Trump Lost The Iran War By Being Evil
Maybe we should be less evil
The US appears to be somewhat closer to a peace agreement with Iran than it has been all the other times that Trump has said we are close to a peace agreement with Iran. This has led numerous people to point out that Trump is a losing loser who lost and who is now giving the Iranian regime everything it wants. Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, for example, posted a clear-eyed thread in which he pointed out that the agreement “is essentially surrender to Iran” and noted that “We should be glad about it, because every day this insane, illegal war continues, we get weaker.”
Murphy added that Iran had survived “America’s best shot.” It demonstrated that it can close the Strait, and it emerged “stronger than before the war.”
Though I mostly agree here, I think it’s worth pushing back on the idea that Iran weathered “America’s best shot.” Given the conditions under which Trump launched his attack, it’s perhaps true that America couldn’t have done any better.
But that’s a big, big given. The truth is that as soon as Trump attacked, he gave up US legitimacy and created a situation in which a US loss was inevitable—and, not coincidentally, a situation in which a US loss was probably the best outcome for the region, for the world, and even for the US.
Doing evil shit, it turns out, makes you weaker, not stronger. If Trump were not a rabid fascist warmonger, the US could in fact have protected the Strait. But he is, and so we couldn’t.
—
Everything Is Horrible is funded entirely by subscribers. So please consider becoming a subscriber? Maybe? It’s $50/yr, $5/month. Or you can tip me at paypal.
No plan, no allies, no support
Many people have discussed this before (including me), but just to reiterate—Trump launched his illegal war of aggression against Iran with no clear goals, without any effort to make the case for war to the American people or Congress, with no effort to bring onboard allies or the UN. Netanyahu promised Trump that the war would be quick and that the Iranian government would instantly collapse if the US dropped a few bombs.
Trump blundered ahead and dropped a few bombs, horrifically murdering hundreds of schoolchildren and many other civilians. He also killed Iran’s leader. But the Iranian regime didn’t blink. Newer, younger leaders took over, and Iran launched missiles at US allies, including Israel and the Gulf States. It also seized the Strait of Hormuz, shutting down fuel shipments and holding the global economy hostage.
At that point, bipartisan backlash to the war and to spiking inflation made further escalation by the US politically impossible. Trump could send ground troops, probably ensuring significant US casualties, or he could intensify bombing in a bid for mass civilian death. Either would make his already basement-dwelling popularity crater—and neither would assure victory in any case. He had no choice but surrender—which is also very unpopular. That’s why he’s been dithering about it for months.
Losing a war by starting it
The key point here is that Trump ensured US failure through his lack of preparation, and through embracing an evil war of aggression in the first place. Murphy’s analysis (and not just Murphy’s) suggests that the war revealed that Iran was always able to defeat America by seizing the Strait, or that America was never really able to protect the Strait. We were always a paper tiger, and Trump’s war just revealed our paperness.
But I don’t think this is actually what happened. Imagine this scenario: Iran’s regime decides to unilaterally seize the Strait, freeze oil shipments, and start charging tolls.
In this situation, the US would not be launching a war of aggression. On the contrary, it would be in the position of reacting to a very clear provocation directed not at the US alone, but at Europe, China, and really every nation on earth.
The clearest parallel would be with George HW Bush’s response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait—except that the seizure of the Strait would more directly endanger US and global interests. There would very likely be overwhelming bipartisan agreement on a military response; the US would also have a lot of support from global allies, probably up to and including troop commitments. A ground invasion would very much be on the table. And with domestic resolve and international aid, such an invasion would very likely be successful.
Regime change in Iran might or might not be achievable at that point. But Iran would absolutely not be able to hold onto the Strait, and it’s quite possible that some sort of permanent international force would be left in place to ensure the waterway’s security.
Iran knew that something like this would happen if it seized the Strait, which is why it didn’t do so long ago. It was not intimidated by fake American power. It was intimidated by the very real threat of American military power backed by domestic and international resolve in the face of an international outrage.
