FLASH
Shkruar nga Robert KaganIn 2003, there was a reason why the United States sent ground troops to Iraq, and it had nothing to do with exporting democracy there.
America, once a beacon of the free world, is heading down the path of dictatorship. Trump's methods in domestic politics are now those of an authoritarian president. In the event of an open conflict with another country like Iran, the consequences would be catastrophic.
The public debate in the US over bombing Iran is surreal. First, it is unlikely to lead to a satisfactory outcome. If history has taught us anything, it is the impossibility of achieving a lasting solution through bombing alone.
In 2003, there was a reason the United States sent ground troops to Iraq, and it had nothing to do with exporting democracy there. American officials believed that they could not solve the problem of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs through bombing alone.
They had tried this before. The Clinton administration bombed Iraq for four days in 1998. And in the end, it had no idea what it had actually destroyed and what it had not. But it knew one thing for sure: it had not completely destroyed the program. If George W. Bush had thought in 2003 that he could permanently eliminate Saddam's military programs through bombing alone, he would have chosen that option. Today, Iran presents the United States with the same dilemma.
America’s weapons may be more advanced than they were in 2003. Its intelligence capabilities are better, and Iran may be even weaker than it was a year ago. But the problem remains the same: Bombings alone will not bring a verifiable and permanent end to Iran’s nuclear program. They can be used to buy time, and Israel’s attacks have done just that. America’s attacks have extended that period, but a stubborn Iranian regime is likely to resume its nuclear course. A permanent solution would require a much more intrusive international verification regime, which in turn would require a presence on the ground to ensure security.
However, that is not the main reason why I oppose bombing Iran. Reading the usual New York Times analytical articles on “foreign policy options,” no one would think that the United States is already heading towards dictatorship.
This is the context in which the war with Iran is being waged. Donald Trump has placed all law enforcement agencies in the country under dictatorial control. The Justice Department, the police, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the National Guard are clearly accountable to him, not to the people or the Constitution. He has neutralized Congress, taking control of the budget himself. And most importantly in the case of Iran, he is actively and openly transforming the US military into his own personal army, to be used at will, even as an instrument of domestic oppression.
Every action taken against Iran serves these purposes. When he celebrates the bombing of Iran, he is actually glorifying himself and his power. The president ordered a military parade on the occasion of his 79th birthday. He did the same when he announced a military success in Iran.
The president is trying to instill in the military a blind devotion to him alone. And this relationship was strengthened after the order to launch what was presented as a successful military mission. In fact, at this time I can think of nothing more dangerous to American democracy than war. Trump could use this scenario to strengthen his dictatorial rule in the US. After all, he has already declared a national emergency in response to
a non-existent “invasion” by Venezuelan criminal gangs.
Would he tolerate dissent in wartime? Woodrow Wilson once imprisoned peace activists, including Eugene V. Debs. Do you think Trump wouldn't do the same? He's imprisoning people in peacetime, and for even more sinister motives. Even presidents who didn't aspire to dictatorship have taken measures in wartime that would have seemed unthinkable under other circumstances.
Then there's the issue of terrorism. What if Iran carried out a terrorist attack on American soil in response to a US airstrike? Or tried and failed? After such an attack, the courts would give the president complete freedom.
Any restraints on Trump would disappear. The administration could argue that anti-terrorism laws allow him to violate the rights of American citizens in the same way that he is now violating the rights of non-Americans who are in our country illegally and are being picked up on the street by masked men. The Attorney General has threatened to use anti-terrorism laws against people throwing rocks at Tesla dealerships. Imagine what
she will do to anti-war protesters if she can justify that with a real terrorist threat.
Finally, this approach also has global implications. The United States is currently governed by illiberal forces that aim to subvert the universal and liberal ideals of the country's Founding Fathers and replace them with a white, Christian, ethnoreligious national identity.
American officials are actively supporting similar forces around the world, including the current illiberal and ethno-religious government of Israel. Trump’s alleged success in Iran, regardless of the consequences, is a victory for the illiberal alliance, and serves the interests of illiberalism around the world.
This is true even if the current Iranian regime is itself illiberal. If the mullahs in Iran fall, Trump and Israel are likely to back a strong military leader, rather than some emerging democratic force.
This has always been Israeli policy in the region, and even presidents less friendly to dictators, like Barack Obama, have adapted to it. I would not want American military power to be used to make the world safer for dictatorships.
I might think differently if Iran posed a direct threat to the United States. It doesn’t. America’s policy of containing Iran has always been part of a broader strategy to defend a liberal world order, with a liberal America at its center. In
light of what is happening at home, Americans need to start thinking differently about our foreign policy. We can no longer trust that every foreign policy decision Trump makes will not be used for illiberal purposes abroad or to strengthen his power at home. Today, the United States itself is in danger of transforming into a military dictatorship.
Its liberal democratic institutions have almost collapsed. The experiment of the Founding Fathers may be coming to an end. Not that it makes any difference, but I completely distance myself from what is happening./ Adapted from "Pamphlet" by "Linkiesta"
*Note: Robert Kagan, scholar and former foreign policy advisor to Republican candidates for US president, as well as to Democratic administrations through the Foreign Policy Board.
Lini një Përgjigje