8 Things You Should Know About Trump's Strikes on Iran

America’s addiction to military intervention in the Middle East is a stubborn habit to break for our nation, and it’s heartbreaking.

It’s heartbreaking mostly because we have continuous evidence that believing we can change minds or political realities in this complicated region by brute military force is folly. Our invasion of Iraq was an era-defining, catastrophic mistake. Twenty years later, we are still fighting the terrorist groups our invasion created. Bombing Libya without a plan for what to do next was a disaster that has plunged that nation into civil war for more than a decade. Our support for the Saudis’ military efforts in Yemen created the world’s worst humanitarian disaster and made the Houthis stronger than ever. In Gaza, turning a blind eye to violations of international law has led to unconscionable levels of death and starvation, but also the recruitment of more extremist fighters than have been eliminated.

But it’s also heartbreaking because the American public has never asked for nor wanted these mistakes to continue. They know better. That’s why when President Obama asked for congressional approval to bomb Syria in 2013, he didn’t get it. The American public rose up and demanded their representatives vote it down. But, we keep going to war, despite the evidence telling us “hell no,” because of a powerful but wrongheaded group of warmongers and cheerleaders in Washington: hawkish politicians; profit-obsessed weapons sellers; and capable but naively optimistic military planners.

As the nation comes to terms with this latest blunder – the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities – I thought it would be helpful to spell out eight ideas that should guide Americans’ thinking as they digest the hourly news updates during the early days of what may become yet another American war of choice in the Middle East.

1. There is an industry in Washington that profits from war, and so it’s no surprise that the merits of conflict are dangerously overhyped and the risks are regularly underestimated. I represent several major defense companies in Connecticut, and I’m proud of their commitment to our nation and the products they make. But there is just no doubt that when there is a $300 billion industry that makes its money off of war, there is a ready chorus of support when a conflict looms. Many of the talking heads you see on television are paid by this industry. And as capable as our military can be, political leaders too often let their can-do ethic get in the way of the true risks of overseas engagement. Their myopia on narrow terms of tactical military success blurs out the broader political and social context in the region and ignores the costs of wars in far off places. The war industry needs conflict to justify its existence – and the annual bloated defense budget. So it is often willfully ignorant of the risks.

2. Almost every war plan our military has devised for the Middle East and North Africa in the last two decades has been a failure. Our major offensive invasions (Iraq and Afghanistan) were disasters. Yes, ISIS has largely been defeated, but they emerged out of the ruins of the Iraq War, serving as a reminder of the unintended consequences of our military actions. There is solace in knowing Osama bin Laden is dead and his organization is still on the run, but no one can claim that Afghanistan was a success now that the Taliban – the very group that harbored Al Qaeda – is back in power. Even more limited engagements were deadly flops. Our halfway support for the Syrian rebels just prolonged that war – in the end, a group that received no support from the U.S. was the one that managed to overthrow Assad and take power. In Libya and Yemen, our air campaign just led to one civil war and extended another. Why would we believe that this plan (and let’s admit we don’t yet know whether the Iran “plan” is limited to the Saturday night strikes or if there’s a plan at all) will be any different?

3. The strikes are illegal, and a major setback for the international rule of law that has undergirded American security for 75 years. Trump’s mounting disdain for the Constitution is a present and clear danger to American democracy. We aren’t just on the verge of a constitutional crisis – we are in one. No president can take preemptive military action against another country without authorization of Congress, and what Trump has done in Iran is illegal. But just as importantly, it’s an assault on international norms, which also guard against nations attacking other nations absent a true threat of attack. It becomes impossible for the United States to lecture other powers – like China or Russia – about their aggression if we don’t even attempt to build international consensus for our actions (remember when we used to at least try to get UN approval for our foreign military campaigns?).

4. You cannot bomb knowledge out of existence. Iran knows how to make a nuclear bomb. They do. And bombing their facilities just destroys their equipment; it does not eliminate their knowledge. Richard Nephew, an expert on Iran’s nuclear program, rightly points out that a result of Trump’s strike may be to convince Iran’s leadership that it must rush to build a nuclear weapon once the dust settles from this attack. The next time, Iran could build their research labs so far underground no bomb could reach them, and with the help of partners (perhaps Russia or North Korea), they could probably speed to a weapon. Trump claimed after the attack that we set Iran back “years”, but really, we have no idea. If Iran makes the decision to build a weapon, and they have a country like Russia helping them, they could easily get a weapon in a dangerously short amount of time. That risk is why many of us believed that a negotiated agreement that put in place verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear program was a safer bet than military action.

5. We didn’t need to start a war with Iran because we know – for sure – that diplomacy can work. If America hadn’t already successfully negotiated and implemented an agreement with Iran to stop them from obtaining a nuclear weapon, maybe the military option would look more reasonable. Yes, we don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, but from 2014-2107, Iran’s advanced nuclear research program was dismantled, and we had inspectors crawling all over the country ensuring their compliance. Trump’s national security advisors urged him to stay in the deal – it was working! – but he disastrously withdrew. But early in his second term, Trump seemed to recognize the value in a diplomatic approach and reengaged in diplomacy and just days before the Israeli strikes began,, There was a real possibility that a new deal could be reached.

6. Even opponents of this strike need to admit Iran is weak, and we cannot know for sure what the future holds. Iran’s limited response to the Soleimani assassination and the recent Israeli attacks exposed Iran’s military and intelligence limitations. Their proxies in the region are less lethal today than a few years ago. Is it out of the question that the tired, elderly Supreme Leader decides that he doesn’t want a drawn out fight with the United States and responds in a way that doesn’t escalate the situation? Sure. But we can’t count on it and have to weigh those risks seriously.

7. There are many very, very bad potential consequences of Trump’s attack. The worst consequence, of course, is a full-blown war in the region that draws in the United States. Remember, after we assassinated the Iranian military leader, Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian missile strike in Iraq narrowly missed killing 100 American troops. Our forces are spread out all over the Middle East and it’s impossible to fully protect them from air attacks in many places. If Iran kills American troops, the conflict could spiral and America would be back at war in the Middle East – something almost no Americans want. Another potentially dangerous consequence would be the fall of the regime in Tehran. The Supreme Leader is a murderous tyrant who wants Israel wiped off the map and has killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq. Even if he were pushed out internally, he could be replaced by someone even more hardline and bent on revenge, willing to order terrorist attacks all over the globe. A third scenario, a civil war in which Iran descends into chaos, could be even worse for the United States and the region (remember it was Syria’s civil war that allowed ISIS and Al Qaeda to grow their power).

8. Israel is our ally and Iran IS a threat to their people, but we should never allow Israeli domestic politics to draw us into a war. Netanyahu’s strikes against Iran began the day his government was up for a no confidence vote in the Knesset. His hardline stances on Iran and Gaza appear to be dictated more by what keeps him in power as Prime Minister than the long-term security interests of his country. And he certainly is not making decisions based upon what is right for American national security. He spit in Trump’s face by launching strikes right in the middle of Trump’s negotiations with Iran (he was so wildly brazen as to assassinate the official overseeing Iran’s nuclear negotiations with Trump), effectively backing the U.S. into a corner. With negotiations scuttled, Trump (wrongly) believed his only option was to join in Israel’s strikes.

This is a moment where Congress needs to step in. This week, we are likely to take a vote that makes it crystal clear President Trump does not have the authorization for these strikes or a broader war with Iran. This is also a moment for the American people to stand up and say we do not want another war in the Middle East. In the last twenty years, we have seen the untold damage done - the lives lost, the billions of dollars wasted, and our reputation squandered - and we won’t allow Trump to take us down that path again.