The Guns of June
Trump's bombing of Iran could set off cascading events toward the worst war in decades.
A flashpoint in a region historically torn by strife. A cascade of events drawing in countries across the globe through alliances. A world teetering toward war.
Donald Trump’s decision to bomb Iran rings with historical echoes.
More than a half-century ago, Barbara Tuchman won a Pulitzer Prize for her detailed account of the events leading up to and opening World War I, The Guns of August. While much of the mainstream media has focused on the parallels between current events and U.S. involvement in Iraq, the similarities to pre-World War I circumstances may prove even more dire.
In the decades leading up to World War I, the Balkans fostered ceaseless conflict in the region, including the Balkan Wars immediately before The Great War began. Those circumstances created a powder keg that would eventually envelope countries across Europe and the globe.
Today Iran lays at the crossroads of a war-torn region. Immediately to its west is Iraq, where the U.S. engaged in multiple military campaigns over the past four decades; to the east lies Afghanistan, where U.S. forces were encamped for nearly twenty years before tragic, hostile withdrawal. Mix in a healthy dose of regional conflict, including its own war with Iraq and a running feud with Israel, and the country is uniquely familiar with recent conflict.
Furthermore, much as the Balkans sat between Europe and Asia, Iran’s location puts it in a pivotal position for effecting global commerce. Not only does it connect the Middle East and Europe to Asia via land, but more importantly oil flowing from the Middle East to the rest of the world must pass along Iran’s southern shore and through the Strait of Hormuz.
If Iran closes the passage from the Persian Gulf to the oceans, it will have an outsized impact across the world, including in the U.S. gas prices will spike and heating costs will skyrocket. Already suffering from the inflationary effects of Trump’s tariffs, the American people would need to brace for even higher prices.
While J.D. Vance went onto national television to declare that Iran would not take such an action due to its economic impact, he obviously retains a hillbilly’s sense of history. In the spring 1914, the prevalent belief was that war in Europe would not last more than four months due to the economic impact on the participants. Four years and millions of lives later, the scope of that errant belief became clear.
And apparently Iran did not think much of Vance’s bravado. Their parliament approved a measure to shut the trade route down shortly after he got done proclaiming they would not. Now the Iranian Supreme National Security Council will make the final decision.
Now ineffectual Marco Rubio has to beg China to intervene. Given the xenophobic trade war Trump started against that country, I would not hold my breath hoping they will come to our rescue. More likely than not Chinese leaders have begun taking bets on how long they can make Rubio sit by the phone.
BREAKING: Iran Hits Back. We're Not Out of the Woods ... Yet.
News of Iran’s retaliation hit fast and hard today, even if its missiles didn’t hit their intended targets. The hot takes are all over the place, but a theme of “de-escalation” seems to be taking hold. In other words, some say that Iran chose this route because they knew that their missiles would be intercepted.
But at least they are not actively supporting Iran. In contrast, Russia did not hesitate to condemn the bombings and call the U.S. actions “irresponsible” and a “gross violation of international law.” Given America’s support for Ukraine in its years long war with Russia, and Trump’s more recent split with his puppetmaster Vladimir Putin, such a statement seemed preordained.
But the Iranian Foreign Minister heading to Russia for direct talks should be a big red flag. In addition to a common enemy, remember that while the two countries no longer share a land border, they are connected through the Caspian Sea. Should Russia decide to lend its military aid, the risk of an extended conflict becomes exponentially greater.
Toss in the non-state terrorist network sympathetic to Iran and the world suddenly looks much, much more dangerous. The chances of a full blown conflict with American boots on the ground becomes a question of when, not if. That in itself will ensure increased support for Iran and a spiraling effect that doesn’t seem to have a bottom at the moment.
Americans rightly worry about Trump hurling the country into a war in Iran. When leaders like him fail to learn the lessons of history, U.S. soldiers end up paying the price with their blood.
Mario Nicolais is General Counsel for The Lincoln Project. He is also a regular columnist for The Colorado Sun and an instructor at The University of Colorado, focusing on public policy, politics, and the legal system. Follow him on Bluesky: @MarioNicolais.bsky.social
And the Sh*t show continues. Brought to you by the Twisted Twinkie.
The US enabled a more powerful Iran by taking out Saddam Hussein. Iraq was balancing Iran's power in the region, so it was the Iraq war that allowed Iran to become so powerful. It wasn't an unknown consequence of the invasion of Iraq. At the time, there was discussion about empowering Iran, and how bad for the world that would be.