Parallels are often drawn between the war launched by George W. Bush against Iraq in 2003 and the war now being waged by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu against Iran. The circumstances, however, are quite different, and the intervention against Iran may seem, at first glance, less illegitimate in several respects. But given the way in which this war was launched and then conducted, the consequences are likely to be just as catastrophic.

Like the Iranian mullahs, Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator who did not hesitate to massacre his own people, particularly in Kurdistan. At the time, this was an important motivation for the neoconservatives, who felt invested with a mission to spread democracy throughout the world at the point of American bayonets.

Mullahs even more bloodthirsty than Saddam Hussein

In this respect, the Iranian mullahs are probably even more bloodthirsty than Saddam Hussein, as they demonstrated by massacring more than 30,000 people last January. But this time, the humanitarian case is clearly the least of Donald Trump’s motivations for waging war. He himself says he is primarily seeking a “Venezuelan-style” solution that would leave the dictatorship in place, provided the mullahs surrender on nuclear weapons and missiles and hand over Iranian oil.

Saddam Hussein had no real links to international terrorism, particularly the perpetrators of the 11 September 2001 attacks, contrary to what American leaders claimed at the time. The Iranian mullahs, for their part, have never had links to al-Qaeda or Islamic State, unlike certain other Gulf countries. These organisations, which claim to represent Sunni Islam, are in fact their sworn enemies. Nor do Iran’s rulers finance the kind of massive Islamist influence operations in Europe that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates conduct, spending billions in the process.

On the other hand, they have pursued an active policy of supporting Shiite and allied factions to destabilise the region, while also not hesitating to organise operations in Europe, particularly against dissidents. Their capacity for harm beyond their borders, however, had already been greatly reduced before the start of this war — with the fall of Bashar al-Assad, the near-total destruction of Hamas, and the severe blows dealt to Hezbollah in Lebanon. It was doubtful they could rebuild this capacity in the foreseeable future, given the profound deterioration of the economic and political situation inside Iran itself.

Similarly, Saddam Hussein clearly did not possess weapons of mass destruction or a military nuclear programme, contrary to what the Bush administration claimed. By contrast, there is no doubt about the existence of a highly advanced Iranian military nuclear programme. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), the 2015 agreement, had made it possible to monitor and strictly regulate that programme — until Donald Trump abandoned the accord in 2018. And the regime, now greatly weakened, was clearly prepared to accept even stricter conditions, as indicated by the Omani minister following the negotiations conducted under his auspices.

In some respects, then, the attack on Iran may appear less unjustified than the 2003 attack on Iraq. But it was launched in the midst of negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme and without any attempt to secure legitimacy through the United Nations or even through a broad coalition of countries, as was the case in 2003. This makes it even more illegitimate — and more dangerous — than the war against Iraq for the rule of international law and multilateralism.

Iran, soon to be another failed state?

Furthermore, in the absence of any credible scenario for a peaceful internal transition, the United States and Israel seem determined not only to destroy the regime’s military and security installations but also, through a campaign of massive and prolonged bombing, to lay waste to the country’s oil infrastructure, its seawater desalination plants, and many other essential facilities. Such sustained bombardment is likely to create a major humanitarian disaster. The Americans and Israelis also clearly intend to encourage regional separatism among the Kurds and the Baloch.

Given the vast imbalance of power, the most likely outcome of all these actions is to turn Iran into yet another failed state — not to mention southern Lebanon, which the Israeli government says it wants to turn into a new Gaza. This can only prolong and aggravate instability throughout the Middle East, a region of particular strategic importance for Europe.

In short, even if the circumstances differ and the intervention against the Iranian mullahs today may in some respects seem less illegitimate than that against Saddam Hussein a quarter of a century ago, the end result is likely to be just as catastrophic — for Iran, the region, Europe, and the world.

Help Keep Social Europe Free for Everyone

We believe quality ideas should be accessible to all — no paywalls, no barriers. Your support keeps Social Europe free and independent, funding the thought leadership, opinion, and analysis that sparks real change.