Over the 20 years of these commentaries, I have almost never talked about American military adventures abroad but President Trump’s decision to take us to war with Iran has brought me back to that topic. Here is one such commentary that I delivered in 2014.
I recorded the commentary 27 days into the war. There is no end in sight. Please note, this war was initiated unilaterally by a man who claims he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for ending eight wars--- by a man who promised when he ran for President never to get us involved in “forever wars.”
Actually, the war with Iran is Trump’s seventh military assault during his second term. Let’s recall the other six --- shooting alleged drug boats out of the water -- invading Venezuela to kidnap its president -- illegally blockading Cuba in an attempt to starve it by keeping out oil --- bombing assaults on Syria, Iraq, Yemen.
Why are we at war with Iran? Basically, Trump is doing this because he can. As commander in chief of the armed forces he has a great deal of leeway. Congressional Republicans have so far enabled him by voting down an attempt to invoke the War Powers Act which if passed would have limited his independence of action to 60 days. He is fulfilling the cowboy image of the “good guys” wearing the white hats beating up on the “bad guys.”
There are two aspects to the “rationale” that the Administration is peddling to us folks. First there is the argument that Iran has killed “thousands of Americans,” over the years. Then there is an immediate one propounded by Trump himself that Iran “was about to attack us.”
Both of these assertions are false. The only way the “thousands of Americans” argument could come even close to being accurate is if all the Americans killed as a result of the Iraq War were killed by Iranian backed militia in Iraq. Certainly, some of those casualties resulted from the work of such militias but most of the American losses were in the initial fighting back in 2003 and subsequent fighting with militias made up of demobilized Iraqi army people. According to one estimate, Shiite militias backed by Iran are responsible for about 600 American deaths between 2003 and 2011 when American troops were withdrawn from Iraq.
[For details see https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/04/05/Number-of-US-troops-killed-in-Iraq-by-Iran-revised-up-to-603/1841554469583/. ]
It is interesting that in all the years Iran has been arming and supporting these militias, no President (including Trump in his first term) has decided that retaliation against the government of Iran was in order.
The argument that Iran was actually about to attack us cannot pass the laugh test. [According to a report in the Guardian, a British observer of the US-Iran negotiations said a deal was within reach just before Trump started the war. For details see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/17/uk-security-adviser-attended-us-iran-talks-and-judged-deal-was-within-reach. This suggests that the US and Israel launched the war to head off a possible deal.]
Why would Iran try to attack Americans in bases in the region? They do not have the capability to attack the US mainland as they are years away from achieving ballistic missile capability. They also knew that even one bomb dropped on an American base would bring massive retaliation.
People in the media have been scrambling in an attempt to actually figure out the reasoning behind Trump’s decision to launch a full-scale war against Iran. And they are right to note the many different versions of the justification including one from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Israel was going to do it so we decided to do it first.
[For a detailed blow by blow description of the often self-contradictory justifications presented by Trump and his administrative spokespeople, see this very comprehensive reporting from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/07/trump-rationale-war-iran-story.]
If we recognize the Trump Administration justifications for what they are --- garbage --- then how do we explain this war of choice? I think it might be possible to make a case on U.S. empire grounds. As readers of my work know, I am a follower of the historian William Appleman Williams whose book The Tragedy of American Diplomacy was widely read in the years when the anti-Vietnam-War movement struggled to stop the U.S. from making war against the peoples of Indochina. His explanation of the US “ruling class’s” desire for an open door for markets and investments in the entire world led to U.S. expansionism beyond the continental United States --- first into Latin America and Asia – Cuba and the Phillipines after the Spanish-American War --- and later into the entire world.
Williams points out that this became a recipe for conflict --- whether with Mexican revolutionaries after the 1910 revolution, or with the Bolsheviks after 1917. Later conflict with the rising Japanese empire led to our entry into World War II. Finally, after partnering with the Soviet Union to win the war, the desire for an open door in Eastern Europe and post-war Asia led to both the Cold War and two mini- hot wars --- in Korea which ended in a “draw” in 1953 and one in Vietnam which expanded to all of Indochina before our defeat in 1975.
