Neocon fantasies vs. reality: why Iran won’t be the next Iraq 

TEHRAN – Eliot Cohen, a “political scientist” who championed the 2003 Iraq invasion on the premise that Saddam Hussein was a bigger threat to Washington than any potential replacement, is now on the cusp of seventy.

But what happens when this advocate of a war that cost trillions of American taxpayer dollars and over a million lives wants to steer Washington into another disastrous conflict? Will he finally get his facts straight? Or will he, once again, disregard the lessons of history and prioritize an agenda that seems far removed from the realm of reason and logic? He seems to have opted for the latter. 

A ticking clock. That’s the image Eliot Cohen paints in his December 8th Atlantic piece, urging a preemptive strike on Iran. He argues that the past fifteen months have left Iran weakened and Israel strengthened, creating a perfect storm. This, he claims, will inevitably drive Tehran towards nuclear weapons, leaving the U.S. with a stark choice: act now, before Iran “sprints” to the bomb, or face the consequences

His assessment of the current situation eerily mirrors the arguments he presented to a congressional House committee in 2002 when he similarly pressed for urgent military action against Iraq. “The choice before the United States is a stark one, either to acquiesce in a situation which permits the regime of Saddam Hussein to restore his economy, acquire weapons of mass destruction and pose a lethal threat to his neighbors and to us, or to take action to overthrow him. In my view, the latter course, with all of its risks, is the correct one. Indeed, the dangers of failing to act in the near future are unacceptable,” he claimed.

The Iraq War’s outcome for the U.S.? A significant surge in Iranian influence across Iraq and the wider region. Simultaneously, the invasion fueled American disillusionment with its government and foreign policy—a sentiment that has only deepened in the years since. Adding the loss of over 2 trillion dollars, the war yielded nothing but detriments for the United States. 

Cohen’s justification for the Iraq War rested on two now-debunked claims: Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11. Ironically, he now seems to celebrate the rise of those very groups responsible for 9/11 in Syria. 

His current justifications for attacking Iran must be viewed through the same lens. People of the author’s kind are the closest one could be to a bloodthirsty Neocon. They are thirsty for murder and destruction but are not always the cleverest when looking for justifications to make their fantasies come through, at least not anymore. 

Here is a look at Cohen’s analysis of the current situation in West Asia, and why it is wrong.

‘Israel has pulverized Hamas’

Israel has not pulverized Hamas; it has pulverized Gaza and its civilian population. In doing so, it has become ostracized around the world.  Public support for Israel, once readily offered, is now largely confined to American congress members bribed by the pro-Israeli lobby. Israel’s top leaders once sold as the world’s leading “democratic” leaders are now wanted war criminals. Hamas meanwhile, continues to fight Israeli forces with no signs of tiredness.

‘Israel has shattered Hezbollah in Lebanon, forcing it to accept a cease-fire’

The Hezbollah-Israel ceasefire has drawn sharp criticism from across the Israeli regime’s political spectrum, even from those who support a Gaza ceasefire. The reason? Many believe that Lebanon, not Israel, dictated the terms of the truce. Israel, escalating tensions after nearly 11 months of relatively contained skirmishes, aimed to eliminate Hezbollah. While the assassination of key Hezbollah figures was a setback, it didn’t achieve Israel’s objective. Far from being incapacitated, Hezbollah not only sustained its attacks but intensified them daily, right up to the ceasefire.

Furthermore, the reason Hezbollah agreed to the ceasefire was not because its military capabilities were dwindling. Hezbollah has always prioritized the well-being of the Lebanese population. Israel’s attacks mainly targeted Lebanon’s civilians, a tactic the regime seems to use in every scenario. 

‘Iran’s attempts to attack Israel failed, but Israel destroyed Iran’s air defenses’

Dismissing the overwhelming visual and intelligence evidence confirming the success of Iran’s Operations True Promise I and II against Israel, while simultaneously accepting Israel’s October 26th attack on Iran as a success—based solely on the sounds of Iranian air defenses reacting to quadcopters, with zero verifiable evidence of damage or impact— suggests only two things: Either Cohen doesn’t know how to operate a smartphone which can give him access to uncensored and unbiased information, or he likes to lie to himself and everyone around. Both could be the case as well. 

‘Iran has no choice but to build nuclear weapons because it has grown weak’

The IAEA and the Pentagon have both acknowledged the absence of any Iranian intent to build nuclear weapons for the moment. However, domestic calls for nuclear development are increasing. This isn’t driven by a lack of belief in current Iran’s military deterrence, but rather by a growing sense that negotiations with the West are futile. Iran’s experience with the 2015 JCPOA—where nuclear limitations were supposed to lift sanctions, only to be followed by even harsher bans—has fueled widespread distrust. The prevailing sentiment is that, since Iran is already bearing the economic costs of a robust nuclear program, it might as well reap the potential benefits.

The ball in this case is in Donald Trump’s court. He could choose diplomacy, or return to a confrontational path that could ultimately force Iranians to go nuke. 

Moreover, a military strike against Iran offers no assurance of eliminating its nuclear capabilities. Iran possesses the necessary expertise, and any attempt at disruption would likely only delay, not prevent, its pursuit of nuclear weapons if it so chooses. Indeed, such an attack might even accelerate Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Why Iran is not Iraq

Unlike Iraq’s defenseless position during the 2003 invasion, Iran possesses significant military capabilities. While a full-scale conflict would undoubtedly inflict substantial damage on Iran, the crucial question is whether the West is prepared to bear the far-reaching consequences of such an attack.

Iran’s extensive network of underground and dispersed missile and drone facilities makes a comprehensive military strike virtually impossible. This means Iran would have ample opportunity for retaliation, potentially targeting numerous American and European military bases in the region, and crippling West Asian oil fields—a scenario with globally devastating economic consequences for the entire planet. These are options Iraq did not have during the 2003 invasion. 

Additionally, the U.S. is ill-equipped to launch another costly and fruitless war. Already embroiled in the Ukraine conflict and facing growing challenges from China across multiple sectors, the U.S. economy is significantly weaker than in the early 2000s. A staggering $36 trillion national debt and deteriorating living standards for many Americans severely limit the resources available for a conflict widely condemned as stupid.