The United States is at war with Iran. At Outside the Beltway James Joyner has a round-up of reports from major news outlets on the action, dubbed “Operation Epic Fury”. When you use military force against another country it is war whether you call it that, “operations”, “limited strike”, or another diction does not change the reality.
I oppose this war. It is a violation of our treaty obligations under the UN Charter Article 2(4)—the prohibition of force. It is unjust—Iran has not attacked us and no evidence has been presented that such an attack was imminent. It is illegal: under Article I, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution the Congress is granted the authority to declare war. The president does not have that authority. The circumstances do not justify military action.
That should not be construed as arguing that I support the mullahocracy that presently rules Iran. I do not. I think it is unjust, engages in global state-financed terrorism, and has treated the Iranian people poorly. Iran would be more prosperous, happier, and probably at peace without them. None of that justifies the use of military force against them.
I also think it is bad policy. If the mullahs are removed from power what will follow? The likelihood that they will be succeeded by a liberal democracy is vanishingly small. The history of revolutionary regimes suggests that they will retain power as long as possible. The Revolutionary Guard will remain and even if the mullahs are removed from power, it is likely that the IRG will retain it. Power vacuums generally result in the best-organized force taking power and that is the IRG. Street demonstrations are not organized resistance. The United States cannot occupy Iran with air power alone and a land campaign in Iran would be costly, both in money and American lives.
Congress should take steps to end this war, operation, limited strike or whatever you choose to call it.
Your desire to play by Queensbury rules is understandable, perhaps admirable. But it’s not realistic.
The UN hasn’t been there for western interests for years. Iran hasn’t attacked us? Seriously? There are over 1000 US citizens dead from ongoing attacks or attacks through proxies for many years. De novo attacks are not required for action, even though Irans inexorable march toward nuclear weapons is obvious. To deny is to crawl up in the fetal position and hope. Congress? Trump could announce he has developed a cure for cancer and leaks, reflexive anti-Trumpism, dithering and posturing would preclude appropriate and timely action. As it is they moved up the timeline based on the realities.
Play nice and by the book if you like. The real world doesn’t.
Their march towards nukes is not obvious. Israel has claimed since the 90s that they are 5 years away from having nukes. They have claimed they want to be able to enrich for reasons other than military usage and they appear to want to have the ability to make them if they want but if they really wanted them they would have had them long ago. They arent that hard to make.
The ideas of priciples, law and integrity just arent in the conservative playbook anymore. You do whatever you want, whenever you want if you have the power/money to do it. We are now at the point where a single person can decide the country to go to war based upon their whims. Iran is a bad actor and few are going to mourn their losses but they really weren’t a threat to the US. In prior efforts we made some attempts at providing moral justifications for our actions even when those were dubious in Iraq and Libya, but it was enough to convince allies to join in. We now dont even bother with that. As Dave notes, that makes it clear to other countries with the power/money to attack others that they are clear to do so. Since WW2 the world has largely opposed these kinds of unilateral actions. That appears to be over and we have joined Russia.
As a practical matter, it’s not entirely clear what our goals are and the chances we can do it with air attacks only.
As an side, we have had things like the Geneva Convention for many years and people who gain their expertise from watching movies where the hero ignores the law/rules and as a result always has a good outcome. That’s not how the real world works. If you pay attention to actual wars it’s kind of hard not to notice that illegal wars and illegal actions in wars dont actually breed success as some seem to believe. If you read Boyd or Sun Tzu it will make more sense.
Steve
I don’t see anything unrealistic in insisting that we conform to international agreements to which we are signatories. I think we should hesitate before entering into such agreements for just that reason.