Whose War Is It Anyway?
Dear Leading Ladies,
A friend stopped to get gas on his way home from visiting his grown daughter in southern New Hampshire last Saturday. The station’s proprietor came out of his shop to pump my friend’s gas, smiling from ear to ear and practically singing about how much he loves President Trump. It took barely a heartbeat for my friend to realize the gas attendant is from Iran and was ecstatic about the news that the US had attacked his homeland and killed its repressive leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
In barely another heartbeat, the attendant realized his glee might not be shared. “You don’t like Trump? he asked. “That’s okay. I liked Biden too.”
As we sort through our reactions to this latest military aggression by the Trump administration, my friend’s experience serves to illustrate the conflicting and even surprising feelings we might have.
Here are some questions we have been considering.
The president says he initiated the military action, aka war, in Iran to protect the United States from that country’s missile power. What is the reality of Iran's threat to the US?
As of now, Iran has the largest ballistic missile arsenal in west Asia, constituting a significant threat to US bases and those of its allies in the Middle East. They are years away from having long range missiles that could reach the US.
Is the world a better place without the Ayatollah in charge?
Not only does his death bring with it the possibility of reduced nuclear threat, but also the potential end of the state-sponsored terror by the network he funded that included Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houtis. The end of his reign of terror could also mean an end to the killing of protestors (more than 30,000 dead in the most recent protests) and the strict sanctions on others, particularly women. However, his downfall alone does not guarantee any of this. There could be a new and more dangerous replacement, a power vacuum, a civil war, or a more hardline military faction.
If his death is not enough to guarantee a better life for its people, what is needed and what role should the US play?
For Iran and its people to prosper, support for pro-democracy efforts will be needed. Much will have to be built and rebuilt. Aid will be required, yet Trump says, “the hour of freedom is at hand…When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.” It’s hard to imagine the Iranian people will be able to do that without help.
If, as many say, Trump’s motivation was less about stemming Iran's military power and more about deflecting attention from the Epstein papers, how do we keep the focus on the powerful men who abused girls and got away with it?
Many feel the demand for transparency is so strong at this point, that with the increasing emergence of international figures involved in questionable behavior, there is no possibility of losing the focus on Epstein and his cohorts, including Trump. The media and the DOJ, of course, wield the greatest power in uncovering the truth.
What about Israel’s partnership in the military action against Iran?
Support for military action against Iran is widespread within Israel, across political lines. Though there is fear of a multi-border war, the need to curtail Iran’s missile power is greater. The US continues to support Israel, though many Americans strongly oppose the country’s policies and actions towards the Palestinians. It’s unclear how Israel’s partnership with the US in this military attack on Iran will affect international views toward Israel.
How long is the military action in Iran going to last?
Trump claims it will go on for five or six weeks, though Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has already extended that projection. Certainly, without an exit strategy and a plan to rebuild, many fear a long-term presence reminiscent of Vietnam or Afghanistan. Even those who want to stop Iran do not endorse risking thousands of American lives for a purpose poorly justified or articulated.
What about the killings of civilians — 550 as of Monday, including many young school children?
These will continue to be condemned and considered human rights violations by international bodies, human rights organizations and various nations, just as the deaths of civilian Palestinians and Israelis are. The US and Israel will be judged for how they conduct this war.
A lot has been made of Trump bombing Iran without permission from Congress. Is there a precedent for this behavior by a president?
In fact, taking military action without Congressional endorsement has been common practice among US presidents. Think Korea (Truman), Vietnam (Johnson/Nixon), and Afghanistan/Iraq (Bush/Obama/Trump). Not that those wars were all model US endeavors. Clearly, Trump would have been well-advised to consult the leaders of Congress rather than just notifying them shortly before the first bombs dropped.
Does it sound like we are flip flopping? We don’t think so.
The matter demands a nuanced consideration. Watching Trump act without even consulting with members of Congress is frightening and, we think, dangerous. As our current president continues to act more unilaterally, we become more alarmed by his attempts at autocracy. That makes it hard to assume any good in what he does. We are suspicious at every turn.
And yet.
We like much of what Rep. Hakeem Jeffries had to say about the matter. “Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, unclear ambitions, support of terrorism and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region. The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East.”
The man pumping gas in New Hampshire liked Biden but now loves Trump because his friends and family back home in Iran may have a new chance at a good life. Who knows? Maybe he will even choose to go back to his homeland.
Clearly, the US attack on Iran looks different to different people.
That’s worth remembering.
Therese (she/her/hers)
Judy (she/her/hers)
Didi (she/her/hers)
Leading Ladies Executive Team