Timothy Snyder / Translation by iPress
The well-known American historian Timothy Snyder analyzes the origins and true beneficiaries of Trump’s war against Iran and concludes that it has no organic American foundation: no threat, no public demand, no institutional justification. In his opinion, key decisions are made not through democratic processes but through an “oligarchical corridor” – a closed network of private emissaries (including Kushner and Witkoff) connected with interested foreign elites. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and to some extent Russia benefit from this war, while the United States loses authority, allies, and strategic resources. Snyder warns that if Americans honestly recognize that this war is destroying their statehood, it will be the first step towards its restoration.
Is this an American war? Undoubtedly yes, in the sense that Americans feel part of its consequences. And just as undoubtedly, because American voters are one of its causes, having brought Donald Trump to power. But in its causes and goals, there is very little that is directly related to the people or institutions of the United States of America.
If we analyze its origins – or what we can discern in them – we see something entirely different: a closed cohort of international oligarchs who exploit state power and patriotic feelings while creating a world order in which the American state is significantly weaker or simply ceases to function. The oligarchical corridor.
Is this war American in its origin? Can the origins of Trump’s war against Iran be found in the USA? Certainly, this war has an internal political dimension. Trump has already made it clear that he wants to use it to try to “federalize” the elections in November 2026 and maintain power with the help of an artificial majority of obedient Republicans. But this would work in the case of any war. And, as far as we know, by summer or autumn Trump may well move on to another war – in Cuba. And then to another one.
The question is: why this war? Why Iran? There are certainly Americans who have long wanted a war with Iran. For years, decades, since 2003 and even earlier. But this does not explain the timing. Why now? It seems there is no American answer to this question.
Undoubtedly, this decision was made by Donald Trump – in the narrow sense that no one else had the practical authority to order the American armed forces into battle. But this rather raises a question than provides an answer, and Trump himself does not have these answers. Why did he make this particular decision? He has been unable to explain why he started the war, so much so that it cannot be explained by intentional ambiguity or mental decline. He does not even seem particularly interested in this issue, as if someone has already answered for him. He apparently wanted a war after the satisfaction from Venezuela. But why this one?
Various American war origins can be recalled—some more honorable, others more vulgar. The USA has gone to war due to real external threats, attempts at secession within the country, press campaigns, government threat analyses, and propaganda campaigns. However, in all these historical cases, there was a certain American component, a certain American process. Here, that American contribution is absent.
The issue isn’t the legitimacy of those past wars. The problem is much simpler, purely analytical: in all these cases, armed conflict had a certain American history of origin. In the case of the Third Gulf War, this is absent. There was neither an external nor internal threat, nor even a subjective sense of such a threat in society. We see almost no evidence of prolonged discussions or debates in government agencies (Vietnam) or even a government campaign in the press aimed at swaying public opinion (Second Gulf War).
Let’s accept Trump’s own explanation: the only restrictions on his actions are contained in his “own head.” But this only raises questions. What exactly is in his head and how did it get there? We see no signs that what is currently in his head is somehow connected to his own stated beliefs (peace prize), public opinion (against war), government consensus (which is absent) or propaganda campaign (also absent). Then by what channels does something enter Trump’s head? It seems the path to his thinking lies through an oligarchic corridor.
We do not know enough to confidently say what exactly is in this corridor, as any historian would acknowledge. Decades from now, historians will debate why this war started, just as we debate the causes of all major conflicts.
Future scholars will find it difficult, as there will be few written records. What appears to be American foreign policy is largely conducted by private envoys, often not accompanied by record-keepers, and not relying on the institutional competence or industry expertise of government agencies.
One trail is left by the exhaust of private jets, which, notably, race to some capitals but not others. Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff were involved in three areas of negotiations concerning parties interested in this war. They were Trump’s negotiators with Iran, where, to put it mildly, their impatience leaned towards Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf Arab states. They were among Trump’s negotiators with Israel regarding Gaza, where, I think, it can be said without obvious injustice that their position leaned toward Tel Aviv. And they are Trump’s negotiators with Russia and Ukraine, where Witkoff’s position is demonstratively pro-Kremlin.
These men truly hold a certain place in Trump’s mind. His friend and son-in-law are his chosen envoys, and he talks to them. They connect him with the countries involved in this war: Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia (and other Persian Gulf states), Russia, Ukraine. Witkoff and Kushner have their favorites. Kushner has a plan to turn Gaza into a giant resort. In the case of the Persian Gulf states, both men benefit from (known and documented) financial transactions characterized by unusual flexibility and generosity. There are no known financial ties between Kushner or Witkoff and the Kremlin, but it would be untrue to say that the possibility of such arrangements does not cross the minds of regional experts.
America itself is outside the oligarchic corridor. We see three separate Americans – Witkoff, Kushner, and Trump – sharing this cozy passage, this information and emotional environment, with interested and often extremely wealthy people from other countries. Since the usual signals from the American public and government clearly do not matter here, and any threat to American security or any accounting of American interests is also noticeably absent, we have reason to pay attention to this corridor.
Apart from questions about inputs – what gets into the corridor – we can also consider the outputs – what comes out of it. Who benefits from this war? Certainly not the US. No national interests have been achieved, and there’s not even a serious attempt to outline them. We are losing authority, we are losing allies, we are exposing weaknesses in our way of waging war and burning through ammunition that might be needed elsewhere.
So who benefits? Again, it should be emphasized that we don’t have the sources that future historians would want. However, there are several contenders who clearly deserve attention. Israel is an American ally in this war, and its government has clearly expressed an interest in the destruction of Iranian power.
