logo
American Democracy Might Not Survive a War With Iran

American Democracy Might Not Survive a War With Iran

Yahoo21-06-2025
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
The current debate over bombing Iran is surreal. To begin with, bombardment is unlikely to lead to a satisfactory outcome. If history has shown one thing, it is that achieving a lasting resolution by bombing alone is almost impossible. There was a reason the United States sent ground forces into Iraq in 2003, and it was not to plant democracy. It was that American officials believed they could not solve the problem of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs simply by bombing. They had tried that. The Clinton administration bombed Iraq for four days in 1998. At the end, they had no idea what they had destroyed and what they hadn't. They certainly knew they had not put a permanent end to the program. In 2003, if George W. Bush thought he could have permanently ended Saddam's weapons programs by bombing alone, he would have taken that option.
Iran today poses the same dilemma. America's weapons may be better than they were in 2003, its intelligence capabilities greater, and Iran may be weaker than it was even a year ago, but the problem remains. Bombing alone will not achieve a verifiable and lasting end to Iran's nuclear program. It can buy time, and Israel's strikes have done that. American strikes could extend that period, but a determined Iranian regime will likely try again. A permanent solution would require a far more intrusive international verification regime, which in turn would require a ground presence for protection.
However, that is not the main reason I oppose bombing Iran. Nor is it the reason I find the discussion of all of this so bizarre. You would never know, as The New York Times churns out its usual policy-option thumb-suckers, that the United States is well down the road to dictatorship at home.
That is the context in which a war with Iran will occur. Donald Trump has assumed dictatorial control over the nation's law enforcement. The Justice Department, the police, ICE agents, and the National Guard apparently answer to him, not to the people or the Constitution. He has neutered Congress by effectively taking control of the power of the purse. And, most relevant in Iran's case, he is actively and openly turning the U.S. military into his personal army, for use as he sees fit, including as a tool of domestic oppression. Whatever action he does or doesn't take in Iran will likely be in furtherance of these goals. When he celebrates the bombing of Iran, he will be celebrating himself and his rule. The president ordered a military parade to honor his birthday. Imagine what he will do when he proclaims military success in Iran. The president is working to instill in our nation's soldiers a devotion to him and him alone. Imagine how that relationship will blossom if he orders what he will portray as a successful military mission.
[Read: The three dramatic consequences of Israel's attack on Iran]
Indeed, I can think of nothing more perilous to American democracy right now than going to war. Think of how Trump can use a state of war to strengthen his dictatorial control at home. Trump declared a state of national emergency in response to a nonexistent 'invasion' by Venezuelan gangs. Imagine what he will do when the United States is actually at war with a real country, one that many Americans fear. Will he tolerate dissent in wartime? Woodrow Wilson locked up peace activists, including Eugene V. Debs. You think Trump won't? He has been locking people up on flimsier excuses in peacetime. Even presidents not bent on dictatorship have taken measures in wartime that would otherwise be unthinkable.
Then there is the matter of terrorism. What if Iran is able to pull off a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in retaliation for an American strike? Or even just tries and fails? The courts will permit a president almost anything in the aftermath of an attack: Any restraints they've put on Trump will vanish. The administration may claim that anti-terrorism laws permit it to violate the rights of American citizens in the same way that it is currently violating the rights of the noncitizens being scooped off the streets by masked men. The attorney general has already threatened to use terrorism statutes to prosecute people who throw stones at Tesla dealerships. Imagine what she will do to anti-war protesters with the justification of a real terrorist threat.
Finally, there are the global implications. The United States is currently ruled by anti-liberal forces trying to overturn the Founders' universalist liberal ideals and replace them with a white, Christian ethnoreligious national identity. American officials are actively supporting similar anti-liberal forces all around the world, including the current anti-liberal ethnoreligious government of Israel. Any success Trump claims in Iran, whatever its other consequences, will be a victory for the anti-liberal alliance and will further the interests of anti-liberalism across the globe. This is true even though the current regime in Iran is itself anti-liberal. Should the mullahs fall, Trump and Israel are likely to support a military strongman against any democratic forces that might emerge there. That has been Israel's policy throughout the region, and even presidents who did not share Trump's proclivity for dictators, such as Barack Obama, have acquiesced to Israel's preferences. I'm not interested in using American military power to make the world safer for dictatorship.
[Read: Isn't Trump supposed to be anti-war?]
I might feel differently if Iran posed a direct threat to the United States. It doesn't. The U.S. policy of containing Iran was always part of a larger strategy to defend a liberal world system with a liberal America at its center. Americans need to start thinking differently about our foreign policy in light of what is happening in our country. We can no longer trust that any Trump foreign-policy decision will not further illiberal goals abroad or be used for illiberal ends at home.
Today, the United States itself is at risk of being turned into a military dictatorship. Its liberal-democratic institutions have all but crumbled. The Founders' experiment may be coming to an end. War with Iran is likely to hasten its demise. Not that it matters, but count me out.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Blockbuster 'Superman' Sparks Another ‘Woke' Debate—Between Ben Shapiro, Hasan Piker, Others
Blockbuster 'Superman' Sparks Another ‘Woke' Debate—Between Ben Shapiro, Hasan Piker, Others

