Jeremy Suri (3:22)

Good to be with you, Mark.

Martin (3:24)

So it seems this war of choice is illegal, unnecessary. Yet here we are. People are asking how it's possible for the President to launch the nation headlong into another regime change war in the Middle East. No consulting Congress. The public, according to polls, don't want this. What is the answer to that question?

Jeremy Suri (3:45)

That is something that is not unique to Donald Trump. Since World War II, and we've talked about this on your podcast before, American presidents have taken on the right and the capability to intervene in other societies, often with the purpose of regime change, without getting approval from Congress. This is something the founders of our republic never conceived of because they believed that any president would have to go to Congress to be able to raise an army with a large standing military, as we have after World War II, and then with air capabilities and things of that sort. Presidents are able to act first and then go to Congress. And generally they don't go to Congress even for a declaration of war. They just ask Congress to continue to fund their operations, claiming their operations are necessary for national security. Trump is doing that in Iran, and he's following in the footsteps of almost every president before him since Franklin Roosevelt.

Martin (4:39)

I mean, Congress has not declared war since the Second World War, 1943. Some of the Axis powers, allies, minor powers. Wasn't Japan in 41, it was Bulgaria, something like that in 42 or 43. Yet the US as you mentioned, has been at war many, many times. But even so, I mean, LBJ got the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, George W. Bush got a authorization for the use of military force for Afghanistan and then another one for Iraq. In this case, there was nothing.

Jeremy Suri (5:09)

That's true, but there is precedent for that. Ronald Reagan had no congressional authority to go into Grenada and overthrow the regime. In Grenada. You can go all the way back to Harry Truman, where the United States fought a vicious three year war in Kore without any congressional authorization either. So again, this, this is a gaping hole in our constitutional structure that was created by the presence of a sitting military, a large, large sitting military, and presidents who can claim national security necessity in a very elastic way. And Trump has, has done that and, and there's nothing that new about that part of it.

Martin (5:46)

In the Korean War there was a UN authorization, or at least the Security Council was behind it. But even if Congress were to authorize everything that's happening right now doesn't mean it's right. There's that issue as well. But just the fact that, I mean, this is not Reagan bombing, Libya, whatever you thought of that, like a one day thing, this is a major regime change operation apparently that could go on for, I mean, who knows how long this might go on for.

Jeremy Suri (6:10)

Well, that is exactly what I think any historian would have to be concerned about. Let's start with just some basic historical facts. These are not political statements. These are historical facts. Iran is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. World. And it has almost never been ruled by any outside power. It was never colonized. It was coerced by Russia and Britain at different times, but it was never colonized. This is a proud people who are proud of their independence. And unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, that are countries that were kind of put together by imperial powers from different tribes, there is a long standing Persian Iranian identity. And even though there are political factions within Iran, there's every reason to believe that they will resist any kind of foreign occupation. Occupation or foreign control. Now then there's the size and the difficulty as well as the history. Here Iran is. This astonishes my friends in Texas. It's two and a half times the size of Texas. It's the size of Alaska. This is a huge place. It is three times the size of

Martin (7:09)

Iraq and 90 million people in it.

Jeremy Suri (7:12)

And its population is 90 million, more than twice the population of Texas, I think almost three times the population of Iraq. It is the population of Germany and Belgium put together. I mean, this is a huge tall order to try to manage this situation. And it is historically ludicrous to think that you could manage this from the air with air power alone.

Martin (7:34)

Yes. I was going to ask you next, is it possible to topple the regime through air power?

Jeremy Suri (7:39)

It might be. There are many ways to topple a regime, some using military force, some not using military force. In 1954-1953.

Martin (7:47)

You're referring to Mossadegh. It was 1953, focused once again on the Middle east, where events in Iran have taken a dramatic double twist by the fanatic followers of the aged Premier Mohammad Mossadegh. In a brazen act of defiance, the statue of the Shah's father is toppled from its pedestal.

Jeremy Suri (8:02)

We overthrew, along with the British, a government of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, without the direct use of military force, we use coercive force of various kinds.

Martin (8:12)

CIA.

