There’s a saying in China: “Those who ride tigers find it difficult to dismount.” Starting a conflict is straightforward; ending it is much tougher.
President Trump declared a ceasefire on Monday after conducting air strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend. Yet, we find ourselves in quite a bind. War tends to give rise to disastrous and unforeseen outcomes.
Last week, Trump seemed a bit rushed when he stated that the US would decide in a fortnight whether to target Iran’s military installations. But that choice isn’t solely his. While the president leads military operations, the Constitution clearly assigns the authority to declare war to Congress. In such matters, it’s vital for there to be a thorough debate in the Senate and House regarding the justification for war before things spiral out of control.
What prompted his decision to attack Iran? Although he avoided military service during Vietnam, citing “bone spurs,” Trump seems to revel in military displays. He partied his 79th birthday away at a grand military parade in Washington, DC. I sent the Marines and now they’re striking Iran, all while immigrant demonstrators gather in Los Angeles.
However, Trump’s choice of battles appears questionable. While Russia poses a much larger threat than Iran, he has chosen to turn a blind eye, as his ally, Vladimir Putin, aggressively seeks to extend his reach in Ukraine.
His abrupt move against Iran might be seen as a tactic to mitigate rising domestic dissent against such military actions. A recent national survey conducted just prior to the strikes showed that 60% of people oppose U.S. military intervention supporting Israel against Iran, with only 16% in favor. Interestingly, there was a rare moment of bipartisanship, as many Republicans, Democrats, and independents shared the same stance against the attack.
The limited Republican backing for a preemptive strike highlights a divide within the party itself, with factions of isolationists and hawkish members. Some media figures, particularly supporters of the “America First” agenda, like Tucker Carlson, have publicly criticized more interventionist Republicans such as Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who have been eager for action against Iran.
Representative Thomas Massey’s (R-Ky.) condemnation reflects ongoing dissent within the party about military leadership. He remarked on Sunday during “Face the Nation,” that it turned out to be a good week for neoconservatives and the military-industrial complex, which is always keen for war.
Trump’s National Intelligence Director informed senators back in March that Iran was not currently advancing its nuclear weapons program. She was notably excluded from the president’s inner circle, despite holding the top intelligence position, exactly when Trump started advocating for strikes. Just weeks ago, she stated, “political elites and warmongers recklessly stoke fear and conflict among nuclear powers.”
Typically, Americans rally behind their leader during military crises, and Trump may believe he can benefit from this. Yet, it’s possible he might be in for a surprise if he imagines that targeting Iran will distract people from his poor economic management.
Instability in the Middle East nearly always results in higher fuel prices, which can exacerbate inflation. This growing cost of living has become a significant concern for many, particularly under a president promising to lower prices as soon as he begins a second term. Shortly after the assaults, the Iranian parliament ordered the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passageway for global oil supplies.
In the aftermath of the strikes, Russia expressed its support for Iran, aligning itself alongside China. As tensions rise with Russia, China, and North Korea, Trump’s dismissive attitude towards NATO is straining some of the world’s essential alliances.
Such unity among powerful nations often precedes significant global confrontations. Historically, the coalition of Germany, Turkey, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire foretold the outbreak of World War I.
Democrats in Congress are themselves divided on the wisdom of military interventions against Iran. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has criticized the attacks, while Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa.) commended them. Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a Navy combat veteran, pointed out on Meet the Press on Sunday, “It’s amusing that those with no combat experience often lead the charge for military action.”
Blood Bannon is a National Democrat Strategist and the CEO of Bannon Communication Studies, advocating for Democrats, labor unions, and progressive issues. He also hosts engaging podcasts on politics and policy.
