It’s easy to get caught up in the excitement about the war in Iran. The Iranian government is a brutal theocratic regime hellbent on fighting American interests and allies in the region. It’s hard to find anything bad happening in the Middle East which isn’t covered in Iranian fingerprints. They finance terrorists across the region. They bolster the Russian war machine and provide energy to our enemies in Beijing. The possibility of eliminating this regime and writing a new fate for the Iranian people should ignite passions in all freedom-loving people. Optimism becomes even easier when admiring the capabilities and effectiveness of the US military, which time and time again proves itself to be in a league of its own.
Despite these feelings, I become increasingly pessimistic the more I think about the war and its potential outcomes. Prior to Operation Epic Fury, the Trump Administration’s uses of force in Iran and Venezuela were successful because they were limited missions with clearly defined objectives and strategy. This war, however, is different. I believe that while it may be justified, it is not wise or prudent. It is built on a plethora of bad assumptions, and I have doubts about the operation’s chance at success and how it fits into the larger strategy of US foreign policy.
The Folly of Air Superiority
Air power alone is not enough to win this war. Since the end of the Second World War, the US has often overrelied on air power to prompt the collapse of adversarial regimes, and time and time again this approach fails. War is not simply about winning every battle, or causing more death and destruction than the other guy. War is about accomplishing your objectives, and if the objective of this war is a decisive victory and collapse of the Iranian regime, history proves this approach to be unwise.
War is not simply about winning every battle, or causing more death and destruction than the other guy. War is about accomplishing your objectives, and if the objective of this war is a decisive victory and collapse of the Iranian regime, history proves this approach to be unwise.
The US believed technological superiority and control of the skies would guarantee victory in Vietnam. It did not. In 1999, the US believed that overwhelming air power against the Serbs would collapse the rule of Milosevic and keep him out of Kosovo. It did not (further threats of a NATO ground invasion and lack of Russian support did). Without the use of boots on the ground, achieving enough control to collapse a regime like the one we are fighting in Iran is highly unlikely.
“Air power is best used at an operational level,” said Clay Parham, a PhD student in political science here at Baylor. “The assumption behind [strategic] air power, which is that you can use destruction to gain domestic support without other elements of control, I think is where faith in air power as the only tool falls apart.” If the US continues on its current trajectory of only relying on the skies to collapse this regime, without showing the Iranian people an alternative, there will be no chance at sparking a revolution or diminishing the control of the current government.
The Munitions Problem
One common concern about the war is the possibility of depleting our military’s stockpiles of munitions. These concerns are valid. To this point, advanced air defense systems and cruise missiles, namely tomahawks and interceptor missiles, have been the backbone of the war effort. Because of this massive uptick in usage, many in Washington worry about what this means for US deterrence moving forward. Russia might seize this opportunity to ramp up operations in Ukraine knowing the US could be stingier about providing missiles. These stockpiles are also pivotal for defending Taiwan against a Chinese attack, and those in Beijing may see this as their own opportunity to strike.
This administration seems to dismiss this problem. In a post on Truth Social, President Trump stated that US stockpiles are “virtually unlimited.” Whether or not this is truly a representation of the administration’s belief or simply a common display of bravado from the President, this statement should be a cause for concern.
While we will not lose the war in Iran due to lack of munitions, depleting our resources leaves our deterrence weak and our warriors underpowered in future conflict.
Overspending the Will of the American People
My biggest concern about this war is what I believe it will do to the psyche of the American public if it fails. The public’s confidence in regime change through the use of military force has already been shattered by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe in an active America abroad. The use of force is a tool which we should be willing to use to strengthen our nation’s interests. Therefore, when we enter unwise conflicts, and we fail, this hurts the prospect of its use in the future. If this war fails, will we be willing to defend Taiwan? Probably not.
Operation Epic Fury is surely the boldest foreign policy move the United States has made since the invasion of Iraq. It is bold and well intentioned, but I don’t think we will succeed in creating a freer Iran aligned with the west. For the country’s sake, I hope I’m wrong. For the fate of the Iranian people, I hope I’m wrong. As much as I would love for this war to succeed, I simply doubt that any robust and meaningful change will happen because of it.
The Importance of Civic Discourse
It can be hard in the modern world to feel politically active without relying on social media to voice your concerns and listen to the opinions of your fellow countrymen. The loudest on social media are often the most obnoxious, and it’s difficult to engage in honest and meaningful discourse when this is the only medium you have to interact. To combat this problem, the Alexander Hamilton Society’s chapter at Baylor hosted a discussion event on March 4th to provide an opportunity for students to learn, listen, and discuss this war and its ramifications with their peers.
Events like these are a breath of fresh air for those wanting to talk politics without the noise of social media. “The Iran panel was a great opportunity for me to dive deeper into a significant world event I had previously only encountered on the news and social media,” said Graham Icasiano, an Edmonds, Washington, sophomore who attended the event. “It was especially helpful to hear different perspectives on the conflict and its global impact. The event equipped me to really think deeply.”
