Smearing the Skeptics, D.C. Neocons’ Oldest Trick to Sell War

The same pattern we have seen time and again in D.C. is repeating itself regarding the war with Iran. Before any major war the U.S. has fought, the foreign policy blob in D.C. insists that the threat to the United States is urgent, that the mission will be limited in scope, and that the United States will ultimately succeed. When any skeptic questions or raises concerns about any aspect of the war, however, their ideas are not debated with any reasonable discussion, but instead, their personal character is attacked, and smear tactics abound.

We are currently watching that again in real time with this war. The growing number of voices breaking with the MAGA-diehards and insisting that the war with Iran is a terrible idea are being smeared in real-time. Joe Kent’s resignation letter clearly stated that Iran “posed no imminent threat to our nation.” Calling on his time in the military, who had deployed 11 times and someone who lost his wife in a suicide bombing in Syria, Kent has the judgement of an individual who has operated at the highest levels of national security, and on the ground in tactical situations, and what that means for the servicemembers that must face the brunt of the war.

Already, at this writing, 13 service members are dead, with over 200 wounded, at least 10 ‘seriously.’ Besides the emotional and familial loss of their loved ones, the United States SGLI (Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance) covers $500,000 for each service member lost, a cost already over $6.5M for just those 13. Long-term disability costs are even higher. Just the 10 most severely wounded, assuming full disability over a lifetime, could cost more than $28 million. The remaining wounded could add roughly $250 million more, even before factoring in annual cost-of-living increases. Those servicemembers, much like the GWOT servicemembers I served alongside, deserve that VA disability for the number of deployments, as well as mental and physical problems they now face because of those wars; however, the cost is staggering. The cost for service members, as well as the cost of war, has exceeded $18B in just a few days, indicating the war is already off to an unsustainable start.

The general public, past and current Congressional members, and grassroots activists all echo the sentiment Joe Kent espouses. A New York Times article reported earlier this month that this war has the lowest public support of any American war, sitting at 41%, with a range of 27%-50% depending on the poll. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former MAGA faithful, stated on X in February, “Thousands and thousands of Americans from my generation have been killed and injured in never-ending pointless foreign wars, and we said no more…” She has consistently gone against foreign intervention, much to the chagrin of Trump, arguing that the foreign wars undermine the “America First” promise and distract from more pressing domestic issues. Regardless of whether someone agrees with her or not, her position shows skepticism among some of the MAGA faithful about another endless conflict in the Middle East. Tucker Carlson, in an interview with The Economist, stated that, “This war is something that he (President Trump) promised he wouldn’t do. Not once, but countless times… and the idea behind it is not only contrary to America-first, it may be its inverse.”

When looking at how individuals are engaging these arguments against the war, many proponents of a continued escalation in Iran have chosen the tactic of smearing the individuals. Alan Dershowitz, in an interview with Newsmax, took the typical response of anyone who can’t debate the arguments, but tries to label Joe Kent and others as “Nazi Neo-Fascists.” The accusation does not try to argue for the war with Iran, but attempts to delegitimize anyone who is against the war. Looking again at a neocon smear job, Mark Levin has described anyone against the war as “neofascist podcaster isolationists,” again framing any opposition to his foreign policy as an ‘ultimate evil.’ Strong arguments do not have that kind of rhetoric; weak arguments do. This rhetoric is the same as when people call individuals ‘isolationists’ and that their foreign policy is akin to Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany. They try to delegitimize individuals and arguments to ensure that debate on these serious matters does not occur. They do not want Americans to think there might be another way, but instead to believe their policies are infallible. This tactic is coming from the same foreign policy establishment that led to the disastrous wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and on and on.

Donald Trump initially attempted to justify the conflict as an effort to eliminate an imminent threat to the United States. After the strikes earlier in the year, he claimed that Iran’s defenses were gone. Stating that, “I think the war is very complete, pretty much.” If that was true, and the threat was neutralized a month ago and Iran’s nuclear capabilities were destroyed back in June of last year, why is the U.S. escalating a larger war with Iran? Why are new strikes being planned to destroy the capabilities that the U.S. has supposedly already destroyed? Why is Trump reportedly looking to seize Kharg Island with 3,000 Marines and the 82nd Airborne deploying to the region?

These contradictions would be challenging in any typical policy debate; however, the debate is being shaped to favor a longer and more substantial war. Lindsey Graham, who called for Marines to seize Kharg Island by force, compared taking it to the American capture of Iwo Jima. Besides the fact that World War II was a fight for national survival, Iwo Jima resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and the spending of billions of dollars. To believe that this war in Iran would be any different from other wars in the Middle East ignores history and recent conflicts. It will cost thousands of American lives, trillions of dollars, and ultimately leave us worse off in the long run.

The smearing by neocons resembles leftist tactics that label people as ‘racist,’ ‘homophobic,’ ‘xenophobic,’ etc., aiming to shut down debate by attacking individuals instead of their arguments. Critics of the Iran war are dismissed as having extremist views, and any opposition to the neocon stance is deemed illegitimate. The goal is not to win policy debates but to make constructive discussion and policy decisions impossible. We saw this during the lead-up to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, when skeptics were called unpatriotic or accused of not supporting the troops. Those conflicts cost trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, and destabilized the region. Now, once again, the U.S. is heading toward another open-ended conflict in the Middle East, facing a far larger and more capable adversary.

The problem with the smearing and name-calling is not simply that the war may go badly, but that honest debate cannot occur. If critics of the war in Iran are smeared as being ‘fascists’ instead of a proper debate occurring, the United States may walk itself into another war in the Middle East that will last another twenty years. The case for war in Iran is already extremely weak. The effort to silence individuals against it only makes that clearer. Unless Americans are willing to challenge not only the policies being implemented but also the tactics used to smear the individuals fighting those policies, we will watch the same mistakes repeat themselves. If dissent is silenced yet again, the outcome will not be just another war in the Middle East; it will be another failure we were not allowed to question.