"The war will be over in a few weeks." Marco Rubio uttered these words last Tuesday before his G7 counterparts in France, with that quiet confidence of armchair strategists who have never had to pick up the pieces of their optimistic predictions.
Here we go again. Read more: america collects coffins Twenty-three years after Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction," fifteen years after the "mission accomplished" in Afghanistan, the American establishment is dusting off the same promises of clean, quick war. As if History were a magic slate you could erase with the back of your hand.
The Eternal Return of Military Hubris
Read more: breaking analysis washingtonsWhat strikes you about Rubio's declaration, according to reports from the New York Times and CTV News, is less its content than its familiarity. We've heard this tune before. In 2003, Donald Rumsfeld predicted that the occupation of Iraq would last "six days, six weeks, certainly not six months." Twenty years later, the last American soldiers left Kabul in total confusion.
But selective amnesia is part of American foreign policy's DNA. Each new administration arrives convinced it will succeed where previous ones failed, armed with the same technological arrogance and the same contempt for geopolitical complexity.
Iran is not Saddam Hussein's Iraq, weakened by years of embargo. It's a regional power of 85 million inhabitants, equipped with a developed military industry and a network of allies stretching from Lebanon to Yemen. Claiming to liquidate this file "in a few weeks" stems from either crass ignorance or pure manipulation.
European Allies, Weary Spectators
The reaction of European ministers present at this G7 meeting is revealing. According to concordant sources, skepticism was palpable. Trump may criticize his NATO allies' "reluctance" to participate in the Iranian conflict, but this reluctance isn't cowardice—it's lucidity.
Europeans have paid the price for previous American military adventures. Libyan instability that pours its refugees onto Italian shores, Syrian chaos that fueled the 2015 migration crisis, Afghan collapse that delivered the country to the Taliban: each time, Washington triggers, then withdraws, leaving Europe to manage the consequences.
This time, European capitals seem determined not to repeat the mistake. They've understood that blindly following the United States into its Middle Eastern crusades means mortgaging their own security to satisfy American geopolitical obsessions.
The Strait of Hormuz, Nerve Center of Economic Warfare
Behind the grand speeches about the "Iranian threat" lies a more prosaic reality: control of energy flows. The Strait of Hormuz, mentioned in reports as a tension zone, sees 20% of the world's oil transit through it. A war in this region wouldn't just be a humanitarian disaster—it would be a planetary economic earthquake.
Financial markets have understood this well. Since tensions escalated, oil prices have jumped 40%, fueling inflation that central banks are already struggling to control. A "few weeks" war could trigger a global recession whose effects would be felt for years.
But this economic dimension seems to escape Washington strategists, obsessed with their staff maps and computer simulations. They think in terms of surgical strikes and air superiority, blithely ignoring the systemic repercussions of their decisions.
The Permanent Infantilization of Public Opinion
The most revolting thing about this affair is the displayed contempt for citizens' intelligence. Rubio and his colleagues serve us the same reheated soup as their predecessors: clean war, quick victory, heroes' return. As if we were children incapable of remembering yesterday's lies.
This systematic infantilization of public opinion is the real democratic scandal. Our leaders lie to us with confounding aplomb, then wonder about rising populism and distrust toward institutions. They sow cynicism and reap anger.
Mainstream media, too often complicit through laziness, relay these declarations without contextualizing them, without recalling precedents, without asking uncomfortable questions. They transform information into spectacle and politics into entertainment.
The Real Question
Beyond martial postures and hollow promises, one question remains: what are the United States really seeking in Iran? To overthrow the mullahs' regime? Control energy resources? Satisfy Israeli and Saudi allies? Divert attention from domestic problems?
This announced war looks very much like a headlong rush, a desperate attempt to restore declining American hegemony through brute force. But History teaches us that empires that multiply external wars to mask internal weaknesses only accelerate their own fall.
European citizens have the right to demand that their leaders stop blindly following Washington into its adventures. Sovereignty begins with the courage to say no to burdensome allies.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What did Marco Rubio say about the war?
Marco Rubio stated, "The war will be over in a few weeks," during a G7 meeting in France, reflecting a confidence reminiscent of past optimistic predictions about military engagements.
Q: How does the article compare current military predictions to past ones?
The article highlights a pattern of military hubris in American foreign policy, citing past predictions from figures like Donald Rumsfeld, who underestimated the duration of the Iraq occupation, suggesting that history is repeating itself with similar overconfidence.
Q: What is the European response to American military strategies?
European ministers at the G7 meeting expressed skepticism towards American military strategies, indicating that their reluctance to engage in conflicts like the one with Iran stems from a realistic understanding of the consequences of previous military interventions.