As a general rule, according to Williams’ analysis, nationalists who stand in the way of such expansionism are considered dangers to long run American prosperity. This applied to Vietnamese nationalist-communists fighting the French in the early 1950s, Iranian or Guatemalan nationalists in 1953 and 1954, or Cuban Nationalist-Communists in the 1960s.
[For a cliff notes discussion of the original Open Door Notes from the State Department see https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/hay-and-china. Williams’ main point is that the principles articulated in those notes became the basis of U.S. foreign policy from that point forward.]
With the victory of the U.S. in the Cold War, there was an initial hope on the part of U.S. policy-makers that the entire world would soon be open for the United States international corporations. Eastern Europe and Russia were wide open after 1990, and 11 years of negotiation later, China joined the World Trade Organization which set limits on the amount of state intervention by the government into the economy.
When George W. Bush was President he announced that there was an “axis of evil” in the world – which included Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The plan of his brain trust was to quickly defeat Saddam Hussein in Iraq and then turn attention to Iran. In addition, he tightened the long U.S. embargo on Cuba hoping to put enough pressure on them to change their political and economic system. With these pesky dots of nationalism out of the way, the entire world would be open to U.S. expansion.
Unfortunately for the celebratory leaders of the Bush II foreign policy, Iraq proved a quagmire, China remained a highly controlled economy, and Vladimir Putin came to power in Russia and solidified control. Thus, many of the so-called “open doors” were closing or remained closed. If the U.S. political and economic leadership continues to believe we need “open doors” all over the world, then the idea of defeating the nationalist government of IRAN remained high on the “to do” list. If this interpretation is correct, an Administration like Trump’s would only be waiting for the “right moment” to attempt to deliver a death blow to the Iranian regime.
But it’s hard to imagine Trump and Hegseth having the sophistication to even understand this rationale.
Thus, I do not for a minute believe Trump or Hegseth (or even Rubio) have thought this out. Rubio actually is hoping that success in Iran will lead Trump to take over Cuba – and he has personal reasons for that. For Trump and Hegseth they are just flexing their muscles like a teenage bully in the playground --- with disgusting dire consequences for thousands of Iranians and many others, including some American military personnel.
[See this article in The New Yorker where the author makes clear that Trump is NOT acting from any kind of “imperialist” understanding of what is necessary for American prosperity, etc.]
Why is Trump doing this? I noted above that it is highly unlikely that Trump, Hegseth and others have developed the “case for the American empire” that I summarized. Instead, I think there are two potential reasons to explain why Trump has started this war: First, he is doing this because he can. As commander-in-chief of the armed forces he has a great deal of leeway. Congressional Republicans have so far enabled him. What are the arguments we hear in favor of these activities? Well, most of them are lies but let’s see.
NY Times columnist Bret Stephens presented his case in the NY Times on February 22. Here are three points he makes:
“Iran poses a threat to global order by way of its damaged but abiding nuclear ambitions, its deep strategic ties to Moscow and Beijing, its persistent threats to maritime commerce and its support for international terrorism.”
One could argue that should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that would stabilize things because countries like Israel and the U.S. would think twice before attacking them. Notice that after a few exchanges of letters between Trump and the dictator of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un, there appears to be no danger of war on that Korean peninsula. The idea about persistent threats to maritime commerce is laughable. Iran has proven that it can close off the Strait of Hormuz anytime it wishes to and it has not done so at any time since the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988. It is Trump’s war that has closed off the Strait of Hormuz.
Stephens again: “[Iran] poses a threat to regional stability, not just through its support for anti-Israel proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, but also by its meddling in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and (until the overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad regime) Syria.”
One could make the case that Israel is the real threat to regional stability with its many interventions in Lebanon in particular. As for meddling in Iraq --- wasn’t it the United States that invaded Iraq deposing Saddam Hussein and turning the country into a cauldron of internal conflict? Iran’s interventions in the various civil wars in that region is not the only cause of on-going conflict.
And finally, Stephens plays the “humanitarian intervention” card: “And [Iran is] a mortal threat to the life and safety of its own people, many thousands of whom it slaughtered last month. There was a time not long ago when Americans, both left and right, cared enough about human rights to believe it could, in some circumstances, justify military intervention.”
