Gordon L. Weil
Here’s the classic dictionary definition of war. “War is a state of usually open and declared
armed hostile conflict between political units.”
The U.S. and Israel, its ally, attacked Iran, a nation
state, and Iran counterattacked. This met the definition of war, and the
conflict quickly spread to other countries in the Middle East.
The war is probably not “legal” under the Constitution or
international law. So what? Its legality may be a matter of debate, U.S.
politics or international law – none of it enforceable. But it is taking place, legal or not. To harp on its illegality is impractical
self-righteousness.
The U.S. was not attacked, so President Trump launched a
preemptive war. Get them before they get
you. To merit war, the threat must have
been imminent, despite Trump having recently claimed that the U.S. had “obliterated”
the Iranian nuclear capability.
Israel may have forced Trump to act by its own intention to
strike militarily, which could bring Iranian attacks on U.S. forces, but the
president has a hard case to make that Iran directly threatened the U.S.
For good reason, the U.S. and Europe, to say nothing of Israel,
have worried about Iran’s nuclear development.
If Iran’s intentions were not aggressive, it surely let its threatening rhetoric
get beyond what was acceptable. If war came,
Iran seems to have strategized that it could create chaos throughout the region. It would not prevail, but it could keep the U.S.
from winning.
Iran bothers Trump.
Contrast it with North Korea, Russia’s troops-on-the-ground ally in the
Ukraine war. It is openly aggressive and,
like Iran, has medium-range missiles.
But Trump was willing to travel to meet with its leader and even to say
he loved America’s avowed enemy. He has launched
no preemptive war there. In Asia, there is
no oil and no Israel, but there is China.
Trump apparently believed that he could bomb Iran into
submission quickly. Israel would
eliminate the Supreme Leader, just as the U.S. had toppled the Venezuelan
president, making it possible to gain Iran’s submission. As a result of his assumption, he did not pay
sufficient attention to Iran’s ability to launch a missile response and extend
the war.
He admitted that he was “surprised” by Iran’s response. His statement was a direct admission of the
failure of American intelligence or of his having ignored the CIA, consistent
with his past low regard for its reliability regarding Russia.
The war quickly involved about a dozen countries, led to the
deaths of American service personnel and the possibility of more, caused the
closure of an essential waterway for oil exports to Japan and left many Americans
and others under fire across the Middle East.
The price of oil immediately increased and financial markets, his
favorite indicator, suffered losses.
In a nation preoccupied by affordability, Trump undertook a
war sure to drive up prices. Perhaps he recognized
that he could not win the pocketbook argument, but it might be explained away by
a war that people could be made to believe was necessary. And Epstein could be forgotten.
In preparing to launch the war, the U.S. had repositioned
major naval assets in the area. This
stripped the South China Sea of forces impeding Chinese control and endangered
Taiwan. The Venezuela blockade was almost
forgotten.
It looks like what may have been impulsive and poorly
planned actions had been undertaken without adequate consideration of their
broader implications. Solo policy making,
without the benefit of congressional input, the views of experienced, long-time
allies, reliable intelligence and defined goals, results in high human cost and
a possibly prolonged impact.
For about a century, the United States has been the leading
world power. World War II made it both
the principal instrument of victory and the potential guarantor of world peace. Cognizant of its great power, but changing
its role, Trump chose to deploy its armed forces in the hope of quick military results,
preferable to difficult, long and complex negotiations.
As a candidate, Trump promised to keep the country out of
war. Many voters saw armed conflict as a
waste of American lives for pointless results, and they supported him. His America First had the merit of leaving
foreign wars to others, while focusing on domestic economic growth. Then, he abandoned this key promise.
He turned the Department of Defense into the Department of
War. While deterrence kept America out
of war and influenced other nations to negotiate, having vast U.S. military
power under his exclusive command was too tempting. The models of Putin and Netanyahu, unchecked
in their ambitions, were appealing.
The prize of victory that he thought he could gain quickly
was better than the Nobel Peace Prize that he might never gain.
No comments:
Post a Comment