it's a substantive issue of going to war without an imminent threat or congressional authorization. While some members, like Tim Kaine and Ro Khanna, have offered stronger criticisms, the party's leadership remains 'completely out of touch' with the overwhelmingly antiwar sentiment among Democratic voters.
This disconnect stems from a blend of political caution and ideological differences. Many within the leadership appear locked into a post-9/11 mindset, perpetually fearing being outflanked on the right. This ignores polling data suggesting a strong antiwar constituency across the country, a reality that even Trump, in his 2016 and 2024 campaigns, leveraged by falsely presenting himself as the peace candidate.
Congress does possess mechanisms, such as the War Powers Resolution, to reassert its authority over declarations of war. This allows any member to force a vote, bypassing committee processes, to demand a president withdraw forces from an unauthorized conflict. While such resolutions have passed in the past (e.g., against Trump on Yemen and after the Soleimani assassination), they were ultimately vetoed. The challenge isn't merely legal; it's a deeper 'political fix' that is needed, reflecting a broken political consensus around the use of force globally.
Trump's history, including vetoing war-powers resolutions, clearly demonstrates a militaristic approach, despite his campaign rhetoric. The current actions are, therefore, not surprising for an aggressive nationalist. Democrats, rather than merely asking for briefings, need to make comprehensive arguments: that Trump is acting illegally, and that his actions are strategically foolish.
We need a political fix. Our politics is broken.
