Iran - A Pyrrhic Victory
At the time of this writing, news of the death of Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have been confirmed by Iranian government-run news.
And it is well past time.
And it may cost Americans their liberty.
Legitimacy of the Islamic Republic
I have
written about this topic before in the context of the Israel-Hamas War; a
summary should be sufficient in re-applying it to this new war. Legitimate
governments only exist with the consent of those it governs. To be so
established, the governed must have the means to peacefully replace their
governments, whether structurally or in composition. At a bare minimum, this
requires:
1. Freedom of political speech (no censorship);
2. Freedom of political assembly (two or more political
parties);
3. A legislative branch in which at least one chamber is
directly elected by the governed; and
4. A judiciary which can independently apply the laws
established by the legislative branch.
A failure
to meet these minimum requirements indicates that the established government is
neither sovereign nor legitimate.
This is
very much the case with the Islamic Republic of Iran. While ostensibly it has
competing political parties, they are all legally required to have the same
ideology (based in Islamic Sharia law). Political speech is strictly censored
with draconian punishments, often at the end of a noose.
This, coupled with the sheer inhumane brutality that the Islamic Republic inflicts upon its people (e.g., women esteemed barely above the level of farm animals, imposing the death penalty on atheists and members of the LGTBQ+ community for the sin of being), clearly and unambiguously establishes that the Islamic Republic to not a government as much as it is a monster, which holds millions of people hostages.
Legitimacy of Israeli and U.S. military strikes
Since the
Islamic Republic is not a legitimate government, it is not a factor in the
moral issue of whether or not Israel and the United States (both of which, at
the moment, have legitimate governments and are sovereign countries) have the
right to launch military attacks against it. The main factor is whether or not
military action against Iran is necessary to protect the individual rights of
the citizens of either country.
Israel has
constantly been under attack by various militias and terrorist groups sponsored
by the Islamic Republic since 1979, in essentially a proxy war between the
countries. Such groups include Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. It is dubious
that any of these groups would pose a real threat to Israeli citizens (or even
exist) without the backing of an illegitimate government. Thus, Israel is
justified in attacking the logistical and financial head of such groups.
The United
States’ has not been engaged in many hostilities with Iran since 1979, with
most occurring during the 1980s. Examples include the fatwa issued by Iran against Salman Rushdie and his publishers in
1989 and the bombings conducted by Hezbollah against the U.S. Embassy in
Beirut, Lebanon in 1983.
Recently
though, the Houthis have attacked mercantile U.S. shipping and the Islamic
Republic continues to supply weapons to Russia, which nation is consistently
and systematically undermining democratic institutions with attempts at rigging
elections through state-sponsored cyberattacks. These constitute a threat
against the rights of U.S. citizens.
The
Islamic Republic has always considered the United States to be the “great
Satan”, and its past and present history of violence against it illustrates a legitimate
danger that, if a religious fundamentalist regime were to possess nuclear
weapons, they would use them against the United States (or against an ally,
such as Israel). Millions of people could potentially be killed.
Therefore, if credible intelligence indicates that the Islamic Republic was pursuing the obtainment of such weapons, countries like Israel and the United States are morally justified in using military force to prevent such obtainment.
Outcome in Iran
Because
moral justification exists, this new war with Iran is one of the rare cases where
there is some agreement between President Trump and myself. Historically, Iran
has proven itself to be extremely inept at warfare. Despite having seven times
the population and almost eight years of fighting, Iran could only fight Iraq
to a draw during the Iran-Iraq War (the Desert Storm Coalition defeated Iraq
within two months during the Persian Gulf War). Unlike the 1980s, where bitter
memories of the Shah were still fresh in the populaces’ minds, recent mass
protests indicate that the Islamic Republic is in a far more precarious
position.
Assuming
the goal is for the establishment of a democratic republic in Iran, with a
constitution drafted and adopted by freely elected representatives of all
Iranian citizens, and military actions are consistent and decisive towards such
goal, the war should result in a
quick victory.
But will
it?
