Why did the U.S. Bomb Iran?

Some questions we need to ask.

Hello,

Just as I hit publish on my last newsletter, literally, I saw a text from my nephew that the U.S. had, in fact, bombed Iran. I refreshed The New York Times and I saw this:

We need to ask some major questions. But first, this is not an invasion of Iran similar to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. That saw nearly 500,000 U.S. troops comprised of ground forces, air forces, and naval forces, and it also was supported by the so-called “coalition of the willing” countries, comprising troops and support from the U.K., Australia, and Poland. The Cost of Wars project, hosted by Brown University, has calculated the human, economic, social, political, and environmental costs of the post-9/11 wars. The cost of war is staggering and in many ways, wars and war costs never truly end. We are still living through the consequences of World War I, for example, including in the Middle East, that formally ended in November 1918.

So, holding that this is, at this stage, the same thing as the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, we need to ask questions in three categories of concern: moral, legal, strategic.

(1) Was this bombing of these nuclear facilities moral? Moral in the context of U.S. foreign policy, in my opinion, needs to factor in the lives of Americans, both citizens and miltary and the lives of Iranians and any that might be affected by these attacks. Another aspect of morality here regards the intention of Trump. Nothing Trump does is moral. He’s amoral in his calcuation. So, no, this man bombing these facilities at this time was not a moral choice. Trump has been opposed to Iran having nuclear weapons. All American presidents, in fact, have repeatedly stated this through informal statements and formal documents such as national defense strategies. So in order for these attacks to be moral they would have to achieve peace defined as an Iran and a Middle East that, years down the road, is more not less peaceful, stable, secure, liberal and democratic (this is normative by me but I stand by it). Some would argue that the means used were proportionate, necessary, and targeted. But there has been no evidence presented that Iran has decided to make nuclear bombs. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community has repetedly said the opposite, including this year in March and as recently as this week. This is also sidestepping the debates regarding whether or not Iran having nuclear weapons would call for preemptive strikes against their capabilities as opposed to living with a nuclear-armed Iran.

(2) Was bombing these nuclear facilities legal? Ok, so U.S. presidents have unilaterally used air power in dozens of places since 1945. There are numerous statutes, memos, executive orders, presidential memorandums, that the Trump administration and his Office of Legal Counsel could try to point to, illogical as some of them might be, such as the 2001 AUMF.

To make this brief: the Trump administration will say that they have explicit war power under his Commander-in-Chief authority in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. And federal courts would probably agree, at least regarding this initial strikes, since they have deferred to the executive branch, with a few exceptions, since 1945 in most things war. The executive just simply gets away with everything, murder even, when they invoke “national security,” a concept, more or less, created by New Deal Democrats who hoped the U.S. would build a strong welfare state, but instead we got a warfare state.

Congress can certainly get involved here; and depending on how long hostilities last, the War Powers Act also kicks in. But the Trump administration will also claim that “hostilities” don’t count here, or that this is “policing” activity, and so forth. And counting on a Republican-led Congress to reign in their mad king is slim to none. That would only happen if there truly was a grassroots movement, work stoppages, etc., say after Trump announces the use of ground troops, for example.

The use of force is also governed by international law, both in terms of jus ad bellum, or reasons that states can legally and justifiably use force, but also jus in bello, or how acts of war are conducted. And the UN Charter, in Chapter VII, Article 51 clearly states:

So, Isreal views their attacks as legal, though plenty of IR scholars disagree. Israel claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and they view the very pursuit itself as an imminent threat that they can respond to any time they want to. This reminds me of Obama’s Office of Legal Counsel who was like ‘we can attack supposed “terrorists” who are sitting somewhere in Somalia, even if they are in a coffee shop, as basically running towards a cop with a gun pointed at the cop at all times’ as imminent.

The Trump administration has no international law considers whatsoever. In fact, they are actively trying to dismantle the very idea of collective governance. If things escalate, do not expect this administration to even go through the same motions that Bush did or Obama’s legal team did. Not even close. The mask is off.

That said, there has been lots of international law achievements over the past 100 years and international law is honored when it is breached in that it prompts renewed focus and attention which, years, decades, and so forth from now will slowly shape state behavior, norms, expectations, laws, treaties, and so forth. However, it is also unfortunately fair to say that international law is mostly a fiction that states weaponize to their advantage, especially powerful states. They claim they are upholding it and their adversaries are never upholding it. The law of the jungle reigns: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must,” as famoulsy put in the discussion of the Siege of Melos during the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides.

(3) Was bombing Iran strategic?
Strategic foreign policy decisions are those that achieve long-term objectives. Or, as a canonical essay from Richard K. Betts published in 2000 in International Security puts it, strategy is defined as “a plan for using military means to achieve political ends.” And “Without strategy, there is no rationale for how force will achieve purposes worth the price in blood and treasure. Without strategy, power is a loose cannon and war is mindless.” It has been U.S. policy that Iran is never to achieve the ability or actual production of nuclear weapons. So it’s too early to see if this was strategic on U.S.’ own terms. How will Iran respond? Then what? Because other stated goals, such as stability, open seas, global trade come into frame, too. These bombings were a tactical action but we don’t even know if they achieved tactical success which complicates the question regarding achieving a strategic victory. These bunker busting bombs most definitely cannot wipe out Iran’s pursuit if Iran truly believes it’s in it’s interest to further the pursuit.

I would predict this only emboldens hardliners in Iran, who saw what happened to Libya and Ukraine. Plus, as Winston Churchill once mused,

“Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. ”

All of these questions get to the big question: Why did Trump bomb Iran? Some commentators view Trump as weak and being a puppet to Netanyahu. Others think that is was the reports that Iran was allegedly trying to assassinate him during the campaign that really got to Trump. There are tweets going back to 2011 that show Trump believed that Iran was to never have nuclear weapons. But also in his first term he commented that he was the one in his administration that stopped the U.S. from going to war with Iran.

I believe Trump bombed Iran because he felt like it; he believed, in the moment, that this would restablish deterrence and that, like Reagan believed, you can only have “peace through strength.” Trump sees himself as a historic president and he knows doing something like this has been talked about for decades now. And he couldn’t let Netanyahu and Israel have all the fun and receive all the accolades from war hawks.

Of course, he also felt pressure from Israel, U.S. Israel hawks inside the Republican party, and Iranian hawks inside the executive branch, especially General Michael Kurilla, who is the current head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), per Politico reporting.

Thanks,
Patrick M. Foran