National Security Advisor John Bolton has thus far failed to maneuver the world into yet another Made-in-America Middle East conflict. Yet he might soon have the justification he wants. In the American lexicon there is never any such thing as wars of aggression. We prefer calling them wars of liberation.
This has not been a particularly auspicious time for the warmongers amongst us. For the last eighteen months, despite truly valiant efforts to justify an attack on Iran, our neocon cadre, led by National Security Advisor John Bolton and inspired by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has thus far failed to maneuver the world into yet another Made-in-America Middle East conflict. Everything looked so promising less than two years ago, but then a series of unexpected setbacks placed serious barriers in our path to another war of liberation. Even though after sixteen years we still haven’t finished our wonderful, euphemistically named “Enduring Freedom” campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, we sense a growing urgency to force the Iranian people to embrace our way of life and our definition of liberty.
Mr. Bolton must be particularly distressed. Before he became President Trump’s National Security Advisor, he gave a speech in July 2017, before an audience of MEK (Mujahedeen Khalq) supporters—an organization that we once had honorably placed on our list of terrorist organizations, but that has somehow been exonerated since 2012 even though it had been responsible for the murder of Americans. In that speech, Mr. Bolton vowed that before 2019 he and they would celebrate the end of the Mullahs in the streets of Tehran.[*] How frustrating it must be to see 2019 come and already be nearly half gone without any loss of Iranian lives.
In fairness to Mr. Bolton, he was not the only one who misestimated the timeline to war with Iran. I confess to having given several lectures over the last several years predicting 2019 would be the year for an aerial bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities, but neither Mr. Bolton nor I could imagine the host of setbacks this administration would encounter on its quest to start another conflagration in the Middle East. First, there were those pesky European allies of ours who have steadfastly adhered to the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran and have even sought ways to continue trading with that country. Irritatingly, our European allies seem not as spineless and gullible as they were in 2003 when we led most of them into our other grand war, the one against Iraq, which both Mr. Bolton and Mr. Netanyahu staunchly supported.
Then there was that unfortunate hacking into pieces of a world-respected Saudi journalist at the behest of the Saudi Crown Prince. While it is not at all surprising that the Halal Butcher would order such a crime, it is amazing that he actually got caught. The House of Saud is usually much better at covering its tracks—September 11 is a good example of their skill. A third problem came from our other close Middle East ally, Israel. For a while it seemed that Mr. Netanyahu might actually be convicted and go to prison on corruption charges, and never win reelection.
But of all the unanticipated barriers to bloodshed, the most frustrating and inconceivable has been the Iranian regime itself. Pigheaded, obstinate, and seemingly possessed of otherworldly patience, the Iranians have until now refused to take the bait. Even though the Iranian economy shrank by 1.5% last year and is expected to contract by 3.6% this year, (compared to 3.8% growth in 2017 before sanctions were re-imposed), the Iranians continue to adhere to the nuclear deal and have refrained—thus far, at least—from providing the United States any legitimate justification for attacking them.
But recently things have started to look up for those yearning for more chaos and greater bloodletting in the Middle East. In April Mr. Netanyahu was well on his way to becoming Israel’s prime minister for a record fifth time. While still haunted by those corruption charges, as Prime Minister he will be able to further guide U.S. actions against Iran. In the Saudi Kingdom, of course, there was never any possibility of the Crown Prince being indicted on murder charges, but many had hoped that outrage over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi would last a little longer and restrain his activities and power. But other than a few editors at the Washington Post almost everyone else has moved on. And just this week, Iran finally threatened to reassess its nuclear commitments.
