In American foreign policy, there are moments when truly consequential decisions aren’t born from broad elite consensus, but instead stand in stark, open contradiction to what the experts assess and warn against. The Vietnam War was one such moment; the 2003 invasion of Iraq was another. Now, it increasingly looks as though the Trump administration’s military campaign against Iran is becoming the third clear example of this pattern—a decision made in Washington that has triggered a powerful wave of doubt and outright criticism across the American foreign-policy expert community.

While the White House presents this operation as an essential step to protect American security and contain Iran, a great many specialists in international relations argue that this war will not enhance U.S. safety; instead, it risks becoming one of the most dangerous strategic blunders Washington has made in decades. A recent survey of international-relations scholars shows an overwhelming majority strongly oppose military action against Iran, viewing it as reckless and lacking any sound strategic foundation. Such near-unanimity among America’s security experts is rare and reveals just how wide the gulf has grown between political decisions at the top and professional assessments on the ground.

Critics in Washington and in academic circles are asking a few straightforward but decisive questions: What is the real purpose of this war? What exactly is supposed to happen to Iran afterward? And above all, does the U.S. government have any credible plan for the day after? Clear answers remain elusive. The official White House line speaks of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, yet some American officials quietly—or not so quietly—hint at regime change........

© Eurasia Review