logo
Are We Going to War With Iran or Not?

Are We Going to War With Iran or Not?

Yahoo21 hours ago

It sure looks like the United States is getting ready to go to war in the Middle East. On Wednesday afternoon, the U.S. government suddenly announced the evacuation of embassy staff and military dependents across the region. Gen. Erik Kurilla, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, then cancelled his planned testimony to Congress.
As those evacuations were happening, the British government's shipping industry security office issued a bulletin about "increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity." Asked what was happening, President Donald Trump ominously told reporters, "you're going to have to figure that one out yourself."
While the administration wouldn't publicly say what was going on, its officials were happy to leak the source of the panic to the press. Israel was preparing an attack on Iran, sources told NBC and CBS. The NBC report included a detail that somewhat changes the picture: Israel would attack "most likely without U.S. support."
Still, Iran isn't treating the U.S. and Israel as separate actors. There is a round of U.S.-Iranian talks scheduled in Oman on Sunday, and an Iranian official told Reuters that the alleged warnings about an Israeli strike were a form of "psychological warfare" aimed at building leverage.
Israel's "only option is one that is combined with the United States, and at a minimum, they would need the U.S. to protect them from the barrage of missiles that would be coming from Iran in retaliation," Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, where I used to work, told Al Jazeera. "It's unclear at this point whether this [series of evacuations] is just part of the choreography or whether this is real movement towards taking military action."
Whether the warnings are a bluff or a prelude to a real war, they highlight a deeper problem with the way the U.S. is run. War is the most serious decision a government can make, and Americans shouldn't find out about it through cryptic omens or fat-fingered group chat leaks. If the president feels the need to keep his options open—whether to start a war or stand in the middle of one—he should have to go to Congress and get a war authorization.
Recent polling by the University of Maryland shows that 69 percent of Americans, including 64 percent of Republicans, want a diplomatic deal with Iran, and only 14 percent of Americans want war.
Even the Bush administration, not exactly believers in congressional oversight or limits on presidential power, took more care to build a public case for war in Iraq. (The fact that they lied about an Iraqi nuclear weapons program shows, perversely, that they cared what the public thought.) But the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations all demonstrated that it's easier to jump into a war and dare Congress to stop it, correctly betting that Americans' indifference or hostility to the Middle East would be enough to sustain the war politically.
Worse yet, all of these administrations took the decision about war with Iran out of American hands. Since the late Bush administration, Israel and the U.S. have been conducting the Juniper exercises to practice for a joint military campaign. Although the target was never named, and U.S. officials explicitly denied in 2023 that the exercise was based on "mockups of Iranian targets or of any other adversary," the drills were clearly designed with Iran in mind.
Unclassified U.S. military emails from the time of the Juniper Falcon 21-2 exercise in July 2021, revealed by the group Distributed Denial of Secrets in October 2024, show the heavy involvement of officials from the "Iran Branch" of U.S. Central Command's planning directorate. They also include references to a classified U.S.-Israeli communications system called SEAGULL, nicknamed the "bird phone" or "chicken."
Neither U.S. Central Command nor the Israeli defense ministry responded to Reason's requests for comment.
When the war in Gaza began, the U.S. Air Force deployed intelligence-sharing teams to help the Israeli military. (The Biden administration, which insisted from the beginning that it wasn't involved in targeting decisions, admitted that the U.S. military was helping Israel "locate and track" targets in October 2024.) And there are still U.S. troops manning a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery in Israel, who have been there since October 2024 and were shooting at Yemeni missiles as late as last month.
All that is to say that the U.S. will be enmeshed in any Israeli war unless it makes an effort to extract itself. And Iran knows it, too. Last month, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that his country would treat the U.S. as a "participant" in any Israeli attack. On Wednesday, Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh added that "all U.S. bases are within our reach and we will boldly target them in host countries."
There's a big political incentive for Israel to start a war that the U.S. is expected to finish. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is poised to lose the next election, has used the threat of Iran as an argument against early elections. Amb. Mike Huckabee, the U.S. envoy to Jerusalem, publicly said that Israel would look weak if it voted out its government in the face of a "possible nuclear threat from Iran." Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid accused Huckabee of inappropriate political interference.
War with Iran is also tied to one of Trump's self-imposed deadlines. In April, he gave Iran two months to come to an agreement over its nuclear program. At first, the administration insisted that Iran could continue low-level uranium enrichment for its civilian power plants, then changed its mind. The Iranian government is insisting that, while it is willing to accept limits and swear off nuclear weapons, it won't give up civilian enrichment.
"It would be nicer to do it without warfare, without people dying," Trump said in a podcast interview with the New York Post published on Wednesday. "Yes, so much nicer to do it. But I don't think I see the same level of enthusiasm for them to make a deal."
The Trump administration has started to more publicly sell the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb. Although Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified in March that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told Congress that there are "plenty of indications" Iran has been "moving their way toward something that would look a lot like a nuclear weapon."
That's more a change in U.S. rhetoric than the underlying facts. The Department of Defense told Al Monitor, a magazine based in Washington, that there hasn't been any change to the intelligence assessment made in March.
On Thursday morning, the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board voted to declare Iran was violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The resolution, put forward by the United States and European countries, cited Iran's current stockpile of highly-enriched uranium and its failure to answer questions about past nuclear research.
The irony is that Israel, which the U.S. is relying on to play enforcer, has never signed the Non-Profliteration Treaty. Israel is believed to have an undeclared arsenal of around 90 nuclear bombs, which were built partially by stealing and smuggling materials out of America. The same University of Maryland poll found that 69 percent of Americans, including 63 percent of Republicans, think the Middle East would be safest with neither an Iranian nor Israeli bomb.
But the result of war might be the opposite.
"A strike could potentially have an amalgamating effect, solidifying Iran's determination—I will say it plainly—to pursue a nuclear weapon or withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi told The Jerusalem Post last week. "I'm telling you this because they have told me so directly."
The post Are We Going to War With Iran or Not? appeared first on Reason.com.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Leading Iranian nuclear scientist killed in Israel's strikes bragged he wasn't worried about assassination
Leading Iranian nuclear scientist killed in Israel's strikes bragged he wasn't worried about assassination