The change in tempo has been most evident in the United States. On April 15 the State Department officially designated Iran’s military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). This designation of a foreign government’s military is unprecedented and is indicative of how determined the Trump Administration is to resolve the Iran issue. Then a week later, Secretary of State Pompeo announced sanctions against any country, including our allies, that imports Iranian oil. Although over one hundred companies have already stopped doing business with Iran, the Iranian reluctance to be provoked requires tightening the economic screws further. And finally, just this week, the United States announced that it would deploy the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force to the Middle East region. Intriguingly, although our largest Middle Eastern air force base is in Qatar, there is no clarity yet as to where those bombers will be stationed. Qatar, which maintains sensible relations with Iran, might well object to the use of its territory to conduct airstrikes; there would be no such objection from the Saudis. In making the announcement of these new deployments, Mr. Bolton explained their purpose: “to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”
Cato and Crassus
There are always myriad lessons to learn from history; it’s just difficult to discern which lesson is most applicable to current circumstances. When Cato the Elder ended each of his speeches with a longer version of the phrase Carthago delenda est, probably many of his Senate colleagues rolled their eyes in exasperation or laughter. But eventually he got his way and the walls of Carthage were savagely torn down and the population destroyed. Carthage, too, like modern day Iran, tried to be reasonable and tried to accommodate the Romans, but accommodation was not what the Romans were really after. Perhaps Mr. Bolton, almost as cranky and nearly as vindictive as Cato, will also get his wish and we will be rid of the Iranian Mullahs once and for all. But I doubt it. Wars have a way of producing unexpected results, even if those results are not realized for a long time afterward. President Trump, at least, has much more in common with another Roman, Marcus Licinius Crassus, who was equally wealthy, ambitious, vain, and with a craving for military glory. His unexpected defeat at Carrhae against the Parthians—the Iranians of that time—stunned the Roman world. Of course, there really is no chance for the Iranians to win any military conflict against the United States. But that was and is also true of Iraq and Afghanistan. Our enemies need not win for us to lose.
In the meantime, we must wait and see. An orchestrated accident—the Persian Gulf may prove similar to the Gulf of Tonkin—is a real possibility. We may soon learn how well or poorly those new Russian SAM systems Iran purchased work against our aircraft. Prospects for another illegal war of aggression are improving daily. But in the American lexicon there is never any such thing as wars of aggression. We prefer calling them wars of liberation.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics as we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
* “John Bolton Speech on Iran. War is Coming!”
Editor’s Note: The featured image is a photo of National Security Advisor John Bolton, courtesy of Creative Commons. “John Bolton” by Gage Skidmore is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
Iran is moderate and accommodating? Tell that to Gold Star families whose loved ones were blown up by Iranian IEDs or those missing limbs from those gruesome bombs. Donald Trump is our Commander in Chief, not John Bolton. This article is one-sided and so incomplete.
Thank you for your candid, heartfelt comments. I certainly agree that Iran poses a significant danger to US interests and is responsible for many American deaths. And they are far from “accommodating” in many matters of concern to us. But that is not the thrust of this essay. Iran has in fact been surprisingly accommodating about adhering to its nuclear commitments, even though we have reneged on our commitments. Frankly, I thought they would have torn up the nuclear deal many months ago–and obviously, so did Bolton and Trump. Iran’s reluctance to do so thus far has surprised almost everyone. Thus, the need to further tightening the screws. Bolton (and perhaps Trump) wants war and that means Iran can never do enough to appease us. Take a look at Pompeo’s 12 demands and you can readily see that the only real choice we are giving Iran is to either fundamentally alter itself or to be fundamentally altered by military attack.
Your other point about Iran being responsible for American deaths is not debatable, but again, context matters. If we are to weigh the number of American deaths caused by Iran (directly or indirectly) and those caused by the spread of Saudi-funded Wabbiism, there is simply no comparison. Saudi Arabia is a far greater, longer term risk to us. Moreover, if you look carefully at when Iran attacks us, it is almost always as retaliation. This dates way back to 1983 and the killing of our 241 Marines in Beirut. A horrendous, murderous act, but an act that was precipitated by our choosing sides in a civil war. We were greeted by all sides as peacekeepers when we first arrived and then we started bombing Shiite villages in Lebanon. I have written several other articles that go into greater detail about the Iranian attacks on American interests for TIC over the last two years; no need to restate them here. But again, thank you for your perspective. Whenever any American life is lost, my blood boils with anger too, but my anger is for both those who take that life and those who needlessly and recklessly place that life in danger.
