How to Denounce the Iran War Without Facts

The Opinion section of this past Sunday’s New York Times will tell you everything you need to know about why the Left continues to talk about the Iran War as though the US is losing. They’re opposed to the war, of course, because they’re opposed to anything President Trump does, but it’s mildly amusing to watch their efforts to explain their concerns without giving any reason for the war or how it is being fought. Here’s Christopher Caldwell’s Sunday article , entitled “America Is Officially an Empire in Decline.” In the first paragraph, he describes how badly he thinks the war is going: “The American-Israeli attack on Iran was more than a bad idea; it has turned into a watershed in the decline of the American empire.” Notice that he gives no reason for the war; that makes it easier to denounce. Who wouldn’t oppose a war that has no purpose. Is it really possible that the United States’ and Israel’s completely successful attack on Iran was a first step along a “watershed” that will bring about American decline? It seems unlikely, but let’s see his explanation. First: “Imperial systems, whatever you call them, last only as long as their means are adequate to their ends. And with the Iran war, President Trump has overextended the empire dangerously.” OK, what has Trump done that has over-extended the American empire so “dangerously” that it threatens America’s decline? For several weeks the United States and Israel pulverized the military assets of Iran, a country that has threatened the rest of the world with the danger of nuclear weapons, and killed thousands of its own people for protesting. In those attacks, no aircraft were lost, no pilots were killed; it actually seems as though all the losses were on Iran’s side. Have those attacks actually stretched America’s efforts so far that they exceed America’s means? Of course, the very nature of war is to go well beyond your normal behavior. So, the reader might expect that Caldwell is arguing that going to war with Iran has extended the American military or the American economy, or something, so far that it “endangers” the country. But no. Here’s the key paragraph: It would be wrong to say that the United States is trapped by the war it started. It has options. But it is now going to pay a very steep price, no matter which of them it chooses. It can desist in Iran—having demonstrated, for no good reason, that its military is far less dominant than the world had assumed. What is never mentioned in the article is the US reason for attacking Iran. That reason, of course, is that Iran has been—and unless stopped will continue to—develop nuclear weapons without US intervention. When those nuclear weapons are pointed at Caldwell, what will he say? It is easy to write an article denouncing what the US has done, without mentioning the reason that the US has done it, but when written that article is a fraud, a waste of space, embarrassing to the writer and the newspaper that published it.  But wait. The New York Times published this article in the same editorial section where the Caldwell article appeared. It has its own serious flaws. Like the Caldwell article, the editorial did not mention the reason for the war—depriving Iran of its nuclear materials—but it criticized the war anyway and is chock full of factual errors.  The editorial began with a concern that, On paper, the war with Iran should not be much of a contest. The United States spends around $1 trillion a year on its military, more than 100 times as much as Iran. That money buys a vastly larger Air Force and Navy, as well as advanced weapons technologies that Iranian generals can only dream about. Then, of course, the Times goes on to point out that the US hasn’t won the war, without informing its readers what the war is actually about. There are also a few facts that the Times editorial team seem to have missed. For one, what the US spends on its military is necessary to cover the entire world, not just Iran. For another, the US is attempting to minimize US casualties, so in order to get Iran’s nuclear materials President Trump is banking on external pressure, such as a blockade, rather than an invasion. The Times editorialists find this policy bizarre, although it is only common sense: “While President Trump seems eager for a negotiated truce, Iran’s leaders do not. Somehow, the weaker nation is in the stronger negotiating position.” Fortunately, for our troops and their families, President Trump has been guided in this war by common sense, rather than the views of the Times editorial board. The post How to Denounce the Iran War Without Facts appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI .