The '12-Day War,' World War III, and how we describe what's happening in Iran

Yahoo

2 days ago

President Donald Trump wants to call the most recent round of fighting between Iran and Israel the "12-Day War," but he may not get his wish.
That's because journalists and historians are usually the ones who put names on wars, and they often don't choose the titles that government officials put on them.
It's even less likely that the conflict could be named World War III, even though Trump has been warning about it for more than a decade, and even told the leader of Ukraine this year he was risking starting it.
'There's no official naming body, international or national,' said David Sibley, a military historian for Cornell University who is based in Washington, D.C. 'It's really just kind of agreed on by historians, by countries, and sometimes not even that.'
USA TODAY interviewed experts on international relations and military history to talk about what is happening in the world, and how it should be described. Here's what they said.
Howard Stoffer, a professor at the University of New Haven in Connecticut, said the most recent fighting between Iran and Israel marks a "historic turning point in the Middle East,' comparable to the Six-Day War in 1967 or the Yom Kippur War in 1973.
Trump's suggested title might be a way to invoke 1967, "where Israelis used a preemptive airstrike to defeat the Arab countries around them," Sibley said. Israel emerged politically stronger and with more land.
'It certainly would invoke that in Israel and in the Middle East," Sibley said. "It certainly has that sort of pithiness that is appealing, and so it would be interesting to see. I don't know. It might stick."
On June 26 and June 27, the news wire Reuters used the phrase '12-day war' to describe the sparring between the two countries earlier in the month, but not as the official name of the war, which would have a capitalized the "D" and "W." USA TODAY has used the term in quotation marks.
Bryon Greenwald, a professor at National Defense University in Washington, D.C., questioned whether the attacks between Iran and Israel amounted to a war at all, or just a flare-up of a long-simmering conflict the countries have engaged in for decades.
He pointed to airstrikes between Iran and Israel in March, predating the most recent conflict that led the United States to drop bombs on nuclear facilities. 'Does that shift the start date to the left, so it is now longer (than) 12 Days?' he asked.
Peter Singer, a political scientist and author specializing in 21st-century warfare, said if Trump wants the name to catch on, he needs "better marketing."
Graphic: How 70 years of history led to the U.S. bombing in Iran
Even if the the name a president or military leader catches on, names catches on, journalists and historians may change them over time.
'WWI was commonly called the Great War until the media needed to name its successor,' said Don Ritchie, a former Senate historian. 'Historians are usually writing long after the fact and follow the common usage.'
Wayne Lee, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, points to the usage by President George H.W. Bush's administration of 'Operation Desert Shield" and 'Operation Desert Storm' to describe early 1990s conflicts in the Middle East. Most people refer to those conflicts as the Gulf War, the First Gulf War, or the Persian Gulf War.
When President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, his administration named it 'Operation Iraqi Freedom,' but most people call it the Iraq War.
'Sometimes even the names of wars aren't agreed on,' said Sibley, from Cornell. 'What we call the American Civil War, it depends on where you are what you call it − 'The War Between the States,' 'The War of Northern Aggression,' things like that.'
When the U.S. bombed Iran on June 21, Americans grew anxious that World War III had started. Experts caution against declaring armed conflicts worldwide "world war."
'I would be really surprised if this morphed into something that looks anything like the past world wars we've had,' said Will Todman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'But that does not mean peace is likely around the world. … I just don't think those will all be connected in the same way it was in World War I or World War II.'
Russia has been at war with Ukraine for more than three years, at times threatening to use nuclear weapons but never following through. Experts said tensions between North Korea and South Korea could escalate. Or they said China, another nuclear country, could invade Taiwan.
'Forces were fighting just about everywhere around the globe,' during both world wars, Sibley said. 'So even a conflict in the Middle East between two sets of alliances, I don't know that that would rise to the level. I don't know. It retroactively could be labeled that if it gets bad enough.'
Sibley said nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to attack, because countries fear having those weapons used against them. But he said, if two major powers exchanged nuclear weapons it could warrant the moniker "World War III."
Sibley said countries tend to be more cautious about invading or attacking nuclear powers because they fear having those weapons used against them. But he said, if two major powers exchanged nuclear weapons it could warrant the moniker "World War III."
'Post-1945, the assumption has been that World War III is going to be a nuclear one,' Sibley said. 'And, so, short of that, it's hard to see something getting that label.'
Singer pointed to the massive casualties from world wars, numbers that the world has not seen in several of the most recent conflicts combined.
"As many as 22 million people died in World War I and 85 million people in World War II,' he said. 'Stop trying to make World War III happen.'
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Why Trump won't be the one to name the war in Iran