Trump’s war on Iran so far has failed to deliver his expected quick win

Joseph Weber

When Napoleon Bonaparte drove his “Grande Armée” – Europe’s most powerful military force – into Russia in 1812, it seemed impossible that the continent’s seemingly invincible leader could fail.

Surely, Russia’s Tsar Alexander I would comply with Bonaparte’s economic blockade of longtime enemy England. Certainly, Russia would give up its designs on Poland. The war, Napoleon bet, would last maybe a month and would leave France towering above all its enemies.

Sound familiar?

Donald J. Trump on March 1 suggested that his war on Iran would last “four to five weeks.” Just under halfway into that timeline, on March 13, the president struck a different tone, saying the war would end “when I feel it, feel it in my bones.” He added that the U.S. has “virtually unlimited ammunition…. We can go forever.”

“Forever?” Is that what he has in mind now?

Bonaparte’s excursion – a term Trump now uses, calling the Iran War a “little excursion” – ultimately led to the loss of much of his army, his abdication and his exile to Elba in 1814. The French leader had leveled much of Moscow, but the Russians in time rebuilt the city and their country. France was humbled.

Such are the miscalculations of hubris.

Nobody knows how Trump’s war on Iran will turn out, of course. Maybe he’ll wind up with a pliable government, à la Venezuela, as he has speculated. But, with the selection of Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the assassinated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as Supreme Leader, that seems unlikely in the short run. Certainly, the “unconditional surrender” Trump demanded hasn’t happened.

Indeed, as analyst Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has written in The Atlantic, the Iranians are digging in. Trump has “spawned a budding Iranian Kim Jong Un” in the younger Khamenei, creating “a hereditary dictatorship poised to double down on ideology and repression.”

In fact, Sadjadpour argued, this Khamenei may prove more intransigent and bloodthirsty now that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have killed his family. For this new leader and his governing circle, this war will be deeply personal.

Of course, it may be that the Israelis will kill off the new leader, just as they were able to destroy his family. When asked about what actions Israel might take against Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei and Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem, Netanyahu issued a not-so-veiled threat, as Reuters reported: “I wouldn’t issue life insurance policies on any of the leaders of the terrorist organization … I don’t intend ​to provide an exact report here about what we are planning or what we are going ​to do.”

The reason the younger Khamenei survived the assault on his family by Israeli weapons appears to have been accidental. He was taking a walk in the garden when the bombs and missiles fell, perhaps suffering a leg injury.

It may be that Iran’s leaders, feeling as crippled by the war as Khamenei may be, will ultimately yield to relentless air assaults by the U.S. and Israel. But, so far, they’ve shown no sign of capitulating, denying even any interest in a truce or some sort of “deal,” as Trump has suggested. Trump told NBC News on Saturday that Iran was ready “to make a deal, and I don’t want to make it because the terms aren’t good enough yet.”

But on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi denied that. “No, we never asked for a ceasefire, and we have never asked even for negotiation. We are ready to defend ourselves as long as it takes,” Araghchi told CBS News’s Face the Nation.

For both sides in this fight, words are cheap, of course. And bluster is part of the game.

At least for now, though, the Iranian public hasn’t risen up in revolution, as Trump urged in the war’s opening days. And the Iranian military is busy sending missiles across the region, attacking an array of Arab states that are allied with the U.S. Tehran’s leaders also likely greenlighted the Hezbollah attacks on Israel from Lebanon, rocket assaults that have triggered a fierce Israeli response – opening a second front in this war that now includes a ground assault by Israeli soldiers.

What’s more, the Iranians are striking the U.S. and the West economically. Their shutdown of ships carrying oil and natural gas through the Strait of Hormuz has thrust oil markets into a maelstrom, driving up gas prices for Americans and others. Europeans, whom Trump has long scorned and alienated for other reasons, so far have not taken up his call to help unblock the strait. “This is not our war, we have not started it,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius told reporters Monday.

So, just how this all will play out is far from clear. Journalist Bret Stephens has suggested that regime change or “modification” isn’t impossible, that a cease-fire could yet be agreed on, or that Iran could descend into a civil war like Syria’s, complete with refugees spread across the region. He has suggested more American force may be needed, perhaps in seizing a critical Iranian asset, Kharg Island, which serves as the terminal for roughly 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports.

“American control would give the administration the whip hand over most of the regime’s remaining revenues, including its ability to pay salaries for soldiers and civil servants alike,” Stephens has argued. “That could help clarify to even the most hard-line elements in the regime whether it is really worth it to enrich uranium or send more munitions to Hezbollah in Lebanon so they can be destroyed by Israel.”

So far, Trump has resisted sending American forces into Iran. But the Pentagon has deployed as many as 2,500 Marines to the Middle East in what suggests a change in Trump’s approach. They could soon find themselves battling an Iranian military backed by a regime convinced this is an existential fight to stay in power.

