In the past few weeks, I’ve been reading and watching the news about the war with Iran. This has given me a growing sense of unease. It’s not simply because another war has begun in the Middle East. It’s also due to the questions that hover around it. These questions seem strangely underexamined in our national media.
The first question is the most basic one a democracy should ask when bombs start falling:
Was this war legal?
A second question follows close behind:
Why exactly are we fighting it?
And now a third question has begun to emerge as the war expands beyond the battlefield:
What happens to the world economy when conflict disrupts one of the most important shipping routes on the planet?
Taken together, these questions reveal how uncertain the foundations of this war actually are.
The Legal Question
The rules governing war today were written after the catastrophe of World War II. The United Nations Charter established a simple principle. Countries do not use military force against other countries. This is allowed only in very limited circumstances. The Foundational Treaty of the UN establishes the organization’s structure, principles, and purposes. It focuses on maintaining international peace, security, and human rights. It binds member states to obligations like peaceful dispute resolution and sovereign equality.
There are essentially two exceptions. A state can act in self-defense if it suffers an armed attack. Or the United Nations Security Council authorize force to restore international peace (Article 42).
Those rules were designed to prevent aggressive war from becoming normal again.
In the case of the U.S. bombing of Iran, neither condition clearly applies. The Security Council did not authorize the operation. And the argument that the strikes were a direct response to an Iranian attack remains disputed.
Legal scholars have thus raised serious doubts about whether the war complies with international law. Some argue the bombing resembles what the post-1945 legal system was meant to prevent. They believe it is a war launched without a clear legal justification. Joyce Vance is a former United States Attorney–she was appointed by President Obama, and confirmed unanimously. She is now a law professor and a legal analyst for MSNBC. She has discussed the legality of Trump’s war against Iran. In one of her Substack posts she explains why Trump’s bombing of Iran was an illegal act.
These questions do not automatically decide whether the war is strategically wise or morally justified. But they matter because the United States helped build the international system that outlawed aggressive war in the first place.
If the country that helped write the rules now ignores them, the rules themselves start to weaken.
The Many Reasons for the War
The legal debate becomes even more complicated when we look at the explanations offered for the war itself.
President Donald Trump and his administration have presented several different justifications.
- At times the war has been described as a necessary step to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. At other moments the explanation has focused on eliminating an “imminent threat” to the United States or its allies.
- Defense officials have emphasized the destruction of Iran’s missile and drone capabilities. Some Republican leaders see the conflict as a reaction to Iran’s long history of supporting militant groups. They emphasize Iran’s support of these groups in the region.
- Still others have suggested the war weaken the Iranian government enough to produce political change inside the country.
None of these explanations is impossible. Governments often pursue multiple goals in wartime.
But the shifting rationale raises an obvious question:
What, exactly, is the goal of the war?
- Is the goal to remove Iran’s nuclear capacity?
- To cripple its military power?
- To deter future attacks?
- Or to reshape Iran’s political system?
When the reasons for a war multiply, clarity about its purpose becomes harder to keep.
The Strait of Hormuz
Now a third dimension of the war is beginning to affect the entire world.
The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow passage between the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. It is one of the most important shipping corridors on Earth. Roughly one-fifth of the world’s traded oil passes through it each day.
Since the war began, attacks on ships and the threat of missile strikes have disrupted normal traffic through the strait. Tankers have slowed their movement. Insurance companies have raised premiums. Some ships have delayed or rerouted voyages.
Even limited disruptions can send shock waves through global markets.
Oil prices rise. Transportation costs increase. Energy is tied closely to agriculture. This includes fuel for machinery, fertilizer production, and food shipping. Consequently, higher energy costs often lead to higher food prices.
This means the war is no longer confined to the Middle East. Its economic consequences reach far beyond the battlefield.
Reading the War
I have been trying to make sense of this moment. I found myself turning to writers whose work has been invaluable. They help interpret the political currents of our time.
Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat has written powerfully about modern strongman politics. It often relies on displays of force. It also uses narratives of national threat. Wars can become part of a larger political drama in which strength is performed as much as exercised. Dr. Ben-Ghiat says that “Trump apparently thinks that he will gain from this war. He felt he needed some action right now to expand his sense of power and cement his reputation.”
She then writes this on her recent Lucid post:
The war on Iran is underway. It has redirected attention from the Epstein files, the economy, and Trump’s declining popularity. This situation has set the stage for further consolidations of power in the name of national security. One such consolidation is the increased military presence at home. Unfortunately for Trump, all of this will backfire, and set in motion events that will lead to his decline. It will cause the Gulf states to rethink their deals with him. They even reconsider their commitment to hosting American military bases. These bases are now being attacked by Iran, as are American embassies and other sites. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Who Benefits from the U.S.-Israel War on Iran?, Lucid, March 11, 2026.
If you haven’t read any of her posts on Lucid, I recommend you visit her Substack site.
Journalist Lucian Truscott has long warned about the dangers of militarized thinking in American politics. This is the tendency to treat military action as the most decisive expression of national power. Of all the people that I read, Lucian Truscott stands out as one of the moral leaders. He is not afraid to deal directly with Trump and those he handpicked to carry out his fascist orders.
Historian Heather Cox Richardson has repeatedly reminded her readers. Democratic accountability depends on asking clear questions about the use of power. Her Letters from an American is must read.
Their work points to something essential.
In a democracy, war should never be treated as routine.
It should be examined, debated, and justified with extraordinary care.
There are many voice who have not given up against the Trump autocracy. In a future post I will be posting a discussion in which a dozen writers are documenting the Trump administration.
A Political Question in the Background
There is also a more uncomfortable question circulating quietly in political commentary.
Did the timing of the war serve domestic political purposes?
Some critics have questioned if launching a major international crisis can shift public attention. They wonder whether it can redirect focus away from damaging political developments at home. Historically, leaders who face domestic pressure sometimes benefit. Political scientists describe this as a “rally-around-the-flag” effect. In such cases, international conflict temporarily unifies public opinion behind the president. This is not happening for Donald Trump. His approval ratings have continued to tank.
Renewed scrutiny surrounding the long-running investigation into Jeffrey Epstein has emerged in recent weeks. The network of powerful figures connected to him has also returned to the headlines. Some observers will inevitably ask. They wonder if a sudden international confrontation might push those stories out of the national spotlight.
There is, at now, no clear evidence that the war was initiated for that reason. Wars emerge from complex strategic calculations, and it would be irresponsible to treat speculation as fact.
But the very existence of the question reflects a deeper problem of trust. When governments offer shifting explanations for military action, and when public transparency is limited, suspicion fills the vacuum. The Trump government has stalled in releasing millions of Epstein files. On more than 500,000 of the files released, Trump’s name appears. Trump should be called to subpoena just as former President Clinton was.
Democratic societies depend on credible explanations for the most serious decisions a government can make.
War, above all, demands that level of clarity.
The Questions That Remain
At the moment, many of the most important questions about the war stay unsettled.
- Is the conflict legally justified under the international rules meant to prevent aggressive war?
- What specific goal defines success?
- How long will the fighting continue?
Report’s Question: When will the war end?
Trump’s Response: When I feel it in my bones!
And what will happen if the disruption of global shipping lanes begins to reshape the world economy?
Wars often start with confident predictions. But history suggests they rarely unfold the way leaders expect.
For now, the bombs are falling. The legal arguments are still being debated. Ships move cautiously through one of the most strategic waterways on the planet.
Which means the central question still hangs in the air:
Do we truly understand the war we have just entered?
What do you think?
You must be logged in to post a comment.