The media pound on President Trump because he hasn't told the American people exactly when the war will end. This is crucial, so the criticism goes, if the people are to support the war. Implied is the gotcha attitude that those who govern us are a sorry lot of dissemblers, Trump being the worst of the worst. Those politicians that dispense snake oil to the masses.
But no commander-in-chief can tell you exactly when a given war will end. This should be obvious. Many journalists, however, assume there's always blood in the water. They repeat the common wisdom as if it were news.
The more important question remains. Why was Iran attacked in the first place? What was the first purpose? Most importantly, was there an alternative way to go?
The answer must be in the affirmative. Trump could have presented the goal of "making sure that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon" not as a war on one rogue country. The war isn't just about Iran. It's a legitimate use of military action to enforce the internationally agreed goal of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, as set out in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), signed in 1968 and ratified in 1970.
Trump could have said (and maybe actually believed) that the overriding purpose in making war was to forestall a world order in which widespread possession of nuclear weapons had become a common denominator of international policy. Recovering Iran's stock of enriched uranium would have followed naturally from this. (For memory, the Obama administration's JPCOA agreement with Iran got Iran to export nearly all of its enriched uranium to Russia.)
The NPT was designed for three goals: 1) to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, 2) to promote peaceful nuclear energy cooperation, and 3) push for existing nuclear states' disarmament. Three pillars: non-proliferation, peaceful use and disarmament.
The NPT was ratified by 191 states. The IAEA was established as the monitor of compliance. No non-nuclear state, including Iran, could plausibly justify refusing the legal obligation not to build nuclear weapons. Indeed, Tehran, then governed by Shah Pahlavi, ratified in 1970. Of great importance, the Islamist revolutionary government set up in 1979 never revoked Iran's signature.
Where were the strategists in the Trump administration, those with enough experience, geopolitical wisdom and knowledge of the history of non-proliferation, to influence the decision?
This was a missed opportunity of historical proportions. The U.S. was enforcing international law, the war had legitimacy. Instead, we got "Trump's war". Instead, we have got a gunfight at the OK Corral.
Ronald Tiersky is the Joseph B. Eastman '04 Professor of Political Science emeritus at Amherst College. The views expressed are the author's own.
