Trump's imminent attack on Iran is barely on the radar

A catastrophic impending war is barely even being discussed

Donald Trump’s United States is on the brink of full-scale war with Iran - and yet it has barely registered on the public radar.

This is partly because, unlike the war in Iraq in particular, there has been no full-scale campaign to manipulate Western public opinion in support of the coming onslaught. According to a poll of American voters last month, 7 in 10 Americans opposed the US taking action against Iran for killing protesters.

70% also agreed that presidents should receive approval from Congress before taking military action against another country.

But Donald Trump is set to launch a war against Iran without Congressional approval - and thus in violation of the Constitution. Such a war will be launched without even the flimsiest pretext of self-defence - and this in violation of the United Nations Charter, and a flagrant violation of international law.

The military build-up is clearly not for show. Note the commentary of Matthew Hoh, a former US Marine Corps captain and military analyst. He explains that the US has deployed more than two thirds of its available E3 command and control aircraft to Europe and the Middle East. There is no “PR value” in deploying these critical aircraft, he says, and you would not do so “unless it was absolutely necessary”.

This is the biggest US military build-up in the Middle East since the Iraq war began in 2003. It includes several aircraft carries, F-16, F-22 and F-35 fighter jets.

Supposed negotiations having been taking place - but they are going nowhere and are clearly just for show. “Iran is in a hot spot right now.”

There are other signs about the inevitability of war.

Just after the US State Department signed off on the Chagos Islands deal - in which Britain would surrender control of islands it has no legal right to, leasing them back from Mauritius - Donald Trump turned on his erstwhile staunch ally Keir Starmer.

The most important element of this message is that it suggests a war on Iran is looming. But intriguingly, the outburst seems to have been triggered, according to The Times, by the UK blocking permission for Trump to use its RAF bases for the attack.

Before we give Starmer kudos here - not collaborating with a gratuitously illegal war is the bare minimum, and in any case, his already imploding government cannot afford more controversies. But Trump seems to be suggesting that they will use RAF bases regardless - which emphasises how the UK needs to end the US military presence on British soil.

Meanwhile, Polish prime minister Donald Tusk has issued a statement to his citizens: “Please leave Iran immediately and under no circumstances travel to this country. I do not want to alarm anyone, but we all know what I am referring to. The possibility of a conflict is very real.” Tellingly, he added: “In a few, a dozen, or several dozen hours, evacuation may no longer be possible.”

What exactly is the US thinking with such a war? According to the Wall Street Journal:

The options include a campaign to kill scores of Iranian political and military leaders, with the goal of overthrowing the government, U.S. and foreign officials said, as well as an air attack that would be limited to striking targets including nuclear and ballistic-missile facilities. Both would involve a potentially weekslong operation.

It is worth just taking a moment to absorb what is being proposed here.

The Iraq war, as we know, was an epoch-defining catastrophe. And yet that involved invading and occupying a country in order to impose a new administration to replace the old regime. In this case, it is proposed to simply bomb Iran with such force that its regime collapses - and then what?

In Libya, there was an ongoing armed rebellion against Colonel Gaddafi, and NATO used air strikes to exceed the authority granted by the UN to facilitate regime change. The lasting resulting: the collapse of the country into civil war and chaos, which endures to this day.

Iran is much bigger country with more complexities than either of these examples. There are around 93 million Iranians, and a range of diverse ethnicities and nationalities - that is more than three and a half times bigger than Iraq’s population in 2003. Although opposition to the regime is widespread, there is a significant minority of diehard supporters - which is quite unlike, say, Iraq back then. The Islamic Republic will undoubtedly be able to win over others in the face of foreign attack.

Iran has much greater military capabilities than either Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Col. Gadaffi’s Libya, and is in a position to cause far more economic damage.

Both the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq enjoyed overwhelming support from American citizens when they began. This time, a war starts with already existing overwhelming opposition.

The aspiring Iranian ruler, the Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has been exiled from the country for nearly half a century. He has supporters there, though we have no idea how many, but equally many opponents, and he has surrounded by far-right types who clearly have no interest in democracy. In any case, he has no infrastructure within Iran - and it is not even clear if Trump has any interest in him taking over.

Donald Trump became president, in part, promising to end the Endless Wars. Yet he is attempting regime change with an even less capable - and more extreme - administration than his predecessors, in a much bigger and more complex society, with no viable replacement.

Enter Israel, which is the most militant in supporter of such a war, and which will play a pivotal role. It is in Israel’s interest for Iran to be reduced to permanent chaos and weakness. That is exactly the likely scenario that now beckons.

The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all led to hideous bloodshed and unpredicted spiralling consequences - from ISIS to people smuggling. They also drastically weakened Western power. It is a lesson Trump seemed to understand, but his hubris has other ideas.