New York Post

time9 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Leading Iranian nuclear scientist killed in Israel's strikes bragged he wasn't worried about assassination

A leading Iranian nuclear scientist killed in the unprecedented strikes by Israel had bragged just weeks ago that he wasn't worried about being assassinated — and would happily build nukes if asked. Fereydoon Abbasi, a former head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran who survived a previous assassination attempt in 2010, was among several military leaders and scientists killed overnight as Israel struck the nation's terrifying nuclear program sites, Iran officials confirmed. In an interview last month, the scientist shrugged off a question about fears of being assassinated. Fereydoon Abbasi, killed in the airstrikes, said that if Iran asked him to build weapons, 'I would do it.' MEMRI 'What are we supposed to do about it?' he asked dismissively, saying his work on the nuclear program would live on with younger generations. Abbasi, a hardliner who also served as a member of parliament from 2020 to 2024, also said he would happily help build weapons if asked. 'So far, we have not received orders to build [a nuclear bomb]. If they tell me to build it, I will do it,' he told Iran outlet SNN, the Middle East Media Research Institute reported. 'It is a mistake to set a time frame, whether six months, a month, a year, or a day,' he said about the timeline for building a nuclear weapon. 'Once the decision is made, you will need to make some small changes. If you work with uranium, you will need 90% enriched uranium. This level of enrichment can be achieved by laser, by electromagnetism, or by centrifuges.' If Iran's nuclear infrastructure were destroyed, Abbasi said 'nothing would happen.' President Masoud Pezeshkian (second right) listens to Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Mohammad Eslami as he visits an exhibition of Iran's nuclear achievements in Tehran, Iran, April 9, 2025 AP 'Our capabilities are spread all over the country,' he said. 'If they target the production sites, it will be inconsequential to our timetable.'

Why Donald Trump soured on some of his own judges
Why Donald Trump soured on some of his own judges

