World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

It has been difficult to figure out what is happening with the war against Iran. We have been treated to a variety of possible objectives which might lead to an end to the war, but none is coalescing into a coherent policy. Trump outlined his objectives in his speech to the nation. The White House has compiled a slew of statements from all over the world to justify the war, but most of those statements do not really address the fundamental disagreements between the US, Israel, and Iran. At this point, the war is a military mismatch: Iran really has little capability to protect itself against the aerial bombardment. But one could easily have said the same thing about the North Vietnamese and the Afghans who also had few capabilities to defend themselves against the US and the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, both states succeeded in defeating more powerful states.

Trump’s speech justifying the war on 28 February takes no notice of this fact. Indeed, Trump touted the power of the US military (which is undeniable) but failed to account for the political factors that lead to victory or defeat in war. Trump also failed to offer Iran any alternative to war which might satisfy US interests. His opening remarks in the speech were hyperbolic:

“A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime. A vicious group of very hard, terrible people. Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas, and our allies throughout the world.”

We should be clear: there was no “imminent” threat. Iran did not possess a nuclear weapon, nor did it have missile capabilities that could directly threaten the US homeland. The war is being fought to prevent a threat in the future, a reality that belies any sense of “imminence”. The more prudent course of action would have been to engage in diplomacy to prevent these outcomes. Indeed, the Obama Administration had succeeded in forging a comprehensive policy to achieve both outcomes, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). By all accounts, that agreement was successful in preventing Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. It was also a plan supported by Great Britain, France, China, Russia, and Germany giving it tremendous leverage and weight.

The JCPOA accomplished much: The deal imposed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle that directly blocked the pathways to a bomb:

• Centrifuges reduced and older models required, sharply limiting enrichment capacity.
• Enrichment capped at 3.67%, far below weapons‑grade levels.
• Uranium stockpile cut to a fraction of what would be needed for a weapon.
• Reactor redesigns at Arak and restrictions at Fordow and Natanz ensured no plutonium pathway.
• These measures increased Iran’s “breakout time”—the time needed to produce enough fissile material for one bomb—to about one year, compared to just a few months before the deal.
• Iran implemented the IAEA Additional Protocol, allowing access to declared and suspect sites.
• Continuous monitoring and real‑time surveillance made covert diversion extremely difficult.
• Experts widely regarded the inspection system as the strongest in nonproliferation history.
  Bottom line: During this period, Iran was not able to develop a nuclear weapon without being detected, and its technical capacity to do so was sharply constrained.

Despite its success, Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 breaking the agreement. Note: Iran did not break the agreement, a conclusion verified by on-site inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Trump himself jettisoned the agreement that would have prevented Iran from building a nuclear bomb. The current war is therefore a consequence of Trump’s failure in 2018.

Trump’s other justifications for the war are ridiculous. He dredges up acts committed by Iran that are clearly heinous but ignores the context of the Iranian opposition to Israel and the US, most notably the fact that the US helped overthrow the Iranian government in 1953. And there are many states committing heinous crimes in the international system (the Israeli destruction of the Gaza Strip will undoubtedly go down in history as a mass atrocity).

The evidence suggests that Trump was most interested in overthrowing the regime. The photographic evidence of the compound of the Ayatollah which was destroyed on the first day of the attack indicates that regime change was the highest priority. No doubt, Trump was emboldened by his “success” in Venezuela. He succeeded in removing President Maduro, but Maduro’s political infrastructure is still in power except for decisions regarding the sale of Venezuelan oil. The New York Times reports:

“’What we did in Venezuela, I think, is the perfect, the perfect scenario,’ Mr. Trump said.

“Then he offered a very different model of what the transition of power in Iran might look like, referring repeatedly to his experience in Venezuela after he ordered a Delta Force team to seize Mr. Maduro.

“His answer implied that what worked in Venezuela would work in Iran, a nation with about three times the population and a military and clerical leadership that has ruled with increasing repression since the 1979 revolution. Over the past several weeks, Mr. Trump has repeatedly brought up Venezuela as the model of a successful operation and hoped to replicate aspects of it in Iran, identifying leadership that would be more cooperative and friendly to the United States.

“But he has been told by his advisers that the vast differences in cultures and history made it virtually impossible to apply the strategy used in Venezuela — in which the existing government was kept in place, after it agreed to take instructions from Washington — and try to replicate it in Tehran.

“Nonetheless, Mr. Trump appears enamored of using a Venezuela-like model in Iran.”

Trump made two huge mistakes. First, the situation in Venezuela is nothing comparable to Iran. The Ayatollah did not rule in a vacuum. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard is a formidable political and military organization and will persist as the ruling force in Iran. It is nothing like the motley crew of sycophants that supported Maduro. Second, he ignored all the lessons about regime change. It did not work in Iran in 1953; it did not work in Guatemala in 1954; it did not work in Cuba in 1962 at the Bay of Pigs; it did not work in Vietnam in 1963; it did not work in Iraq in 2003; it did not work in Afghanistan in 2014. Outsiders can never produce legitimate new regimes and only a fool would entertain such a preposterous thought.

This fixation on regime change is perhaps the most insidious aspect of the Iranian intervention. Trump loudly asserted that he was working on behalf of those Iranians who opposed theocratic rule:

“Finally, to the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.

“For many years, you have asked for America’s help. But you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let’s see how you respond. America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny, and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.”

With this pronouncement, Trump effectively de-legitimatized the protest movement in Iran. He has undermined the authenticity of the internal dissent because anyone who opposed the theocracy will now be associated with the US intervention. And the Islamic Revolutionary Guard has more than enough military, political, and economic power to continue the violent suppression of dissent in Iran. In a very real sense, Trump has created the conditions for a bloody civil war, one which the protesters cannot win. This mistake was made by President Eisenhower when Hungarian protesters challenged communist rule in 1956:

“The United States considers the development in Hungary as being a renewed expression of the intense desire for freedom long held by the Hungarian people. The demands reportedly made by the students and the working people clearly fall within the framework of those human rights to which all are entitled, which are affirmed in the charter of the United Nations, and which are specifically guaranteed to the Hungarian people by the treaty of peace to which the Governments of Hungary and of the Allied and Associated Powers, including the Soviet Union and the United States, are parties.

“The United States deplores the intervention of Soviet military forces which, under the treaty of peace, should have been withdrawn and the presence of which in Hungary, as is now demonstrated, is not to protect Hungary against armed aggression from without but rather to continue an occupation of Hungary by the forces of an alien government for its own purposes.

“The heart of America goes out to the people of Hungary.”

It was a nice sentiment, but it gave false hope to the protesters. The US did not take any action to support them, and they felt betrayed by the empty promises. Which will leave Trump with a difficult decision. If the IRG does violently suppress the protest movement, will Trump send in ground troops to prevent the bloodshed? No matter how this question is answered, it ends in tragedy.