In 2016, Donald Trump prevailed in the race against his opponents in the Republican qualifiers – and former Foreign Minister Hillary Clinton – denouncing the wars of America after September 11 as a “disaster”. In 2020, Joe Biden opposed the “eternal” wars of the Middle East at the center of his campaign and won the majority at national level to be elected president. And in his victorious campaign last year, Trump further strengthened this narrative, with the political platform of Republicans committing to “prevent the Third World War”.

And yet, now, Donald Trump chooses to get involved in Israel’s risky conflict with Iran. By doing it, Trump threatens to derail his own diplomatic negotiations that have been fruitful and risking to lead the country to yet another impasse. A new war would be a serious betrayal to millions of working class Americans who supported him last year with the expectation of domestic recovery, not for adventures abroad.

However, there is still time – and hope.

We have spent our career in opposite political camps. One is a Democratic Counselor of Foreign Policy and Associate of Progressive Members. The other is a conservative writer and publisher, whom Politico describes as one of the seven intellectual influences of Vice President Jay Di Vance. And yet, the terror unites us in the face of a direct conflict between Iran and the US – and our determination to prevent it.

And we are not alone. Progressives against war such as Senator Bernie Sanders (ENE.-Vermond) and MP Alexandria Okassio-Cortez (Dim. Tucker Carlson, Steven K. Bannon and Charlie Kerk, among others. Despite the intense pressure from the Republican warriors, these disagreement is increasingly expressing their disagreement on war.

Yougov poll showed that only 16% of Americans believe that the US Army should get involved in the Israel -Iran conflict, while 60% responds negatively. The majority of Democrats (65%), Independent (61%) and Republicans (53%) opposed US intervention. A poll by the Brookings Foundation in May showed that the strong majority of Americans – and the superstructure of democratic and independent – prefer diplomacy to war as a way of managing the Iranian nuclear program.

The reasons for this contrast are obvious. The “hawks” imagine a quick blow against the Iranian nuclear facility in Fordo. Such statements are reminiscent of creepy assurances 20 years ago that George Bush’s War in Iraq would be a “walk”. In fact, a US -Iran war would be just the opposite. The Israeli army and intelligence services have scored impressive results in the first days of the conflict. But the same thing happened with the US Army in the first few weeks in Iraq.

The problem is what happens when the dust sits from the first blows. Military analysts have long warned that the dream of a war is just by air is just this: a dream. The US bombers hit Fordo with bombs designed to penetrate deep into the ground. But as the installation is built below a mountain, it will be difficult to evaluate the size of the damage without inspectors in the field.

Even if the Trump government could convince herself that a “one and out” business had achieved what was necessary, as the phrase says, “the enemy always has the last word”. A cramped, vengeful Iranian leadership, enhanced by the phenomenon of the coalition around the flag, may feel the need to escalate. Iran could close the straits of the Ormuz – of which about 20% of the world oil passes – and hit US bases in the Middle East with a young and medium -sized rockets that has not been hit by Israeli attacks so far.

Attacks on US bases would require an American response in the same way. And this is how we would face another great war in the Middle East, at a time when US public opinion has been exhausted for decades of wars in the region. This would negate the proclaimed goal of American politicians – both the left and the right, from the time of Obama – to shift the limited resources to the strategically critical peace. And another generation of American soldiers would dedicate her life to a conflict for no reason.

The Israeli government has implied that its aim is to collapse or change the regime in Iran. However, Iran is a huge country with a population of 90 million, characterized by intense internal ethnic and religious divisions – equally complex and dangerous as those faced by Westerners in Iraq. The chaos that would follow a sharp decline in the regime could destabilize the already fragile neighboring countries, in which the US has sensitive interests, while pushing millions to a Europe already honest from migratory flows.

To maintain regional stability, US forces may be asked to remain for years – or even decades – creating a fragile, amputated state focused on Tehran. A uprising from the remains of the Iranian regime, combined with multiple autonomist conflicts with Kurds, Azeris and radicalized velvets, could argue in chaos throughout the region.

Further involvement in this war would be a madness of colossal dimensions. But there is an alternative. Having bombed the Iranian nuclear facilities, Trump will now have to call Israel to stop his attack and return to the diplomatic road. As we both opposed to a US -Iran war, we both oppose the acquisition of a nuclear weapon from Iran. The best way to prevent this is an agreement set by Iran’s nuclear program under strict restrictions and close surveillance.

This was an option in Iraq in 2003, but it was abandoned. Millions suffered because the Bush government made the reckless decision to give up diplomacy and resort to a military solution, incorrectly believing that this was implying power and not weakness. Trump should not repeat this error.

The difference is that in 2003, the voices of disagreement in Washington were few. Today, however, logical voices from the left and right are united in the resistance. But if we do not unite our strengths, the war machine will crush us.