Trump's Reckless Decision to Pursue Regime Change in Iran

"It was clear pretty quickly that those claims of obliterating Iran's nuclear program were false. There was even leaked information from a U.S. intelligence report that pushed back on that, and made clear that Iran's program had been clearly set back, but not destroyed. And now, of course, one of the justifications it has given for today's attack is that the Iranian nuclear program has become dangerous again."

"But it's offered multiple other justifications, which is one of the ways this is reminiscent of the lead-up to Iraq in 2002 and 2003: it's just offered this buffet of reasons, and everyone can kind of pick the one they think tastes best. But none of these things really add up to anything close to Iran posing an imminent threat to the United States."

The United States and Israel initiated a military campaign to overthrow Iran's governing regime, resulting in casualties among Iranian leaders and civilians, with Iran retaliating against American allies and military installations. The Trump Administration's justifications for the attack have shifted multiple times since June claims about destroying Iran's nuclear capacity proved false. Intelligence reports confirmed Iran's nuclear program was set back but not destroyed. Current justifications cite renewed Iranian nuclear development and missile capacity reconstitution, yet these rationales lack evidence of imminent threat to the United States. The pattern of multiple, inconsistent justifications mirrors the 2002-2003 Iraq War rhetoric, raising concerns about the actual strategic motivations behind the military action.

Read at The New Yorker