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

Report on the Implications of Bombing Iran with Emphasis on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Introduction

The ongoing debate regarding the potential bombing of Iran raises critical concerns about the effectiveness and consequences of such military actions. Historical precedents indicate that bombardment alone rarely leads to lasting resolutions, posing significant challenges to peace and stability. This report examines these issues through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlighting the broader implications for global peace, justice, and strong institutions.

Historical Context and Military Effectiveness

Past military interventions, such as the U.S. bombing campaigns in Iraq during the late 1990s and early 2000s, demonstrate the limitations of airstrikes in achieving permanent disarmament or political resolution. The 1998 Clinton administration bombing failed to conclusively dismantle Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs, necessitating a ground invasion in 2003. Similarly, Iran’s nuclear program today presents a comparable dilemma:

1. Bombing may delay progress but cannot guarantee a verifiable and lasting end to nuclear development.
2. Effective resolution requires intrusive international verification and ground presence for enforcement.

These points align with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), emphasizing the need for transparent, accountable governance and conflict resolution mechanisms.

Domestic Political Context and Risks to Democracy

The potential conflict with Iran occurs amid concerns about the erosion of democratic institutions within the United States. The consolidation of executive power over law enforcement and the military raises alarms about authoritarian tendencies. Key risks include:

• Use of military force to suppress domestic dissent, undermining civil liberties.
• Expansion of executive control over Congress and the judiciary.
• Potential exploitation of wartime conditions to justify emergency powers and curtail freedoms.

This situation threatens SDG 16 by weakening democratic governance and the rule of law.

Implications for Human Rights and Civil Liberties

Increased militarization and the possibility of retaliatory terrorist attacks could lead to heightened restrictions on human rights, including:

• Prosecution of peaceful protesters under anti-terrorism laws.
• Expanded surveillance and law enforcement powers infringing on privacy and freedom of expression.
• Disproportionate impact on marginalized and vulnerable populations.

These concerns relate directly to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16, which advocate for inclusive societies and protection of fundamental rights.

Global Geopolitical Consequences

The United States’ current political alignment with anti-liberal and ethnoreligious nationalist forces globally complicates the situation. Military action against Iran may:

1. Strengthen anti-liberal alliances and undermine universal liberal democratic values.
2. Support authoritarian regimes over democratic movements in the region.
3. Exacerbate regional instability and conflict.

This dynamic conflicts with SDG 16 and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), which encourage peaceful cooperation and respect for human rights worldwide.

Assessment of Threat Level and Policy Recommendations

Iran does not currently pose a direct threat to the United States. The longstanding policy of containment aimed to uphold a liberal world order centered on democratic principles. However, given the domestic and international context, the following recommendations are proposed:

• Prioritize diplomatic engagement and multilateral verification mechanisms over unilateral military action.
• Strengthen democratic institutions and safeguard civil liberties domestically to prevent authoritarian regression.
• Promote international cooperation aligned with SDGs to foster peace, justice, and inclusive governance.
• Reassess foreign policy decisions to ensure they do not inadvertently support illiberal agendas.

Conclusion

The prospect of war with Iran presents significant risks to both global stability and the democratic fabric of the United States. Military action is unlikely to yield a sustainable solution and may accelerate the decline of liberal democratic institutions. Aligning policy decisions with the Sustainable Development Goals—particularly SDG 16 and SDG 17—is essential to promote peace, justice, and strong institutions at home and abroad.

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

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article discusses issues related to dictatorship, erosion of democratic institutions, rule of law, and the use of military power for domestic oppression.
2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Indirectly connected through the risks of war and terrorism, which affect public health and safety.
3. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article mentions international verification regimes and global cooperation challenges related to Iran’s nuclear program.
4. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • Implied through the discussion of human rights violations and oppression, which often disproportionately affect women and marginalized groups.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 16 Targets
   • 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.
   • 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
   • 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.
2. SDG 3 Targets
   • 3.6: By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents (implied by focus on safety and security in conflict situations).
   • 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection and access to quality essential health-care services.
3. SDG 17 Targets
   • 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships.
   • 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships.
4. SDG 5 Targets
   • 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.
   • 5.c: Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. For SDG 16:
   • 16.1.1: Number of victims of intentional homicide per 100,000 population, by sex and age.
   • 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.
   • 16.6.2: Proportion of the population satisfied with their last experience of public services.
   • 16.7.2: Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive.
   • 16.b.1: Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited by international human rights law.
2. For SDG 3:
   • 3.6.1: Death rate due to road traffic injuries.
   • 3.8.1: Coverage of essential health services.
   • 3.8.2: Proportion of population with large household expenditures on health as a share of total household expenditure or income.
3. For SDG 17:
   • 17.16.1: Number of countries reporting progress in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks that support the achievement of the sustainable development goals.
   • 17.17.1: Amount of United States dollars committed to public-private and civil society partnerships.
4. For SDG 5:
   • 5.1.1: Whether or not legal frameworks are in place to promote, enforce and monitor equality and non-discrimination on the basis of sex.
   • 5.c.1: Proportion of countries with systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: theatlantic.com