America made a catastrophic mistake with the Iraq war. Is it about to repeat it in Iran?

Two decades ago, as Americans debated whether their country should invade Iraq, one question loomed the largest: did Saddam Hussein possess weapons of mass destruction? If so, the implication was that the United States should disarm and overthrow his regime by military force. If not, Washington could keep that option in reserve and continue to contain Saddam through economic sanctions and routine bombings.
In time, the implications of the Iraq war far exceeded the boundaries of the original debate. Saddam, it turned out, had no weapons of mass destruction. But suppose he had possessed the chemical and biological agents that the war's advocates claimed. Invading his country to destroy his regime would have given him the greatest possible incentive to use the worst weapons at his disposal. The war would have been just as mistaken — more so, in fact.
For the same reason, the matter of WMD hardly explains the war's genesis or its ultimate consequences. The advocates of invasion, it is true, didn't want Saddam to build his supposed arsenal and potentially go nuclear. More important, however, they saw an opportunity to assert America's dominance on the global stage after the country was struck on 9/11. They wanted to remake the Middle East and demonstrate American power. That they did, just not as they hoped.
Today the United States government, under President Donald Trump, is again weighing whether to use military force against a Middle Eastern country that was not preparing to attack the United States. This time the decisive question is supposed to be whether Iran was building a nuclear weapon and reaching some ill-defined point of no return. If you answer yes, you therefore favor US strikes on Iranian enrichment facilities and possibly much else. After all, the United States has long maintained that Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon, and if that goal cannot be achieved by diplomacy — even if America's ally Israel may have spoiled that diplomacy — it must be attempted by force.
The American public should resist such thinking, which does not make sense. Iran, according to US intelligence, was not on the verge of producing a useable nuclear device. It was giving itself that option, producing highly enriched uranium, but had not yet decided to obtain a weapon, much less undertaken the additional steps needed to construct one. For the past two months, Iran had been in diplomatic negotiations with the Trump administration, and both sides appeared to be getting closer to a deal that would drastically curtail Tehran's enrichment of uranium and prevent any path to the bomb.
Then Israel attacked. It acted less to preempt an Iranian bomb than to preempt American diplomacy. A new nuclear deal would have lifted sanctions on Iran's battered economy, helping it to recover and grow. A deal would have stabilized Iran's position in the Middle East and potentially strengthened it over time. Precisely by succeeding in preventing Iran from going nuclear, a deal would have advanced Iran's integration into the region, accelerating the wary rapprochement Tehran had achieved with its historic rival, Saudi Arabia, over the past two years.
The specific deal under discussion, which envisaged bringing Iran into a regional consortium to enrich uranium, would have kick-started the process. From there, who knows: perhaps the United States might normalize relations with Iran and, having rid itself of its main regional enemy, finally act on the desire of successive bipartisan presidents, Trump included, to pull back from the Middle East.
This was the outcome that would have best served the interests of the United States. This was the outcome Israel acted to prevent. To Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a formidable, normalized, and non-nuclear Iran was the threat that mattered most. Attacking Iran, by contrast, presented an opportunity — to cripple and perhaps even overthrow the Islamic Republic, whose best air defenses Israel had disabled the previous year, after Iran's strongest regional allies in Lebanon and Syria crumbled in spectacular fashion. Israel does not know, because no one can, what kind of Iran will emerge from the wreckage: whether it will be more aggrieved or less, nuclear armed or not, a functioning state or a cauldron of chaos. Netanyahu took a gamble nonetheless, figuring the United States would finish his job, clean up his mess, or both.
Even if Iran were speeding toward a nuclear weapon, even if diplomacy had been exhausted, the threat of a nuclear Iran should not be inflated. Suppose for a moment that Iran went nuclear, which it may well do now that the absence of such a deterrent left it vulnerable to attack. If Iran got the bomb, the United States, a nuclear-armed country, would remain fundamentally secure. Israel, a nuclear-armed country, would remain fundamentally secure. Iran would go nuclear to ensure the survival of its regime. Firing nuclear weapons at Israel would assure Iran's destruction. Iran is unlikely to do that.
Make no mistake: for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is entirely undesirable. It could trigger the further spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and beyond. Iran could resume its destabilizing and destructive activities, targeting US interests and allies, assured that no one would dare to strike at the regime. The United States has rightly invested considerable effort, over decades, to prevent an Iranian bomb. But is that objective worth war? Our war? This war?
If the United States joins Israel's fight to try to finish Israel's job, it will enter into a war of unknowable scope against a country of 90 million people in a region of marginal strategic significance. Iran may well retaliate against Americans, triggering a large-scale, open-ended conflict. In the absolute best-case scenario, the war would quickly end in an Iranian capitulation so complete that Israel would be content to stop shooting. What then?
Iranians won't forget being attacked. Israelis won't trust the country they attacked but left intact. And Americans will see that no matter whom they elect — even on the slogan of 'America first' — their leaders refuse to take control of events and act on the national imperative to leave Middle East wars behind and focus instead on the great many unsolved and worsening problems that will actually decide America's fate.
If, on the other hand, the United States steps back from the brink, it will open up new possibilities. Of valuing the well-being of Americans over the hatred of distant demons. Of no longer living in permanent, insatiable fear. Of getting out of the position from which a rogue ally can obstruct America's efforts, determine its national agenda, and damage its civic life.
Those are the possibilities worth fighting for.
Stephen Wertheim is a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

40 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Clinton donor and lobbyist's chilling threats against Minnesota capitol days after Democrat lawmakers were shot

