There is an awful lot of theorizing going on concerning the US war with Iran. What is truly distressing about it all is how thoughtlessly partisan it is. Both the Republicans and Democrats have moved in lockstep, either in favor of the effort (Republicans) or against (Democrats). Excepting Rand Paul (KY-R) and John Fetterman (PA-D) neither tribe has gone much beyond talking points. Certainly not to the point of exercising independent thought.
The arguments presented are merely pre-textual. Republicans have resorted to the tried and true don’t-tie-the-President’s-hands argument. Democrats have complained that Congress wasn’t consulted as is the custom and that the war itself is “illegal”.
Now we should give the devil his due. Substantively the Constitution gives to Congress, and Congress alone, the power to declare war. But it is the President who wages war. The last time Congress declared war was right after Japan launched its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. To put it in perspective, that was about 85 years ago.
Somehow they managed to miss Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf wars, Libya, Serbia-Kosovo and minor skirmishes along the way. Nor did the US seek a vote in the UN before bombing Serbia. Fans of the “living, breathing Constitution” theory should take note. But they won’t.
The scuffling between the executive and legislative branches is almost beside the point. The Supreme Court for instance, has steered clear of institutional-political disputes between the elected branches of government. And it has shown no interest in throwing its hat into the ring any time soon.
In any case, the Constitutional arguments are irrelevant, given the nature of the dispute. Not to put too fine a point on it, if Congress had shown any inclination to wrest power from the executive it has had ample opportunity to do so over the last 90 years or so. During this time Congress has effectively delegated more and more of its power to the executive branch by passing aspirations rather than laws while leaving the details to the bureaucracy.
Whether through Congressional cowardice, incompetence or both, the power of the executive has consistently grown over time. Moreover it has done so irrespective of whether the occupant of the White House was a Republican or a Democrat.
Rather than all the convoluted arguments and theories about whether the government should have attacked Iran, the answer to a simple question ought to clear the matter up. The question is this: is the US better off attacking Iran today, or would the US be better off attacking Iran in a few years time? That is after Iran has had time to rebuild its military capability including (possibly) acquiring nuclear weapons.
To ask the question is to answer it. Since 1979 Iran has been waging war on the US (the Great Satan) and its ally, Israel (the Little Satan). Iran is responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of American service members (and civilians) over a long period of time. Iran was responsible for the bombing of the Khobar Towers back in 1996. One of Iran’s many proxies (Hezbollah) exploded a massive truck bomb in Lebanon in 1983 killing 240 marines, 18 sailors and 3 soldiers. In addition, 58 French soldiers were killed in the attack.
And who can forget that Iran held 52 Americans as hostages for over a year after Iran attacked the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. Not to mention the 1985 murder of civilian Leon Klinghoffer by the PLO (another one of Iran’s lapdogs.) That relationship lasted until 1988 when Iran chose Hamas as one of its errand boys to replace the PLO as it busily constructed its “ring of fire”around Israel.
And of course there was the proxy war waged by Iran against Israel as recently as October 2023. And the many assassination plots hatched by Iran on US soil.
The question about when—not whether—to confront Iran admittedly assumes inevitability. It is not a bad assumption. Iran was already close to producing a nuclear weapon. That would have effectively inoculated a regime that everybody this side of Vladimir Putin thinks is a bunch of theocratic fanatics with a messianic streak.
So why is there even a question of whether America’s military action is justified. When South Africa ran an apartheid state, liberals were all too happy to intervene. And they were all too happy to intervene in Libya under the duty-to-protect doctrine that Samantha Powers dreamt up. Likewise they were happy to get involved in the Serbia-Kosovo war. And the ongoing disaster that is Haiti.
But when the Iranians take time off from throwing gays off of the roofs of buildings, staging public hangings and torturing political prisoners at the notorious Evin prison in Tehran—all of a sudden they are the good guys? They are the victims?
I don’t think so.
The regime in Tehran is a revolutionary one. It has no problem gunning down its citizens in the streets. And it aims to get a nuclear weapon. And it isn’t shy about stating its intentions.
Iran’s government has had 45 years to behave itself. And it has spurned every opportunity to do so.
Under the circumstances, the regime is now at its weakest point in a very long time. This is due in no small part to its attack-by-proxy on Israel in October 2023. And with its citizens in open revolt, the regime responded the way it usually does, with violence, torture and executions.
So the better question is: why wouldn’t we attack and eliminate an imminent threat?
JFB
