As the United States continues large-scale combat operations in Iran, it is prudent to consider all of the following: the hypocrisy of Trump’s previous rhetoric, the dangerous historical precedent the war follows, the lack of any clear motivation or justification and the immense danger it poses to America’s international reputation.
President Donald Trump harped upon a simple three-word phrase repeatedly throughout his presidential campaigns: “no new wars.” As early as 2016, he lamented the misguided American engagement in Iraq – especially as he sought to critique his opponent in the Republican Primary, Jeb Bush. Bush, the brother of President George W. Bush, who oversaw the war in Iraq, proved an easy target for critiquing foreign entangelements.
In a February 2016 debate, Trump famously declared, “The war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake.”
Over 7,000 American military personnel were killed in the roughly 20 years of the War on Terror following 9/11, which included invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. With his promises of isolationism, Trump managed to harness the grievances of generations scarred by prolonged American military engagement in these foreign countries. This greatly contrasted the previously hawkish, neo-conservative establishment that dominated the Republican party.
In 2023, soon-to-be Vice President JD Vance furthered Trump’s sentiments by stating, “My entire adult lifetime has been shaped by presidents who threw America into unwise wars and failed to win them.”
Ironically, this anti-war rhetoric by Trump and his allies has been proven false and hypocritical. On Feb. 28, under President Trump’s orders, the U.S. and Israel launched joint strikes on Iran – beginning a war that has now lasted over a month.
The uncertainty surrounding the motivation behind the war is emblematic of its greatest dangers. If the Trump Administration cannot clearly articulate why the war was initiated or the conditions that would constitute success, then there is no definitive end in sight. For example, if the initial aims of the war were to institute regime change and the regime did change, then success would be defined. However, with constant changes in goals and motivations, there is no off-ramp through which the United States can easily justify leaving the war.
On March 2, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the U.S. government knew that there were going to be Israeli strikes in Iran, which, in his words, meant that the U.S. had to act against Iran preemptively as well. Rubio justified this by citing the likelihood of Iranian attacks against American forces even if the U.S. abstained from direct action in the war. His claims have since been contested by a variety of high-ranking officials, including U.S. senators.
Trump has also attempted to paint military action as necessary to halt the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. Ironically, his sentiments bear a striking resemblance to Bush’s justification for the invasion of Iraq. His explanation of the military’s goals are equally unclear. Trump mentioned regime change, prevention of nuclear weapons and reopening the straits of Hormuz as justifications for military action. These shifting goals obfuscate the future of the war. Will this war achieve the longevity of Iraq and Afghanistan? Will American ground troops be sent to Iran? Trump and allies have refused to rule out this possibility as the war, in its fifth week, shows no signs of stopping.
Most importantly, this is not simply an abstract issue of motivation and justification. American money has been spent and American citizens have been killed. 290 service members have been injured and 13 of them killed as of March 25. The administration has floated a potential $200 billion funding package to support his war, another example of Trumpian hypocrisy, considering his initial attempts with the now-defunct Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut federal spending. Crude oil prices have surged by 40%, costing consumers around the world as they are wrestling with higher prices at the pump.
The President is reported to be sending an additional 10,000 American troops to the Middle East. All of this comes in the first four weeks of the war. The dangers of Iran spiraling into a long-term military engagement with American ground troops is a real and potentially imminent possibility.
Not only does the United States risk following the dangerous precedent of prolonged and deadly wars in the Middle East, but it also risks abandoning its status on the global stage. America has frequently (and rightly) taken a leading role in international politics and in the international order. In a 1963 speech at American University, President John F. Kennedy delineated between the bellicose approach that Trump employs and the pursuit of genuine peace.
“What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war … I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children.”
Trump’s sporadic, violent action endangers the stability the United States ought to provide. Not only is Trump’s rhetoric domestically divisive, but his current actions have international reach. The world watches as Trump lashes out militarily and verbally.
While top American officials seem to have little self-awareness of the hypocrisy described in this article, the general public has picked up on quite a bit. Where the war in Iraq began with relative popularity, the American public is largely unreceptive to the current war this time around. War has real costs in physical lives, in economic harm and in American international standing. All of this begs the simple question: has the president learned nothing?
