Item — HN Reader

I read an interesting piece on this war somewhere that claimed that the Iran war is the first war that the US is waging without first politically appealing to its public. Historically, US administrations used to present some justification for a war and politically mobilise its citizens to support a war. And only then used to go to war (even if it wasn't usually called "war" - https://9gag.com/gag/amowD7v#comment ).

This is genuinely worrying. It shows contempt towards (American) democracy. Worse still is what it means - is this because of the changing nature of warfare?

AI, drones, missiles, missile-shields etc. means that unless you want to occupy a territory, you don't really need to send your army / troops to a country any more to "punish" them. If you aren't going to put boots on the ground, you don't have to worry about body bags returning home and generating (unmanageable) political anger. Thus, politicians (from superpowers) who hold a contempt for the general public may feel that there is no need any more to get the public's approval for a war as these "ungrateful" citizens aren't anyway going to volunteer for a war without a reasonable justification. The Gaza genocide has already shown that unless the victims are "white, blue-eyed blonde Christians like us" ( https://www.newslaundry.com/2022/02/28/europeans-with-blue-e... ) western politicians are genuinely not going to care about such kind of war crimes. Combine that with extremist right-wing views of a new wave of imperialism (that is all about "regime" changes and killing leaders to install puppets) all stemming from the right- in the US, a multi-polar world order doesn't just seem like a "nice idea" but a political necessity.

4 comments

> claimed that the Iran war is the first war that the US is waging without first politically appealing to its public

This is only true if you define this to be a “war” and don’t define other similar actions to be a “war.” Obama announced the air strikes on Libya in 2011 after they had already begun: https://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.us.missile...

> U.S. President Barack Obama confirmed that he had authorized "limited military action in Libya" and that "that action has now begun." He is planning for the U.S. portion of the military action in Libya to last just a few days, according to a senior administration official.

You’re correct that U.S. Presidents haven’t sought to persuade the public when the engagement involves air strikes instead of boots on the ground. But that’s been true for a long time.

Plenty did not called 12 days of bombing in summer a war either. This one is called a war by the administration itself.

Trump called it a war. Hegseth called it a war. Rubio called it a war. Israel is calling it a war. Iran is calling it a war. Gulf states are calling it a war. Literally everyone outside of America is calling it a war. Majority of people inside America call it a war.

There is real consensus about this thing being a war.

This also made me wonder, is it:

1. That those in power believe they are so beyond consequences that literally nothing will happen to them, ever

2. That the time wasn't there to build the narrative since someone else forced their hand (e.g. Israel going in solo and either relying on the allies or having some Kompromat on specific actors)

If I had to put money on it, I'd bet on this regime continuing to ignore the rule of law and illegally remaining in power, until some insurrection... Yes I'm talking about the MAGA regime. They're already ignoring so many laws and court orders...

https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2026/mar/08...

While I certainly wouldn’t say that wasn’t a risk, I think it implies a lever of coordination and planning the government almost certainly is not doing.

Some US government agencies raged their wars against socialist countries for ever, usually by the CIA on hidden budgets. And never declared a war. Or even told the president what they did.

There was never oversight, and never a United Nations control.

It's just the fascism. Fascist governments don't need or want the approval of their populace so long as they have a way to keep the people in line, like keeping the mass of your population uneducated, underemployed, and on the verge of poverty.

Or, if your fascist government is so incompetent that it thinks it has this kind of control.

I really, really don't think there's anything deeper here than just the fascism.

I thought fascist was the literal opposite of this. Where the population is indoctrinated and is more embedded into war machine. They kinda become one.

Vanilla authoritarianism, or other forms of government don't need approval from citizens. Oligarchy, monarch, etc... but at the end of the day, even a dictator needs to keep some critical level of people happy.

Classic CGPGray series on this:

https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?si=3LmAGcWjeVWumxsz