Republicans echo Trump's absurd claims justifying Iran bombing

Miami Herald

12 hours ago

'Peace through strength.' It's one of those deliberately vague phrases that sounds like both a euphemism and a paradox, repeated so many times that it's practically lost all meaning. President Donald Trump insists that his bombing of Iran is a perfect example of this so-called strategy, despite the fact that it stands in stark contrast to the anti-interventionist image he cultivated on the campaign trail, and to the 'peacemaker and unifier' he promised to be.
Republicans are happy to defend him. The most absurd of the defenses came Monday when Rep. Pat Harrigan, who represents North Carolina's 10th congressional district, appeared on Fox News to discuss the strikes.
'We're trying to lower the temperature of global conflict while simultaneously kind of raising it here in order to lower it,' Harrigan, who is a former Army Special Forces officer, said.
What? When you're trying to cool down your house, do you turn up the heat before you blast the AC? When your friends are fighting, do you intentionally inflame the situation before trying to diffuse it? The answer to that, of course, is no. So it stands to reason that raising the 'temperature of global conflict' may not be the best strategy if the goal is actually to lower it.
In theory, 'peace through strength' is meant to be a strategy of deterrence. The idea is that if you build up a strong enough military that's capable of delivering a swift and devastating retaliatory response, it discourages other countries from messing with you. Whether or not it's actually a good strategy, however, depends on how you define strength. If strength means investing more into the military, that's one thing. But if you define it as deliberately escalatory and violent actions, such as bombing your enemy or floating the idea of regime change on social media, that doesn't sound like a means of achieving peace. It sounds like diving into a conflict instead of trying to avoid one, especially when there was no imminent threat.
Trump and his fellow Republicans have touted the strikes as a victory because of what they supposedly 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear program. That contradicts early Pentagon assessments that reportedly found that the strikes likely only set the program back by months, so the actual success is yet to be determined. Trump also helped negotiate a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran, which he claims is 'unlimited' and will 'go forever.' A Georgia congressman has even nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Another example of Republican word salad: Vice President J.D. Vance claimed in a recent interview that 'we're not at war with Iran — we're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' That's some awfully crafty language that sounds like something straight out of '1984.'
'Peace through strength' can too easily shift into the Orwellian paradox of 'peace through war.' Rather than lauding Trump's decision, Republicans should take a more cautious approach. They should be troubled that the strikes occurred without consulting Congress and therefore may not have even been legal. They should be skeptical of Trump's claims that Iran is actively building a nuclear weapon when his own intelligence director testified that it is not. And they should be concerned about the fact that the attack may now incentivize Iran to actually develop such a weapon and make peaceful negotiation all the more difficult.
Vance acknowledged the concerns of starting another war in the Middle East, but insists it's nothing to worry about with Trump.
'I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents and now we actually have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America's national security objectives,' Vance told ABC News.
But there's a reason why previous presidents never made the choice that Trump did, and Trump's refusal to even acknowledge the possibility of failure is what makes his behavior so reckless.
In attacking Iran, Trump took an extraordinary gamble with extraordinary risks. To cheer it on without expressing even the slightest reservation will only embolden him. Cheering, it seems, has become reflexive for Republicans who want to stay on the president's good side. We can't bomb our way to peace, and just because we were lucky enough to avoid disaster this time doesn't mean we always will.