The U.S.-Israeli air campaign against Iran carries a risk that even its defenders acknowledge: the country could disintegrate into civil war, sending millions of refugees toward Europe and America in a repeat of the Syrian crisis.
Douglas J. Feith raised the scenario in The Washington Post while making the broader case that Trump's approach is strategically coherent, as reported by "Hvylya".
Feith's core argument is that the air campaign presents two broad outcomes: either the Iranian people overthrow the regime, or they don't. In either case, Tehran's military infrastructure - from its conventional forces to its nuclear program - would be destroyed. But between these clean scenarios lies a messier possibility that Feith does not dismiss.
"There is risk, especially because Iran could disintegrate into civil war, causing millions to flee and seek refuge in Europe and America, as happened in Syria," Feith writes. Iran's population of over 80 million, its ethnic diversity, and its fractured political landscape make this more than a hypothetical concern.
Yet Feith argues the alternative carries its own dangers. It would be risky, he contends, "to try to play a major role on the ground in Iran to avoid that not-inevitable result." He notes that Trump "shows no concern about chaos" and sees no American obligation to prevent Iranian instability - a stark departure from the Bush administration's belief that "failed states are breeding grounds for anti-Americanism, terrorism and other pathologies."
There is no indication that the Trump administration is drawing up plans to address the range of likely future challenges. The president's focus, Feith observes, "tends to be on dangers that directly affect Americans and their interests - things he could handle through use of force." Whether a refugee crisis reaching Europe's borders would eventually become one of those direct dangers remains an open question.
Also read: Gulf War III Is Already Won. The Peace Might Be Lost