Vox

time9 minutes ago

  • Vox

Why Donald Trump soured on some of his own judges

Late last month, approximately 1 billion news cycles ago, an obscure federal court made President Donald Trump very, very mad. The US Court of International Trade ruled unanimously on May 28 that the massive tariffs Trump imposed after taking office again are illegal. That ruling was suspended the next day by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the tariffs will be allowed to remain in effect pending a ruling (arguments are scheduled for late July). But the appellate court's decision didn't soothe Trump. He took to Truth Social on May 29 to post a 510-word screed attacking the judges on the Court of International Trade, before turning his ire toward a more surprising candidate — Leonard Leo, the most important person in the conservative legal movement. 'I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges,' Trump wrote, reminiscing about his first term. 'I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.' This breakup surprised many commentators. But not David French. 'If you're familiar with how the conservative legal movement has interacted with MAGA, you have seen this coming for a while,' French, a New York Times columnist, lawyer, and onetime member of the Federalist Society, told Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram. 'You knew this was coming after 2020. Because in 2020, after Trump had really stocked the federal judiciary with an awful lot of FedSoc judges and justices…none of them, zero of them, helped him try to steal the election.' French spoke with Today, Explained about the origins of the (other) big, beautiful breakup and what it means for the Trump administration and the future of the federal judiciary. Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Federalist Society? I am not now, but I have been a member of the Federalist Society. I was a member of the Federalist Society either all three years of law school or the first two years of law school. But it was also a very different time. I think the Federalist Society at the law school at that time, when we would have meetings, maybe 10 or 12 people would show up. Things have changed. One of the most conspicuous changes is that FedSoc has become an enemy of the president of the United States. From [2020] forward, you began to see this drifting apart between FedSoc and MAGA. When Trump comes back into office and he doubles down on being Donald Trump, all of this became very, very predictable. Because if the Trump administration's argument dovetailed with their originalist legal philosophy, they would rule for it. But if it was just simply Trump's lawless demands, they were going to reject it. And Trump is baffled by this distinction. He's baffled by it because congressional Republicans haven't drawn this line at all. When Trump's demands conflict with conservative principles, they will yield to Trump's demands every time. And the judges and justices have taken the opposite tack to such an extent that Republican-nominated judges have ruled against Trump about 72 percent of the time, which is remarkably close to about the 80 percent or so of the time that Democratic-appointed judges have ruled against Trump. You mentioned a whole host of issues where FedSoc judges have perhaps not given Trump what he wanted. Does the one that finally tips Trump off to go for it on Truth Social surprise you? It doesn't, because what really set him off was striking down tariffs. To the extent that Trump loves a policy, he loves tariffs. The Court of International Trade struck it down, and it was pointed out to him that one of the judges on the Court of International Trade that struck down the tariffs was appointed by him. He had been ranting about judges in general. Now he got specific with Leonard Leo; he got specific with the FedSoc. People like me who'd been watching this for a very long time were not wondering if this was going to happen. We were just wondering what was going to be the tipping point: Was it going to be a Supreme Court case? Was it going to be an appellate court? It turns out it was the Court of International Trade that brought us to this moment. Leonard Leo did not author a decision from this court. Why is he mad at Leonard Leo? Leonard Leo has long been a key figure in the Federalist Society and was very much a part of the first Trump administration, working closely with the administration to put forward judges. For a long time, Trump looked at his judicial nominations and waved them like a flag to the American conservative public saying, look what I did. But the more the American conservative public started loving Trump as Trump, versus Trump as what policy wins he could deliver, the less he started waving these other ideological flags, and the more it became all about him. And so this meant that this marriage was going to be temporary almost from the beginning, unless FedSoc capitulated. And if you know anything about FedSoc and the people who belong to it, and the people who've come up as judges, I knew they weren't going to capitulate. It's a very different culture from political conservatism. Do you think Donald Trump didn't realize that? I don't think he realized that at all. He's had this entire history politically of when Republicans disagree with him, they either fall in line or they're steamrolled. And so it's so interesting to me that he actually began that Truth Social rant that lacerated Leonard Leo and the FedSoc with this question: What's going on? Why is this happening? And I totally understand his bafflement. Because all of the political people had surrendered, or almost all of them. And so when he turns around and these judges and justices just keep ruling against him, you can understand why he would take that as, 'What's going on here? I don't get this. I don't understand this. I've been assured that these were good judges.' And so that's where you get to that real tension. Do you think this rift with the Federalist Society will affect how he appoints judges going forward? The short answer to that question is yes. The longer answer to that question is heck yes. A lot of people were worried about this because they were thinking, Okay, Trump 1.0: He has General Mattis as his secretary of defense. Trump 2.0: He has Pete Hegseth. You can do this all day long. The Trump 1.0 early nominations — sound, serious, establishment conservatives. Trump 2.0 — often MAGA crazies. The question was, 'Is this same pattern going to establish itself in Trump 2.0 on judges?' And then he appointed to the Third Circuit Emil Bove, this DOJ enforcer of his who was responsible for the effort to dismiss the Eric Adams case. He's nominated him for the Third Circuit, and a lot of people are now saying, 'Oh, now that's your harbinger right there.'

Israel strike live updates: Trump says attack on Iran 'excellent' and says 'more to come'

time9 minutes ago

Israel strike live updates: Trump says attack on Iran 'excellent' and says 'more to come'

Early Friday morning, local time, Israel launched dozens of strikes against Iran and declared a state of emergency, according to Defense Minister Israel Katz. "Following the State of Israel's preemptive strike against Iran, a missile and drone attack against the State of Israel and its civilian population is expected in the immediate future," Katz said in a statement. Air raid sirens sounded in Tel Aviv following the announcement. The U.S. did not provide any assistance or have any involvement in the Israeli strike, a U.S. official told ABC News.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store