U.S. And Israel Have Laid The Groundwork For War With Iran. Will Trump Set It Off?

For decades, the US political establishment has treated war with Iran as an inevitability. We must reverse course.

By Hanieh Jodat & Emma-Claire Foley, Truthout

The return of Donald Trump to the White House intensifies concerns about whether the United States will further engage in yet another conflict, this time with Iran. On Monday, Trump announced that Iran will be held responsible for attacks by the Houthis in the Red Sea, and will suffer “dire” consequences.

While Trump has brought his characteristic bombast to the issue, he is far from the only voice calling for U.S. military action against Iran. For many years, U.S. foreign policy leaders and media have habitually framed a war with Iran as increasingly inevitable. Public discourse has largely characterized Iran as a “destabilizing force” in the Middle East, and the idea that military action is the next logical step has been promulgated by mainstream Democratic Party leaders as well as the right.

In the past, Trump has surrounded himself with Republican foreign policy thinkers known for their hawkish views on Iran. While he may have become alienated from some of the more pronounced voices leading this charge (such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton, and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo), the confirmation of Marco Rubio as the U.S. secretary of state, and Trump’s unequivocal vows of support for any Israeli actions would seem to overwhelm speculative narratives of his aversion to war. On October 1, Rubio issued a statement urging the reimposition of a maximum pressure campaign against Iran, and showed full support for Israel to “respond disproportionately” against Iran.

National Security Adviser Michael Waltz said in an interview with Fox News last month that “all options are on the table,” when it comes to U.S. policy on Iran’s nuclear program, and that the U.S. will only enter negotiations with Iran if “they want to give up their entire program and not play games as we’ve seen Iran do in the past in prior negotiations.”

Nothing about U.S. or Israeli policies suggests that either country is really driven by ideological opposition to Iran’s leadership; at different times, both have found it convenient to cooperate with Iran. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, despite their official stances against Iran, Israel and the U.S. discreetly supplied Iran with weapons and spare parts, mainly for American-made military equipment left over from the Shah’s era — even as the U.S. also quietly supported Iraq. While Israel’s aid aimed to destabilize Iraq, which was then seen as a major regional threat to Israel, the U.S. aimed to limit Soviet influence in the region as part of what would become known as the Iran-Contra affair.

Under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government, Israel has long openly expressed its desire for regime change in Iran while laying the groundwork for a military conflict. Speaking alongside Rubio in his recent visit to the White House last month, Netanyahu praised Trump’s strong leadership and celebrated Iran’s weakened regional position as a result of the war between Israel and Hamas, as well as the expansion of the war into Lebanon. He expressed confidence in “finishing the job” with Iran.

The consequences of a U.S. or Israeli conflict with Iran would be catastrophic. The Iran-Iraq War, which lasted eight years, left deep scars on the lives of millions, with children bearing the brunt. Iranian men were drafted; fathers, brothers and boys as young as 12 volunteered to fight, leaving behind fractured, grieving communities struggling with shortages of food, water and electricity.

Even without direct war, the United States, United Nations and the European Union have already inflicted sanctions upon Iran, some of which date back to soon after the 1979 Revolution, with the aim of immiserating and pressuring Iranians enough to revolt against the current government. For far too long, the U.S. and its allies have used sanctions as weapons of war, hurting the people of Iran without achieving their purported goals. Iran’s foreign assets have been frozen, and trade embargoes have been imposed with varying degrees of severity over the years. During the last few years, sanctions have tightened further due to Iran’s support for Russia in its invasion of Ukraine and the brutally suppressed protests after the death of Mahsa Jina Amini, weakening Iran’s economy and crushing its working class.

According to experts, as a direct result of sanctions, over 20 percent of Iran’s middle class has fallen below the poverty line. Eighty percent of the country’s citizens have been forced to seek government assistance — hardly driving a wedge between people and government. Iran’s middle class, a potential force for change in the country, has been disproportionately affected. The effects on individuals have been diverse but devastating: Human Rights Watch reports that many Iranians with complex medical conditions cannot access essential treatments as the result of sanctions. Sanctions have reportedly strengthened the Iranian state and military, allowing government-owned companies with the resources to evade sanctions to become more powerful within the domestic sphere.

Despite consistent fearmongering, there is no evidence that Iran currently possesses a nuclear weapon. But it’s closer than it was before; a December 2023 IAEA report stated that Iran had begun producing approximately nine kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent Uranium-235 every month, making it easy to quickly accelerate to producing the 90 percent enriched Uranium-235 necessary to build a nuclear bomb.

The current political status quo doesn’t offer much by way of incentives for Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions once and for all. The Iran Deal provided for sanctions relief and IAEA oversight of Iran’s nuclear facilities, against those who called for military action against the country. But without such an agreement, and without any assurance that the U.S. will not support or participate in a major military action against Iran, there’s little reason to expect Iran to step back from the nuclear edge.

And the stakes are even higher than they might seem to a casual observer. Israel already has nuclear weapons, despite its decades-old commitment to coyly denying its arsenal exists. And Saudi Arabia’s crown prince has stated that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, his nation will follow suit. This would mean three nuclear-armed states in the Middle East. And despite the increasing willingness in some quarters to discuss a “limited” nuclear exchange as something short of a catastrophe, nuclear weapons use in the Middle East would have horrendous implications across the world.

When it comes to Iran, diplomacy has proven effective at preventing nuclear proliferation, increasing transparency and cooperation, and reducing nuclear risks. The Iran Deal should be remembered as a success, not a moment of weakness for the United States. Now is the moment to commit to the work of negotiating a new deal that prioritizes the long-term prosperity of regular people and rejects endless warmongering.