Opinion: War with Iran as political shield

Published 1:30 am Tuesday, March 3, 2026

War with Iran does more than deploy troops. It redirects national attention away from administration scandals and out‑of‑control spending.

When missiles launch, headlines pivot. When forces mobilize, scrutiny softens. Fear compresses debate and expands executive authority. That pattern has recurred throughout modern American history, and it is visible again in President Trump’s decision to initiate direct military conflict with Iran.

President Trump built his political identity around opposition to “endless wars,” presenting himself in 2016 and again in 2024 as a candidate of restraint. That pledge has now been broken. The United States has moved from pressure and proxy confrontation into de facto open warfare. However defined, it represents a consequential military commitment with uncertain duration and open‑ended risk.

The fiscal implications are immediate. Since 1945, major American conflicts have imposed extraordinary long‑term costs. By some estimates, the Korean and Vietnam wars consumed sums that reach into the trillions in today’s dollars. The post‑September 11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated by academic researchers to exceed roughly six trillion dollars when long‑term veterans’ care and interest payments are included. Those obligations persist decades after combat operations wind down.

War spending rarely arrives with dedicated revenue. It is typically financed through borrowing, shifting today’s decisions onto future taxpayers. Even before this conflict, annual federal deficits were measured in the trillions and the national debt was expanding at a rapid pace. Layering a new military campaign onto that fiscal baseline compounds structural imbalance and accelerates debt accumulation even further.

The opportunity costs are equally significant. Resources directed toward conflict are unavailable for infrastructure modernization, energy resilience, public health systems, education, and scientific research. Every appropriation reflects a trade‑off. Dollars committed to escalation abroad are dollars unavailable for renewal at home.

Yet the political consequences may be even more consequential than the financial ones. In moments of perceived crisis, Congress often defers to the executive branch. Media coverage concentrates on operational developments. Public focus narrows to battlefield maps and diplomatic signals. Domestic controversies receive less sustained attention.

Congress possesses substantial constitutional tools to check executive overreach, including control of appropriations, investigative authority, and the power to declare or withhold authorization for war. To date, the Republican congressional delegation, which holds decisive influence within the legislative branch, has largely declined to mount a sustained effort to exercise existing powers or seek new ones to ensure that military escalation is not misused to deflect scrutiny from domestic controversies or potential misconduct. Silence and inaction function, in practice, as acquiescence.

That contraction of scrutiny comes amid continuing debate over transparency in matters involving public officials. A substantial body of records connected to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein remains either withheld or heavily redacted by the Justice Department, now led by President Trump’s appointees, or sealed by federal courts.

President Trump’s prior social association with Epstein has been publicly documented. He has denied wrongdoing and has not been charged with crimes related to Epstein. Nonetheless, a February 24 disclosure by Representative Robert Garcia (D‑Calif.), who said FBI interview records from a survivor accusing Trump of serious abuse were missing from the Justice Department’s Epstein file release, has intensified questions about the scope of information undisclosed and the degree of executive control over its release. Public trust weakens when transparency appears selective or controlled.

The transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell from a low‑security prison in Florida to a minimum‑security facility in Texas has also generated significant concern and begs investigation.

In a constitutional system, allegations intersecting with high office require lawful and transparent review. Military escalation does not suspend that principle, but it can dilute sustained civic attention to it.

Simultaneously, proposals affecting election administration, such as the SAVE Act, and the balance of federal authority continue to move through legislative and administrative channels. These issues, central to democratic governance, now unfold within the heightened atmosphere created by war.

Military force may at times be necessary. If so, it must be clearly justified and lawfully authorized. Article I of the Constitution assigns Congress the authority to declare war in order to ensure collective deliberation before national commitment. That safeguard exists to prevent unilateral escalation and to preserve institutional balance.

Combat service members deserve defined missions and attainable objectives. Taxpayers deserve transparent accounting. Citizens deserve full information about the conduct of those entrusted with power.

With the 2026 midterm campaigns approaching and the 2028 presidential cycle not far beyond, voters will ultimately render judgment. Elections remain the constitutional mechanism for evaluating decisions of war and peace, transparency and concealment, restraint and expansion.

War may call for unity. It must not require diminished oversight. Register. Organize. Scrutinize. Vote.

Van Abbott is a long-time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations, and is now a full-time opinion writer. He served in the late 1960s in the Peace Corps as a teacher.