Elliot Ackerman writing in Bari Weiss’ The FP:
Prolonged instability in Iran, the second most populous country in the Middle East, could destabilize an already unstable region. Many of our Gulf Arab allies have remained deeply skeptical of this war from its outset. This isn’t because they harbor sympathy for the ayatollahs or even antipathy for the U.S. and Israel. Rather, it’s because they understand the risks associated with Iranian regime change and the Pandora’s box of instability it could unleash, not only inside Iran but within their own borders and across the Middle East.
The political risks of Iranian regime change extend beyond the Middle East. Those risks also exist in the U.S. According to a recent Reuters poll, just one in four Americans support strikes on Iran. Politically, Trump has little margin for error. Already, elements of the Republican Party and Trump’s populist base feel betrayed by this war, believing it breaks America First campaign promises against foreign interventions that Trump made on the campaign trail. On the far left and within the Democratic Party, little support exists for new military operations in the Middle East.
If the operation in Iran remains limited, swift, and successful, like the operation in Venezuela, these objections may amount to little. But the enemy always gets a say in war. Already, three U.S. service members have been killed as a result of our strikes. Should the Iranian regime continue its fight against the United States, a key part of their strategy will be to inflict maximum U.S. casualties. This could quickly erode an already fragile base of support for the war.
Join the Discussion