The major assault against Iran launched by the US and Israel has already triggered retaliatory strikes across the Middle East. A broader regional conflict looks increasingly likely, with grim unintended consequences, such as the downing of three US warplanes by “friendly fire” in Kuwait. So, why did US President Donald Trump — a self-proclaimed peacemaker — start a foreign war?
The official justification strains credulity. The Trump administration’s claim that Iran was building a nuclear weapon has not been established. Nor can it be reconciled with the administration’s repeated claims that it destroyed Iran’s nuclear-weapons program in airstrikes in June last year. Trump’s insistence that the Islamic Republic must be replaced by a democratic — or at least US-friendly — regime is just as bizarre, given that staunch opposition to foreign military entanglements and regime-change wars was supposedly a core tenet of Trump’s “make America great again” movement.
I see two plausible reasons for his decision, neither of which is legitimate: to destroy US democracy or to enrich himself. Of course, foreign wars are often motivated by domestic politics and more often than not, political authoritarianism and personal corruption are not mutually exclusive. That appears to be the case here.
International conflicts can undermine and undo democracies either by forcing the public to rally behind the leader (with opponents portrayed as traitors) or by creating conditions that are favorable to the ruling party ahead of elections. The right-wing governments in the US and Israel are following this utterly predictable authoritarian model.
The implausibility of the official justifications for the decision to start another war in the Middle East points to the second possible explanation: corruption.
Who might directly benefit from regime change in Iran? Insofar as foreign policy was involved in the US decision, I suspect it was that of the Trump administration’s closest allies in the region.
Middle Eastern politics has long been shaped by the rivalry between Iran and Israel, as well as between Iran and the Gulf Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia. Given that this structural feature is far more durable than Trump’s wavering and contradictory statements, it is a better place to start tracing the administration’s objectives. And those objectives seem to be to advance personal politics — or, rather, personal gain.
The Gulf monarchies that oppose Iranian power have lavished Trump and his family with huge business deals. The United Arab Emirates invested in a Trump family crypto venture. The Trump Organization has profited handsomely from Saudi Arabian deals. And sometimes Gulf monarchs have wooed Trump directly, as when the Qataris gave Trump a luxury jet. The list is very long, and now the US government is using military force against a common enemy of the countries that have enriched Trump and his family. This context should be included in all reporting on the war. This administration’s stupefyingly overt corruption raises the question of whether the US armed forces are now for hire.
To be sure, my goal is not to defend the Islamic Republic, a brutal regime that has been engaged in the mass murder of peaceful protesters since the start of the year. The scale of that slaughter has not really sunk in.
However, there are more effective ways to push back against Iran’s authoritarian and corrupt political system. The US government could launch a patient campaign of pressure and sanctions, coupled with support for the opposition and proposals to help address the country’s water crisis, a growing ecological problem that has contributed to social unrest. Unfortunately, the Trump administration could never offer such a comprehensive and competent strategy. All it can offer are militarism, authoritarianism and corruption.
Americans will be told not to question the war that is under way, but this is precisely when questions must be asked, particularly given what we know about the Trump administration. There is abundant evidence that the attack on Iran could very well be about undermining US democracy, enriching the president, or both.
While there is no smoking-gun evidence to prove these presumptions, they suggest productive lines of inquiry to pursue as the war progresses and more is revealed about its origins.
War does not erase a government’s misdeeds and compel citizens to believe leaders’ absurd justifications. On the contrary, war represents the best opportunity to uncover leaders’ true motives.
Timothy Snyder is the inaugural chair in Modern European History at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto and a permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS