Trump Strike On Iran Exposes Deep Divide Inside Foreign Policy Establishment

By Jennica Pounds | Commentary, The American Mind

t first glance, it seems that the Western establishment should welcome Operation Epic Fury. As Joshua Lisec and I document in our upcoming book, Unelected, the entire post-World War II order has been built on the premise that global security depends on the spread of democracy (or the downfall of tyrants at the very least). As United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a 2001 speech, there is “a need for more democracy on the global level, which is what the United Nations has been about from the very beginning.”

The global order is no fan of Iran. Atlantic writer and former National Endowment for Democracy board member Anne Applebaum has consistently named Iran, alongside Russia and China, as one of the three greatest autocracies threatening the world. Senator Chris Murphy, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a speaker at the Council on Foreign Relations, drew an explicit parallel during the 2022 Mahsa Amini massacres, declaring, “Just as we stood together with the people of Ukraine during their revolution of dignity, the United States must continue standing with the people of Iran.”

One might think that these defenders of democracy would celebrate the removal of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a brutal fundamentalist religious totalitarian.

Instead, those same voices are now loudly condemning the airstrikes. Murphy’s reaction offered no sympathy for the thousands of Iranians killed by the regime—only outrage at Trump: “In America, we don’t allow one doddering, self-obsessed old man to waste our money on a dangerous, disastrous overseas war.” Similarly, Applebaum has criticized Operation Epic Fury’s supposed lack of strategic coherence, not the target.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT THE AMERICAN MIND

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.