Basic Public-Choice Analysis of Attacking Iran

Public choice theory, grounded in methodological individualism, provides a valuable lens to examine a pressing question of our times: Will President Trump initiate military action against Iranian military installations?

It is essential to note that this decision will not be made by “the American people” as a cohesive unit; after all, no one is having lunch with him to influence his thoughts directly. (For further insights on this topic, refer to my Independent Review article “The Impossibility of Populism.”) While Mr. Trump possesses significant authority, his choices will be shaped predominantly by the advisors, sycophants, and allies surrounding him, along with certain influential figures within his party. He will likely be aware, if only on an intuitive level, of the stark divisions among his voter base concerning military engagement, as well as the pacifist or isolationist pledges he has made during his campaigns. Ultimately, however, his decision will hinge on his personal interpretation of the situation at hand. Although he may frame his actions as safeguarding “U.S. interests,” it must be acknowledged that such a notion is nebulous; with approximately 320 million American citizens, each holding unique preferences and interests that cannot simply be aggregated. Mr. Trump’s understanding of “U.S. interest” is essentially a reflection of his own perspective and imagination.

Similar to his stances on various issues—such as the outcomes of the 2020 election, TikTok, presidential pardons, and the implications of tariffs—Mr. Trump’s decisions will ultimately be influenced by his own perceived interests.

This does not preclude the possibility that another authoritative figure—perhaps a saintly or sagacious leader who understands the social dynamics at play—could be motivated by altruistic considerations. Such a leader might genuinely factor in the welfare of humanity and the future of liberty and a free society in their decisions. However, it remains crucial to recognize that this would still be their subjective interpretation of such concerns. With that in mind, both prudence and analytical rigor suggest that rulers typically prioritize their own interests.

Moreover, the arguments presented here apply irrespective of one’s stance on whether the destruction of Iran’s nuclear ambitions is a justified course of action.

These reflections underscore the inherent dangers of entrusting monumental state decisions to a single individual, even one who has garnered the support of nearly half of the American electorate. The classical liberal and libertarian traditions, which have evolved over the past few centuries, advocate for the necessity of limiting and distributing state power to prevent such concentration.

******************************