Jeremy Suri (8:12)

So it is possible to overthrow a regime, but the question is, what comes next? What are you going to do next? And it's hard to imagine that if this regime topples, it's not clear it will, if this topples, that there will be any kind of seamless transition. Let's remember that the order that we see in Venezuela after the kidnapping of Maduro is only because the Maduro regime has actually stayed in power. It is the Maduro's successor as vice president who's actually just held the same institutions with the same people in power. A transition would create much more disorder there as it certainly will in Iran.

Martin (8:47)

Well, the idea of having the Iranian people rise up to topple their regime, which is what Trump asked them to do while their country is being bombed and just weeks after that regime murdered thousands of people. I don't know what he's thinking here.

Jeremy Suri (9:02)

Yeah. Now let's be clear. I would like to see the Iranian people overthrow the regime as well. This is a very unpopular regime. It goes back to 1979. There's no evidence that it has anywhere near popular consent. It's also been a very poor regime in managing basic economy. It's, as you said, been an incredibly brutal regime. But I don't want the regime to be overthrown and replaced with something even worse. And that's the real concern. Right. We need a transition. But it's not a transition that will happen as the country's being bombed, which will bring some people closer to the current regime and create more disorder on the ground. And as there is no method and no set of resources for a new government to build upon, right now the Strait of Hormuz is being closed. So that'll cut off Iran to oil money. It's very hard to imagine a transition happening here in a seamless, orderly way. It's going to be managed by the Iranians. We're going to see chaos.

Martin (9:53)

Well, the regional war is possible, too. Iran is firing missiles at Gulf State allies at the United States, presumably to try to get those countries to pressure the United States to cut it out.

Jeremy Suri (10:03)

The only way transitions really work is when they have a popular consensus on the ground. They have conditions, usually non war conditions that make it possible and external support. There's no evidence the United States is going to support a transition. It will be very, very, very expensive and require a lot of American labor. There's no occupation force prepared. We need a huge one. I Don't see Trump talking about major aid packages. We don't even have USAID any. So the likelihood is, if there's a toppling of the regime, Martin, that there'll be a power struggle, which will lead to more violence, which will lead to something closer to civil war, which will lead to widespread disorder that could spread through the region and make things worse. I don't see how that benefits the United States.

Martin (10:44)

Well, this is a wretched regime and it is unpopular with the people. But I wonder how much Iranians would trust the United States, given the history here, the toppling of Mossadegh, the support for the brutal Shah of Iran. There's been a lot of bad blood, if you will.

Jeremy Suri (10:59)

Yes, and as I said before, the Iranians have a long, long history of being an independent society, of being an empire unto themselves. They don't take kindly to any kind of foreign intervention. This is even true of Iranians living in the United States. They might be happy to see the current regime overthrown, and some of them might be partial to the old regime of Shah Reza Pahlavi and his son who's in the United States. But they don't want the United States running their country either. And they don't want to have to be selling their oil at American price. So this does not seem to be going in anywhere near the direction to which Trump thinks it would go, where there would be an overthrow, a peaceful transition, and a pro American government. It's very hard to imagine that happening anytime soon.

Martin (11:39)

What about Israel's influence here? Some say this is an Israel first foreign policy. This is ultimately Trump's war. But why would Israel want war with Iran? They have to know I'm talking about Netanyahu and the government there. Analysts in the Israeli media that this could be a potential disaster.

Jeremy Suri (11:59)

Israeli citizens of all political stripes have reason to be very concerned about the current Iranian regime. It is not the current regime a threat to the United States, but it is a threat to Israel. It has been a longtime sponsor of terrorist activities and various other groups. And there's also a concern that it would use weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, potentially against Israel. So Israelis have a reason to be concerned. But many Israelis also don't think that this kind of war is the right way to do this because they're concerned about the after effects if there's chaos in the region that makes Israel less secure. Netanyahu, the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and some of his supporters have supported this war, I think because they believe that the Israelis can only build security by dominating, completely dominating the region militarily. And Iran is a military challenger to Israeli military dominance in the region. At least it's a long term challenger.

