A little over two weeks ago, the US assassinated a foreign head of state. Today, we’re still bombing the cities of another country, even though the administration itself declared eight months ago that the nominal threat Iran posed to the US was “obliterated”.
More than anything else, observing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was formative in my political beliefs. The extant Iranian government is clearly repressive and authoritarian, but it is an incredible torment to watch my country start (or escalate) another conflict in the Middle East. I cannot adequately express the shame I’ve felt over more than 2 decades, watching the US violate the sovereignty of various countries in the pursuit of dubious ends. Equally, I cannot express the shame I feel from knowing that US foreign policy is one of the least democratic areas of our politics. Public opinion suggests that this war is deeply unpopular, but this fact cannot actually compel the cessation of military action on a meaningful timeframe. It’s taken almost as an axiom that the US can use its overwhelming force virtually anywhere, with little or no pretext (for at least 60 days). A small change is that under Trump, the normal rituals used to justify intervention in other countries are more likely to be ignored. At best, we get post hoc rationalizations, or shrugging.
What I’m describing is likely legible to anyone living in the US. But the extent to which we’ve normalized US presidents unleashing hellfire where they please is remarkable. This exchange between Joe Kernen and Sen. Kaine is indicative:
Kaine: Any president can take self-defense. But to wage offensive war, the framers of the constitution were absolutely plain. It’s been understood since 1787: you gotta come to congress. That doesn’t mean every president has, and it certainly doesn’t mean that every congress has guarded that perogative, but I always pledged that I would.
Kernen (talking over Kaine): But, it’s almost a moot point. He [Trump] at least has, probably, 60 days under certain provisions to carry things out. If we did go your route, Senator, what’s happened over the past 3 days is impossible. It could never happen. Even informing congress at times about certain raids, that or actions that have to be done in secret. In the real world, it’s not possible.
Kernen goes on to ask a deeply unserious question about whether it’s possible what’s happening will be “transformative” for the region. This is a disgusting hypothetical to raise while a city of 10 million people cannot go outside due to carcinogenic smoke. Iran is already being “transformed” by any reasonable definition. This species of unwarranted optimism re: military intervention should be extinct, given the massive failures of the GWOT. The Iranian people deserve to determine their own fate, but recklessly bombing their cities will not aid this goal and might further entrench the existing government (if things continue to escalate, the war could ultimately destabilize the entire region). Destroying schools and desalination plants, killing civilians and children— these are horrific crimes, and are entirely predictable outcomes generated by the US war machine. Kernen is right (in the most banal and trivial sense) that what’s done is done, that bombs have already been dropped. But there’s a question in the air which, like a gas leak that’s filled a kitchen, should be obvious to anyone standing in it: ought this have happened at all? Why on Earth ought what’s happened over the past few weeks be possible? It’s an incredible failure how hard we have to work to raise these questions.
And yet, this has been the reality of US military force, for my entire lifetime (and that of my parents’ generation). The idea of the “Donroe Doctrine” is a line of continuity with previous eras of US foreign policy, but we’re firmly outside the western hemisphere. This not an example of the US prowling in its backyard (to use an ugly euphemism). Instead, what’s happening seems downstream of Gary Wills’s concept of bomb power. Departing from the country’s history prior to WWII, US presidents have been gradually recast as the nation’s “commander in chief”, a status affirming an almost unquestionable right to act in the name of national security. Originating in the secrecy of the Manhatten Project, this was initially an expediency during the onset of the Cold War. However, we’ve maintained this aspect of the US presidency even after the fall of the USSR, and reinforced it during the GWOT. In many ways we’ve entered a permanent “state of exception”, insofar as the use of military force and surveillance. This is not to say US presidential authority is limitless, but consistent and increasing deference to the executive branch is worringly abundant. The result of this ideology and its entailing accumulation of power are exactly what we’re seeing. We built a machine capable of unleashing horrifying violence anywhere in the world, and it was designed to insulate its pilot from accountability and oversight. If not meant for personalist rule, why personalist rule shaped?, etc.
At this point, both houses of congress have failed to use their power to recall US forces. There is no serious timeline under which we can expect US involvement in this war to conclude; the best we’ve been offered is “4-5 weeks (maybe)“. For now, the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed to ships not controlled by Iran. This is the biggest oil supply disruption in history. There is no way for the rest of the world to suddenly start producing an additional 12 million barrels of oil per day. Prices for LNG are surging in Europe and countries in SE Asia are extremely threatened by the Strait’s closure (in 2024, approx. 84% of crude oil passing through the Strait was bound for Asia). In other words, not only have we initiated a war against another country, we’re subjecting billions of people worldwide to unneeded pain and chaos as Iran retaliates in an entirely predictable fashion. I keep thinking about Spanish Prime Minister Sanchez’s statement from the beginning of this month, specifically the following (emphasis mine):
It is true that it is still too early to know whether the Iran war will have consequences similar to those of Iraq. Whether it will lead the fall of the terrible regime of the ayatollahs in Iran or to the stabilization of the region.
What we do know is that a fairer international order will not emerge from it, nor will it produce higher wages, better public services, or a healthier environment. In fact, what we can glimpse for the moment is more economic uncertainty and the raise of oil and gas prices.
That is why Spain is against this disaster, because we understand that governments are here to improve people’s lives, to provide solutions to problems, not to make people’s lives worse.
And it is absolutely unacceptable that those leaders who are incapable of fulfilling that task make use of war to hide their failure whilst filling the pockets of a few—the usual ones. The only ones who win when the world stops building hospitals in order to build missiles. …
… Some will accuse us of being naive for [rejecting this conflict and calling for diplomacy], but to be naive is thinking that the solution is violence. To be naive is believing that democracies or respect between nations arise from ruins. Or thinking that blind and servile followership is a form of leadership.
We can only guess how this conflict will end. But we can definitively say that none of this needed to happen. Best estimates say that it costs the US military upwards of $1B/day to maintain this disastrous adventure. Imagine how different the US might look if its government was focused on improving the lives of its people, rather than creating problems with its weapons! Imagine if we’d attempted to adequately redress the illegal war and torture we perpetrated in the 21st century! If not for the sake of our own souls, we owe this to the rest of the world. No more wars.