- Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute warns that war with Iran would be a catastrophic policy failure for the U.S.
- Trump’s contradictory approach—diplomatic talks paired with military escalation—raises fears of impending conflict.
- Iran’s history of resisting Western pressure, including past U.S. interventions, underscores the limits of intimidation.
- Reviving diplomacy through the JCPOA is a far more viable path than war, which could destabilize the entire Middle East.
Amid rising tensions in the Middle East, the Trump administration has reportedly concluded another round of nuclear talks with Iran—a process described by a senior U.S. official as “positive and productive.” Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, however, tempered expectations by saying he was “hopeful but very cautious.” In a pointed critique published by the Cato Institute, Senior Fellow Doug Bandow has raised alarms about the direction of U.S. policy, arguing that President Donald Trump’s aggressive posture could draw America into a disastrous war with Iran.
In his article, Bandow makes clear that while the recent talks are welcome, they are overshadowed by the administration’s contradictory actions. “Much depends on whether President Donald Trump is seriously committed to reaching a deal with the Islamist state,” Bandow writes. He argues that Trump has long been influenced by “uber-hawks and neocons” who previously championed the Iraq War and are now agitating for conflict with Iran.
Pakistan Sends Clear Warning: Military Fully Prepared for Swift Response if India Initiates Conflict
Despite claiming to pursue diplomacy, Trump’s actions suggest otherwise. As Bandow notes, the U.S. has been deploying significant military hardware to the region. According to a report in The War Zone, this includes B-2 stealth bombers, fighter jets, support aircraft, an additional carrier strike group, and upgraded air defenses.
Trump Threatens Iran
Bandow points to a disturbing statement made by Trump last month: “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.” He further cites Trump’s dismissive response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s lobbying for military action: “I may go in very willingly if we can’t get a deal. If we don’t make a deal, I’ll be leading the pack.”
Read More:Iran says it is ready for nuclear deal if US stops military threats
Such rhetoric, Bandow warns, dangerously mirrors the intimidation strategy often employed by China in its dealings with Taiwan. But he cautions that, like Taipei, Tehran has grown resilient against pressure. If Iran ultimately rejects U.S. terms, Bandow urges caution before any military strikes are ordered, reminding the president that “acting in haste is often followed by repenting at leisure.”
Drawing a historical parallel, Bandow provides a comprehensive critique of U.S. foreign policy towards Iran, dating back to the 1953 CIA-backed coup that ousted democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh and reinstalled the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. This move, initially prompted by British outrage over the nationalization of oil assets, triggered decades of autocratic rule—backed and legitimized by successive U.S. presidents.
Trump And The Islamic Revolution of 1979
The Islamic Revolution of 1979, which followed growing public unrest, brought an end to the shah’s reign and the beginning of U.S.–Iran hostilities. Bandow underscores American culpability: “Over lunch at the Knickerbocker Club in New York,” he cites from The New York Times, “President Jimmy Carter’s special envoy urged Iran’s military leaders to kill as many demonstrators as necessary to keep the shah in power.”
Post-revolution, U.S. hostility toward Iran continued, notably through support for Iraq in its eight-year war with Iran, reflagging Kuwaiti oil tankers, and turning a blind eye to Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons. Washington later armed Iran’s regional rivals—Israel and Saudi Arabia—and assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. These acts, Bandow argues, contributed to Tehran’s motivations for pursuing a nuclear deterrent.
While Washington has treated war as a foreign policy tool, Bandow reminds readers that war is not just another option—it is the most severe, involving massive human and economic costs. “Imagine America if thousands of lives and trillions of dollars had not been squandered in Washington’s foolish wars over the last quarter century,” he writes.
Bandow points to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as evidence of diplomacy’s success. The agreement significantly curtailed Iran’s nuclear program and brought relative calm. However, despite Iran’s compliance, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the accord in 2018 and reimposed sanctions, prompting Tehran to resume enrichment activities.
He criticizes the Biden administration for not restoring the JCPOA, instead seeking to exploit Trump’s maximum pressure campaign to extract more concessions. According to Bandow, this further eroded trust and strengthened Iran’s hardliners.
Trump Knows Iran Isn’t easy Target
Importantly, Bandow emphasizes that Iran is not an easy target. With a population three times that of Iraq and deeply entrenched national pride, even pro-reform Iranians are unlikely to support a foreign attack. He quotes Iranian commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh: “The Americans have at least 10 bases with 50,000 troops in the region, meaning they are sitting in a glass house.”
Military action, in Bandow’s view, would likely only delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions and convince its leaders of the need for a nuclear deterrent. A sustained campaign, potentially involving covert action and repeated strikes, would be required to meaningfully alter Iran’s trajectory.
There are also broader regional risks. Iran could retaliate against U.S. bases, block oil routes, or inspire uprisings in Gulf monarchies already facing internal discontent. It’s no coincidence, Bandow notes, that even Saudi Arabia—once a loud advocate for U.S. military action—has in recent years shifted toward diplomacy with Iran.
Bandow makes clear that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon is about deterrence—not aggression. “Tehran would not use nuclear weapons against the U.S.,” he asserts, given the certainty of devastating retaliation. Instead, Iran seeks balance in a region where Israel, an undeclared nuclear power, operates unchecked and enjoys support from U.S.-aligned Gulf states.
Quoting the late Kenneth Waltz of Columbia University, Bandow reinforces this view: “Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly… has long fueled instability in the Middle East. It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis.”
Bandow also questions whether the Middle East even remains a vital U.S. interest. With American energy independence and Russia and China both reliant on Gulf oil, the region’s strategic importance has diminished. He dismisses ideological and religious justifications for war, arguing that American lives should not be sacrificed for Biblical prophecy or cheap fuel.
Concluding his critique, Bandow appeals directly to Trump’s campaign promises. “He campaigned against forever wars. He criticized George W. Bush’s criminal attack on Iraq.” Trump previously chose restraint after the downing of a U.S. drone and attacks on Saudi oil fields—both provocations that might have triggered war under other presidents.
With even Riyadh now calling for de-escalation, Bandow urges Trump to heed the warnings of history and reject calls for war. “There is no cause for conflict with Iran today,” he writes. “When even Saudi Arabia is urging the U.S. and Israel not to ignite the Mideast, the president should keep the peace.”