When news broke that the U.S. and Israel dropped bombs on Iran as a joint task force to “remove existential threats” and help create the conditions for Iranians to “cast off the yoke of tyranny,” according to Benjamin Netanyahu, it raised the question: Why are we dropping bombs to prevent future actions?
A U.S. president cannot declare war without approval from Congress, so why did Trump work with Netanyahu on this campaign against terrorism?
“The terror regime fires on civilians and we fire on the terror regime to protect civilians,” Netanyahu said on X. Meanwhile, civilian death tolls are over 700 according to rights groups in the region.
So much for protecting civilians.
I get it, maybe there is a true threat from terrorists, but why is it on the U.S., once again, to get involved in Middle Eastern affairs?
My guesses are Trump wants to force Congress into declaring war to expand his executive powers, oil– because when is oil not involved– and because Trump supports Israel’s agenda even if it is against our national interest.
Honestly, it seems to go against Trump’s own “America-first” campaign, the very base of it being avoiding engaging in unpopular foreign wars.
Throughout history, some presidents have seen boosts in approval ratings during military crises – Bush after 9/11 – but this seems to be doing the exact opposite of improving his ratings. Contrary to history, The Times reports 43 percent of all adults oppose the attacks on Iran, with only 27 percent supporting the attacks.
Since Iran is home to a lot of the oil the U.S. uses, there’s the question of whether the attacks on Iran are simply to prohibit the gain of nuclear weapons in the region or if there is an underlying reason that could influence the oil industry.
Oil is a major source of energy we use and a lot of ours comes from the Middle East. Iran borders the Strait of Hormuz and sees roughly 20% of the global oil trade. When we get involved in issues in other countries, how often are the motivations behind it economic?
Think about it this way: if tensions in the region rise and we gain control of the strait, our administration may argue that this war was necessary to protect global energy trade. What does that mean? If the U.S. controls more of the oil industry, other countries would either be forced to come to us or rely on themselves.
I don’t think this attack is simply oil-based or to further Israel’s agenda; in fact, I would argue that this is to push Trump’s agenda.
He needs better approval ratings; once troops are engaged, Congress would have to take action, and funding is often a big part of this. However, Congress blocking funding during wartime concerns could be risky, so even skeptics may vote to support military actions to avoid accusations of not supporting our troops.
Once Congress is involved, Trump can claim it was not his decision– it was a shared decision, therefore his ratings could improve because why would Congress allow this?
My main concern is what the attacks, which could lead to further escalation (you know, war), would mean for the executive powers he holds. Historically, presidents have gained power during wartime.
Trump could impose harsher foreign policies (think about all the tariffs during his terms), boast greater influence over international alliances (teaming up with Israel now, whose next?) and, more terrifingly, Congress may not be able to manage his actions as much.
Are nuclear weapons a legit concern? Sure, totally. If a country refuses to share its reasoning behind or confirmation of nuclear development, there can be a legitimate reason for fear.
We’ve all seen what nuclear weapons have done in the past and it is fair to want to prevent a catastrophe from happening again. Back to the original question, though.
Is dropping bombs really the most proactive way to fight against potential threats?
If I were a country potentially (or even confirmed) developing these weapons and a bomb was dropped on my sites, I would be taking that very personally.
It is one thing not to trust the reasons behind why a country might potentially be developing nukes, but to act on it by dropping a bomb seems like a bit of an explosive measure.
AP News released a video of supporters of the Iranian government chanting “Death to America,” to which my immediate reaction was oh, ok. Fair enough.
If someone dropped a bomb on us, I would also– if I supported our government– be chanting similar things. Which adds the question: Is it preventing war if we would react similarly if the tables were turned?
Even if the strike was described as “preventative,” the attacked country sure as hell probably does not see it the same way. In fact, the combined presumption of an unprovoked attack and an existential threat looming in the air likely leads to a rallying support for retaliation.
We saw this when Israel struck Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981, where Iraq saw this as an act of aggression. Again, in 2007, when Israel attacked Syria’s reactor, it was condemned. Ignoring this is a pattern of the Israeli government; countries don’t take it lightly when their sites are attacked, even under a preventative narrative.
Not to mention, this could be used as justification by Iran (or any country facing potential attacks for nuclear programs) to create or ramp up nuclear development. Did we not stop to think that if a country is attacked, it may feel the increased need for protection?
The whole reason, according to Netanyahu, is to create a platform for Iranians to fight back against tyranny, but conflicts often escalate nationalism. Yeah, it may help bring down the regime, but couldn’t this have been a discussion between countries before attacking?
We, Israel, along with seven other countries, are confirmed to have nuclear weapons programs. As a country that possesses these weapons and attacked a country presumed to be developing these kinds of weapons, what does that actually mean?
It feels like hypocrisy. We are telling other countries that they cannot have these weapons, but it is okay for us to have them.
We are telling the world that only certain countries can have nuclear weapons because we can be trusted more than others.
If we fear the destruction of our democracy through other countries’ nuclear weapons, why are we ignoring what our nuclear capabilities look like to them?
