“No, War with Iran!”

By: Sam Santavicca 

Once again, a Republican president, who campaigned on a promise to not begin any new wars, has dragged us into another Middle East quagmire. This new episode of American wars-for-oil began last summer, when Israel struck multiple “nuclear sites” in Iran and killed a top general. This illegal war of aggression was carried out because Israel believed that Iran was building nuclear weapons, despite U.S. intelligence findings that Iran was not actively working towards any such weapons.¹ 

There are no clear reasons why America, at the behest of Israel, struck Iran again on February 28^th. Did we attack to destroy their nuclear capabilities? Those were “obliterated” last summer.² Did Iran pose an “imminent threat” to America or our security interests? There’s really no evidence of that, either.³ Did we attack because Israel wanted us to? It would appear so.⁴ 

On February 28^th, American missiles streaked across the Persian Gulf from American bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain at Iranian military targets. Targets included potential nuclear sites, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei's home, and notably, an elementary school, where 180 people, mostly schoolchildren, were killed.⁵ The Ayatollah, who was 86 and suffering from prostate cancer, was killed in a strike on his home. His son, Mojtaba Khamenei, was selected as the third Supreme Leader of Iran.⁶ 

Professor Milena Sterio, a renowned scholar of international law, gave a school-wide presentation on March 4^th, discussing the applicable provisions of international law to this new conflict. Specifically, she discussed how this war, a war of aggression without any self-defense justification, is illegal under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. Any form of aggressive war requires approval of the U.N. security council, like the Korean War and the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011.  

Frankly, it is difficult to tell what America’s goals are here. Are we looking for regime change? Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth claimed we are not,⁷ but President Donald Trump later stated that the United States would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender from Iran.⁸ Did we invade Iran to destroy their nuclear capabilities? Trump claimed to have “obliterated” those last summer, and any actual nuclear capabilities were speculative at best.⁹ 

As of March 9^th, there have not been any confirmed American or Israeli boots on the ground inside Iran, although seven American soldiers have been killed in Iranian counterattacks¹⁰ and three American planes were shot down in a friendly fire incident over Kuwait.¹¹ On March 7^th, President Trump expressed “serious interest” in deploying American troops to Iran,¹² but later walked that statement back on March 9^th.¹³ 

Iran, for its part, has sustained over 1,300 casualties and, after much of its senior leadership was killed or forced into hiding, has embraced a “mosaic” pattern of decentralized command. Defensive measures are not coordinated at a national level, but rather regional commanders were given rules of engagement prior to the start of the conflict and told to execute their defense as best as they saw fit.¹⁴ Even with air superiority and a coalition, Iran would be difficult to invade, as more than half of their country is mountainous, including the southern coast on the Persian Gulf and the western border with Türkiye. 

As many Americans remember from the 2003 Iraq war, a boots-on-the-ground invasion would be disastrous for American morale and any ruling party heading into midterm elections. The war has closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil flows. Additionally, oil skyrocketed to almost $120 a barrel on March 9^th, much higher than the $70 a barrel before the attacks began on February 28^th. Experts note that the 20% decrease in oil volume is about three to four times larger than the oil lost in the 1973 gas crisis.¹⁵ 

As this crisis spirals out of control, it is unclear to me why America and Israel began this war, what their objectives are, what “winning” looks like, and how long this war will drag on. 

I was two years old when America invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, I was four years old when America invaded Iraq for the second time, I was twelve years old when the Iraq war ended, and I was 22 when the Afghan War ended. I am now 26, watching the Iran war begin. 

After 9/11, journalist Hunter S. Thompson wrote: 

We are At War now, according to President Bush, and I take him at his word. He also says this War might last for "a very long time." Generals and military scholars will tell you that eight or 10 years is actually not such a long time in the span of human history, ...but history also tells us that 10 years of martial law and a war-time economy are going to feel like a [l]ifetime to people who are in their twenties today. The poor bastards of what will forever be known as Generation Z are doomed to be the first generation of Americans who will grow up with a lower standard of living than their parents enjoyed... The last half of the 20th century will seem like a wild party for rich kids, compared to what's coming now. The party's over, folks. The time has come for loyal Americans to Sacrifice... Sacrifice... Sacrifice. [emphasis added]¹⁶ 

Through all this talk of supposed nuclear weapons, Israel’s security, and “state sponsor of terrorism,” one justification for this war disgusts me the most: we claim that we’re invading to avenge the 20,000+ civilians killed by the Iranian government during the recent protests in Tehran and other cities. By now, the number could be as high as 30,000 killed.¹⁷ 

As callous as it sounds, we have no right to invade under that justification. The United Nations charter, by which the United States is bound, only permits a war of aggression following United Nations authorization. Sure, Russia and China may not agree with an American and Israeli peacekeeping mission in Iran, but they did in Libya in 2011.¹⁸ There was a correct way to bring peace to Iran, and the United States did not even try. 

But the real reason this logic (or lack thereof) infuriates me is the selectivity in which it is applied. Between October 7^th, 2023, and February 18^th, 2026, The Lancet estimated that over 75,000 Palestinians were killed by Israel, of which about 42,000 were women, children, and the elderly.¹⁹ That figure only accounts for “violent deaths,” and does not count those who died from starvation or lack of access to medical care. That appalling number is double the number of people that America claims the Iranian regime has murdered while suppressing recent protests. So based on that logic, the United States should be invading Israel to stop the killing of civilians, right? Of course not. 

This invasion is not Vietnam Part Two or Iraq Part Three, it is America’s Suez Crisis: the agonal gasps of a dying empire desperately struggling to cling onto power and relevancy. Every tariff alienates an ally, and every bomb kills someone with whom we could make peace. As the America empire slowly fades away, I remain unsettled by the fact that this was all entirely predictable.