Your thoughts have always been read with great interest. What is your answer to the murderous spread of Islamic terrorism in Africa or the arming of Islamic forces in Lebanon and Syria. Do you see a relationship between the 150 billion dollars given to Iran and the escalation of those ongoing efforts to spread Islam, all of which are attributed to the ‘worlds most active supporter of Islamic jihad,’ Iran? War of Liberation or defending peoples from genocide, like the Yazidis, Kurds or Armenians. How far back are we willing to look at the victims of the spread of Islam by the sword and conclude, enough is enough? How right was Belloc in predicting the ‘rise of Islam’ again? To conclude, as if conclusion were possible, was it ‘losing’ in Iraq and Afghanistan or was it ‘sacrifice’?
Thanks for your comments and questions. I should confess that I am far from an expert on Africa, so I hesitate to say too much about the spread of Islamic extremism there. But what is certain is that our two Islamic greatest threats in Africa are Boko Haram in Nigeria and Al-Shabaab in Somalia. Both of these groups hate Iran as much as they hate us. They are Sunni fundamentalists and have been inspired by Saudi-funded Wahabbi teachings. There is also a growing fundamentalism among Shiites in Africa, funded by Iran, but they are a minority (I think less than 20% of the Islamic population in Africa) and do not constitute a serious threat–yet–to US interests. This is a worrisome trend, though, and we need to keep focused on it. The situation in Lebanon and Syria is far more serious and the Iranians are playing a central and deadly role there. Israel has good reason to be worried and so do we. The question is whether we can temper Iranian involvement there better through confrontation or negotiation. Or perhaps both. But it is unrealistic to think Iran will ever forsake its fellow Shiites, especially given how cruelly they are treated by Sunni extremists. For all his faults, Assad treated/mistreated everyone equally based on their loyalty rather than their religion. As for Belloc, you have have already read my October 4, 2017, essay in which I discuss Belloc’s prescience. Islamic fundamentalism, in my view, is the most serious threat to our way of life, but we are foolishly focusing on the wrong enemy. Iran poses a more traditional threat to us, similar to Russia and China, whereas nonstate groups, well funded by Saudi money, are the greater long term risk. People are too quick to forget that it was the 2003 Iraq invasion that simultaneously led to strengthening these Sunni nonstate groups and also strengthening Iran. I suppose I would characterize that as “sacrifice”, but a squandered one.
I liked your story about the Sri Lanka bombings. It seemed clear headed and reasonable. This one seems to have more feeling.
I am unsure about the Iranians. Most of the Arab states seem to enjoy spouting warlike rhetoric, but they seem to be remarkably ineffective when it comes to actually fighting, unless they are fighting their neighbors.
Blaming the Saudi’s for 9-11 is a little misplaced. Near as I can tell, Osama was frustrated in his attempts to effect change in Saudi Arabia, and so attacked the country he viewed as Saudi Arabia’s biggest supporter / customer, i.e. the USA.
It might not be possible to bring democracy to Asia. They have always been run by autocrats, it might be genetic, or “in their blood”, if you prefer.
If you want to effect change in these benighted lands, you need an massive, long term propaganda campaign aimed at the largest segment of the population, the sheepherders. That’s how the commies prepare for their conquests.
Thanks for your comments, Chuck. I completely agree on the Arabs using hyperbole and wild warlike rhetoric. I realized that cultural phenomenon while stationed in Egypt in the early Eighties. Whenever I would play backgammon with an Egyptian it was like going to war and they never could stop opening their mouths to predict in very colorful terms my imminent demise. As we used to say, big talk, no action. Remember Saddam warning us in 1990 that it would be the “Mother of All Wars”… quite an exaggeration. I’m not sure this same inclination to wild rhetoric is in the Iranian culture too, but seems likely.
I also agree that it would be “misplaced” to blame the Saudi government directly for 9/11. The Saudis would have loved to capture bin Laden; he wanted to destroy the House of Saud as well after all. But, there were/are wealthy Saudis, some close to the royal family, who funded AQ and who continue to support extremists. And the House of Saud itself is indirectly responsible for 9/11 and many other atrocities because of the huge amount of funding it provides to fundamentalist groups that spread its intolerant, anti-Western form of Islam.
On your last point, I’m not convinced we need or should even try to change them. I think Trump has good instincts when he says we should not be interfering in other countries and cultures. Where he fails, I think, is believing that these countries and cultures can be our allies. We don’t have to overthrow the Saudis, but neither should we consider them friends and allies.