The Iran intervention could well turn into an open-ended misadventure.
Following the 1991 Gulf War triumph, President George H.W. Bush enjoyed a surge of popular support that ultimately failed to secure his reelection. Celebrating the success in Kuwait, he famously declared one of the defining statements of his tenure: “It’s a proud day for America. And, by God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.” The American aversion to war traced back to the Vietnam quagmire, alongside its domestic protests and political instability. Nowadays, discussions often focus on the “Iraq Syndrome”—a reluctance (perceived by some policymakers) among Americans to engage in prolonged overseas military actions and the narratives that lead to them.
Yet, proponents argue, “by God, we’ve kicked the Iraq Syndrome once and for all” following the Trump administration’s strikes on Iran last summer and the capture of Nicholas Maduro in January. Will Chamberlain, VP of the Edmund Burke Foundation and staunch supporter of the administration, asserts that the main flaw in the Global War on Terror lay in its poor management by the Bush and Obama administrations and the wars’ extended durations.
Though Venezuela has not descended into chaos yet, that fact alone satisfies Chamberlain’s belief that a drawn-out conflict is unlikely. The Trump administration’s assault on Iran’s nuclear sites last summer did not trigger retaliatory attacks on U.S. forces, leading some loyalists to proclaim, “President Trump isn’t a neoconservative! His actions are swift, and a wider war hasn’t erupted!”
This stance overlooks Benjamin Netanyahu’s five visits to the United States since the strikes, two specifically advocating for expanded intervention in Iran. Also disregarded are the shifting objectives—from “no nuclear weapons” to “no nuclear enrichment at all” to “no nuclear material at all.” Nothing has happened yet, the “plan trusters” insist, we must believe the president that another Iraq or Vietnam won’t follow. History begs to differ.
Post-June, favored regime social media figures and spokespeople launched their own “Mission Accomplished” celebrations. Their rallying cry might have been “He kept us out of war”—a phrase that would soon lose its luster.
The administration’s critics, such as Tucker Carlson—now the establishment’s prime target—have been dismissed as “panicans,” a label that lacks creativity. The absence of immediate disaster was enough to ostracize Carlson, The American Conservative’s Curt Mills, John Mearsheimer, and others who cautioned about possible escalation to a broader war. It’s no surprise whose warnings proved prescient.
Shortly after, reports surfaced that the mission was far from complete; leaks suggested the U.S. strikes had not fully demolished Iran’s nuclear facilities. While the president opted for deescalation at that point, the Israelis were displeased, pushing for a full regime change in Tehran.
Netanyahu evidently followed his sales mantra: always be closing—in this case, closing in on ousting the Iranian government. As U.S. policy gradually escalated, the Israeli administration relentlessly sought American support to restrain Iran. With Iran standing as the only significant barrier to Israel’s ambitions in the Middle East, limiting Iran’s nuclear program and proxy funding became paramount. A nuclear stalemate denies Israel the freedom to disregard its “Palestinian problem” or pursue further expansion.
The June strikes now appear merely to have set the stage for a conflict ignited this past weekend, one that could claim American lives. So much for rapid and effortless success, Will.
The so-called “panicans” have been vindicated. These engagements won’t cease unless Israel achieves its objectives or its domestic allies lose power. The chosen intervention transformed into a “war of necessity” to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran’s refusal to quickly comply with U.S. demands to disarm and denuclearize—moves that historically, have spared regimes that chose to listen—has fueled the conflict.
This war’s trajectory could mirror either Iraq or Libya. Though Iran differs significantly and is a far more formidable challenge than Iraq, it remains a nation divided among factions—some more amenable to the U.S., others extremist and determined to resist until the end.
If American ground forces intervene to topple Tehran’s regime, the scenario will likely unfold similarly to Iraq. Iran cannot halt U.S. conventional forces, so the government might collapse, but guerrilla warfare and civil strife would likely follow. U.S. soldiers would perish fighting for the “freedoms of Iranians” or “Israel’s security,” depending on which warmonger’s rationale prevails. Continued U.S. presence would mean additional casualties. This is the Iraq path.
Should the Trump administration settle for extracting compromises from the Ayatollah’s successor to guarantee “Israeli security,” this will not placate Iranian expatriates or domestic protesters demanding regime change. A U.S. withdrawal—simply decapitating the regime as it did in Venezuela—could ignite civil war in Persia, transforming Iran into a failed state akin to Libya. Such a scenario would likely intensify anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment, fueling future terrorism in Israel and at home, thus paving the way for yet another conflict or nation-building effort.
Even if the Iranian regime endures a brief conflict, there is little reason to trust the U.S. as a genuine negotiating partner, especially given the shifting demands. The United States has demonstrated a willingness to use diplomacy as a façade for escalation. Muammar Gaddafi’s nuclear disarmament did not spare him; likely, the same fate would befall the Ayatollah. North Korea’s Kims have avoided war precisely because they possess nuclear weapons. Should any temporary truce emerge, Iran’s logical move may be to race toward its own bomb.
American service members will die in a prolonged confrontation. U.S. bases across the Persian Gulf and broader Middle East will be targeted if Iran’s regime fears collapse. Israel is also vulnerable, having depleted many THAAD interceptors provided last June. Is it justified to sacrifice American lives so Israel can pursue unchecked expansion in the Middle East? Or to die for the freedoms of foreign nations?
The “mission accomplished” boasts from regime loyalists were at best premature and at worst outright falsehoods. It seems the skeptics were proven right: the prolonged war is inevitable.
Original article: www.theamericanconservative.com
About the Author
