Me: “Yes, I watch the news, but this war won’t end well.”
You: “So, you want Iran to win?”
That, or something like it, is the conversation. Or, better handled, the conversation that doesn’t happen.
The War in Iran has created a dilemma (well, actually several dilemmas, but this one is about the civil discourse that is essential to democracy).
The dilemma is that the War isn’t one most of us expected or wanted. Yes, Iran was murdering its own people and attempting to build a nuclear bomb. But, no, we weren’t staying up at night worrying that an Iran missile was about to obliterate us. Nobody I know was building bomb shelters.
So, for most, arguing for the war is difficult. Point to the “evil” that the Iran government represented and that’s about it. President Trump has not provided a single, coherent rationale for the war. We don’t know what “victory” means, notwithstanding that Trump and his hopped-up “Secretary of War” already have declared victory.
Arguing against the war means jumping into bed with the deceased Ayatollah and his son, two of the most despicable creatures ever to inhabit the earth. Do you like the murder, promotion of terrorism, daily chants of “Death to America and Israel” and worse? Isn’t the world better off with the regime gone?
Even questioning the war can prompt accusations of treason. Okay, Hegseth seems a bit over-excited, but don’t you support our troops? If you like Iran and hate our military, why don’t you go live there?
Because of all these things, wisdom suggests not discussing the war with anyone who might not already share your perspective. Support the war (or think you should support the war notwithstanding a few doubts), find someone with a red baseball hat to talk to. Against the war? Make your arguments to Joe and Mika as they present their “facts” on your TV.
Debate, not all of it civil, is what ended the war in Vietnam. The even-then mighty U.S. military could have “won,” but the political will of the people prevailed. Johnson resigned. The troops came home.
This war, unfortunately, is still young. President Trump, at least for now, is saying it will be over soon. Iran’s new leader says otherwise. Peace enquiries (“Are you ready to unconditionally surrender?”) made by Trump’s golfing buddy and real estate guy, Stave Witkoff and his son-in-law, are being rebuffed. The war won’t end until Iran quits fighting. And fighting means non-traditional warfare, as well as mighty B-2s dropping bombs or nuclear submarines torpedoing unarmed ships.
Thus, it may take a debate in the U.S. to end the war—and to convince Trump and Hegseth not to start another one in Cuba (“An easy target—give us a week.”)
In the meantime, Congress’ impotence grows. Democracy, as The Washington Post now disingenuously trumpets, dies in darkness. That darkness is a war that the public isn’t sure it wants, doesn’t understand, and is being waged by a President whose mental competence and integrity are questioned by many.
Now is the time for democracy to spring back into favor and for people to speak up. That can happen, but it takes citizens to make sure fair elections are held in November and to demand their Congressional representatives today start saying “no.”
The U.S. could “win” the war in Iran and lose its democracy at home. Think about it. That is why it is okay to speculate that the war in Iran might not end well.