The limits of power

A conversation with a self-avowed right-wing (and Trump admiring) friend made me think what I really think is wrong with America's Iran war.

But let me start by acknowledging the differences of our political standpoints first. 

First, my friend thinks that America's military might is enormous and it has the ability, and therefore the right, to shape the world in its image. I do not think that America's might is limitless, and it has been proven many times over, in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. It has largely failed to shape the world in its image, and therefore, it should be more circumspect about getting involved in foreign wars.

Second, he also thinks that Iranian regime was repugnant, which has killed tens of thousands of its citizens, and should therefore be overthrown. My view is more nuanced on this: I do not believe what the mainstream media (like the BBC says) and I don't follow Persian channels to balance the English language narratives. Therefore, I am not 100% sure what happened in Iran in the recent months. But I won't be surprised if the regime was repressive and treated its own protesters as enemies. I am not into whataboutery, but Pete Hegseth seems to be treating American media outlets as enemies at the first drop of a hint that the war is not going according to plan. Neither could I forget how Jamal Khashoggi was treated. On a more serious note, how a regime treats its protesters may make it repugnant, but dropping bombs on a city can't be justified by that.

Third, he thought Iraian state was an imminent threat, but I have heard that before. I had to remind him that we have seen there before, and it is clear from the reactions of the Trump-appointed US intelligence community that there was not a strong case for that. Acts of Jihadist terror in Europe or North America are more likely to perpetrated by people of Arab or South Asian origins, and of Sunni, and most likely Wahhabist persuation. Far more plausible is the explanation that Israel has forced America's hand, which, in turn, shows the limit - rather than preponderance - of America's power. 

However, I was not trying to change his mind. Instead, I was allowing the conversation to change mine. It was a useful thought experiment for me to accept the fundamental argument - that America is strong, Iran is bad and there was a threat - and see if the US action still makes sense. Because, doing this - I found - makes me understand issues outside the immediate discourse.

To start with, America is militarily strong, but that strength comes from the consent of the rest of the world. Europe or the Gulf States, for example, are not free-riding: They are consenting - with their dollars - for America to build its arsenal. It is good for America not to have threats such as Iran everywhere else around the world, because that would diminish its power. Therefore, America's 'awesome military power' arises out of its relationships with other states. Frequent boasts that the US pays for everything are misplaced, because the rest of the world is actually paying US to be boasting. 

Next, the Iranian threat was strategic, not nuclear. Clearly, Iranian leadership was maintaining a strategic ambiguity about its nuclear ambitions. This was deemed to be a smart strategy after the end of Muammar al Gaddafi, but after this war, going all out nuclear for smaller states would be preferred. But that Pete Hegseth is saying that 'the Strait of Hormuz will be open only if the Iranians are not shooting at it' tells a story, and that is about a profound misreading of the Iranian threat. Such misreading originates, in my opinion, from a lack of understanding of Iranian culture and its place in the world. In some ways, a conflict between Iran and Isreal was meant to happen, and if the US was the world's policeman, it was supposed to stop that from happening. And that's what it did for many years! Its failure to do so now really says that US is no longer capable of being the world's policeman, as its own institutions are decaying and its strategic thinking is muddled.

Finally, the theocracy question: I am no lover of theocratic states, and would much prefer if the conversations about religion and conscience remain in private, rather than public sphere. I find the stance 'Islam is cancer' (a comment made by Laura Loomer at a conference in India, which is more or less what my MAGA-apologist friend was also saying) a mirror-image of the 'Great Satan' rhetoric. The days of cuius regio, eius religio are long past, and this applies to Iran, Israel and the United States equally. 

I am glad I had the conversation, as I needed to see how impractical and dogmatic the notions we call 'practical' are. International laws are not niceties - I see now - but tools designed to save us from ourselves; practical stuff rather than moral ones, and yet, we have come to believe in our lies. I don't know whether the regime in Iran will change, but I know the regime in America has now changed - by this quest.