Martin (12:53)

Iran, as we know, has no nuclear weapons. And the only answer to shut down that potential is diplomacy. We know that the JCPOA was working. Donald Trump trashed it because it was something that Obama did. Iran's military, well, it has no air force to speak of that can project power in the region. It has missiles, it has ballistic missiles. Many of those did get through to Israel during the 12 Day War. So Iran has a ballistic missile system, but it's just not realistic to demand that all countries in the region give up their weapons.

Jeremy Suri (13:24)

Well, especially when you're invading them. I mean, the problem is we're giving ammunition for the Iranian and the Syrian and various other arguments that are made by regimes in the region for why they need massive weapon systems, including potentially nuclear war, because they might be invaded otherwise. Notice we have not invaded North Korea because they have nuclear weapons and we are invading Iran after invading Iraq, both when they're on the cusp of having nuclear weapons. And so this creates perverse incentives. It should also be said, Martin, that the Chinese are certainly watching this and they have a better claim on Taiwan than the United States has on Iran. They have a better argument. And so if we can use a really flimsy argument to invade Iran, why can't they use a better argument to invade Taiwan?

Martin (14:09)

The rules based order is a, is a fiction now. So there's the issue of American presidents are the commander in Chief. The authorization to declare war is Congress. But presidents have the authority, the responsibility to defend US interests and say an emergency if there's something they have to react to quickly. Can't always go to Congress to get authorization for something. But we do have something called the War Powers act that if the President does commit US forces into the theater of battle, he is now obligated under the War Powers act to consult Congress. There's what, a 60 day window for Congress to say you can keep going or no, we gotta correct, bring it all home. I've raised this question recently on the show and I've brought it up with you in the past, but I just wanna revisit it briefly here. Does the War Powers act require prior authorization or only after the bombs start falling? Then you have to go to Congress.

Jeremy Suri (15:02)

It presumes prior consultation but does not require it. It does require it within 60 days.

Martin (15:07)

So now you would have to say, or would you agree that Trump he is obligated now to go to Congress.

Jeremy Suri (15:13)

I believe that. I think most constitutional scholars do as well. But there are some, including Trump's lawyers, who challenge the constitutional validity of the War Powers Act. And that has not actually been tested in court. Other presidents have ignored it, but it has not been tested in court because the argument against the War Powers act is that it violates the constit provision that says the president is commander in chief. And the War Powers act was not a constitutional amendment. It was a piece of legislation. So there is constitutional question about it. But I do believe that a fair reading would say that within 60 days, Trump needs authorization from Congress.

Martin (15:48)

It has to be more difficult to wage war than it currently is. It's harder to pass or enact a piece of social welfare legislation. It's harder to build a bridge or an airport in our country than it is to bomb other countries. On repeat.

Jeremy Suri (16:03)

That's correct. That's correct. And that is not what the founders envisioned at all. They wanted all those things to be difficult, but it became easy because the Constitution was written for a society that did not have a large standing army. So there was no way that Abraham Lincoln could, even after the Civil War, send a huge force over to Europe to fight some kind of war there. He didn't have it. He had to demobilize the Union Army. Now we have a large standing military that can undertake these kinds of activities.

Martin (16:31)

So there's a larger pattern of US Interventionism in the Middle East. We thought we had learned our lesson after the global war on terror and the repeat disasters there, but here we are again. But there's also something specific to Iran here. And this goes directly back to 1979. We lost our ally and not only that, replaced by an anti Western, anti American clerical regime. And I'm seeing it all over on Twitter or X already today. There are the so called neocons and and others who are saying, finally, we're gonna reverse the verdict of history here.

Jeremy Suri (17:06)

So actually there's so many stories around Iran. There's also a post World War II story. Russian forces had moved in there for a short time. And some have argued that's actually the beginning of the Cold War when the United States puts pressure on Stalin to remove his forces from there. But for someone like Donald Trump, the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which included the taking of the American embassy and American diplomats being held for 444 days hostage, and while on television we helplessly watched, this is a nightmare they are continuing to relive for so much of Trump's politics and those around him. It's a replay of the 70s and 80s and this moment, they believe, when the United States was humiliated and began its decline from what they imagine was this great shining moment when we ruled the world and did everything the way we wanted.

Martin (17:53)

So this is revenge in their eyes, then, for this?

