Donald Trump’s 1st Great War. Plenty of Doubts*
The regime of the ayatollah has never been weaker than it is now, but Donald Trump has deemed that it poses a direct threat to his country and America's allies. Together with Israel, he attacked Iran, which could have far more serious consequences for the region than the war in June last year.
The attack is not a surprise — in the era of Donald Trump, nothing is a surprise. For weeks, the U.S. administration threatened Iran with war. First, in January, it wanted to use military means to defend the regime's pacified brave rebels, which could have met with approval. But the West has a moral problem: It dislikes dictatorships that murder its citizens, but it rarely takes action.
Is Iran, as Trump Claims, an Actual Threat to American People?
Later, however, the fate of the persecuted Iranians was of less interest to the U.S. administration. It was Iran's nuclear program, and — more broadly, its military capabilities — that served as a pretext for launching a major war. At the same time, the overthrow of the regime of the ayatollah is also being considered, perhaps even more by Israel than by the U.S., despite the uncertainty over who would take power afterward. Presumably, however, the new leadership would be less anti-Israeli and anti-American than the current one. And there are some candidates for such a role who are pro-American and pro-Israeli, like the son of the shah who was deposed in 1979.
The arguments for starting the war, which Trump used in his late-night message, are typical of his many actions in the world, that is, raising far-reaching doubts. They contain elements that are true but also — which is crucial in the case of starting a war — claims that are unverified or unequivocally false.
This is already evident in Trump's general justification for the attacks. The goal is "to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats" from the cruel and horrible Iranian regime. The regime is cruel and horrible; this is nothing new, but no evidence has come to light that it is capable of threatening the American people in the foreseeable future. In particular, nothing is known about Trump's claim that the Iranians were close to producing a missile that could soon reach the U.S.; then we could talk about an imminent threat to the American people.
The same goes for the nuclear bomb; Iran will not have it "soon." Even if it wanted to, Israeli and U.S. attacks on its nuclear installations during the 12-day war last year pushed the threat further away. Trump considered the June attack to be successful, and he put its resolution on the list of conflicts that, thanks to him, ended in peace.
The Attack Came Right after Another Round of U.S.-Iranian Negotiations
It takes a great deal of forbearance to accept President Trump's conclusion that he had reasons for a "preemptive war." It began two days after the next round of U.S.-Iranian negotiations (in Geneva) and a few days before the announced next round (in Vienna). Perhaps he saw this as the best way to pressure Iranian negotiators, who so far had refused to accept American terms. The question is, how could they? Could any country agree to completely abandon its officially civilian nuclear program and its military deterrence, essentially for nothing, because the sanctions that have been devastating Iran for years would have been only slightly eased? These terms effectively meant surrender without Trump using a single bomb.
The war that started in this way becomes Trump's first major war. Iran did not wait, as in June of last year, with a response. It retaliated right away. And it does not seem to have a symbolic, dignified character, as when the ayatollahs targeted deserted American bases in the Middle East. Now every country in the region that is connected to America is at risk.
Trump, who presents himself as bringing peace to the world and who, years earlier, criticized U.S. military interventions, especially in Iraq, has launched a war based on questionable rationale in a conflict-ridden region.
*Editor's note: This article is available in its original language with a paid subscription.
The attack is not a surprise — in the era of Donald Trump, nothing is a surprise. For weeks, the U.S. administration threatened Iran with war. First, in January, it wanted to use military means to defend the regime's pacified brave rebels, which could have met with approval. But the West has a moral problem: It dislikes dictatorships that murder its citizens, but it rarely takes action.
Is Iran, as Trump Claims, an Actual Threat to American People?
Later, however, the fate of the persecuted Iranians was of less interest to the U.S. administration. It was Iran's nuclear program, and — more broadly, its military capabilities — that served as a pretext for launching a major war. At the same time, the overthrow of the regime of the ayatollah is also being considered, perhaps even more by Israel than by the U.S., despite the uncertainty over who would take power afterward. Presumably, however, the new leadership would be less anti-Israeli and anti-American than the current one. And there are some candidates for such a role who are pro-American and pro-Israeli, like the son of the shah who was deposed in 1979.
The arguments for starting the war, which Trump used in his late-night message, are typical of his many actions in the world, that is, raising far-reaching doubts. They contain elements that are true but also — which is crucial in the case of starting a war — claims that are unverified or unequivocally false.
This is already evident in Trump's general justification for the attacks. The goal is "to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats" from the cruel and horrible Iranian regime. The regime is cruel and horrible; this is nothing new, but no evidence has come to light that it is capable of threatening the American people in the foreseeable future. In particular, nothing is known about Trump's claim that the Iranians were close to producing a missile that could soon reach the U.S.; then we could talk about an imminent threat to the American people.
The same goes for the nuclear bomb; Iran will not have it "soon." Even if it wanted to, Israeli and U.S. attacks on its nuclear installations during the 12-day war last year pushed the threat further away. Trump considered the June attack to be successful, and he put its resolution on the list of conflicts that, thanks to him, ended in peace.
The Attack Came Right after Another Round of U.S.-Iranian Negotiations
It takes a great deal of forbearance to accept President Trump's conclusion that he had reasons for a "preemptive war." It began two days after the next round of U.S.-Iranian negotiations (in Geneva) and a few days before the announced next round (in Vienna). Perhaps he saw this as the best way to pressure Iranian negotiators, who so far had refused to accept American terms. The question is, how could they? Could any country agree to completely abandon its officially civilian nuclear program and its military deterrence, essentially for nothing, because the sanctions that have been devastating Iran for years would have been only slightly eased? These terms effectively meant surrender without Trump using a single bomb.
The war that started in this way becomes Trump's first major war. Iran did not wait, as in June of last year, with a response. It retaliated right away. And it does not seem to have a symbolic, dignified character, as when the ayatollahs targeted deserted American bases in the Middle East. Now every country in the region that is connected to America is at risk.
Trump, who presents himself as bringing peace to the world and who, years earlier, criticized U.S. military interventions, especially in Iraq, has launched a war based on questionable rationale in a conflict-ridden region.
*Editor's note: This article is available in its original language with a paid subscription.
Previous article![]( "Trump’s Claim to Power Is at Stake in the Battle over US Tariffs")
Next article![]( "AUKUS Yokes Australia to America’s Actions Whether We Like It or Not")