American Democracy Might Not Survive a War With Iran – The Atlantic

Report on the Implications of Bombing Iran: A Sustainable Development Perspective

Introduction

The ongoing debate regarding the potential bombing of Iran raises critical concerns about the effectiveness and consequences of such military action. Historical evidence suggests that bombing alone rarely leads to lasting resolutions, highlighting the complexity of addressing nuclear proliferation and regional stability. This report emphasizes the importance of aligning foreign policy decisions with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those promoting peace, justice, strong institutions, and global partnerships.

Historical Context and Military Effectiveness

Past military interventions, such as the 2003 Iraq invasion, demonstrate that airstrikes without comprehensive ground operations fail to achieve permanent disarmament or democratic transformation. The Clinton administration’s 1998 bombing of Iraq did not conclusively dismantle weapons programs, and subsequent actions required more intrusive measures.

• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions): Highlights the need for peaceful resolution of conflicts and strengthening institutions to prevent violence.
• Bombing Iran is unlikely to produce a verifiable and lasting end to its nuclear ambitions without international verification and ground presence.

Domestic Political Context and Risks to Democracy

The potential conflict with Iran occurs amid significant domestic political challenges in the United States, where concerns about authoritarian tendencies and erosion of democratic norms prevail.

1. Concentration of power in the executive branch undermines checks and balances.
2. Use of military forces for domestic control raises ethical and legal questions.
3. War could exacerbate restrictions on civil liberties and dissent.

SDG 16 underscores the importance of accountable institutions and inclusive societies, which are threatened by the militarization of governance and suppression of dissent.

Security Concerns and Terrorism

Military strikes against Iran risk provoking retaliatory terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, potentially justifying expanded governmental powers that infringe on human rights.

• Post-attack environments often lead to diminished civil liberties.
• Anti-terrorism laws may be misused to suppress legitimate protest and opposition.

These outcomes conflict with SDG 16, which promotes the rule of law and protection of fundamental freedoms.

Global Implications and Anti-Liberal Alliances

The current U.S. administration’s alignment with anti-liberal, ethnoreligious nationalist forces globally complicates the geopolitical landscape. Military success in Iran may embolden such alliances, undermining democratic movements and human rights worldwide.

• Support for authoritarian regimes contradicts SDG 16 and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• Potential suppression of democratic forces in Iran post-conflict threatens regional stability and development.

Recommendations for Policy and Sustainable Development

1. Prioritize diplomatic and multilateral approaches: Engage in international verification regimes to ensure transparency and compliance.
2. Strengthen democratic institutions: Uphold civil liberties and prevent the militarization of domestic governance.
3. Promote global partnerships: Collaborate with international bodies to address nuclear proliferation and regional conflicts peacefully, in line with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).
4. Consider long-term impacts: Evaluate how foreign policy decisions affect global peace, justice, and sustainable development.

Conclusion

Military action against Iran is unlikely to yield sustainable peace or security and poses significant risks to democratic governance and human rights both domestically and internationally. Aligning U.S. foreign policy with the Sustainable Development Goals is essential to fostering a peaceful, just, and inclusive global community. The potential consequences of war underscore the urgent need for strategies that support SDG 16 and related goals, ensuring that efforts contribute to lasting stability and development rather than exacerbating conflict and authoritarianism.

About the Author

Robert Kagan is a contributing writer for The Atlantic, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of Rebellion: How Antiliberalism Is Tearing America Apart—Again.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected to the Issues Highlighted in the Article

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
   • The article discusses issues related to dictatorship, erosion of democratic institutions, law enforcement control, and the use of military power domestically and internationally.
   • Concerns about war, national emergency declarations, and suppression of dissent relate directly to peace, justice, and governance.
2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Indirectly, the article touches on the consequences of war and terrorism, which affect public health and well-being.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article references the targeting of noncitizens and marginalized groups by law enforcement, which relates to inequality and social justice.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article mentions international relations, verification regimes, and global alliances, which involve cooperation and partnerships.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified Based on the Article’s Content

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels.
2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.6: By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents (related to violence and conflict impacts).
   • Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including protection from financial risk, access to quality essential health-care services.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws and policies.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships.
   • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article to Measure Progress Towards the Identified Targets

1. For SDG 16 Targets:
   • Indicator 16.1.1: Number of victims of intentional homicide per 100,000 population, by sex and age.
   • Indicator 16.3.1: Proportion of victims of violence in the previous 12 months who reported their victimization to competent authorities or other officially recognized conflict resolution mechanisms.
   • Indicator 16.6.1: Primary government expenditures as a proportion of original approved budget, by sector (or by budget codes or similar).
   • Indicator 16.7.2: Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive.
2. For SDG 3 Targets:
   • Indicator 3.6.1: Death rate due to road traffic injuries.
   • Indicator 3.8.1: Coverage of essential health services.
3. For SDG 10 Targets:
   • Indicator 10.3.1: Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed.
4. For SDG 17 Targets:
   • Indicator 17.16.1: Number of countries reporting progress in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks that support the achievement of the sustainable development goals.
   • Indicator 17.17.1: Amount of United States dollars committed to public-private and civil society partnerships.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: theatlantic.com