President Donald Trump recently expressed a desire to label the recent skirmishes between Iran and Israel as the “12-Day War.” However, whether this title will take hold remains questionable. Historically, it is journalists and scholars who craft the titles of wars, often diverging from official nomenclature desired by political figures.
Experts emphasize that the naming of wars is far from straightforward. David Sibley, a military historian from Cornell University, notes that there isn’t a definitive body responsible for naming conflicts. Instead, these names often arise from a consensus or common usage developed over time among historians and the media.
### The ’12-Day War’
Howard Stoffer, a professor at the University of New Haven, claims that the recent violence between Iran and Israel marks a pivotal moment in Middle Eastern history, akin to the Six-Day War of 1967 or the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Trump’s proposed title might evoke memories of the Six-Day War, where Israel executed preemptive airstrikes to overcome neighboring Arab nations, which ultimately strengthened its political standing and territorial claims.
Sibley notes that the brevity and clarity of the term “12-Day War” could resonate within Israel and the broader Middle Eastern context, potentially making it stick in popular discourse. Reuters has already referred to these events using the phrase “12-day war,” although they stopped short of acknowledging it as an official name.
### Flare-Up or Full-Blown War?
Another significant point of contention is whether the recent hostilities can even be categorized as a full war, or merely a continuation of longstanding tensions that have persisted between Iran and Israel for decades. Bryon Greenwald, a professor at National Defense University, raises questions about defining the timeline of conflict due to previous military engagements between the two nations. As various military actions unfold, dates and definitions can become fluid.
Political scientist Peter Singer suggests that if Trump’s proposal is to gain traction, it would require an effective marketing strategy to encourage public adoption of the term. Names often reflect a collective memory or sentiment rather than being dictated from above.
### Who Names Wars?
Historically, the naming process can be organic, often shaped by the media rather than government authorities. For example, World War I was initially dubbed the “Great War” until a subsequent global conflict necessitated a distinction. Similarly, terms like “Operation Desert Shield” and “Operation Desert Storm” have been largely replaced by the simpler “Gulf War” in public discourse.
Furthermore, names can differ based on regional and cultural perspectives, as seen in the American Civil War, which is referred to variously as “The War Between the States” or “The War of Northern Aggression,” depending on one’s viewpoint.
### The Question of World War III
The idea of a potential World War III has been a prominent theme in Trump’s rhetoric for years, especially following the U.S. bombing of Iranian sites on June 21. However, experts urge caution in declaring conflicts as “world wars.” Will Todman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies commented on the differences between historical world wars and the current global landscape. He expressed skepticism that the current skirmishes will coalesce into a conflict resembling previous world wars.
Additional global tensions, such as Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine or potential threats in East Asia, complicate the notion of a simple binary categorization of a new world war. The widespread fighting that characterized earlier world wars simply does not reflect current events. Scholars suggest that while the potential for regional conflicts remains, they don’t necessarily combine to constitute a global war.
Sibley has also pointed out that nuclear arsenals act as deterrents, with countries hesitating to engage in conflicts that could escalate to nuclear exchanges. He argues that significant, direct confrontations between nuclear powers could eventually redefine how we label these conflicts.
Notably, the catastrophic human toll of previous world wars, with millions of lives lost, sets a high bar for any contemporary conflict to be classified similarly. With millions perishing in World War I and II, the scale of casualties in more recent disputes hasn’t reached such levels, prompting experts to caution against a rush to label conflicts as World War III.
### A Historical Perspective
As with the history of war naming, the eventual designation of any current conflict will likely be debated long after the fighting stops. Historians will sift through the narratives and sentiments of the time, shaping their interpretations and conclusions that may differ from contemporaneous views. The dynamic nature of how wars are perceived, remembered, and ultimately named illustrates the complexity of human conflict and the myriad factors that contribute to our understanding of history.
