By Ajith Rajapaksa –

Ajith Rajapaksa

Can democracy be delivered by bombs? History shows that it is often nothing more than a mirage.

The brutal military attacks launched against Iran by the United States and Israel have sparked widespread controversy across the world. Ordinary people are deeply concerned about the instability a prolonged war could bring to the region and the resulting economic consequences. At the very outset of the attack, a significant portion of Iran’s leadership, including the Supreme Leader, was reportedly killed. However, military experts have questioned whether regime change is possible without a ground intervention.

Past military interventions by the United States have often ended disastrously. As a result, there is considerable opposition among the American public to further such involvement. It was for this reason that Donald Trump presented himself during his election campaign as a leader who would bring peace rather than war and reduce global conflicts. He even expressed a strong desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Today, that narrative appears to have reversed. Particularly shocking was a missile strike on an Iranian primary school at the beginning of the war, reportedly killing hundreds of children. This incident underscored the chaos, unpredictability, and far-reaching social consequences of war.

Nevertheless, some celebrate the attack on Iran, claiming it marks the beginning of a journey toward defeating brutal jihadists and securing democratic freedom. Sections of the Iranian diaspora in Western countries have taken to the streets to express their support. Meanwhile, many others have condemned the war as a violation of international law. Countries such as Spain, Norway, Turkey, China, Russia, Vietnam, Pakistan, South Africa, and Brazil have voiced opposition. International organizations, including the European Union and the United Nations, have called for adherence to international law, immediate de-escalation, and the resumption of political dialogue.

Significantly, opposition to the war has also emerged within the United States. Even within Donald Trump’s own camp, which came to power on anti-war promises, dissent has begun to surface. Leaders of the Democratic Party have strongly criticized the war. Senator Bernie Sanders questioned on X whether someone like Netanyahu, who he says was responsible for the deaths of 72,000 people in Gaza, mostly women and children, together with a brutal dictatorship like Saudi Arabia, could truly bring “freedom” to Iran. He asked whether anyone genuinely believes such claims. Calling on all senators to oppose the war, Sanders accused Trump of gambling with American lives to fulfill Netanyahu’s long-standing ambitions. He emphasized that Americans, regardless of political affiliation, do not want endless wars. They want good-paying jobs, affordable healthcare and housing, and quality education for their children. He warned that Trump must not be allowed to drag the country into yet another senseless war.

Globally, the American economy faces serious challenges, including an external debt of around $30 trillion. In response, Donald Trump has pursued trade wars and efforts to expand territory, markets, and control over resources, moves seen by many as attempts to preserve American hegemonic power. His rhetoric about bringing even friendly nations such as Canada and Greenland under U.S. control reflects this broader ambition.

However, the central question remains: can these attacks truly establish democracy in Iran, or at least create space for it? If such progress were possible, it would indeed be positive. Yet looking at U.S. interventions over recent decades, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, there is strong reason for skepticism. Though justified in the name of “democracy” or “human rights,” these interventions often resulted in prolonged instability, internal conflict, institutional collapse, and state failure.

This raises serious doubts about whether these wars are genuinely about democracy. Many authoritarian regimes around the world face little pressure as long as they are willing to cooperate with powerful countries like the United States. Some even thrive as close allies or partners. This suggests that U.S. foreign policy is often driven less by moral principles than by political and economic interests. Prominent American economist Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who has served in high-level global advisory roles, stated in an interview with India’s NDTV that the U.S. war on Iran is not about nuclear threats or any imminent danger from Iran, but about regional power and dominance. He argued that the justifications given for the war are false.

Lessons from History

History warns us about such military conflicts.

After more than 20 years of U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, efforts to build democracy ultimately failed. When American forces withdrew in 2021, the Taliban swiftly returned to power, and the democratic project collapsed.

A similar pattern can be seen in Egypt. Following the Arab Spring, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood was democratically elected president. However, within a short period, political and economic crises led to a military takeover. The Muslim Brotherhood was banned and designated a terrorist organization. Thousands were arrested, many were killed, and Morsi himself died in prison. Instead of democracy, a harsher authoritarian rule was re-established.

In Libya, NATO’s intervention also proved unsuccessful. The result was continuous internal conflict, political instability, and economic decline.

These examples show that removing a ruler does not automatically bring democracy. More often, it leads to instability, sectarian conflict, and chaos.

In many cases, such military interventions have strengthened extremist groups rather than weakened them. Leaders facing foreign attacks often consolidate power by portraying themselves as defenders of the nation. Democracy cannot be delivered by bombs. It must grow from within a society. Strong institutions, legal systems, social cohesion, and public participation are essential. Although international institutions may help address conflicts, they are often dominated by powerful countries. For example, veto powers held by certain nations in the UN Security Council frequently block meaningful action. Many therefore argue that urgent reform of the international system is necessary.

Is Religious Extremism the Root of War?

Religious extremism often emerges as a result of economic inequality, particularly in developing and underdeveloped countries. In earlier times, left-wing movements led struggles against injustice and inequality, proposing socialism as a path to shared prosperity. For a time, this vision had broad appeal. However, following the setbacks and collapse of the Soviet bloc, socialism lost its status as a viable alternative, and left-wing politics declined significantly.

This created a vacuum in addressing the pressures generated by capitalism. In many backward countries, religious extremists gradually filled that gap, proposing strict adherence to religious doctrines as the solution. Taken to extremes, this produced harsh, inhumane, and regressive societies. While military force may suppress religious extremism temporarily, unless the underlying socio-economic causes are addressed, it will re-emerge in other forms.

Can Democracy Be Brought by Bombs?

Civilized people must oppose authoritarian and fundamentalist regimes. However, democracy is not a door that can be opened with a bomb. It is a social process that must be built over time through internal strength, institutional development, and the growth of trust. History shows that while starting a war may be easy, ending it is extremely difficult.

External forces may remove a ruler, but building a new nation is an entirely different task. The beginning of war may appear dramatic and even triumphant, but its end is often dark, painful, and tragic. Therefore, war must be approached not with enthusiasm but with caution, guided by lessons from history.

The Human and Economic Cost of War

Wars often reflect crises within the global economic system. Many major economic crises have been accompanied by global wars and large-scale destruction. New economic cycles have frequently begun only after massive losses of property and human life.

Beyond geopolitical debates, war brings immediate and devastating consequences for ordinary people. Civilians face displacement, destruction of homes, collapse of healthcare systems, disruption of education, and deep social trauma. Infrastructure built over decades can be destroyed in weeks.

The economic consequences extend far beyond the battlefield. Regional wars often disrupt global energy supplies and trade routes, intensifying inflation. Rising fuel and food prices place additional burdens on working families worldwide. Those already struggling with the cost of living face even greater insecurity.

At the same time, wars often generate enormous profits for powerful interests. Defense contractors receive large military contracts. Arms manufacturers see revenues rise. Major corporations gain access to reconstruction contracts and valuable resources. Ultimately, the tax burden of funding military expenditures falls on working people.

Wars rarely serve ordinary citizens. They deepen poverty and inequality, pushing the poor further down while creating opportunities for large corporations and business elites to reap massive profits and become even richer. Profits are privatized, while suffering is socialized. That is the hidden reality of war.