Associate Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Department of Political Science and Geography Dillion S. Tatum and Associate Professor of Political Science Tobias Lemke hosted more than 45 members of the university community Thursday for a public forum on examining President Donald Trump’s war in Iran.
The forum was held within Harris Auditorium located inside the School of Business and Education at FMU. The purpose of the event was to examine the historical relationship between the United States and Iran, as well as the legality, causes and potential consequences of recent joint U.S. and Israeli military action. Both professors focused on the aspects of the issue most closely related to their areas of expertise.
During the event, Tatum provided historical context on diplomatic relations that contributed to hardened relations between the two countries. He traced tensions back to Cold War geopolitics, the 1953 U.S.-backed coup known as Operation Ajax, the White Revolution—an effort to modernize Iran through reform—and the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which brought Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power as Iran’s first supreme leader.
Lemke addressed the legality of the conflict and the explanations offered by the administration. He noted that the administration has largely relied on a preemptive war argument, claiming the United States was forced to strike Iran in anticipation of a potential attack following Israel’s earlier actions, while earlier references to Iran’s nuclear weapons program have largely disappeared from administrative communication.
He added that miscalculation may also be a factor, suggesting recent events—including a U.S. operation in Venezuela earlier this year—may have emboldened decision-makers, though he noted there has been some pushback from senior officials, including the chief of staff. Lemke also pointed to elite interests as another possible explanation, referencing policy discussions in the late 1990s that suggested engaging Iran could either transform its political system or provoke internal conflict. He outlined the Rationalist Explanations for War model—security concerns, miscalculation and elite interests—arguing that elements of all three may be present in the current situation.
Tatum then offered his own interpretation. “I don’t know what we are fighting for,” he said. “The simplest explanation and reason for the war is that Israel asked us to do it and we did it… support for Israel was the status quo.”
Lemke argued that the growing role of American unilateralism in foreign policy is also increasingly evident as the United States acts outside traditional international frameworks when conducting military operations. He suggested this trend reflects a continuation of policies seen in earlier administrations, such as that of President George W. Bush, who justified the 2003 Iraq War by accusing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of illegally storing weapons of mass destruction, but with fewer attempts by the current administration to justify its actions.
“It’s hard to see any meaningful return to the international order regarding state sovereignty and abiding by international law,” Lemke said, adding that the system has been weakening for years.
During the question-and-answer session, a student who wished to remain anonymous asked whether American unilateralism has affected the authority of the United Nations. Lemke responded that the organization had been losing influence long before the current conflict and that this trend extends beyond the United States and to other countries as well. He pointed to the Russia-Ukraine war and the United Nations’ failure to prevent the conflict as evidence.
Professor of mathematics Damon Scott challenged Tatum’s explanation of the tensions between the United States and Iran, arguing that the 1979 revolution was driven by the Iranian people overthrowing the Shah, after which Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile in France and assumed power. Scott framed his argument through a historical interpretation of international conflict, suggesting that acts such as the seizure of foreign hostages could be understood as declarations of war. He cited historical precedent, including the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage, to support his view.
“It is to my understanding that ‘Death to America’ is a declaration of war,” Scott said. “If someone declares war on you, you can declare war on them.”
Scott also pushed back on Tatum’s earlier explanation of the revolution’s origins.
“You made it sound as if Khomeini led to the downfall of the Shah,” Scott said, adding that nations often find justification for military action if they are seeking one. “If you’re looking for a reason to go to war, you’re going to find them.”
Tatum responded that modern international law differs significantly from the historical examples Scott referenced and cautioned against equating ancient understandings of warfare with contemporary global policies.
“International law in the 21st century has evolved with broadened contexts,” Tatum said. “If the [Trump] administration mentioned any of the reasons as to why to go to war, then we can talk about it… if hostages are taken, then we can debate that.”
He also urged the audience to understand the difference between what causes a war and what could be used to justify actions.
“Be careful about causes and justifications,” Tatum said.
Another question from the audience asked how President Trump’s war in Iran might influence the upcoming midterm elections.
“That is the big question,” Lemke said. “The narrative in 2024 was that President Trump was campaigning as the peace president… now you see a lot of different things. It’s going to be interesting to see.”
Lemke added that the current situation could reshape political dynamics within the Republican Party moving forward.
“I think this is going to increase the chances that in 2028 there’s going to be a challenger—whoever is running for the presidential ticket—that will open up an ‘America First’ coalition candidate,” he said.
Dominik Khaliji, student life specialist for student engagement, asked the panel about the international “manufacturing of certain incidents” and the possibility of similar events occurring in the future.
“How likely is it that we will see this again, and who could be these targets? Which countries should we watch for?” Khaliji asked.
Tatum suggested that some nations could be more vulnerable than others due to economic and political pressures.
“Cuba should be paid attention to. They are essentially low-hanging fruit, and their economy is on its knees because of sanctions and the loss of Venezuelan oil,” Tatum said.
As the discussion came to an end, students left with a raised awareness of the issue and the historical relationship of the United States and Iran.
Ethan Simpson, psychology major, added that he learned more about the history between Iran and the U.S.
“The most important takeaway I got from the event was learning the complexity and vastness of the issues rather than what basic media coverage offers,” Simpson said.
Upon the end of the day, the conflict in Iran continued to escalate. Joint U.S. and Israeli strikes that began in late February have targeted military facilities, leadership compounds and infrastructure across the country, prompting retaliatory missile and drone attacks by Iran and its regional allies. Israel has also reportedly launched missile strikes in southern Lebanon in response to recent attacks by Hezbollah.
Estimates vary, but reports indicate that more than 1,200 people have been killed in Iran since the start of the offensive, while at least six U.S. service members and several civilians across the region have also been killed as the conflict spreads beyond Iran’s borders.
What comes next remains uncertain; however, it is evident that the panel increased student awareness and understanding of the issue. Those interested in subscribing to the Department of Political Science and Geography’s newsletter to stay updated on events such as these may contact Lemke by email.