War on Iran Is the Opposite of ‘Realism’
Don’t do it, Mr. President.
No one really knows what goes on inside the mind of President Donald Trump.
But judging by the significant, ongoing U.S. military buildup in the Middle East, one can make an informed guess: He thinks a big war with Iran is a good idea.
If that’s the case, he’s wrong—dangerously so—and he needs a dose of realism.
This administration already claims to be guided by a “flexible realism” in foreign policy. But no variant of realism, however flexible, recommends a U.S. war on the Islamic Republic at this juncture.
Realism holds that geography and the relative distribution of military power among states determine national interests. Iran, being a middling power on the other side of the world, does not pose a military threat to America, the world’s leading superpower.
An implication of realism’s emphasis on power and geography is that realists don’t focus much on what kind of regime a state has. The Islamic Republic is a theocracy with a bad human rights record, but that’s nigh irrelevant from a realist perspective. The purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to promote the safety and prosperity of Americans, not to turn faraway states into liberal democracies, which we’re not good at doing anyway.
America does have an interest in preventing states from developing nuclear weapons, but that’s not necessarily an interest worth going to war over. Tehran’s previous compliance with the defunct 2015 Iran nuclear deal and its present willingness to negotiate shows that, in the case of Iran, this interest can be achieved diplomatically.
From a realist perspective, a U.S. war with Iran seems not merely unnecessary, but obviously foolish. Realists believe that the U.S. should—and does—intervene abroad when necessary to prevent the rise of a “regional hegemon.” We don’t want any foreign state to dominate its neighborhood and project power into other neighborhoods, especially ours.
So, what’s all this got to do with Iran? Really: What the hell does this have to do with Iran?
Iran is not a regional hegemon nor on the verge of becoming one. Indeed, it can barely claim a sphere of influence within its own borders; Israel, with relative ease, established air superiority over Iran in the 12-Day War last June. Iran certainly isn’t poised to dominate the Middle East, a region that includes zero close Iranian allies and multiple rivals of comparable or superior military might.
But the Middle East does feature an aspiring regional hegemon—and this is where America’s belligerence vis-à-vis Iran starts to look foolish.
The region’s aspiring hegemon is Israel, America’s very “special” ally. Israel deems Iran a big obstacle in its quest for regional hegemony. If the Islamic Republic is replaced with a pro-Israel regime, or if the Iranian state collapses, Israel would not only be rid of a chief adversary—it would be freed up to exert power across a region that is vital to the global economy.
In other words, the U.S. appears poised to create a regional hegemon, not prevent one, in the Middle East. That wouldn’t be a good example of “realism,” flexible or otherwise.
Some U.S. officials have argued that taking out the Islamic Republic would enable Washington to retrench from the Middle East, since it would no longer need to check Iran. A realist would advise something like the opposite: Washington should withdraw U.S. forces and assets from the region to allow a natural equilibrium to emerge. Iran, Turkey, and Arab states have grown sufficiently concerned about Israel’s regional designs that they may set their differences aside and collectively balance against it. That’s the best-case scenario from the realist American perspective.
Unfortunately, we’re instead careering toward a big war that, if it “succeeds,” will harm America’s geopolitical interests. And if the war is a failure, things might get very ugly indeed.
Analysts have warned that Iran intends to launch a ferocious retaliation if the U.S. strikes, to restore deterrence. The Trump administration appears to have taken those warnings seriously—but that doesn’t mean it’s backing off. Quite the contrary. In my assessment, the U.S. is preparing a massive attack meant to overwhelm Iran’s defenses and decapitate its leadership to prevent the kind of retaliation envisioned by nervous analysts.
After last year’s U.S. strikes on key Iranian nuclear facilities, Iran hawks mocked antiwar conservatives for predicting a catastrophic war involving mass casualties. That mockery was unfair in the case of The American Conservative. As I showed in a column defending our coverage, TAC had drawn attention to the possibility of a limited engagement.
But a limited engagement is more difficult to imagine now. The U.S. is planning a huge strike, and Iran is planning a huge retaliation; consequently, a huge war seems very much worth worrying about. Plus, it’s not clear what targeted strikes would look like this time around, because it’s not clear which targets it makes sense for Trump to strike.
And we shouldn’t let the Iran hawks intimidate us into declining to warn about worst-case scenarios. If Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for global trade, an oil crisis could set off global economic contraction.
Nor is that the absolute worst case. Iran might manage to strike a U.S. warship, perhaps even bombard an aircraft carrier, jeopardizing fighter jets in the process. Even worse, Iranian ballistic missiles could kill U.S. troops, who are sitting ducks in the region. Iran’s supreme leader has threatened an all-out regional war.
There’s no telling how Trump would react to the loss of U.S. troops, and I’d prefer not to find out.
Nuclear escalation isn’t out of the question, even if the U.S. itself is unlikely to push the big red button. Iran might choose to direct its ferocious retaliation against Israel, raining ballistic missiles down on the small country. In such a scenario, Israel could conceivably launch a nuclear attack out of desperation.
The U.S. simply has no interests at stake that justify courting such risks. And even if America’s military buildup in the Middle East is intended to enhance its bargaining position in negotiations with Iran, it raises the chances of war. The U.S. got dragged into war with Iran by Israel last June, and to avoid a repeat, Trump needs to convey to Israel that he wouldn’t provide backup this time around. But sending a third of America’s navy to the region sends the opposite signal.
Among staff writers at TAC, I’ve probably been the most positive about Trump’s foreign policy. But contemplating a war with Iran fills me with a nauseating dread. President Trump must be urged to listen to reason, and to realism.
The post War on Iran Is the Opposite of ‘Realism’ appeared first on The American Conservative.
