Quick reactions to the US bombing of Iran

The consequences of these strikes, both human and geopolitical, will take a long time to tally — but the moral and legal verdicts are already in.

Last night’s US bombing strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities serve, if nothing else, as a masterclass in Trump’s methods of obfuscation. For those of us without the advantage of access to securely compartmentalized, top-secret intelligence – a distinct disadvantage, one must admit – the rationale and repercussions of these actions remain not merely unclear, but a deliberate, almost artistic, void. Furthermore, the consequences are unknowable at this point — maybe this will finally lead to the decisive “transformation of the Middle East” that George W. Bush promised us 22 years ago, but equally it could produce an utter catastrophe. Anyone speaking confidently about where on that spectrum it will fall is full of shit and should be distrusted on principle.

With that said, we can already draw several conclusions about the domestic political implications of these attacks. And they’re not good.

1. The Intelligence Basis: A Black Box for the Plebes

A key unknown is the factual basis that led Trump to conclude that now was an appropriate time to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. One might assume that a decision of this magnitude, involving the deployment of America’s most fearsome non-nuclear weapons against Iran’s most deeply buried and armored nuclear sites, was underpinned by some form of intelligence. Yet the specific intelligence (if indeed any existed beyond a convenient whisper from a certain ally) that compelled the Trump regime to execute what appears to be Netanyahu’s long-standing wish remains a mystery. Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, testified before Congress in March that, “the IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003” — the prevention of which is the ostensible casus belli for yesterday’s bombing. When Trump was asked about that statement, he publicly said she was wrong about this, but offered no evidence. Then yesterday, Gabbard then fell into line behind the Dear Leader’s demands, noting that Iran “could” build a weapon “within weeks.” Unless something has changed dramatically in Iran in the last three months, someone at the top of this regime has been lying to us. (No prizes for guessing who the likeliest candidate is for that.)

In any event, the public has not been informed that there is a credible assessment of a new form of immediate threat from Iran — or if this is simply the US military acting as an expensive extension of another nation’s strategic agenda. The fact that we are denied even the illusion of transparency on such a critical matter makes one suspect that Trump and his minions lack politically credible intelligence goods. But even if they have them, the fact that they haven’t bothered to show them speaks volumes about the contempt with which this regime regards a basic democratic duty of any politician, which is to speak frankly and honestly to the public.

This is true regardless of the results of the bombing.

2. The Actual Effects: Trump’s Latest Performance Art

As for the actual effects of these bombings, let us dispense with any pretense of objective reporting. To accept a single word from Donald Trump, whether delivered from a teleprompter or screamed into the ether of social media, regarding the outcome of these strikes would necessitate a level of credulity bordering on delusion. The fact that the mainstream media are simply reporting his statements as facts can only send a chill down the spine of anyone who remembers the role they played in lulling the public into support for the Iraq War in 2003, or Vietnam in 1965, for that matter.

It seems painful to have to type this out again and again, but we need to underscore that Trump is a man whose relationship with verifiable fact has always been pathological. His pronouncements are not about truth; they are about strategy. And this particular strategy, one guesses, has less to do with informing the world about a successful military endeavor and everything to do with the rather pedestrian domestic crises currently dogging his regime. One needn’t be a political savant or cynic to see how these bombings offer a distraction from the terrible optics of sending both armed and masked thugs in unmarked vehicles as well as the actual uniformed military into peaceful American cities; a convenient pivot from his abysmal polling numbers; a headfake away from the political persecution and even assassination of Democratic politicians; and a smokescreen behind which the deeply authoritarian Big Ugly Bill might quietly slither through Congress. Whatever the (unknowable) geopolitical value of these strikes, they clearly have a strategic value for Trump’s domestic political agenda, especially given that the MSM seem happy once again to serve their self-appointed role as stenographers to power during a crisis.

This is true regardless of the results of the bombing.

