Bombing Iran And Lessons From The Past

The airstrikes, which targeted Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon, caught many people by surprise, which one could argue is a smart military tactic. 

But in this case, the strikes came a day after Trump gave one of his “two weeks” pledges for a decision on the matter and as other nations tried to work out a peaceful resolution to the Iran-Israel conflict that started when Israel bombed Iranian targets. The U.S. strikes surely complicated those efforts.

The strikes were ordered even though U.S. intelligence reportedly found no evidence that Iran was anywhere near making a nuclear weapon. According to Rolling Stone magazine, White House insiders said Trump made the decision based on “a vibe,” and probably also due to the exhorting of Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

On Monday, just hours after Iran launched an apparently ineffective retaliatory missile strike at a U.S. base in Qatar (about which Tehran apparently issued advance notice to the U.S., Trump told Fox News), the president took to social media to announce that Iran and Israel had agreed to a “phased-in” ceasefire, which he said would last “forever.” However, before and after that post was issued, Iran and Israel were still reportedly lobbing missiles at one another. 

Trump criticized both sides on Tuesday for their transgressions — but as of this writing, the fragile ceasefire seems to be holding, at least for this instant. (Although, in fairness, any ceasefire that can last, say, seven days might seem like forever in that region.)

Meanwhile, there’s a message coming from some U.S. politicians and talking heads in support of this attack that Trump has, in effect, solved the Iranian issue, or at least pushed the matter back years, if not decades. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told the Jerusalem Post that the U.S. strikes have “dramatically” improved the chances of an Israel-Saudi Arabia normalization deal and proved that regime change in Tehran is the best chance for regional security. 

But that declaration belies history — not just recent history but also a long parade of animosity, war and death that spans centuries, even millennia. 

This current moment cooks in its own cauldron of complexity. The fact that, in response to the airstrikes, Iranian officials immediately conferred with Vladimir Putin in Moscow hints at more drama to come. Also, Trump’s suggestion that the strikes “obliterated” Iran’s ability to create a nuclear weapon are being tempered by reports (including Tuesday from the New York Times) that the bombings may have delayed any such efforts by only a few months. So much remains unclear.

Talk of regime change, a lofty notion on paper, ignores the bitter reality that merely ousting a tyrant or a tyrannical regime can often cause as many problems as it cures, because there’s nothing more dangerous in the political arena than a vacuum. 

When the U.S. and its allies toppled Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in 2003, for instance, it was certainly a seismic moment of change. But one thing that the murderous despot provided was a sort of stability, albeit drenched in blood, as well as a counterbalance to Iran. In Saddam’s absence, Iraq became an unstable element, which led to the rise of the Islamic State (ISIL) group and the emboldening of others, including Iran, thus creating more regional problems. 

When the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021 after 20 years of military involvement, Afghan soldiers, who had been trained literally for a generation by American troops, dissolved into the landscape almost instantly, and the Taliban clawed its way back into power. Was it a mistake for President Joe Biden to pull the U.S. out of Afghanistan (which was the completion of a deal Trump, a longtime critic of “forever” wars, had signed with the Taliban in 2020)? In retrospect, obviously. Then again, would it have been better for the U.S. to remain there permanently as a de facto occupier, with the costs in lives and capital associated with it and with no practical endgame in sight? That is for each of us to decide.

The answers are never so simple.

Thus, talk of a “forever” ceasefire and hailing prospects of regime change, especially one involving a despotic government that has been entrenched for decades, after one series of airstrikes seems to be grasping for easy answers to issues that are agonizingly complex.

Make no mistake, Iran (the government) is a chief architect of many problems in the Middle East — a provocateur and an enabler that thrives on instability, chaos and terror. That’s something to which Iran (the people), among others, can wearily attest.

But there are no clear answers in this region torn by so many wars and where nothing, especially peace, can stand forever. 

kmh