The War Against Iran Is Triggering Consequences No One Is Ready For

President Donald Trump has backed off his threat to bomb Iraq back to the "Stone Age" by extending the ultimatum to Iran by two weeks. While many observers believe the rhetoric by the president has not accomplished anything, serious questions remain about unintended consequences. Central among them is whether Iran actually posed a direct threat to the continental United States - a question that remains unresolved. Some prominent voices within the administration, such as Joe Kent, Director of National Terrorism Center, who has since resigned, stated that Iran was not an imminent threat. U.S. intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard responded to these concerns by asserting only the commander in chief can determine whether a threat is imminent. That claim is debatable. In reality, a president does not unilaterally decide whether a nation constitutes a threat; rather, the president determines how to respond once a threat has been assessed through established intelligence and institutional processes.

If imminence alone is the standard for war, one could argue there has historically been greater justification for action against nations such as North Korea. This inconsistency raises deeper concerns about the criteria being applied.

“A president does not unilaterally decide whether a nation constitutes a threat; rather, the president determines how to respond once a threat has been assessed through established intelligence and institutional processes.”

Tony Aguilar

Just War Doctrine

The conflict also calls into question the principles of just war doctrine, which the United States formally recognizes. Rooted in Augustinian thought, the doctrine consists of three components: jus ad bellum (the justification for entering war, typically self-defense or last resort), jus in bello (ethical conduct during war), and jus post bellum (justice after war). The current dilemma lies in the first principle. If the justification for war - jus ad bellum - has not been clearly established, then the legitimacy of conduct during and after the war becomes fundamentally undermined.

This ambiguity becomes even more troubling if preemption, a doctrine that gained prominence during the George W. Bush administration following the September 11 attacks, is being used as the guiding rationale.

Economic and Geopolitical Consequences

Beyond legal and moral concerns, the war has triggered significant economic and geopolitical consequences. Regions once considered stable hubs for investment and tourism - such as Dubai - now face uncertainty following retaliatory strikes by Iran. It is a fair question as to whether companies will seek to invest in any of the Gulf States given what Iran could do in response to a future American/Israeli attack.

As a result of retaliatory attacks, Qatar, which is heavily reliant on liquefied natural gas exports, has experienced declining revenues. This is on top of a 7.5% year-over-year drop in LNG sales. The broader Gulf region has not been spared. Iran has launched attacks against members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, namely United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman. How these nations will recover remains uncertain.

Another potential consequence deals with the desalination plants of the Gulf States. Each of its member states depend upon these plants to provide water for their populations especially Kuwait. Iran, while it is increasing its use, does not heavily depend upon these plants to provide water. In essence, Iran could turn these states into failed states by attacking their desalination plants. This is especially true if it decided to attack the Ras Al-Khair Power and Desalination plant in Saudi Arabia, which is the world's largest.

Iranian Leadership and the Nuclear Question

Leadership within Iran is another unresolved issue. While most consider the Islamic Revolutionary Guard to ultimately be in charge, some anticipated that the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would trigger regime change. To date, no such transition has materialized. Instead, attention has shifted to his son, Ali Khamenei, who is widely believed to hold more hardline views. However, an often-overlooked detail is that the new leadership has reportedly upheld a fatwa prohibiting nuclear weapons development on religious grounds.

European Allies and NATO

On the international stage, the response from European allies and NATO has been lukewarm at best. Many nations have resisted calls from the Trump administration to assist in opening and subsequently securing the Strait of Hormuz. Countries such as Spain and Germany have declined involvement, reflecting growing tensions between the United States and its allies. The United Kingdom had initially turned down the American request to use the Diego Rivera air base but has since relented since Iran launched rockets towards the military installation.

How European nations will treat the United States is another unknown issue. There is no doubt that nations will still deal with America given the size of its economy and influence. Becoming autarkic is not realistic in the foreseeable future. Initial reactions suggest that it will be a different relationship, not based on shared civilization as the Secretary of State Marco Rubio erroneously stated at the last Munich Security Conference. As one listens to the various capitals, delinking has become the keyword as it pertains to relations with the United States.

Netanyahu, Hamas, and the Origins of Hostility

Additional complexities emerge when examining regional dynamics. Questions still persist about why Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu authorized significant financial transfers - reportedly totaling $1 billion - to Hamas through Qatar, despite Hamas being designated as a terrorist organization backed by Iran.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been advocating for war against Iran for decades but had been rebuffed by Presidents Bush, Obama and Biden. He found a welcome ear in President Trump. Equally troubling are lingering concerns over the delayed Israeli response to the October 7 attacks.

Another aspect to that concern should be Israel's former prime minister Naftali Bennett's saber rattling against Turkey which raises serious questions about what would be the response of NATO if Turkey was attacked by Israel and what would the American response be?

There is no denying that Iran has been a longstanding adversary of both the United States and Israel. However, the origins of this hostility predate the Iranian Revolution. Many Americans remain unaware that tensions can be traced back to Operation Ajax, a U.S. and United Kingdom-backed effort to overthrow Iran's democratically elected government amid fears of Soviet influence and to secure oil interests. Led in part by Kermit Roosevelt Jr., grandson of former president Theodore Roosevelt, the operation installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, also known as the Shah of Iran, whose authoritarian rule contributed to decades of internal repression and led to the deaths of thousands.

“Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.”

Abraham Lincoln

These and other unforeseen consequences have led to an anxious public about what will happen after the two week moratorium has ended. Whether the president's comments were hyperbole or bordered on possible war crimes as stated by people such as retired Lt. General Mark Hertling, America was almost on the brink of an extraordinarily devastating event in world history. The public is still not clear about the goals and why the public has to sacrifice for this war.

The war has already inflicted immense costs - economic disruption, loss of life, and vast expenditures - yet it continues without a clearly articulated rationale. Americans have historically engaged in a rally around the flag when it comes to war. President George W. Bush was particularly successful in creating initial support of his war in Iraq even though the initial rationale was found to be wrong. The war against Iran had at most, twenty percent support which has gradually decreased. The American public deserves transparency about why the nation is at war, especially given the far-reaching and still-unfolding and unknown consequences.