3. Unavoidable Conclusions: The Unvarnished Truths

Regardless of whether these strikes miraculously usher in an era of unprecedented peace or instead ignite a regional or perhaps even global conflagration, we can still draw at least three conclusions about the politics of these strikes:

A. The integrity deficit of any purportedly anti-war members of this regime: Let’s be clear: any political appointee within the Trump regime who has ever sincerely, and publicly, espoused an “anti-war” stance and claims even a microscopic shred of personal integrity, should have been drawing up their resignation letters before the dust settled on the first explosion. The initiation of unauthorized, seemingly preventive strikes against a sovereign nation is not a nuanced policy shift; it’s a direct, unambiguous violation of any genuine anti-war conviction. Now, maybe we’re going to see a lot of these letters drop tomorrow morning, but I’m not holding my breath. But let’s not get it twisted: a non-resignation for anyone who has ever claimed to be in the “restraint” camp will be a damning indictment. It proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that either their anti-war pronouncements were nothing more than posturing virtue-signaling, or that their integrity is as flimsy as a wet paper bag, or perhaps, most realistically, both.

Let’s start at the top: if Gabbard doesn’t resign over this, it will tell us everything we need to know about her character. Just the humiliation alone should have had her resign last week — though I can see why she might have held on in order to try to stop this decision, since she has long staked out a position as an antiwar “restrainer.” But now, having failed to prevent exactly the sort of war she claimed to be against, she either has to go or else accept that her position in the historical record will be as an embarrassing ethical footnote of a deeply disturbed era: an ethics-free lackey to power with neither integrity nor influence.

B. Anyone who voted for Trump because they are “anti-war” got duped — and in fact is a dupe: To those who voted for Donald Trump because they genuinely believed him to be the “anti-war” candidate, a harsh reality check is overdue. You were not just misled; you were profoundly, fundamentally suckered. No one enjoys being played for a chump, so the cognitive dissonance must be deafening. But if you wish to avoid a lifetime subscription to the “Mug of the Month” club, it’s time to face the music. Trump’s “anti-war” stance was always a transactional façade, merely a preference for his wars over other people’s wars, executed on his terms. This bombing campaign should serve as the definitive, irrefutable proof that your anti-war vote was, in fact, a vote for precisely the kind of unilateral military action you claimed to oppose. If you are at all sincere in your view that America should avoid foreign entanglements, and don’t now turn against the guy, you’re a sap, a patsy, and fool. How many times does Lucy have to pull away the football before Charlie Brown learns the lesson?

C. The Flagrant Illegality, Home and Abroad: Finally, and without hyperbole, these bombings are flagrantly, undeniably illegal. Domestically: The US Constitution, quaint as it may seem in this era, explicitly grants the power to declare war to Congress. These strikes, initiating what is unequivocally an act of war and a clear escalation of conflict with a major regional power, were undertaken without so much as a polite request for congressional authorization. This is not a subtle legal interpretation; it is a brazen usurpation of legislative authority, a clear sign that the rule of law is, at best, an inconvenient suggestion to this regime. Internationally: Under the tenets of international law, the highly restrictive right to launch a “preemptive” war hinges on an “immediate” threat to national security. Iran posed no such immediate threat to the United States — the Director of National Intelligence said so under oath three months ago, which she would have had no reason to lie about. So what we have here is a classic “preventive” war – an attempt to address a potential future threat. And preventive wars, when launched without the express approval of the United Nations Security Council are unequivocally illegal under the modern framework of international law. Trump secured neither the domestic nor the international blessing required to legitimize this act of war. Thus, anyone who remains silent in the face of this blatant illegality is revealing a profound indifference to the very concept of the rule of law, if not outright contempt for it.

These three conclusions – the ethical void in the administration, the painful reality of Trump’s antiwar supporters being suckers, and the unassailable illegality of the actions – are simply undeniable, regardless of whether this campaign proves to be a success or failure. The consequences, both human and geopolitical, will take a long time to tally, but the moral and legal verdicts are already in.