Humanitarian intervention is all the rage ever since the Bosnian Civil War of the 1990s. It rarely works out the way its supporters claim. Trying to effect regime change in Iran would be a major undertaking ---- making the American lives and treasure expended in Iraq and Afghanistan look like chump change. One could make the case that the best way to support democracy in Iran is to re-negotiate the deal that President Obama made with the Iranians about keeping their nuclear ambitions limited. After that and the dropping of sanctions, Iran could rejoin the family of nations so it can prosper --- a prosperous country might loosen the grip of the religious autocracy on the population. Certainly, what the U.S. is doing in Iran now is not helping the Iranian people get out from under the jack-boots of the religious autocracy.
Another not-so-far fetched reason for Trump’s war-making, however, is that the war is getting (at least temporarily) the Jeffrey Epstein scandal off the front pages. And this is just when information is finally coming out about a source the FBI interviewed who claimed she was sexually exploited by Trump himself when she was a teenager.
[For details see https://www.rawstory.com/trump-epstein-2675900458/?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Mar.9.2026_12.14pm]
Based on recent testimony from Epstein’s accountant, that same alleged victim received a settlement payment from the Epstein estate. See The Daily Beast, Epstein Accountant Spills Bombshell Payout to Alleged Trump Victim.
And according to recent polling data, it appears my “guess” is not all that “crazy.” See, for example:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQfCMrmTfGcKkWrvRzCWFjmPjWP
This piece is being published after 27 days of war. At times during this period, Trump has asserted that the war is “almost over” that he has achieved “almost all” of his objectives --- mind you, this is without ever explaining those objectives --- though at least once he said he wanted “unconditional surrender” --- a complete impossibility without total occupation of the entire territory of Iran, just as happened at the end of World War II in Germany and Japan.
But during the period from March 14 to 21 Iran kept most shipping from going through the Strait of Hormuz and the U.S. has threatened to expand its bombing in Iran. (Meanwhile, the Israelis have continued to attack Lebanon and they have made it clear that they do NOT want the war to end. Anti-Iranian Arab states --- Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates --- have also made it clear that they want the U.S. war against Iran to continue.)
A number of writers have made it clear that as the chance of a quick end to the war has receded, the main dynamic is that the Iranian regime “wins” merely by surviving. Meanwhile, the United States is in no position to “declare victory” and end the war because the Iranians can continue to make shipping through the Strait of Hormuz impossible for the foreseeable future. In other words – Iran needs some kind of “deal” with the United States before it will let shipping resume through the Strait.
On Wednesday the 18th of March, economist Paul Krugman took a deep dive into the idea that investments by petro-states (particularly Saudi Arabia) which have enriched the Trump family as well as promising to increase economic activity within the U.S. have perhaps been a major influence on Trump’s decision to go to war in Iran. Check out this substack: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQfCNBqvknJJccfNMhttKZMGNNt
Sometime during the week of March 16-20, the issue of occupying some Iranian territory with ground troops arose --- a major escalation and one that might actually lead to significant U.S. casualties and a split in the Republican party.
I wonder how long it will take the American public to get so mad about this war that they force Trump to (falsely) claim victory and declare a full cease fire. And I wonder how long after that the Iranians will keep the Strait of Hormuz closed --- they will have a say as to when this war actually ends. This means, as the N Y Times asserts in an opinion piece from March 17, 2026, Trump Cannot Spin His Way Out Of This War.
Finally, I wonder if between the time I submit this article and the time it is published, Trump will have committed a marine expeditionary force to attempt to take over Iranian territory. It would be a disaster for him politically but he just might have the arrogance to do it anyway.
After threatening to rain Hell onto Iran if they did not open the Strait of Hormuz to ships by Friday, March 20, Trump completely reversed himself because “talks” were going on (a claim disputed by the Iranians). On Thursday, March 26, Trump announced a 10-day extension of the “pause” so that negotiations (which he claims are going on but no one can verify that --- the only “negotiations” appear to be indirectly through Pakistan) could succeed. No major escalation of the war for now.
Michael Meeropol is professor emeritus of Economics at Western New England University. He is the author with Howard and Paul Sherman of the recently published second edition of Principles of Macroeconomics: Activist vs. Austerity Policies.
The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.