But things turned out very differently when the international outrage was committed by the US rather than by Iran. The world, and the US public, were already sick of two and a half years of Israel’s depredations through the region, undertaken with the support of Trump and (shamefully) Joe Biden. No one was going to help Trump, and they were right not to help Trump, because it was very obvious that if Trump was victorious, he would just go lurching around the world looking for more places to invade and more civilians to kill. He’d already threatened Greenland and Canada, and more than threatened Venezuela and Cuba.
The Iranian regime is evil and sponsors terror around the world. But that pales into insignificance beside the terror Trump has unleashed globally. Everyone has an interest in seeing him humiliated and stopped.
And so, without allies, without domestic support, he was humiliated and stopped. The result is that Iran has the Strait, which it can seize again whenever it wants. It is now a much stronger regional power, especially in regard to Israel and the US. No one thinks this is a good outcome. But Trump has convinced the rest of the world that strengthening the Trumpified US would be even worse. That’s what happens when you have the biggest military on earth and use it to rush around the world murdering and threatening out of pure sadism.
Evil is weakness
The US was in a position to prevent Iran from seizing the Strait forever as long as no president did anything preposterously foolish and evil. But Trump, as is his wont, did the preposterously foolish and evil thing, and so the (evil) US regime is weakened, the (evil) Israeli regime is weakened, and the (evil) Iranian regime is strengthened.
The takeaway here is not that America’s security guarantees were always based on an illusion. Rather, the takeaway is that when the US does evil and puts itself in the wrong, it becomes much weaker, and undermines its own security and everyone else’s.
This is not really a new insight. History at least since World War II has made it pretty clear that the US is well-nigh invincible in conflicts in which right is plausibly on its side, and very much vincible in conflicts where it is behaving like a monstrous colonial oppressor. When the US opposes wars of aggression—WW II, Korea (until it decided to invade North Korea), the first Iraq war—its record of success is impressive. When it acts as an aggressor itself—in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Iran—it causes great carnage and horror on its way to defeat.
Obviously, one lesson here is, “don’t start or support colonial wars and/or wars of aggression.” Another is that our huge defense expenditures do not ensure our safety or victory, but in fact do the opposite. The largest military on earth leads us to believe we can impose our will anywhere and everywhere; it tempts us to bomb and murder our way across the globe, even though such flagrant evil ensures flagrant defeats. Less defense spending, and a less aggressive posture in general, would require us to rely on allies and international legitimacy in crises. Which would be good because, as Iran shows, the only way we can win conflicts anyway is by relying on allies and international legitimacy, just like everyone else.
Fascists like Trump and Secretary of War Crimes Pete Hegseth would have you believe that you show strength, and cultivate strength, by sudden, unpredictable, acts of extreme violence and cruelty. But their embarrassing and humiliating defeat suggests that insulting allies, murdering civilians, launching illegal wars, and fascist sadism in general makes the US, and the world, weaker and less safe for everyone.
Moving forward, we need to repudiate Trump. But beyond that, we need to repudiate the American traditions of hubris, war, and violence which Trump has used to build to a new, disgusting, fascist crescendo. We can do better, in part by determining to be better. We can start by never again launching a fucking war of aggression in the Middle East—and by never again giving Israel the weapons to start its own.
last paragraph: Moving forward, we need not to repudiate Trump.
could that read as: Moving forward, we need to not only repudiate Trump.
Very strong argumentation. I believe one key reason behind US pursuing primacy is something that I've read recently about: how the US uniquely among great powers feels extremely vulnerable. And that it's a core part of its identity, therefore of its policy choices. Always has, since its creation (and before, as colonists individually and collectively all felt very vulnerable to the threat of Native American attacks), then British, Spanish and French invasion (hence the original Monroe doctrine), then Japanese and then Soviet and communist threats. Being vulnerable means wanting two things: 1/ perfect advance knowledge of threats (i.e. building a surveillance system that can anticipate threats anywhere at any time... The intelligence budget per capita in the US dwarfs that of Russia, UK or France), and 2/ being able to strike anywhere based on a preemptive strike doctrine, in order to prevent any emerging rival or even non-rival (domino effect thinking) posing a threat. I fear tackling this feeling of vulnerability might perhaps be needed ahead of having a chance to reducing the military and intelligence budgets. Just my 2 cents.