Trump threatens total war against Iran
Risks a major conflict
Gordon L. Weil
The U.S. threat to bomb Iran’s electric power plants is an expression
of “total war” – a conflict waged against civilian populations.
Total war includes operations going beyond military targets
and aimed at harming or killing civilians who are not combatants. Its goal is
to turn people against their own government, making them into allies, however
unwilling. They are expected to force
their leaders to surrender, bringing people relief from their danger and
suffering.
History up to today is full of examples of the resort to total
war.
In 2022, Russia attacked Ukraine. Russia obviously wanted to turn Ukraine into
its satellite, based on Putin’s belief that Ukrainians are really
Russians. He expected an easy victory with
the population welcoming Russian control.
Total war can produce an opposite result from what was
intended. Instead of promptly surrendering,
Ukrainians revealed a fierce commitment to their country’s political and cultural
independence from Russia. They would pay
for their new-found patriotism by having their homes and power plants
destroyed.
Restrained by its American and European backers, Ukraine
cannot respond in kind. But its popular
support produces strong resistance, imposing a high cost on Russia. Russia’s total war strategy may be beyond
what it can afford, and it looks likely to fail.
The 2024 Hamas terrorist attack on Israeli civilians was
clearly intended to reveal the price Israel would be forced to pay for its
Palestine policy. Innocent civilians were killed, and Hamas took
hostages, a move out of the Middle Ages.
If it had more than sheer terrorism as a goal, it might have expected fearful
Israelis to pressure their government to alter its policy.
Instead, the country unified by attempting to eliminate
Hamas. No room was left for negotiations. But Israel, too, resorted to total war. Without offering evidence, it alleged that
civilian institutions, including hospitals, were Hamas bases. Its attacks were aimed at turning civilians
against Hamas, which exercised absolute administrative and military control.
Ultimately, Israel shifted to the all-out destruction of Gaza. Its actions went far beyond punishing Gaza and
extended to an assault on innocent Palestinians there, presumably because they had
accepted Hamas domination. Total
punishment was the product of total war.
Last week, Israel extended its total war strategy to
Lebanon. By evacuating hundreds of
thousands from the south and bombing Beirut, it seemed to be trying to get the
Lebanese to turn against Hezbollah and expel it. To achieve this objective, it invaded a
country with which it is not at war.
In the Iran war, both the U.S. and Israel have said they want
regime change. Based on previous anti-government
demonstrations, they seem to believe that they can create the conditions for a
successful uprising by attacking civilian life.
UN Human Rights Chief Volker
Türk reports that aerial attacks increasingly focus on areas in Iran that are
densely populated.
Iran has closed the essential oil supply route at the
Straits of Hormuz. To retaliate, Trump would
engage in total war. The principal victims
of an American attack on electric supply would be civilians and institutions
like schools and hospitals that depend on reliable power. Iran would
retaliate against civilian installations in Middle East countries aligned with
the U.S.
Total war is not traditionally a part of American policy. In World War II, the U.S. would not engage in
British-style area bombing at night, clearly designed to demoralize and harm
civilians, but instead used precision daylight bombing of military targets.
Contrary to this American policy, the U.S. would now resort
to total war. Even more worrisome, with Israel, it would extend this war over a
wide area with the risk that its scope could not be fully limited. This is how regional conflicts can become
major wars.
Trump once criticized Ukraine President Zelenskyy, claiming
that he had started the war with Russia, because he refused to turn over land Putin
demanded. He said, “Listen, when you
start a war, you got to know that you can win the war, right?”
Attacking Iran, Trump said,
"What we did in Venezuela, I think, is … the perfect
scenario." Iran could be a quick
victory, producing a government acceptable to the U.S. Then, he discovered his belief in a short war
and easy victory was overly optimistic.
Instead of returning to negotiations, Trump escalates the
war. His frustration has led him to the
brink of total war and to the possible unpopular and dangerous deployment of
American ground troops.
As the war deepens, so do economic problems in the U.S. and
elsewhere, and political concerns grow among his own backers. He needlessly alienates European allies by
criticizing their insufficient support, when they might have helped give him cover
in backing off the war.
Whatever the embarrassment, Trump needs to quickly find a
way out. Total war must be off the
table.
