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
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS