In a thought-provoking article published by Foreign Policy, Howard W. French, a professor at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, warns that the United States now finds itself on the verge of being dragged into yet another direct military conflict in the Middle East. This follows Israel’s strikes on Iranian targets and Iran’s retaliatory missile attacks on Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities.
French writes that a quick glance at America’s military history in the region over the past generation is enough to raise serious concerns. U.S. interventions in Iraq were staggeringly costly in both lives and money and left behind a shattered state that never fully recovered.
He continues:
“America’s long occupation of Afghanistan ended in a humiliating withdrawal, after failing to meet most of its objectives and incurring even greater costs. And while U.S. involvement in Libya was less controversial, it stands as a powerful warning of what could unfold if Washington engages in a new war with Iran.”
That NATO-backed campaign helped remove Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, but it also fractured the country, plunged it into civil war, and spread small arms across the Sahel region—triggering regional instability and prolonged violence.
Domestic Motives and the Mirage of Strategic Clarity
French argues that some of the strongest reasons to oppose U.S. escalation into war with Iran are purely domestic.
He criticises Donald Trump’s erratic leadership style and personal ego, which have repeatedly shaped unpredictable foreign policy decisions. Until just a week ago, Trump had positioned himself as a peace-seeker trying to avoid conflict in foreign affairs. Yet the article notes that his record has been filled with inconsistencies—such as his refusal to condemn Russian President Vladimir Putin during the Ukraine war.
Ironically, Trump had long shown two serious instincts that now stand in contrast to his current posture toward Iran:
- An emphasis on ending wars
- A desire to reduce U.S. entanglement in foreign affairs — from economic development to military intervention
The Slippery Slope Toward War
French sees Trump’s shifting language on Israel’s assault against Iran as revealing. Initially, the White House had reportedly cautioned Israel against launching such a strike, fearing that it might drag the U.S. into war. This hesitancy, French writes, reflected a realistic concern over the risk of strategic failure and uncontrollable consequences.
However, after early Israeli operations appeared successful—including assassinations of Iranian military commanders and top nuclear scientists—Trump began to credit the campaign as if it were his own, using the term “we” to describe Israel’s actions.
Such inconsistency, French argues, is emblematic of a larger problem. Trump claimed he was unsure whether he would attack Iran—yet simultaneously issued what he called a final ultimatum, demanding Iran’s unconditional surrender.
“This is not the sober pathway into a major and perilous conflict. It is, in effect, the outsourcing of America’s strategic and national security decisions to the leadership of another state—specifically, Benjamin Netanyahu—who has long sought U.S. military backing in a war against Iran.”
A Crisis of Sovereignty and Democratic Principles
The article underscores a deep concern: that the U.S. has steadily eroded its ability to distinguish its national interests from those of its most powerful Middle Eastern ally.
This has been especially clear in recent years, with Washington’s failure to pressure Israel to end its ongoing massacre in Gaza and its widespread human rights violations in the occupied West Bank.
Long-term, French writes, this erosion of independence is evident in the weak and contradictory U.S. approach to the so-called two-state solution, which most American administrations have supported only in rhetoric, not in action.
The Illusion of Military Success
There are additional reasons to tread cautiously. Even if the U.S. were able to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, that would not erase Iranian knowledge or determination.
“Knowledge can’t be bombed out of existence,” French warns. “It’s inevitable that many Iranians would feel even more justified in pursuing nuclear technology.”
On the other hand, if the U.S. and Israel fail to achieve a decisive blow, Tehran might rush to fully develop a nuclear arsenal, reversing years of restraint—a development both the IAEA and former U.S. intelligence officials acknowledge Iran has so far avoided.
When asked about his own Director of National Intelligence’s assessment that Iran was not building a bomb, Trump dismissed it:
“I don’t care. I have my own instincts to follow.”
This, French notes, is chillingly reminiscent of the false premise behind the Iraq invasion—namely, the false claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The Risk of Regional Collapse
Even if Iran’s current leadership were somehow eliminated, there’s no guarantee that the political aftermath would be less threatening.
Iran could devolve into:
- A militarised dictatorship, more efficient and equally authoritarian
- Or worse, a fractured and ethnically unstable state plagued by civil war, chaos, and mass displacement
This scenario deeply worries neighbouring Arab states, which fear the regional spillover of such an outcome.
At the same time, French warns, America’s global standing is at risk in a world that is increasingly tired of Washington’s unilateral, imperial-style interventions. While some Americans may cheer the idea that the U.S. remains the “world’s number one,” that mindset only isolates the country further.
The Imperial Presidency and the Erosion of Checks and Balances
French concedes that he does not agree with Trump’s “America First” doctrine, but says the former president’s anti-interventionist instincts deserve credit.
“A reckless war with Iran is a luxury America—already losing global influence—can’t afford.”
He ends the article with a powerful domestic warning. Trump has shown a growing fascination with the idea of a monarchical presidency, one that acts on whims, not democratic oversight. Just last weekend, millions of Americans took to the streets in rallies called “No Kings.”
“Nothing represents imperial overreach more than a president deciding on war based on personal instinct,” French writes.
“The U.S. presidency was never designed to function this way. The Constitution clearly limits war powers and requires congressional approval before entering foreign conflict.”
If Trump were to launch a war against Iran without that mandate, he would become the latest in a string of presidents to ignore these foundational constraints—further weakening American democracy and the ideals it was meant to uphold.
One Ummah. One platform. One mission.
Your support keeps it alive.
Click here to Donate & Fund your Islamic Independent Platform
