Two days ago I did a podcast on the prospects for war with Iran. Here is what I wrote, followed by a brief update as the US and Israel launched attacks on several Iranian cities.
The Illogic of War
The Trump administration reportedly cannot understand why Iran is refusing to accede to US demands that it halt uranium enrichment, limit the range of its ballistic missiles, and stop supporting militant groups in the region. After all, Iran’s economy is in dire straits, people have resumed demonstrating against the regime, and the US has arrayed enough firepower offshore to conduct a world war. Trump is acting as though he wants to finish the job he started last June, when it turned out that Iran’s nuclear facilities had not been obliterated as claimed. Yet with all those negative signs, Iran has refused to fold.
This situation is hardly new to US foreign policy specialists. An opponent that appears to be weak and facing overwhelming power nevertheless refuses to capitulate. Think North Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, North Korea, Cuba over decades, or even Venezuela until recently. Logically, weak regimes ought to give in rather than face destruction. But that is not always where logic leads. Ask the Ukrainians.
Why is the capacity to resist often outweighed by the necessity to resist? A regime facing an adversary with awesome military power may consider that to give in would be to surrender its legitimacy. And regime legitimacy is crucial to political survival. Leaders in all those countries that have faced US threats came to power in revolutionary movements directed against an “imperialist” enemy. Their right to rule vanishes if they fail to confront that enemy, no matter the odds. Moreover, they must assume that the enemy’s real aim is not merely to further weaken the regime but to displace it. “For Iran, submitting to U.S. terms is more dangerous than suffering another U.S. strike,” said Ali Vaez, the Iran director of the International Crisis Group. “They don’t believe that once they capitulate, the U.S. will alleviate the pressure. They believe that would only encourage the U.S. to go for the jugular.” Regime change, in other words. Thus, Ali Khomeini may have no choice but to reject US demands that would amount to surrender of what Iran considers sovereign rights: nuclear enrichment for civilian purposes and missiles to deter or counter an Israeli or US attack.
Iran’s leaders surely also calculate that the Trump administration is in political trouble at home. Attacking Iran would probably not improve Trump’s political fortunes. It will have costs: lives will be lost, anti-war public opinion will intensify, and the US will have few if any allies behind its action other than Israel. Trump’s joint chiefs chairman, General Dan Caine, is said to have informed Trump that “shortfalls in critical munitions and a lack of support from allies” increase the risks of an attack on Iran (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/02/23/dan-caine-iran-risk-trump/?itid=hp-top-table-main_p001_f001).
Why is fighting preferable to talking? Obama was able to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran that Trump discarded. Why, many will (and should) ask, can’t Trump reach a deal with Iran? Iran seems committed to talking. “We are ready to reach an agreement as soon as possible,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi told NPR in an interview February 24. “We want to do whatever is necessary to make it happen.” Iran has taken a nuclear weapon off the table, reiterating a longstanding position that it does not seek to possess one. Trump says he prefers a diplomatic resolution, and that could include Iran’s willingness to pledge a no-nukes policy, subject to international inspection, in return for US acceptance of Iran’s right to uranium enrichment for energy. Should Trump attack in the belief he can get better terms, the minister said, “we will respond in accordance with our defensive planning. Therefore, everybody should be aware that a war can be started, but to end that war, it is not easy. …The whole region will suffer as a result of an aggression against Iran.”
The current debate about US war making—Will he or won’t he attack? How will the attack be conducted?— neglects the more important question: What gives Trump the right to attack? What legal or moral basis is there for waging war against a country that does not have, and may not seek, a nuclear weapon, and does not pose a danger to the US or to other vital US national interests? Trump’s secretary of state is informing several members of Congress about US policy, but the President is clearly not seeking their approval. The administration has yet to make a case for war to all of Congress or to the public; it is simply moving ahead with preparations for one. Some Congressional Democrats are once again (as with Venezuela before the US seized Nicolas Maduro) trying to gain support for the War Powers Resolution. But they won’t get it.
Neglect to give the same serious attention to these questions as to military strategy has undermined US foreign policy on many past occasions. Does Trump think Iran will be as easy to defeat as Venezuela, or that he’ll be the de facto leader of Iran just as he thinks of himself as Venezuela’s real president? Another attack on Iran, which from all reporting promises to be planned on a scale far beyond last June’s attack, will not only risk a quagmire, political instability in some Middle East countries, and large-scale losses of life. It will also cement the Trump administration’s reputation as an aggressor state—a reputation future administrations will have great difficulty overcoming.
And Now
Trump delivered his war speech in the dead of night. No need to awaken the American people or members of Congress. He made clear that regime change is the US aim, that the attacks seek destruction of Iran’s political leadership and military forces, and that US casualties are to be expected. Iran is responding with attacks on Israeli targets. Trump seems to believe that bombing will lead the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow the Khomeini regime. Even if that were to happen, it would not justify US aggression.
Trump’s war on Iran should be opposed by anyone who respects international law, democratic processes, and the value of negotiating over fighting. Trump deserves to be repudiated by US allies, Congress, and international organizations. I believe US military leaders are deeply concerned about being put in the position of waging war against a country that does not pose a national security threat. The US is likely to face new tensions and further conflict in the Middle East while Russia and China look on. We, Israel, and the Middle East as a whole are far less secure now thanks to the Trump regime’s outrageous decision.
In the Human Interest - Mel Gurtov 