Iran and The Wolverine

If a regime-change war bursts the MAGA bubble, which Democratic presidential candidate will take up the mantle of peace?

I contemplated the bold “Trump” signs on the lawn in front of me, as the steady drizzle saturated the campaign literature on my clipboard. It was a Sunday in September 2024, and I was canvassing in St. Joseph, Michigan.

My app listed a woman’s name, and indicated I should ring this doorbell. I hesitated. But this was still the “persuasion” stage of the campaign, when we were being sent to visit the independents and the maybes. And we had all read about the “hidden” women’s vote that would sweep Kamala Harris to victory. Yeah, the husband might be MAGA, but surely his wife was secretly pro-Choice and maybe she would answer the door and furtively whisper “I’m with her.”

No such luck. I buzzed, and a man (I’ll call him The Wolverine, in honor of the Michigan mascot) opened the door. I explained I was canvassing, giving the name of the popular local State House candidate (a Dem) so as not to scare him off, and then I asked what issues mattered most to him in the coming election. “PEACE,” he barked at me.

I felt a flutter of excitement. Peace? I liked peace, too! We had common ground! Should I tell The Wolverine about the time my parents pulled me in a little red wagon at a New York City anti-war march in ’65? No, probably not. “You know,” I said, “that’s the most important issue to me as well. What do you think can bring lasting peace to this world?”

“TRUMP,” he barked. And closed the door.

This is the second substack I’ve written about Iran. For the first I used Pablo Picasso’s anti-war mural “Guernica” as an illustration. For this one I’ve made a blood-red version.

I think about that guy in St. Joseph a lot. He was not entirely irrational to consider Trump the peace candidate: that’s how conservative voices like JD Vance were selling him. According to right-wing news sources, it was Kamala Harris who was the war-hawk. But now, a year and a half later, bellicose President Trump has given the lie to all that. So what does The Wolverine make of Trump changing the name of the Department of Defense to “The Department of War?” How does he respond to the administration launching two unprovoked regime-change wars — in Venezuela and Iran — in two months? Does The Wolverine mourn the seven U.S. service-members who have died? Is he angry about gas prices going up 47¢ a gallon in the last week? Surely he feels betrayed by Trump’s additional strikes in Syria, Nigeria, Somalia, Iraq, and Yemen?

It’s a fool’s game, I know. For a decade we’ve been waiting for something to burst the MAGA bubble: the tweets, the Zelensky phone call, January 6, the felony conviction, the “concept of a plan” for healthcare, the Epstein files. And each time, Trump’s faithful find reasons to stand by their man. Which is why only 15% of Republicans oppose Trump’s illegal regime-change forever-war in Iran; which is why 267 of 270 GOP members of Congress voted to allow Trump to continue the bombing of Iran*; which is why folks in Vance’s home town were echoing White House talking points; and which is why supposed doves in the executive branch have toed the Trumpian line.

Take, for instance, Trump’s Deputy Director of National Intelligence William Ruger. This was a Koch-Brothers-affiliated guy who made his career calling for U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. He was a supporter of Obama’s treaty with Iran, saying in 2020 that “when we got out of it, the problem is that it set us on this motion towards greater conflict.” After Trump’s drone strike that assassinated Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in 2020, Ruger was a leading conservative voice arguing against further escalation and for reinforcing Congress’s control over military action. “Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution… puts [Congress] in the driver’s seat when it comes to war making,” he told CSPAN. “Why should the President be allowed to engage in conflict abroad that is not merely defensive without Congress authorizing that, especially when there isn’t [an imminent threat], right?” Ruger went way further than most in saying that even if Iran got the nuclear bomb, it would not be “the end of the world.”

But what has Ruger had to say in the ten days since the U.S. and Israel began dropping thousands of bombs on Iran? Nothing. Has he resigned in protest? Of course not. Why this capitulation to our madman monarch? Well, it’s another fool’s game to attempt to unravel the psychology of the Trump supporter (though I do think that historian Timothy Snyder does a pretty good job here).

But I can’t help but play the fool. I can’t help but wish that eventually — as evidence of Trump’s folly grows — The Wolverine will seek out new voices promising a less interventionist American future . And when that day comes, I hope there will be Democrats who will articulate clear, uncompromising visions for peace. Thus far, almost all of the Dems being touted as presidential timber have decried Trump’s chaotic approach to war and called for Congress to rein him in. But none has laid out a truly comprehensive vision for peace. We need a candidate who expresses the thesis statement of Sen. Chris Murphy (“The American public does not want our President dragging us into another totally unnecessary conflict in a far-off land”); the humanity of Rep. Ro Khanna (“I believe that an Iranian life has as much dignity as an American life as a human being”); the historical perspective of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (“Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region and this will be no different”); the critique of Israel’s role as expressed by Gov. Gavin Newsome during his recent Pod Save America interview; and Bernie Sander’s critique of power (“Might does not make right. It creates international anarchy, death, destruction and human misery.”) [I know I may not have included your preferred candidate for 2028, or all the best statements and quotes about the war. I hope you will share your favorites in the comments below.]

Will any of these sentiments enflame the pacifist passions of The Wolverine, turning him away from Trump’s anointed successor (or from Trump himself in the still-unlikely scenario that he finds a way to a third term or simply refuses to relinquish his second)? More likely our St. Joseph homeowner — like JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard and William Ruger — has found a million and one reasons to contort himself in order to bend to Trump’s will.

So then the question becomes: which 2028 Presidential candidate best expresses your desires for peace, dear reader?

As a metaphor for Tulsi Gabbard et al, I present this contortionist with bow-and-arrow, from a 4th century BC piece of pottery.

*Rand Paul was the only Republican Senator to vote “Yea” on ending hostilities against Iran that had not been authorized by Congress; in the House it was only Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio. Contrast that to Trump’s first term, when an identical vote was held after the drone strike that killed Soleimani; six years ago, the GOP Senators were not so firmly in Trump’s grasp, and eight voted against war in Iran (Lamar Alexander, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Mike Lee, Jerry Moran, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, and Todd Young).