The case for — and against — striking Iran

This story appeared in Today, Explained, a daily newsletter that helps you understand the most compelling news and stories of the day. Subscribe here.

The term “fog of war” usually describes the murkiness that combatants experience in conflict zones. For our purposes, it might also apply to the messages coming out of the White House over the past day or so.

President Donald Trump has claimed that he launched a war against Iran to guarantee the end of its nuclear program and topple its hardline regime. In the days since, administration officials have also claimed — without evidence — that the joint US-Israeli strikes prevented an imminent threat that would have caused American casualties.

That allegation is important, because it goes to the heart of the whole thing: Does war with Iran make the world more or less safe for Americans? This morning, we’ll attempt to tackle that unwieldy question.

On one hand, Iran is openly hostile to the US, and the Trump administration would argue that any attack that weakens it is good for American interests. The attacks did this in three ways:

1. They degraded Iran’s military capabilities. The joint US-Israeli operation struck hundreds of targets across Iran, including ballistic missile launchers, drone production sites, military airfields, key naval facilities, and air defense systems. Just as importantly, Trump has said, the strikes made it clear the US would tolerate nothing less than Iran’s complete abandonment of its (already damaged) nuclear program.

2. They weakened a larger proxy network. The Iranian regime is a source of major conflict and instability in the Middle East, funding and arming proxy groups including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and the Houthis in Yemen. Iranian-backed militias were responsible for the deaths of more than 600 US soldiers in Iraq. “It’s in America’s interest to make sure that Iran can no longer be the largest state sponsor of terrorism,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said on Meet the Press.

3. They maintained America’s status as a global enforcer. In the lead-up to the strikes, Trump set two conditions for averting military action in Iran: The regime needed to relinquish its nuclear ambitions, Trump said, and to “stop killing protesters…by the thousands.” Some national security experts have since argued that Trump needed to follow through on that threat or risk losing credibility in the region.

But a weakened Iran could also, maybe counterintuitively, be very dangerous — especially if the regime believes it’s fighting for its existence. The degree and duration of this danger depend, in large part, on what the US and Israel choose to do next. Even ahead of that, however, political scientists and security experts see five major ways the war puts the US at greater risk:

1. The attacks invite direct military retaliation. Iran has responded to the strikes by launching ballistic missiles and drones at US military bases across the Middle East. At least six American soldiers died in Iranian attacks on Kuwait Sunday.

2. They increase the risk of asymmetrical warfare. Iran has a long history of carrying out targeted assassinations, terror attacks, and cyberattacks in response to threats. While the strikes killed many senior defense and intelligence leaders, the Iranian military is likely prepared to retaliate without them — in the Middle East and, potentially, in the US.

3. They could create a dangerous power vacuum. It’s not at all clear who will govern Iran long-term or what role the US will play in guiding that transition. But there are several possible scenarios in which Iran’s new government is even more anti-American than the old clerical leadership. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could step in, for instance. Or the country could fragment into semi-independent regions. A protracted period of civil war gave rise to the Islamic State in Iraq after the US invaded in the early 2000s.

4. They could accelerate nuclear proliferation. The US-Israeli operation assassinated Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei even as his government pursued nuclear negotiations with the US. “This tells any potential adversaries of the US: Get nuclear weapons,” said Ryan Costello, the policy director at the National Iranian American Council, in an interview with The Intercept. Anything less, that thinking goes, won’t guarantee an enemy regime’s long-term existence.

5. They further erode international norms. The United Nations charter allows the use of force in only two specific instances: in defensive response to an imminent threat, or with UN Security Council authorization. By defying the charter, the US arguably gives global powers like Russia and China more cover to menace weaker states in their respective spheres.