In a national address last April 1, President Donald Trump finally faced the American public to explain in more detail why the United States went to war against Iran. This is more than one month after the US and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury. In less than 20 minutes, he tried to make sense of his oftentimes confusing and contradicting media pronouncements and posts in Truth Social over the past weeks. However much he wanted to frame the issue according to his worldview, many questions were left unanswered. If Iran’s military capabilities have been obliterated as he claims, why is Iran still firing multiple missiles and drones against Israel and the Gulf States? If most of Iran’s top leaders have been killed, and a regime change has already occurred as he claims, why does Iran continue fighting defiantly and effectively with a strategy that continues to baffle Israel and the US? If President Trump says that he is negotiating with Iranian leaders which the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) flatly denies, why is he sending thousands of troops and assets to the Middle East at the same time? If the Iranian leadership has been decapitated, and the state’s military power is no longer a threat, why does President Trump still want to pulverize Iran to stone age with more relentless bombings for two to three weeks?

But the American President does not seem to put much importance in galvanizing fellow Americans’ support. In a survey by Pew Research, it was reported that “Americans broadly disapprove of US military action in Iran.” Similarly, PBS News headlined that “poll shows most Americans feel war against Iran has gone too far.” Without a convincing public approval, Abraham Lincoln’s definition of democracy as “government of the people, by the people, for the people” in his 1863 Gettysburg Address which serves as a cornerstone of American society, is fundamentally in question.

One hallmark of democracy is tolerance for disagreement, diversity of views, and debate. When Secretary of War Pete Hegseth dismissed top military officials in the middle of a large-scale war—US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, Maj. Gen. William Green Jr., and Gen. David Hodne—speculations quickly spread that this is a purge to silence those who disagree with the President’s decisions on the war. Earlier, rumors of Vice President JD Vance’s skepticism over the Iran war, hinting of a possible rift with the President, could be the reason he has been less visible, or probably, even sidelined.

For President Trump, the rescue of a US airman in Iran is an “Easter miracle.” “The US troops are fighting for Jesus,” Secretary Hegseth says according to a report of The New York Times. For both men, the war is framed through the lens of faith, convinced that God is on the side of the US. Such rhetoric does not seem to agree with the strict separation of church and state, another fundamental principle of democracy, staunchly defended by fourth American President James Madison, the primary architect of the US Constitution.

At the international level, democracy is also under threat as Western allies of the US refuse to be complicit to a war that is not theirs. Despite repeated pressure from President Trump, the NATO countries are hesitant to participate, sending forces to open the Strait of Hormuz. More recently, Secretary Hegseth condemned European allies like France, Spain, Italy, and Austria for disallowing American aircraft to fly over their air space or to use their military bases for attacks on Iran. In frustration, President Trump blurted, “you’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the USA won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us.” On another occasion, he mocked the Western alliance, “I was never swayed by NATO; I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way.”

Perhaps, the worst anti-democracy consequence of this war is the killing of innocent lives and destruction of civilian infrastructures. As BBC News reported, “more than 100 international law experts signed an open letter expressing profound concern about the serious violations of international law” by the warring parties in the Middle East conflict. According to them, the US-Israeli aggression on Iran is directly opposed to the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of force unless it is for self-defense, or authorized by the UN Security Council. At the beginning of the war, a deadly Tomahawk missile struck the Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school in Iran killing 1,606 civilians, including at least 244 children. Not bothered by this, President Trump warned that the US forces would “hit each and every one of their electric-generating plants” and “bring [Iran] back to the stone ages—where they belong.” Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty International’s senior director of research, advocacy, policy and campaigns, said, “given that such power plants are essential for meeting the basic needs and livelihoods of tens of millions of civilians, attacking them would be disproportionate and thus unlawful under international humanitarian law, and could amount to a war crime.” On day 38 of the war, President Trump gave an ultimatum that unless the Iranian regime concedes and opens the Strait of Hormuz, every bridge and every power plant will be decimated, and he warned that “the entire country can be taken out in one night.” On the brink of this catastrophe, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif fortunately managed to mediate at the last minute for a tentative ceasefire.

The US is supposed to be the world’s model of a progressive and prosperous democracy, but is American democracy now in crisis? Does democracy’s “power vested in the citizens” still matter before an assertive, domineering leader? Are nations committed to peace and a rule-based international order capable of stopping a man who has gone to war disregarding Western alliance and the UN Charter?

(Nicomedes “Nick” Alviar, PhD, is the Dean of School of Politics and Governance, University of Asia and the Pacific)