Public trust in the American political establishment collapsed dramatically after the Iraq War. Without that loss of confidence, Donald Trump might never have become President of the United States.
It is therefore deeply ironic that he now appears to be adopting the same rhetorical positions and strategic miscalculations that pushed President George W. Bush toward a Middle Eastern disaster after 2003.
According to reports, Trump has not yet made a final decision on whether to launch a strike against Iran. However, the massive deployment of U.S. naval and air forces currently in the region represents the largest military buildup since the invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein. This show of force could serve as additional pressure on Iran ahead of renewed crisis negotiations scheduled to resume Thursday in Geneva. Yet without a significant diplomatic breakthrough, withdrawing such a large military presence without firing a shot could damage Trump’s credibility.
The Trump administration was built on the “Make America Great Again” movement, whose supporters generally oppose foreign wars. Perhaps for that reason, the administration has so far failed to present a coherent justification for the war it continues to threaten.
The downside of this approach is clear: while the U.S. military may be ready for conflict, the American public is not.
Before invading Iraq, President Bush spent months shaping public opinion in favor of war—albeit based on flawed intelligence and false premises. By contrast, the Trump administration has offered only vague and inconsistent justifications so far.
In his recent State of the Union address, Trump attempted to provide greater clarity, though his remarks may have cornered him politically. Echoing traditional presidential warnings, he declared that Iran would never be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb. However, this statement raised doubts about his intentions and credibility, since he claimed just last year to have already “eliminated” Tehran’s nuclear program.
Trump also referenced the deaths of hundreds of U.S. soldiers allegedly caused by Iran-backed proxy forces in Iraq and condemned Tehran’s recent violent crackdown on protesters, which may have resulted in thousands of civilian deaths.
The Missile Puzzle
Historical echoes became strongest when Trump turned his focus to Iran’s ballistic missile program. He warned that Iran has already developed missiles capable of threatening Europe and U.S. overseas bases and is working toward missiles that could eventually reach the United States.
He may be exaggerating Iran’s capabilities. Yet by emphasizing threats to the American homeland, Trump has followed the same controversial path taken by the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in justifying the Iraq War.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a similar warning, stating that Iran continues expanding the range of its missile systems and appears to be moving toward developing weapons capable of striking the U.S. mainland. According to Rubio, Iran already possesses missiles capable of reaching large parts of Europe, with their range increasing rapidly each year.
A Familiar Pattern
In 2002, President Bush warned that American civilians stationed in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and elsewhere were at risk from Iraqi missiles. He even claimed Iraq was exploring drone technologies capable of dispersing chemical or biological agents against the United States. That same year, Vice President Dick Cheney warned that Iraq sought delivery systems that could ultimately subject the U.S. or its allies to nuclear blackmail.
Missile fears were not the only parallel. One of the Bush administration’s greatest failures was its lack of planning for the postwar environment, which later fueled sectarian division and insurgency.
Iran is likely far stronger than Iraq ever was. Yet Trump has not clearly explained to Americans what might follow a U.S. military effort aimed at overthrowing Iran’s religious leadership.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Kane has reportedly acknowledged uncertainty about the consequences of regime change in Tehran. U.S. intelligence agencies believe that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could emerge as the strongest contender to fill any leadership vacuum—potentially replacing the current regime with an equally hardline and anti-American alternative.
The Trump administration already has experience with regime-change efforts following the removal of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro earlier this year. However, finding an Iranian equivalent willing or able to cooperate with Washington appears highly unlikely.
Misreading the Adversary
American foreign policy has often stumbled due to miscalculations about how adversaries would respond. Washington’s strategic logic frequently dissolves when confronted with the complex realities of the Middle East.
Ironically, Trump himself warned last year in Saudi Arabia that interventionists during the Iraq War had interfered in societies they did not fully understand.
U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff recently admitted that Trump does not fully understand why Iran has refused to capitulate under mounting pressure. Despite overwhelming U.S. naval and military power in the region, Iran has not agreed to abandon its weapons ambitions outright.
One explanation may lie in history: Iran has witnessed the brutal downfall of leaders like Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, who lacked weapons of mass destruction. It requires little analysis to understand why Tehran may view military capability as essential to regime survival.
The Danger of Overconfidence
Before the Iraq War, many believed victory would be quick and American troops would be welcomed as liberators. More than two decades later, as military officials emphasize the complexity of modern warfare, Trump appears to portray a potential conflict with Iran as an easy victory. Writing on Truth Social, he suggested that a military confrontation could be won quickly.
What Kind of Deal Could Trump Accept?
Diplomacy is not yet exhausted. Negotiations mediated by Oman are expected to involve U.S. representatives, including envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.
The outcome may depend on whether Iran offers concessions that Trump can present domestically as a major victory. Tehran has hinted at compromises regarding uranium enrichment and stockpiles, though disputes over missile programs remain a significant obstacle.
Trump also faces domestic political constraints. He cannot accept a nuclear agreement resembling the Obama-era deal he once rejected. Still, he has often reframed setbacks as victories—suggesting political flexibility.
For Iran, any outcome that preserves its governing system would ultimately count as success.
A Tempting but Risky Moment
Military action may appear tempting to Trump despite the risks of American casualties and large-scale civilian losses. Iran’s regional proxy networks have been weakened by conflicts with Israel, while economic and political instability persists inside the country.
Eliminating Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities could reshape the Middle East and potentially trigger economic transformation across the Gulf region—an outcome aligned with Trump’s foreign-policy ambitions.
Last year in Saudi Arabia, Trump envisioned a future of peace, security, and prosperity in the Middle East after decades of conflict.
Removing Iran’s ruling establishment could fulfill his promise to protesters that the United States stood ready to defend them. It could also weaken China’s regional influence.
Despite the dark lessons of early-2000s U.S. military failures, Trump may still see this moment as an opportunity. He appears determined to become the president who removed the Ayatollahs from power—an achievement that eluded Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.
For a commander eager to carve his name into history, the potential legacy may prove irresistible.