A Minnesota lobbyist is facing felony charges after he allegedly threatened to shoot people at the Minnesota State Capitol just days after a lawmaker in the state was assassinated and another critically injured. Jonathan Michael Bohn - who has made numerous donations to Democratic causes including Hillary Clinton 's presidential campaign - was arrested on Wednesday after making the threats via text message. The 41-year-old Bohn works as the public affairs director of the Inter Faculty Organization (IFO). He made his first appearance in Carver County District Court on Friday. In court, prosecutors said he had texted someone that he was 'excited to have his gun at the capitol and blow someone's effing face off'. The criminal complaint, seen by KARE11, prosecutors claim he also said that: 'After January 6, I bought a pistol. 'Today I bought 500 bullets. I can't wait to shoot one of you mother******* in the face,' he wrote. Officials said that a search of his home uncovered a firearm and he was placed under arrest. According to the Minnesota House GOP, the text was received by a constituent of Rep. Jim Nash who then reported it to the authorities. The outlet also reported that Bohn cried throughout his first appearance as Judge Eric Braaten set his bond at $1 million and ordered him to not contact the person he had text. Bohn was also ordered to stay at least a half a mile radius away from the Capitol complex. His attorney, John Lesch, said Bohn was engaged in a political argument when he made the comments. Lesch contended that the remarks were inappropriate but didn't mean to convey an actual intent to harm anyone. He told the court that Bohn had been angered by a post that had mocked two of his friends, Rep. Melissa Hortman and Sen. John Hoffman. Hortman was murdered last week alongside her husband Mark, while the same gunman also attempted to kill Hoffman and his wife. Authorities say Trump supporter Vance Boelter, 57, is responsible for the killings, he was arrested late on Sunday night following an extensive manhunt. Boelter was charged with a total of six federal counts - two for stalking, two for murder, and two for shooting and firearms offenses. He already faces state charges, including murder and attempted murder. In a statement, Bohn said: 'I condemn violence in all its forms, and I agree with the calls from public officials and community leaders to turn down the temperature of our political discourse. 'I failed to do that here. I am profoundly sorry that my words have created a distraction during this time of collective mourning. 'This moment demands unity, compassion, and reflection — and I am committed to being part of that healing.' In a bio on the IFO site, it says: 'In the halls of the Capitol, Jonathan is regarded as a well-connected advocate who has worked on a variety of issues leading to legislative victories.' State records say he has been registered as a lobbyist with the firm since 2015, and works in the area of higher education. The IFO is a union that represents thousands of faculty at the seven state universities in Minnesota. He has been placed on leave following the allegations. IFO President Jenna Chernega said in a statement: 'We are monitoring developments closely, cooperating as needed with law enforcement and will continue to keep our members informed. 'As an organization, we remain committed to respectful, values-driven engagement with lawmakers, community partners, and one another – even in difficult moments.' Federal Election Commission data also reveal he has donated Democrat PAC ActBlue numerous times, as well as the Hillary for America campaign.

Reuters

an hour ago

• Reuters

US judge blocks slashing of universities' federal funding from National Science Foundation

WASHINGTON, June 20 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday blocked the National Science Foundation from sharply cutting research funding provided to universities in the latest legal setback to efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to slash government support of research at major academic institutions.

The Independent

an hour ago

• The Independent

Texas man returns from honeymoon alone after wife is arrested by ICE in US Virgin Islands

A recently-married Texas couple has spent over 120 days apart after the bride was detained by ICE during their honeymoon in the US Virgin Islands. Taahir Shaikh of Arlington says his wife, Ward Sakeik, was detained by ICE in February in St. Thomas, despite having a pending green card application and documentation of her stateless status. 'She's considered stateless, which essentially just means you're born in a country that doesn't give you birthright citizenship. And since she was a Palestinian refugee that was born in Saudi Arabia, they weren't recognized as Saudi nationals,' Shaikh told NBC DFW. Shaikh said Sakeik was just 8 years old when her family arrived in the U.S. on a visa. Although their asylum request was denied, her lack of citizenship meant the government couldn't deport them. Instead, they were placed under an order of supervision and required to check in with immigration authorities once a year. Sakeik was just 8 when her family arrived in America on a visa, her husband told the outlet. Although their asylum request was denied, their lack of citizenship meant the government couldn't deport them. Instead, they were placed under an order of supervision and required to check in with immigration authorities once a year. Since then, Sakeik has graduated from the University of Texas at Arlington and now works as a wedding photographer. She has always complied with immigration rules for 14 years, Shaikh said. Sakeik is currently being held at Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado after spending months detained in McAllen, as her green card application remains stalled due to her detention. The couple has spent the first months of their marriage communicating through weekly visits and video calls. 'She constantly says, 'When I get through this phase of my life, what am I not able to endure after this?'' Shaikh told the outlet about his wife. He says they carefully chose to travel to the U.S. Virgin Islands for their honeymoon, believing it wouldn't jeopardize her pending immigration status. The couple's legal team is doing everything possible to prevent her from being deported. Though stateless individuals in removal proceedings are typically eligible for release after 90 days, Sakeik has now been held for over 120. ICE addressed Sakeik's arrest in a statement to NBC DFW, writing, 'The arrest of Ward Sakeik was not part of a targeted operation by ICE. She chose to leave the country and was then flagged by CBP trying to re-enter the U.S. 'The facts are she is in our country illegally. She overstayed her visa and has had a final order by an immigration judge for over a decade. President Trump and Secretary Noem are committed to restoring integrity to the visa program and ensuring it is not abused to allow aliens a permanent one-way ticket to remain in the U.S.' ICE concluded, 'She had a final order of removal since 2011. Her appeal of the final order was dismissed by the Board of Immigration Appeals on February 12, 2014. She has exhausted her due process rights and all of her claims for relief have been denied by the courts.'