Fool Me Twice: The Case for War With Iran Is Far Thinner Than It Was for Iraq

United States - Ekhbary News Agency

Fool Me Twice: The Case for War With Iran Is Even Thinner Than It Was for Iraq

The rationale for invading Iraq was demonstrably built on falsehoods. In stark contrast, the Trump administration's case for initiating a war with Iran appears to be almost non-existent. Mere days before potentially steering America into another foreign conflict, President Donald Trump delivered a State of the Union address lasting over 90 minutes. During this lengthy address, he spoke at length about America's resurgence, leveled accusations of racial bias concerning alleged fraud by Somali Americans, and expounded on the perceived triumph of a U.S. raid to apprehend Nicolás Maduro in Caracas. This presentation served as a masterclass in testing the patience and attention span of the American public, many of whom were likely hoping for substantive information regarding the escalating threat of armed conflict with Iran that had been simmering for months.

For those listeners who persevered through the entire address, and who possess a clear memory of the George W. Bush era, the tone of Trump's 2003 State of the Union speech – the one that ultimately paved the way for the invasion of Iraq less than two months later – would have felt eerily familiar. In that pivotal 2003 address, President Bush detailed the alleged threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, enumerated the myriad ways Iraq had supposedly deceived international inspectors, and highlighted the egregious human rights abuses perpetrated by Saddam Hussein against his own populace. The President had boasted that Secretary of State Colin Powell would soon present the United Nations with irrefutable evidence of the peril confronting the United States and the global community emanating from Baghdad.

However, while many of the claims made by the Bush administration were dubious at best and outright fabrications at worst, the assertions put forth by President Trump in his recent address were even less credible and significantly more scattered. Trump asserted that Iran would "soon" possess intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States. He also claimed that over 32,000 Iranians had been killed in recent protests, a figure sharply contradicted by NGOs that estimated the number to be considerably lower, and a figure further disputed by an Iranian human rights group, which placed the death toll at 6,488. Furthermore, Trump alleged that the Iranian military had, at some point in history, killed "millions" using roadside bombs, a tactic he implied Iran pioneered. Perhaps the most transparently false claim was Trump's contention that he merely desired for the Iranians to utter the specific words, 'We will never have a nuclear weapon,' despite consistent and explicit denials from Iranian officials regarding any such nuclear ambitions.

In the period preceding the U.S. and Israeli military strikes that occurred recently, the prospect of war with Iran had evolved into a pervasive national preoccupation. The build-up had been protracted to such an extent that its origins had become indistinct, yet the potential consequences loomed large. The path to the Iraq War was similarly characterized by a multitude of justifications. While Saddam Hussein's authoritarian rule was a significant talking point, the shadow of 9/11 and the purported threat Iraq posed to American soil were chief among the stated reasons – the catalyst that galvanized American public support for the intervention. Although Iran has long been a focal point for American neoconservatives and foreign policy strategists, the current escalation has unfolded with unprecedented rapidity and intensity, revealing a government seemingly in desperate search of a compelling casus belli.

The groundwork for this escalation began to be laid as early as December. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had arranged meetings with President Trump at the White House to discuss what he characterized as the threat posed by Iran's conventional ballistic missile program. Netanyahu sought U.S. backing to initiate another devastating conflict. Israel's stated reasoning, according to NBC News reports, was not rooted in Iranian human rights abuses or threats to the American homeland, but rather in perceived threats to Israel and "U.S. interests." Netanyahu's objective appeared to be the creation of a post-war scenario akin to Lebanon, where Israel could continue to conduct daily strikes with impunity, unhindered by Hezbollah's response capabilities. Iran's existing military deterrent capacity prevented such a scenario. Therefore, a more significant, albeit potentially fabricated, threat narrative needed to be constructed and communicated.

The subsequent dissemination of news reports designed to bolster Netanyahu's claims was highly orchestrated. Reports suddenly emerged in the Israeli press alleging that Iran was planning to utilize an imminent military exercise as a pretext to attack Israel. Concurrently with Netanyahu's meetings with Trump, news surfaced suggesting Iran's pursuit of biological and chemical warheads for its missile systems, a narrative eerily reminiscent of the false claims made by Colin Powell before the UN regarding Iraq's alleged weapons programs.

As international attention shifted towards the burgeoning protests within Iran, the United States and Israel found a seemingly stronger casus belli: the justification of supporting anti-government demonstrators with the aim of regime change. Merely days after the protests commenced, President Trump pledged that the "United States of America will come to their rescue" should the Iranian government resort to killing protesters, a behavior he characterized as "their custom." As the death toll mounted, significantly exceeding figures from previous protest movements, pronouncements of impending intervention persisted but never materialized. Western entities facilitated the provision of Starlink satellites to maintain internet connectivity for protesters (SpaceX CEO Elon Musk even humorously endorsed Secretary of State Marco Rubio for the hypothetical position of 'Shah of Iran'). Unnamed foreign intelligence agencies were also alleged to have supplied firearms used in the killing of over 200 members of Iranian government security forces. Despite these developments, Trump continued to signal his intent, stating "help is on the way," and encouraging protesters to "take over institutions," even as the protests began to wane.

The specter of war with Iran has developed into a pervasive national miasma. The military build-up has continued for so long that its precise cause has become obscured, yet the potential ramifications feel all-encompassing. President Trump, alongside Prime Minister Netanyahu, harbored a desire for conflict. However, there was a distinct lack of clarity regarding the timing, the precise justification, and the ultimate objectives of such a war. The desire existed, but the political will and a coherent strategy were absent. Elements were being hastily assembled behind the scenes, sometimes seemingly to persuade President Trump himself to align with a plan he had ostensibly initiated.

Reports surfaced regarding the consideration of strikes against "symbolic military targets," swiftly followed by President Trump commending Iran for purportedly halting hundreds of planned executions. Declarations of an "armada" being dispatched towards Iran's shores were juxtaposed with demands for Iran to cease killing protesters, despite the fact that these protests had concluded days prior. Further reports emerged detailing plans for special operations raids and assassination attempts targeting Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and possibly his son. However, these reports of imminent attacks were just as suddenly retracted, even as military assets continued to amass, facilitating increasingly ambitious operations—a military build-up not witnessed since the full-scale invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration 23 years earlier.

With military actions reportedly underway, the current strategy appears to center on a complete decapitation of the Islamic Republic's leadership and the overthrow of the entire political system through aerial assaults, potentially followed by a popular uprising that President Trump anticipates will topple the regime. "When we are finished, take o