America's treacherous war on Iran

The expectation that statesmen should conduct themselves with a degree of honour is a cornerstone of civilised society. It is what separates them from rogue elements and common criminals, and it is the very foundation upon which international diplomacy, treaty-making and the mechanics of conflict resolution rest. Honourable conduct at its most fundamental means that when two parties sit across a table to work through their differences, the table itself is a sacred ground. To strike at an opponent while such discussions are underway is nothing short of treachery as it turns the very act of negotiation into a trap. The opponent who lowers his guard in the spirit of negotiation is not presenting a weakness to be seized but a trust to be reciprocated. That the current leadership of the United States chose instead to assassinate Iranian leaders and military commanders in the middle of ostensible diplomatic engagement tells us something definitive about its character. This kind of back alley conduct has historically belonged to those who cannot win on level ground and to tricksters who understand that trust, once extended, becomes the sharpest available weapon against the one who extends it.

The last American president who seemed to genuinely understand the weight of personal and national honour was Barack Obama. Whatever blemishes marked his track record, his demeanour suggested a man who believed that the office carried a dignity inseparable from moral bearing. When he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, he donated the entire monetary award to charity, a gesture that communicated something beyond generosity. It said that he understood how perception and principle intersect in the conduct of international affairs and that he was unwilling to let personal gain complicate that intersection. That era feels distant now to the point of irrelevance. Donald Trump operates on an entirely different philosophy, one that treats the world as a jungle in which the apex predator is entitled to choose his prey and strike at will. His actions confirm that this is not merely rhetoric but an operating doctrine, which is the only way to make sense of luring people to the negotiating table and then taking them out when they are not expecting it. Conduct of this kind corrodes trust not only between the countries involved but also in the idea of diplomacy as a meaningful instrument of resolving disputes.

Now that Iran has responded to the murder of its leaders and the assault on its sovereignty, a curious chorus of condemnation has risen from capitals around the world. These voices have been swift to chastise Iran's retaliation, yet many of them pointedly ignored the dishonourable provocation that started the war in the first place. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave voice to this contradiction when he asked Arab ambassadors, in a meeting in Moscow, where their condemnation was for what the United States and Israel had begun. It was the right question and it exposed the moral incoherence of the international reaction. Because when Iran is denied the legitimacy of a forceful response, the implication is that pre-emptive strikes can be carried out without consequence and that the initial aggressor is immune from judgment while the victim is condemned for self-defence.

The reasons behind the United States entering this war cannot be disentangled from the dominant role of Israel. The notion that this conflict is being waged primarily on Israel's behalf was inadvertently confirmed by Trump's own Secretary of State Marco Rubio who stated in the early days of the campaign that the American strikes were launched in part because of pressure from Israel. He later withdrew the comment but the truth had already slipped out. The New York Times corroborated the substance of Rubio's admission, reporting that the decision to strike Iran was the product of sustained lobbying by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He spent months pressing Trump to hit what he argued was a weakened and vulnerable regime. Even the question of when the fighting ends has been surrendered to Israeli discretion. Trump stated plainly that the decision to conclude the war would be made mutually with Netanyahu, which means that the most powerful military in the world entered this conflict at Israel's urging and will leave it only with Israel's permission.

Why an American president would remain so completely beholden to a foreign government, to the point of sacrificing American lives and resources at Israel's behest, demands an honest reckoning that few in Washington seem willing to undertake. The issue is more unsettling because of material that has surfaced from investigations into foreign influence on the US electoral process. A declassified memorandum attributed to the FBI, released among documents connected to the files of Jeffrey Epstein, reportedly contained an assessment that Donald Trump was compromised by Israel. While the full veracity of the document remains a subject of investigation, it does provide a lens through which the otherwise inexplicable pattern of deference begins to make sense.

Reports indicate, and Trump himself has mused openly, that the United States and Israel are pursuing something far more ambitious than the neutralisation of Iranian military capacity. The goal appears to be regime change and the dismemberment of Iran as a coherent political and territorial entity, an outcome that would serve Israeli maximalist ambitions in the region more completely than any other conceivable result of this war. Yet if the architects of this campaign believe they are building a new Middle East, they appear to have forgotten what happened the last time a similar ambition was pursued in the same neighbourhood. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has warned plainly that the war in Iran risks repeating the disasters that followed the invasion of Iraq. More than two decades ago the overthrow of the Iraqi government produced waves of militant violence, a migration crisis and energy instability that plagued Europe for a generation. The present conflict is already showing similar signs of danger as large scale destruction spreads and uncertainty ripples through the global economy.

So far as can be told, the conflict has produced for the US the opposite effect than intended and consolidated Iranian public opinion behind the state. Trump now faces a strategic impasse of his own construction, fighting a war with no clear objective and no visible path out. The question that lingers over Washington is what an honourable resolution could possibly look like after honour was forfeited at the very starting point.

showaib434@gmail.com