With U.S. military forces bombing Iran, WNIJ's Peter Medlin spoke with Northern Illinois University political science professor Ches Thurber, who studies international conflict and security, to give the war context.
Peter Medlin (PM): In your view, has the administration presented a coherent case for why now?
Ches Thurber (CT): No, it has not. It is presented a number of different reasons, and some of those reasons are compelling. Donald Trump has talked about the nuclear program, ballistic missiles, support for terrorism in the Middle East and the repression of dissidents, of thousands of Iranian civilians that were killed earlier this year. But he has not really tied those together in a way that makes clear why this war was necessary, what he hopes to achieve through this war, and why it had to happen right now.
(PM): Ches, this isn't the first time a U.S. president has authorized bombing another country without congressional approval and declaring war. The Barack Obama administration did in Libya. In this case, both the president and the secretary of defense have referred to this as a war. So, is it unconstitutional to wage it without congressional approval?
(CT): Yeah, we have the constitution and the War Powers Act, both of which say it is Congress' responsibility to declare war. Now you've seen presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, kind of push this boundary over time. I think Obama and Libya is a great example of this. The War Powers Act does give the president some latitude to defend the country before getting congressional approval. But this is one of the most intense and most consequential uses of military force by an American president without congressional authorization.
(PM): Israeli and American strikes killed Iran's supreme leader. In January, U.S. military forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. What do you think it means for international relations that the U.S. has entered into a new era of regime change?
(CT): It is striking that a president who made opposition to prolong wars and regime change is now engaging in these military operations on such a frequent basis. Now there is some precedent to this. U.S. presidents in their second terms often become frustrated by what is going on in the domestic sphere and turn to foreign affairs and foreign policy, where they face less resistance. I think we are seeing this happen in the case of Trump.
(PM): The U.S. has a long history of regime change, dating back to the late 1800s. In fact, it helped overthrow Iran's prime minister in the 1950s. More recently, there is Iraq. Reports of Iranians celebrating this weekend made me think back about the celebrations in Iraq during the U.S. invasion in 2003. Is it fair to make this comparison?
(CT): I think there are similarities, particularly when it comes to having political leaders that are really brutal and unpopular. That can create public support for change. But that does not mean that the actual process of trying to take that old leader out and replace it with a new regime is going to be easy. Certainly, the U.S. learned that the hard way in Iraq, and so we have seen Trump say in the past that he was not going to do this type of military intervention. He did like to use bombings to kill important leaders of terrorist groups or other countries, but he did not want to do this kind of regime change that would require kind of a longer-term U.S. military commitment. But in his statement Saturday morning, he suggested changing Iran's political system. That seems like it would require a very difficult process, and perhaps a more prolonged U.S. military involvement.
(PM): At this point, several American troops have been killed. The scope of the war seems to be widening. What are you going to be paying attention to over the next couple days?
(CT): The course this war depends on decisions Trump has not yet made about what his goals and when he can declare victory. I think already we are starting to see some walking back of what those goals are. He is not talking about regime change as much as he talked about it on Saturday. In fact, Pete Hegseth has said regime change is not the goal. I will be watching for further shifts that suggest narrowing or limiting of the stated goals of this mission that would give the president the opportunity to end American military involvement at an earlier point in time.
Copy Edited by Eryn Lent
