No one seems to be talking about Project 2025 anymore; or should I say, Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise? Have you notice how often we hear that word, mandate: “America gave a clear mandate with the last election,” “America gave the President a clear mandate,” “President Trump is acting on a clear mandate from the people who elected him.” Maybe you’ve seen other phrasing to that effect.
Never mind that most people were and still are unaware of the contents of Project 2025. Never mind that President Trump said he hadn’t read it and claimed he had no connection to it. Never mind that some voters dismissed it as “just some ideas some people have…” It sure seems like we are following the Mandate’s playbook.
When President Trump unilaterally took action in Iran and he said he wasn’t interested in regime change. I wondered what the Mandate (formerly known as Project 2025) had to say about it.
The Mandate mentions Iran 32 times.Nearly every time Iran is mentioned with Russia, North Korea, and China as a real threat to the United States and its allies. (page 93) The Mandate indicates the Iran is “inching toward nuclear capability.” The Mandate tells us that the Iranian people do not appreciate a theocracy.
The Mandate makes irregular warfare a cornerstone of our defense against Iran. (page 121) I wasn’t familiar with “irregular warfare” so I consulted Congress.gov for this explanation:
According to Hague conditions outlined in Article 4(A)(2) of the 1949 Third Geneva Convention, a country or state’s armed forces or regular forces are those that are (1) “commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates”; (2) “hav[e] a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance”; (3) “carry arms openly”; and (4) “conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” Any force that does not meet these four conditions can be considered an irregular force. Simply put, irregular forces, also known as irregular military, are armed forces that employ irregular tactics. Existing outside of the conventional military, irregular forces include—but are not limited to—partisan and resistance fighters in opposition to occupying conventional military forces.
The Mandate sanitizes irregular warfare by refining it as, “a means by which the United States uses all elements of national power to project influence abroad to counter state adversaries, defeat hostile nonstate actors, deter wider conflict, and maintain peace in great-power competition.” (page 121)
Page 181 of the Mandate goes on to state a clear objective:
The correct future policy for Iran is one that acknowledges that it is in U.S. national security interests, the Iranian people’s human rights interests, and a broader global interest in peace and stability for the Iranian people to have the democratic government they demand. This decision to be free of the country’s abusive leaders must of course be made by the Iranian people, but the United States can utilize its own and others’ economic and diplomatic tools to ease the path toward a free Iran and a renewed relationship with the Iranian people.
Does “inching toward nuclear capability” warrant an irregular act of war?
Should we be redefining “irregular warfare,” and then freely engaging in it? Does irregular warfare justify unauthorized bombing of a sovereign state?
Are the Iranian people demanding a different government?
Are we engaging in irregular warfare to achieve regime change for the interest of the Conservative Promise?
And maybe most importantly,