There Was No US Strike on Iran

The Unyielding Nature of Obedience in Politics

Humans exhibit a remarkable propensity to follow political leaders, often to the detriment of their own interests. This phenomenon finds a modern expression in nationalism. Following the recent U.S. military action against Iranian nuclear sites, it is apparent that both Americans and Iranians may rally behind their leaders with an almost instinctual fervor. (In a fortunate twist of fate, the American leader is not quite as supreme as his Iranian counterpart—at least not yet.)

The Psychology of Compliance

In his seminal work On Power (Du Pouvoir), Bertrand de Jouvenel astutely noted that “the primary reason for obedience is that it has become a habit of our species.” It seems our evolutionary history may have hardwired this tendency. Individuals often find it advantageous to adopt a submissive stance before a ruler who is determined to assert dominance (think of the classic Hawk-Dove game). Nationalist fervor, combined with a lack of understanding of fundamental economic principles, further fuels this compliance.

Liberty and the Beliefs of Classical Liberals

Only classical liberals and libertarians seem to uphold James Buchanan’s vision of a society where every individual enjoys equal freedom. This ideal is grounded in theories of spontaneous order, suggesting that freedom and cooperation can emerge organically.

Distinguishing Actions from Narratives

The events of June 21 were not simply “a U.S. strike on Iran,” as the media repeatedly states, but rather a targeted action by the U.S. government against the assets of the Iranian government—potentially impacting human lives in the process, often referred to as collateral damage. Tragically, this was more a strike by Donald Trump and his administration against the assets of Ali Khamenei and his associates. We must remain cautious of linguistic shortcuts and the tendency to conflate individuals with the broader groups they are associated with, particularly when government propaganda reinforces this error.

The Role of Political Rhetoric

Political hyperbole typically serves to ensure the obedience of the populace rather than restrain the power of its rulers. Just a day after the Iranian strikes, President Trump proclaimed that “our country is hot as a pistol” (let’s not chuckle too hard). While many Americans might be enjoying the summer heat with a cold drink, the political narrative would not benefit from acknowledging that “only part of the 49.8% of voters who supported me are feeling particularly fiery.”

The Complexity of Government Power

The question of governmental limits is intricate and has been a recurring theme in my discussions, particularly through the lens of economic and philosophical theories articulated by thinkers like James Buchanan and Anthony de Jasay.

The Nuclear Dilemma

The challenge with nuclear weapons is their indiscriminate nature; they offer terrifying leverage to their wielders. The threat essentially boils down to, “Submit, or I will inflict harm on your populace (even if that harm could endanger my own).” I argue that the principle of preventing a tyrant from acquiring nuclear capabilities is defensible. Furthermore, one might contend that neither the possessor nor the preventer of such weapons should be an autocrat or someone inclined towards autocracy. (For those intrigued, I invite you to explore my fourth-millennium libertarian narrative on defense.)

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