In a March 21, 2026, opinion piece for Salon, writer Chauncey DeVega accuses President Donald Trump of pursuing a “politics of death” that stretches well beyond the ongoing U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran. The headline and argument frame Trump’s decisions as rooted in “authoritarian violence,” linking the Iran strikes to broader critiques of his handling of COVID-19, gun violence, and other domestic issues. This language—echoing academic concepts like Achille Mbembe’s “necropolitics”—is a familiar rhetorical escalation from Trump’s critics, but it collapses serious policy trade-offs and wartime realities into cartoonish villainy.
The Iran operation, dubbed by some reports as “Operation Epic Fury,” began on February 28, 2026, with coordinated U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets. These included nuclear facilities, missile sites, naval assets, leadership compounds, and other military infrastructure. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, aged 86 and in power since 1989, was killed in the initial wave of attacks on his compound in Tehran, a fact confirmed by Iranian state media and announced by Trump. Other senior figures, including former officials and potential successors, were also reported eliminated. Trump described Khamenei as “one of the most evil people in history” with “blood on his hands” and celebrated the strikes as a chance for Iranians to reclaim their country from a repressive theocracy.
Strikes continued into subsequent days and weeks, targeting Iran’s nuclear program (including sites like Natanz and Isfahan), ballistic missiles, and proxy-enabling capabilities. The administration justified the action as necessary to neutralize an imminent threat: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, development of long-range missiles capable of reaching the U.S., support for terrorist proxies (Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas), and a long history of attacks on Americans. Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism for decades, responsible for hundreds to thousands of U.S. deaths through proxies, IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan, and direct plots—including assassination attempts linked to Trump himself. Previous diplomatic efforts, such as the Obama-era JCPOA, failed to permanently curb these ambitions, and Trump’s first-term “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions and the 2020 Soleimani strike reflected a different approach emphasizing deterrence over appeasement.
War is inherently tragic and deadly. Reports indicate U.S. casualties, including at least three to several service members killed and others wounded in the early phases, with Trump acknowledging that “sadly, there will likely be more before it ends—that’s the way it is.” Iranian deaths are higher: hundreds to over 1,400 reported by Iranian sources (including military personnel, officials, and some civilians), with claims of civilian impacts near embedded military sites. The conflict has disrupted the Strait of Hormuz, spiked global oil prices, and drawn regional retaliation. By mid-March 2026, the operation was in its third week, with Trump signaling it could last four to five weeks or more while hinting at possible wind-downs as objectives (degrading nuclear and missile capabilities, weakening the regime) neared fulfillment. Some reports noted additional U.S. troop deployments even as diplomacy via intermediaries was explored.
Critics, including DeVega, highlight Trump’s blunt tone—boasts about U.S. military lethality, warnings of overwhelming force if Iran escalates, and less-than-somber responses to casualties—as evidence of callousness or a “governing instinct based on authoritarian violence.” Questions about congressional authorization, proportionality, exit strategy, and risks of wider war (including oil shocks or Iranian nuclear breakout motivation) are legitimate grounds for debate. Public support for open-ended conflict remains limited, and any prolonged engagement carries political costs for Trump, who campaigned on avoiding forever wars.
Yet labeling this a unique “politics of death” ignores Iran’s own extensive record of violence: systematic domestic executions, brutal suppression of protests (including killings of students and women), export of terrorism, and threats to annihilate Israel. The regime’s nuclear opacity and defiance predated Trump; strikes responded to perceived escalation after failed talks. U.S. actions under prior presidents—Obama’s expansive drone campaigns (with documented civilian deaths), Biden’s targeted operations, and interventions in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere—also produced casualties without similar blanket accusations of necropolitics.
The Salon piece extends the charge domestically, tying it to Trump’s COVID-19 response and support for Second Amendment rights. On COVID, global excess deaths reached millions; Trump’s administration fast-tracked vaccines via Operation Warp Speed, but faced valid criticism for inconsistent messaging. Outcomes varied by state policies, compliance, and timing—not a deliberate “death cult.” Gun violence in the U.S. is concentrated in specific urban areas plagued by crime, gangs, drugs, and enforcement failures; constitutional protections coexist with millions of defensive gun uses annually. Framing policy disagreements on borders (fentanyl deaths, trafficking), law enforcement, or fiscal priorities as sadistic decisions over “who must die” is rhetorical overreach that could indict virtually any governance involving trade-offs, from policing and healthcare to abortion or military spending.
Trump’s broader approach— “peace through strength,” Abraham Accords, skepticism of endless engagements—sought to deter adversaries rather than project weakness. The Iran campaign, while costly, targets a regime with American and allied blood on its hands and active threats. Reasonable analysis weighs intelligence, strategic outcomes, civilian protections, and long-term stability, not moralizing epithets. As operations evolve and facts on nuclear setbacks, regime stability, and casualties emerge, hyperbolic claims of a singular “politics of death” reveal more about partisan reflexes than the complex realities of confronting hostile powers in a dangerous world. History will judge the results by security gains for Americans and allies, not by selective outrage.
About The Author
