Brian M Downing
Rumors of war with Iran have been circulating for years. Bush the Younger and the neoconservatives branded the Islamic Republic a key part of the Axis of Evil, called for regime change, but got bogged down in Iraq. The Obama administration, too, seemed on the brink of an attack, but it never happened. Trump apparently cancelled a strike on Iran hours before launch.
The talk has picked up and to some the signs of war are plain. Iran is planning to assassinate an American diplomat. Iranian tankers off the coast of South Africa may be seized any day. The Nimitz carrier group passed through the Strait of Hormuz and entered the Persian Gulf – the first carrier in those waters for many months.
The imminent- war argument
Believers in an imminent war interpret recent US-brokered agreements among the Emirates, Bahrain, and Israel as clearing the decks. The diplomacy, one might say, has yielded an aggression pact. They further hold that a strike would prove popular in the US and improve the president’s chances in November. (More on that anon.)
Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Emirates, and anti-Iran forces in Washington sense Trump’s days in office are numbered and his successor will probably take a less hostile stance toward Tehran. It’s now or never. This part of the argument was noted here a while back (“Iran under fire again,” July 6, 2020) but pressure doesn’t always mean action.
The president
Much of a decision for war rests on Trump. He clearly has a pugnacious temperament but his actions in the world are not as warlike as thought. In fact, he has shown more restraint than his two predecessors. Obama escalated in Afghanistan and funneled thousands of troops into Iraq and Syria. Bush’s polices require no elaboration.
Trump too escalated in Afghanistan but is now pulling back and looking for the exit. He has withdrawn from the Turkish border in Syria and is reducing the number of bases in Iraq.
However, Trump is erratic. The assassination of IRGC chief Soleimani stunned the world – and many American generals as well. He’s announced precipitous pullouts from Syria but changed his mind, probably upon the recommendation of the generals.
Rallying support
The notion that launching a war brings popular support is widely believed, especially on the Left. It has impressive credentials in the writings of Otto Hintze, Max Weber, and Eckart Kehr. However, those eminent figures were raised in militarized societies whose politics, historiography, schools, arts, and poetry were shaped by romantic views of war and generals.
The zenith of American martial ardor was the quarter century after Pearl Harbor. The public believed its leaders and every boy wanted to show his mettle. After Vietnam, war support has been limited and short-lived. Military service no longer falls on the public and few know anyone who’s worn a uniform since the last helicopter lifted off from Saigon.
The public today is sick of endless conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. They are wary of the Trump’s judgment on most matters. His approval rating isn’t high (ca 40%) and a war is unlikely to change that, especially another in the Middle East.
The generals
The public’s wariness is shared by senior officers, who have spent much of the last nineteen years overseas. They are dismayed by Trump’s inconsistency, ignorance of world affairs, and dismissal of expert opinion. They see national priorities with Russia and China, not Iran.
The joint chiefs, if ordered to attack Iran, will not salute and launch missiles. They will dispute the administration’s case for war and even the legality of orders in the high councils, congressional committees, and perhaps in public pronouncements. They may ask for clarity, further intelligence, consultation with allies, a sense of congress – delaying tactics all.
In 1954, as Dien Bien Phu was about to fall to the Viet Minh, France pleaded with President Eisenhower to intervene. Ike was skeptical and queried his generals. After three years of fighting in Korea they wanted no part of another Asian war. Administration hawks may fare no better than France.
© 2020 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who’s written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs. Thanks as ever to Susan Ganosellis.