Jeremy Suri (17:55)

This is revenge. And it's about making America great again by reversing history, as if somehow we can reverse that. And the real problem with this, in addition to the fact you can't reverse history, is that the Shah's regime was a horrible regime. It's not like Iran had this great, wonderful democracy or even a benevolent dictatorship. The Shah was overthrown because the Shah's use of the secret police, the savak, and the ostentatious lifestyle he had while his country suffered from poverty made it unsustainable. That's really what the problem was. And do we want to go back to that? The son of the Shah who's in the United States and trying to get

Martin (18:27)

the stall has no legitimacy.

Jeremy Suri (18:30)

He hasn't been in the country for. For what, 47 years now?

Martin (18:34)

Here's another thing here, though, Jeremy. Even if there were a plan to replace the ayatollahs in Iran, it still wouldn't make it right.

Jeremy Suri (18:42)

Well, of course not. And it wouldn't make it right. It wouldn't be something we would do well. There's no evidence that we've ever really done this well, especially under these rushed conditions with a minimal commitment. When we've done this well, the only time we've done this well is when it's something like the end of World War II, where you have an overwhelming commitment. What Trump has not done that almost every other president has tried to do, is persuade the American public to get behind this. What is so stunning to me, Martin, in addition to the aimless military activities, and we don't know what these activities are about, what's really stunning is that there's been no effort to persuade the American public that there's a reason to do this. George W. Bush used weapons of mass destruction to try to persuade the public. Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam used the spread of communism and falling dominoes to justify. Trump has given no justification. I watched the State of the Union address very carefully for this. He talked about the threat Iran posed, but no justification did not justify why this is in the interest of the US to do this now there and in the way we're doing it. And I don't know any president who's gone to war with such Little public support and such, little effort to build public support, which is why this is never going to succeed, for that very, very reason.

Martin (19:57)

So I'll follow up on that. It'll be our last question, because this is all starting here. Maybe you'll come back and we'll do a number of updates on this situation because who knows, we'll have plenty of time.

Jeremy Suri (20:06)

Because this will go on for a while. So we'll have plenty of time.

Martin (20:09)

I mean, how long do you think this might go on for if you've already imprisoned yourself with language? We need to topple the regime and we're going to ask the Iranian people to rise up and take over their government. And you bomb and you bomb and the regime still does not fall. But you've already committed to doing something like that. You've trapped yourself into the possibility of having to wage a war for weeks, months. There's not a very good track record of any American president saying, you know what? This hasn't worked. We're gonna leave.

Jeremy Suri (20:39)

It's a very big problem. And even though the Iranian people are not supporters of their government, they are going to resist American influence even if they do try to overthrow the government. At the same time.

Martin (20:50)

School was already blown up today. Dozens of girls were killed.

Jeremy Suri (20:54)

Let's just think about this. In comparison to Ukraine, Iran is three times the size and three times the population of Ukraine. And Russia has proven it's willing to take probably more than a million casualties in Ukraine and destroy its economy. And it still hasn't been able to occupy very much of Ukraine and still

Martin (21:16)

not willing to quit either.

Jeremy Suri (21:17)

Right. We're entering into that kind of space in a harder, more difficult place to operate with less commitment from the US So I'm fearful that in one form or another, it will go through different stages. We will be now in a long term conflict, military, terrorist, conflict with Iran. And you and I will be talking about this for years, not for weeks and months.

Martin (21:38)

Another president who will lose his presidency in the Middle East.

Jeremy Suri (21:42)

Yes, yes, and another time when we will show that we seem unable to learn from history. Why do we need podcasts like yours, Martin? Because we desperately, desperately need to learn some basic things from history. We have tried this, this before and it has not worked. Why we think we can try it now thoughtlessly just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Martin (22:07)

And as I wrapped up my conversation with Jeremy Suri, there are reports that the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khamenei, was killed in an Israeli or US Airstrike so you may want to consult trusted sources of news to follow that development. This has been a special episode of History As It Happens. Become a subscriber to support the important work we're doing here. Just go to history as it happens.com or tap subscribe now in the show Notes. If you're already a subscriber, thank you. You can refer a friend and receive a $25 credit by going to history as it happens dot com.