If not
January 6, then at least Venezuela represent President Trump’s true feelings on
democracy. It would not be the least surprising if a puppet “transition”
government is established in Iran (perhaps led by the Shah’s son), which caters
to Trump’s blatant corruption (e.g.,
a share in oil revenues), with elections never being truly established.
There is also the potential that the Islamic Republic will continue under new leadership (as is similarly being done with the illegitimate government of Venezuela), which is more moderate and which can “play nice” with the other authoritarian regimes within the region (e.g., Saudi Arabia).
A Pyrrhic Victory for the U.S.
While a
sovereign nation’s moral use of military force against an enslaved nation can
be established, the ends do not justify the means and the morality of the
latter must be established separately.
President
Trump has plunged the United States into a war without Congressional approval. Under the U.S. Constitution, only
Congress may declare war. At best, a President can only mobilize troops to
combat an invasion or insurrection (neither of which applies to the Islamic
Republic in this context).
The U.S.
Constitution, like all others, is a special type of law imposed upon the actions of the government of a sovereign nation by its citizens (as opposed to statutes, which are imposed by a
government upon individuals). A violation of it carries far worse repercussions
than any other law, as a government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of
force. Left unchecked, bloody revolutions follow in the wake of repeated constitutional
violations, with destinations uncertain.
Because the
current Congress is happy to cede its checks and powers to the Executive
Branch, President Trump is authorized to unilaterally declare war – including nuclear
war – whenever and wherever he wants, de
facto. A single man, who can at best be described as “certifiably
incompetent” considering his mental, emotional, and physical state, can now
kill people on a mass scale on a whim.
Of
similar danger, but of a more subtle variety, is the fact that the legal
structure of the U.S. government grants to the President extensive emergency
powers which, ostensibly, were to enable a President to bring a swift and
victorious end to wars and to quell opposition at home. This author has been
particularly leery that Trump will, at some point, attempt to suspend the
Constitution and install himself as the supreme and undisputed dictator of the
country.
While
this is still a possibility, the administration appears to be doing this
subtly, through a docile Republican Congress who gives the President a free
hand to do whatever he wants, Constitution be damned. This is the trend in other
authoritarian countries (e.g., Russia)
and opening an illegal war against Iran (and possibly other countries in the future),
gives Trump the legal flexibility to do just that without much opposition from
the Judicial Branch.
It come as no surprise if Trump decides to flex some of these emergency powers, to the point of rigging the 2026 midterm elections to favor the Republican Party and/or subvert the 2028 Presidential election.
Politics and the War Powers Act of 1973
The opposition would be wise to establish that the primacy of its position is the preservation and protection of individual rights. Yes, the Islamic Republic regime is illegitimate and must go to protect the individual rights of both its citizens and those under its threat. This requires, however, the protection of such rights by the U.S. government through observing the Constitution established by its people and only permitting invasive war when first authorized by Congress.
The first steps in this direction are to repeal the War Powers Act of 1973. This egregious law permits a President to deploy military force whenever and wherever he or she wishes, albeit notification should first be made to Congress, which also must sanction such action within a certain timeframe.
While the purpose of this Act was to permit the President to send troops on “peacekeeping” missions to already established warzones (e.g., the Balkans during the 1990s), it has been stretched (as is wont to happen, when one branch of government is granted too much power and too few checks) to permit a President to create warzones (Venezuela and now Iran being the two latest examples).
While Congress could veto such action, the damage is already done and a commitment to war is already made. Take Iran right now, for example. Assuming Congress disapproved of Trump’s deployment (unlikely) and Trump ceased such deployment (even more unlikely), would the Islamic Republic do likewise in kind? Or would it continue to attack American troops and civilians? What if this were to happen with a major power, such as China, Russia, or NATO sans U.S.?
War is the ultimate power granted by a people to a national government. The sheer weight of destruction (especially in this nuclear age) should not be left to the whims of a single executive. It should, rather, be left to the intellect of a deliberate body who represent the people directly. Such is (or should be) the character of Congress and such should be their exclusive prerogative.
