I never imagined I would miss being lied to by George W. Bush and his henchmen.
When the Bush administration wanted to go to war with Iraq, it mounted a full-court press to propagandise the American public. Officials leaked false claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist.
Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered a deceptive presentation at the United Nations. In Congress, many Democrats, yielding to public pressure or their own hawkish instincts, joined Republicans to authorise an invasion.
This mendacious campaign was shameful and helped create today’s atmosphere of cynicism and paranoia.
Yet, in retrospect, it acknowledged that public opinion mattered — that a president could not start a war without persuading Americans it was necessary. It manipulated democratic deliberation rather than simply negating it.
Compare that with Donald Trump and a threatened war with Iran. On Wednesday, Axios reporter Barak Ravid warned that the United States is closer to a major Middle East war than most Americans realise and that it could begin soon.
The US has carried out its largest regional air-power buildup since the Iraq War, and the military has reportedly given Trump the option to strike as soon as this weekend.
Congress has neither authorised such a war nor seriously debated it. The administration has not explained to lawmakers or the public why it might bomb Iran or what it hopes to achieve. “There haven’t been any briefings about a military strategy,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, who is working with Rep. Thomas Massie to force a vote on an anti-war measure.
Most reports suggest the White House is planning a campaign far more intense than last year’s bombing of Iran or the abduction of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro. Yet it remains unclear whether Trump and his advisers are pursuing regime change, or what they think would follow. This is how an autocracy goes to war — without even a pretence that consent of the governed matters.
At the centre of the conflict is Iran’s nuclear programme, which Trump claims he destroyed eight months ago at the end of Israel’s 12-day war. A report from the Defence Intelligence Agency found the US bombing campaign set the programme back by less than six months.
Still, a page on the White House website insists Iran’s nuclear facilities were obliterated and that suggestions otherwise are “fake news”. The administration appears to see little need to justify a new war to eliminate a programme it says it already destroyed.
Officials are also reportedly demanding that Iran curb its ballistic missile programme and end support for regional proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.
Whether these demands are serious or a negotiating tactic is unclear, but they are likely red lines for Iran.
So far, the administration has scarcely explained the reasoning behind its demands. Iran’s missiles and militias threaten Israel far more than the US. Taken at face value, the position sits uneasily with Trump’s America First rhetoric.
I do not think Trump would go to war to protect Israel. Rather, he appears driven by the same self-aggrandising impulse that led him to put his name on the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
He seems eager to leave his stamp on the world by toppling regimes that vexed earlier presidents — Venezuela, Iran and Cuba, which he has subjected to a severe fuel blockade. Malley said Trump is enamoured with the idea of presiding over the fall of governments long hostile to the US.
There are parallels with Bush’s push toward Iraq.
By many accounts, Bush wanted to outdo his father by eliminating Saddam Hussein after others had failed. A mix of narcissism and insecurity fed a belief that he could remake the world.
Trump’s last two significant military interventions, in Iran and Venezuela, went smoothly, perhaps boosting confidence that he can bomb other countries without consequence. But Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group fears this time may differ. A cornered regime, he said, is likely to lash out because it feels existential pressure.
Americans, meanwhile, are not prepared for casualties or sacrifice. As Jack Hunter wrote in Responsible Statecraft, a March 2003 Gallup poll found 72% of Americans supported war with Iraq. Recent surveys show fewer than 30% back military action against Iran.
Trump is not trying to persuade the country that war serves its interests. What matters is whether he believes it serves his own.
The New York Times