Saudi Arabia has been engaged in a regional power struggle with Iran for 47 years. Interestingly, American war propaganda, picked up by commentators friendly to the regime, now claims that the United States has been at war with Iran for 47 years. (Orwell has been mentioned often lately, but his phrase “we have always been at war with Eurasia” from the novel “1984” is very apt here). This obviously false statement implies that the US has, for most of half a century, been a client state of the Saudis, acting against Iran.
This propaganda line is historically ridiculous — remember how we supplied missiles to Iran in 1981–1985? Or how the Saudis directed planes into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001? But it is telling.
What about Russia? The situation here is undoubtedly more complex. It’s unfortunate for Putin that he has lost another political friend: after Maduro, now it’s Khamenei. Iran supported Russia during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, supplying “Shahed” drones that terrorized and injured the Ukrainian civilian population. In the fall of 2022, Iran even sent its own personnel to the Russian-occupied territory of Ukraine to train Russians to operate the drones; it would be very strange if these instructors themselves did not direct at least part of the countless deadly attacks against Ukrainians. (The number of drone attacks on Ukraine is estimated to be around a hundred thousand, and it’s worth remembering when a single drone attack on American troops is presented as something exceptional and dramatic). There is no doubt that the American attack on Iran will hinder further Iranian weapon supplies to Russia.
Given their experience with Iranian weapons, it’s not surprising that many Ukrainians welcome the American attack on Iran as something that would benefit them. I’m afraid that’s not quite the case.
Currently, Ukrainians have one serious vulnerability in the war, namely air defense: specifically, the need for Patriot missiles, which are manufactured by Americans and purchased by Europeans to be transferred to Ukraine (there are no direct American weapon supplies to Ukraine). The US is now rapidly depleting these Patriot interceptors to the delight of their possible adversaries.
Over the past two years, Patriot has exceeded expectations in Ukraine. But if the United States squanders Patriot supplies in its Iranian venture, it will be difficult to defend Ukrainian cities and ultimately anything else. According to Kyiv, Americans have spent more Patriot missiles in the first three days of the war with Iran than Ukrainians in four years of defense against the full-scale Russian invasion.
This, by the way, strongly indicates that Americans are conducting the war tactically and strategically unwisely. It seems they are wasting expensive Patriot missiles on cheap drones, which is not a modern way of conducting war. This not only wastes money but also devalues the potential of Patriot interceptors capable of stopping ballistic missiles. Americans seem unprepared for drone warfare. They will need help from Ukraine for this. Whether they acknowledge this in any way is another matter.
Russians have one serious vulnerability in this war—hydrocarbons. They depend on selling oil and natural gas to buy weapons and pay soldiers. Thanks to the war with Iran, thanks to the oligarchic corridor, oil prices have now risen, which greatly benefits Russia, filling the void left by Iran.
Thus, in conclusion, the war exposes Ukraine’s vulnerability and closes one of Russia’s problems. The US could have prepared in such a way as not to let Russia immediately take advantage of its actions, but they did not. This aligns with the ongoing discussion in the oligarchic corridor, where American oligarchs usually consider Russia’s interests.
Here too, American propaganda can be revealing. Of the two propaganda messages that lasted more than a day, one is a Russian thesis: Ukraine is to blame for everything, including American mistakes.
Trump and his spokeswoman Caroline Leavitt claim that the US has an endless supply of weapons needed for an eternal war, but if this infinity is somehow disrupted, it’s supposedly a consequence of Biden’s policy on arming Ukraine.
This is absurd for many reasons. Historically, the US sells the most weapons to Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Israel — in that order. After the full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine was mostly given weapons that were already being prepared for decommissioning. Ukraine used this weaponry to hold back the full-scale invasion by Russia, which was supported by China, Iran, and North Korea. This is an incomparably more significant conflict than Trump’s war against Iran. Ukraine improved some of this weaponry, applied certain systems in new ways, and then shared the experience with the Americans, who were able to enhance it both constructively and practically.
This injustice should be documented; however, the point is that Trump and Levitt are repeating a Russian cliché. And, as with the notion that we have always been a client of Saudi Arabia, the idea that Ukraine is to blame for everything is the single consistent propaganda message of the US. (Americans do not need to repeat Israeli propaganda: the Israeli Prime Minister appeared on Fox and disseminated it himself — without mediation).
The war serves the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and (with certain reservations) Russia; the war has caused the White House to share the rhetoric of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. That is the current outcome.
Thus, from the input and output data, we obtain a certain picture where America is the periphery, and the oligarchic corridor is the center. I do not believe in a “smoking gun”: that one conversation with an Israeli, a Saudi, or a Russian caused this war. In my opinion, it is more productive to imagine a corridor where continuous conversation occurs: one where the American people, American institutions, and ultimately everything American is absent. And through this absence, we see a new reality: the American state is allowed to decline and waver, while the oligarchs use what remains for private interests and personal enrichment.
This is a world that better serves states like Russia and Saudi Arabia, where the state and oligarchy already operate in harmony. This is not a world in which the US holds significant importance, or at least the United States is not considered as its people or representative institutions. This is the world of Trump’s Peace Council, where nations are viewed as objects of deals, not as citizens of states.
The American armed forces will be sent back and forth at the whim of a capricious oligarchic clique, but their actions will have nothing to do with what is inherently American. Their commendable loyalty to the state becomes a subject of abuse by the president, to whom such devotion is utterly foreign. The violence that Americans perpetrate in the world will affect, among others, the Americans themselves; killings and deaths occur in their name, although without their involvement and without any thought for their well-being.
Is this an American war? It is a war of irresponsibility for a few Americans within the oligarchic corridor, pushing the country towards a future where institutions do not function, and citizens mean nothing. But it can also be a war that allows other Americans to see this future, prevent it, and envision a better one. If we honestly acknowledge that this war is a step towards our destruction, we will have the beginning of a plan for recovery.
