Trump is about to start a war he hasn't bothered to explain
Trump is about to start a war he hasn't bothered to explainIt's not even clear he knows why he wants to bomb Iran.
PN is supported by paid subscribers. Become one When asked last week what his message was to the people of Iran, President Trump seemed puzzled, pausing for a moment before saying “they better negotiate a fair deal.” Apparently realizing that it is not within the Iranian public’s ability to negotiate anything, Trump then said, as though sharing a profound insight, “You know, the people of Iran are a lot different than the leadership of Iran. And it’s a very very sad situation.” Q: Do you have a message to the Iranian people? TRUMP: In Iran? Q: People in Iran TRUMP: Uhhh -- they better negotiate a fair deal  Fri, 20 Feb 2026 19:13:23 GMT View on BlueskyBut don’t worry; Trump will get over his sadness very quickly. Because it looks like the US is about to launch a major attack on Iran — again. The problem is, no one seems to know exactly what Trump is after or why he is doing this now. He’s about to write a new chapter in the long and (mostly) ignominious history of American presidents thinking they can bend the world to their will by dropping bombs on foreign countries, yet he himself doesn’t seem to know why, let alone how it’s supposed to end.
Last June, the US and Israel conducted a series of strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and military leadership; Iran responded with waves of missile and drone attacks on Israel, most (but not all) of which were neutralized by Israeli air defenses, as well as a perfunctory shot at a US base in Qatar. When the “12 day war” was over, Trump told the world that the problem of a nuclear Iran had been eliminated. “The strikes were a spectacular military success,” he said. “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.” Yet here we are eight months later, and it turns out that the Iran nuclear program was not totally obliterated, as was clear at the time. Now Trump has sent two aircraft carrier groups to the area, the largest buildup of American air power in the region since the Iraq War. What are we doing here?The ostensible purpose of this saber-rattling is to convince the Iranian government to do three things: shut down its nuclear program, stop building ballistic missiles, and cease its support for proxy groups in the region including Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen. While none of that is objectionable on its own, those are the same demands we’ve been making for years. So why has it suddenly become so urgent that we’re ready to let the bombs fall? No one seems to have a good answer. Nor is it clear what precisely we’ll be bombing — just nuclear facilities? Anything military? Civilian infrastructure? And if the administration actually wants to affect regime change in Iran, that’s an outcome that aerial power alone almost never produces. The administration’s uncertainty on that point is understandable; if the Islamic Republic were to fall, there’s no way to know what would replace it and what kind of chaos could result. But it was just six weeks ago that Trump told Iranians risking their lives by protesting the regime that “help is on the way.” In subsequent days they were slaughtered by the thousands, and Trump has stopped pretending that he has any “help” to offer.
If he does decide to initiate another military conflict, it almost certainly won’t involve any ground operations. Trump took office saying he would end America’s “forever wars,” but only those who weren’t listening very closely believed he had no appetite for overseas military adventurism. Trump loves a good bombing campaign, but favors operations that are quick, involve minimal risk to US personnel, and don’t require him to clean up after whatever mess he made. In the first year of his second term, Trump bombed seven different countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Somalia, and Nigeria. That’s not exactly a record of restraint, but it shows how he likes to operate. Though Iran’s ballistic missiles and proxy groups are part of the official rationale, Trump is focused on the country’s efforts to develop its nuclear capacity. That’s why it’s so important to remember that we had an agreement with Iran that did, in fact, constrain its nuclear program. It was called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and it was painstakingly negotiated by the US, Russia, China, France, Germany, and the UK, and finalized in mid-2015. In exchange for sanctions relief, it put in place a monitoring system to ensure that Iran could not enrich uranium beyond what was necessary for civilian use. (Iran has always claimed, not very persuasively, that it has no intention to build nuclear bombs.) When Trump took office in 2017, his own military and national security advisers tried to convince him that the JCPOA was working and would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. But because it was negotiated under Barack Obama, Trump convinced himself that it was a disaster, and in 2018 he abandoned the agreement. To no one’s surprise, Iran then resumed its efforts to reach the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, leading us toward the place we are now. He hasn’t even tried to persuade anyoneWhile Americans are well used to the cycle we’re in — escalating tensions, belligerent statements from both sides, a seemingly unstoppable march to war — there has been a gaping void where we normally find a vigorous propaganda effort. We all know how it works: The president gives a big speech explaining what his goals are, administration representatives fan out to make the case, members of Congress debate whether it’s a good idea, diplomats are sent to persuade allies that they should join in the effort, and all of that creates waves of news coverage and analysis that help the public understand what’s at stake and what the potential outcomes are. In its extreme version (e.g. the Bush administration’s preparation for the Iraq War), the government creates bogus narratives and fake evidence of the terrible danger America is in if we don’t immediately let loose with all our spectacular capacity to rain hellfire down on any country anywhere in the world. But even that presumes that without the legitimacy of public support, the war can’t proceed.
But none of that has happened. There’s been no effort to persuade allies or Congress (let alone obtain an official congressional authorization), and Trump’s own comments about Iran are brief and vague, full of weak attempts to sound tough and his usual “We’ll see what happens” dodge. There may be some cheerleading for war on Fox News, but you couldn’t call it a coordinated effort to persuade the public that their very lives depend on starting a new war, or at the very least that it’s a moral imperative we simply cannot ignore. Hannity last night: We need to invade Iran because they won't give up their nuclear program. Hannity last June: Iran's “nuclear ambitions” are “officially dead” after Trump "obliterated" their nuclear sites. www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity... Thu, 19 Feb 2026 18:04:22 GMT View on BlueskyThat’s not to say that if it tried, the Trump administration could convince the public that a war with Iran (or at least an extended bombing campaign) is a grand idea. This isn’t 2002, when the fear and anger produced by September 11 were still fresh and two-thirds of the public believed the lie that Saddam Hussein had a hand in those attacks. So far, the public is highly skeptical. A Quinnipiac poll last month found the public opposing a strike on Iran if the regime continued killing protesters by a 70-18 percent margin. A University of Maryland poll found only 21 percent of people saying they favored “the United States initiating an attack on Iran under the current circumstances.” Likewise, when a Washington Post/Ipsos poll released Sunday asked respondents, “In general, do you support or oppose Trump using the US military to force changes in other countries?”, only 20 percent said yes. You might say that it’s just a reflection of the public’s dislike of Trump, which is probably true — but if that’s the gut feeling they have, it’s an accurate one. Even if you believed that using the military to overthrow a foreign government or make some other kind of change might sometimes be a good idea, trusting this president and this government to do it right would be foolish in the extreme.
Maybe the polls would look different if Trump had put some effort into convincing the public that attacking Iran is important or necessary. But that might not have helped. His approval ratings are extremely low, and his increasingly erratic public presentation have left him largely unable to persuade anyone who isn’t already embedded in the MAGA movement of much of anything. And it’s not like the public version of Trump hides a private one who is thoughtful and wise. Looming over all this is the undeniable fact that whether we start our next war, and how it proceeds, will be determined by the capricious whims of one elderly, erratic, ignorant, impulsive man. No one could seriously believe that Trump’s decision will be made through a careful process of deliberation on the best long-term interests of the United States, let alone what the effects will be on the Iranian population or the wider Middle East. In the best-case scenario, Iran’s negotiating stance loosens up and a nuclear deal emerges that allows Trump to declare victory. We might even get something that resembles the JCPOA, eight years after Trump threw it in the trash. At this point, almost all the alternatives look far worse. That’s it for todayWe’ll be back with more tomorrow. If you appreciate today’s PN, please do your part to keep us free by signing up for a paid subscription. |
Comments
Post a Comment