Forbes

time16 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Blockbuster 'Superman' Sparks Another ‘Woke' Debate—Between Ben Shapiro, Hasan Piker, Others

Whether 'Superman,' DC's new blockbuster that made a splash at the box office this weekend, serves as a metaphor for Middle East unrest has animated political figures on the right and left—from Ben Shapiro to Hasan Piker—despite the director denying any direct reference. Director James Gunn denied the movie is a metaphor for conflicts in the Middle East. (Photo by Samir ... More Hussein/WireImage) Samir Hussein/WireImage Left- and right-wing 'Superman' viewers have debated whether the conflict between fictional nations Boravia and Jarhanpur, in which Superman stops the more powerful Boravia from invading the poorer and largely defenseless Jarhanpur, is a metaphor for Israel and Gaza. Hasan Piker, a left-wing Twitch streamer and YouTuber some tout as the left's answer to Joe Rogan, suggested Sunday night that Boravia could be an analogue for Israel, noting the fictional country is depicted as a military power and ally of the United States, while comparing its attempted takeover of Jarhanpur to Israel's military campaign in Gaza. Piker objected to an earlier video by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who said the conflict portrayed in the movie does not compare to Israel and Gaza because it 'does not match up to the facts' and can only be seen that way by those with 'left-wing brain.' Shapiro said he does not think the movie has a political agenda, denying other theories the movie is pro-immigration, or offers commentary on Russia and Ukraine, saying these interpretations are caused by 'politics on the brain.' Conservative YouTuber Tim Pool also disagreed that the movie was a metaphor for the conflict in Gaza, pointing out the two countries are portrayed in the movie as a wealthier Eastern European nation and a poorer South Asian nation. Writer-director James Gunn has denied the movie is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though he has admitted it has political undertones. 'When I wrote this the Middle Eastern conflict wasn't happening. So I tried to do little things to move it away from that, but it doesn't have anything to do with the Middle East,' Gunn told Gunn said the movie depicts an 'invasion by a much more powerful country run by a despot into a country that's problematic in terms of its political history, but has totally no defense against the other country,' which he said 'really is fictional.' Gunn admitted the movie is 'about politics,' but said the movie is largely about morality and kindness. Gunn told previously sparked controversy after telling The Sunday Times Superman is an 'immigrant that came from other places,' stating 'Superman is the story of America.' What Have Critics Said About The Politics Of 'superman?' Film critic G. Allen Johnson wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle it is 'chilling how many scenes reflect current reality,' calling the Boravia-Jarhanpur conflict 'very reminiscent of the Israel-Hamas conflict.' William Bibbiani, a critic for The Wrap, said Gunn may have written a fictional conflict between made-up nations for the film, but 'but we know he's talking about' the war in Gaza. Mashable critic Siddhant Adlakha said the movie has 'unavoidable parallels' to Israel-Hamas. 'Superman' has been branded as 'woke' by some conservative critics over Gunn's immigration comments. A Fox News chyron that aired last week called the movie 'Superwoke,' as guest Kellyanne Conway said people 'don't go to the movie theater to be lectured to and to have somebody throw their ideology onto us.' Superman, however, has long been described by fans and critics as an immigrant. Central to his story is his birth on the dying planet Krypton and his arrival as an outsider to Kansas, and the creators of the comic, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, are children of European Jewish immigrants. Frank Miller, a comic book artist who has written Superman comics, said in 2019 he aimed to 'portray Superman as the ultimate immigrant' in his comic series, 'Superman: Year One.' How Is 'superman' Faring At The Box Office? 'Superman' had a big opening weekend, grossing $122 million at the domestic box office and $217 million worldwide. The movie's success is a win for DC Studios, which has not had a box office hit in years. The studio faced back-to-back flops with 'Shazam! Fury of the Gods,' 'The Flash' and 'Blue Beetle,' as well as the critically panned 'Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,' which had a moderate box office performance. 'Superman' received positive reviews, scoring an 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, making it one of DC's better-reviewed films in recent years. 'Superman' continues a hot streak for the summer box office, which has seen consecutive hits including 'Jurassic World: Rebirth,' 'F1' and 'How To Train Your Dragon.' Further Reading Superman's An Immigrant? Director James Gunn Faces Right-Wing Backlash For Claim (Forbes) 'Superman' Makes Huge $22.5 Million Debut—Can It Revive The DC Film Franchise? (Forbes)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store