They made me do it
Another year, another Middle East war. At least since 9/11, but quite possibly before that, this one has always felt like the mid-east conflict version of the “Big One,” the earthquake that would reshape the world forever. And while Congress and even members of the Trump administration play word-games about what is happening, we are at war with Iran.
There is an interesting, if not predictable, congruence on both sides of the political spectrum: Both within MAGA and the left-liberal media there is full conviction that Israel is the reason for the season. For the right and its media influencers, the role of Israel has become a hot knife slicing through their ideological butter. Without going in to details, the split is basically one side saying that Israel not only drives but determines our Middle East policy, and the other side says that its an indispensible ally and is helping us push “peace through strength” into the region. Now, to be clear, I am not particularly interested in breaking down and refuting the arguments and claims, I think the whole thing misses the forest for the trees, which I will get into shortly.
But the debate – and really handwringing – about the role of Israel isn’t confined to the at-times unhinged discourse among the like Fuentes, Tucker, or Ben Shapiro. The liberal media, too, has honed in on the Israelii boogeyman theory of history. While fears about the undue influence of Israel has been present for some time, the context for the current conflict really springs from a recent appearance by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. When asked basically “why now,” Rubio formulated a response based on the idea that we needed to preempt Iranian attacks on US assets because Israel was ready to go. here is the quote:
“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action,” Rubio explained. “We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t pre-emptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”
I found the quote in an article published by the Intercept. Here is a screenshot of the Headline and teaser of the article:
“America is fighting Israel’s War” is pretty stark. It suggests that this was something the US didn’t want and was dragged into. The teaser says “their war.” However, within the matter of the article, the Intercept quotes someone called Brian Fincucane. From the same article:
Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer and expert in counterterrorism and the laws of war, suggested the secretary of state was using Israel as a convenient cover for Trump’s own desire for war — illustrated by Trump’s prior willingness to attack Venezuela and capture its president, Nicolás Maduro. Israel relies on U.S. military aid, which Trump could have used as leverage to pressure Netanyahu, Finucane said.
“The U.S. likely could have prevented Israel from attacking Iran if it really wanted to,” Finucane, currently a senior adviser with the International Crisis Group, told The Intercept.
So which is it? I think Finucane is closer to the mark here. Rubio seems to have been doing two things, and his subsequent remarks I think clarify that. He was attempting to clarify the timing of strikes. Not the broader strategic question of “why this war now.” Moreover, it is quite possible he was giving the administration potential cover by dangling Netanyahu out as a possible scapegoat. Nonetheless, its clear that The US was pushing towards a confrontation. The military had moved significant forces to the region, and the administration was engaged in diplomatic efforts to try and perhaps curtail the need for an open conflict. The massive military presence at Iran’s doorstep was clearly meant as a strong-arm negotiation tactic, and is not dissimilar to what was done in Venezuela, to Finucane’s point. At the same time, I think Trump understands as well as anyone, the street adage, if you pull the gun out, you better be prepared to shoot.
Getting out by Getting In
The fact is that this war is the outcome of the management of the US empire. Trump sees Iran as the final “hostile” piece to the puzzle, that when solved, will allow the US to effectively extricate itself from the region. The basic idea would be that Israel and GCC partners – under normalized relations vis a vis something like the Abraham Accords – would then manage the region, perhaps still with heavy US input and alignment of interests, but without direct intervention. Syria – even while being led by an only recently reformed Al Qaeda operative – seems to be falling in line behind Israel. The Gulf monarchies increasingly see themselves as potential destinations for finance capital, global sporting events, and even tech hubs. For them, normalizing relations with Israel is simply a practical matter. Whether this is popular with GCC societies is another matter. Polling in the UAE, for example, is moderate on economic ties to Israel, but low when it comes to normalization. Of course, the GCC countries in general are not necessarily responsive to their societies, lacking democratic features, and rely instead on securing popular legitimacy through internal stability and economic largesse. The monarchies see those two key legitimacy factors being achieved through normalization. Iraq, meanwhile, remains a shell of its former self. And while Tehran has significant influence in the country, crippling the or removing the Iranian regime would probably end that.
So Iran then becomes the lone “hostile force,” an impediment to the pacification of the region and the reshaping of the economic and security picture of the region. Reducing Iran to a neutered power does algin with Israel’s goals, to be sure. But it also allows the US – Trump’s vision of the empire – to ultimately reduce its presence in the region. Thus, the current conflict.
The US empire is in decline. That doesn’t mean its collapsing. And more importantly, it doesn’t mean that it is incapable. I have no doubt that the US and Israel will achieve a military victory over Iran. Trump doesn’t doubt it either. Yet importantly, it seems to me that the use of this hard power is precisely to extricate the US from the region and manage that decline. As my friend Joseph Sciortino said, Trump is in a kind of Chinese fingertrap, to pull out he has to go in. Furthermore, I think the “pulling out” is really to reduce American commitments in the Middle East and solidify its hemispheric ambitions (the viability of that a debate for another time). One could argue, in fact, that this is “America First” with extra steps.
Ultimately what this should suggest is that Trump isn’t the puppet of Netanyahu or Adelson. Sure, they may get what they want out of it, but what has Trump shown in the last ten years ( or ever really) to suggest that he is someone else’s man? It doesn’t hold up on a personality level. Its an open question whether or not the vision will come to fruition. While a military victory is almost certain, the strategic one is up for grabs. What does the Iranian state look like when the smoke clears? How much harm ends up being done to US credibility in dealing with “difficult” actors? Will Israel and the GCC states be able to keep a lid on things?
Lots of unknowns. Maybe even some unknown unknowns. But what is clear, is the empire is acting on its own behalf.