Could the Iran War devolve into a quagmire akin to Iraq, which led to a long costly occupation? Or worse, Afghanistan, the failed war that lasted two decades? Or will this “little excursion” of Trump’s end in his hoped-for three weeks or so? Will it end with some sort of stalemate, akin to the Korean War, with a Kim Jong Un clone at the helm of an implacable enemy?

The truth, of course, is that no one has a clue. And perhaps the most clueless of all is Donald J. Trump. Even as he remains sequestered in Washington or Mar-a-Lago, he may find that bluster, bravado and even the most powerful military in the world can’t deliver his expected quick win. Certainly, that’s what the consummately arrogant French leader of long ago found out.

Trump’s marketers are falling short in selling the Iran war

Joseph Weber

Convincing Americans that war in distant lands is necessary has often been a tough job.

World War I posters urged citizens to enlist in the Army to “destroy this mad brute,” the German who threatened civilization, and to “Halt the Hun!” by buying bonds. World War II posters delivered similar messages, depicting fists smashing swastikas. And, of course, Uncle Sam encouraged enlistments with the classic “I Want You” imagery.

Today, the Trump Administration faces an especially tough job in selling Americans on its war against Iran. More than half of our countrymen oppose the war (56 percent in a new Marist poll, nearly six out of 10 in a slightly older CNN poll). Marist found that only 36 percent of U.S. residents approve of how Donald J. Trump is dealing with Iran. That’s down from January of 2020, during a period of heightened tension, when 42 percent of Americans approved of the president’s approach.

So, how is the administration marketing its new war effort? It seems to be a matter of conflicting language from Trump and his acolytes, a bizarre sense of theatrics and a reliance on videogames — yes, videogames.

In one video released on X, the administration uses clips from the videogame “Call to Duty” interspersed with imagery of the destruction of Iranian facilities. In another, called “Justice the American Way,” it features scenes from Ironman, Gladiator, Braveheart, Top Gun Maverick, Better Call Saul, John Wick, Tropic Thunder, Superman, Breaking Bad, Transformers, Deadpool, Star Wars and Mortal Combat, along with real bombing scenes.

Nothing about the real threats Iran poses to the West. Nothing invoking patriotism or asking Americans to sacrifice or chip in. Just macho imagery that shows war as a game, something thrilling that is led by the most manly men of them all.

The “Justice” clip opens with a scene from Iron Man with Tony Stark played by Robert Downey Jr. in his lair. “Wake up, daddy’s home,” Downey says. If you aren’t sure who “daddy” is, the clip ends with a logo for “The White House” and “President Donald J. Trump.”

Dunderheaded? Self-glorifying? Juvenile? These are just some of the words that come to mind. There are others, of course:

“War is not a video game,” Joshua Reed Eakle, a board member of Project Liberal, wrote on X. “The parents of the half a dozen American service members who already lost their lives can attest to that.” He called the “Call to Duty” ripoff “morally abhorrent” and “despicable messaging from the White House.”

And there was this from a commenter on TMZ: “Such poor taste. This is not a game or a joke. Can’t wait until this administration is just an ugly mark on US history.”

But it’s more than just a matter of bad taste. Trump and his minions are either blind to the human misery they cause or even exult in it. More than 1,000 Iranians have died already, according to some reports. They include a reported 175 people, many of whom were schoolgirls, at a school that it appears American weapons destroyed. Not a whisper of regret has come from Trump or Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who merely said the attack is under investigation.

At least a half-dozen Americans have been killed in Iranian military responses, which occasioned bizarre comments from both Trump and Hegseth (who styles himself as the far more gladiatorial “Secretary of War.”)

After the first three American deaths were reported, Trump told NBC News: “We have three, but we expect casualties, but in the end it’s going to be a great deal for the world.”

“A great deal?” Spoken like the true dealmaker who sees human costs as just another line item.

Then in a video posted to social media, as CNN reported, Trump again seemed to ask for people’s understanding about the need for such deaths. “And sadly, there will likely be more [deaths] before it ends,” Trump said, before adding: “That’s the way it is. Likely be more.”

“That’s the way it is?”

During a briefing at the Pentagon, Hegseth criticized the media for supposedly focusing too much on the dead soldiers in an effort to make Trump “look bad.” He suggested those deaths were getting disproportionate play, compared to the military’s successes.

“But when a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it’s front-page news,” Hegseth said. “I get it; the press only wants to make the president look bad. But try for once to report the reality.”

It’s as if they both are gamer bros, for whom casualties are just parts of videogame kill tallies – certainly not worth even reporting. The administration seem to have stacked its propaganda arms with twentysomethings who spend their lives in front of computers, out of touch with reality. Their aim, it seems, is less to gin up support for an unpopular war and more to glorify its perpetrators, themselves.

But can this media strategy – such as it is — succeed? And who are they reaching beyond the incels whose blinkered lives don’t include much real human contact? Are they trying to recruit them into our military?

Certainly, many in the West — and in Israel — would like to see real change in Iran. A government that rejects terrorism, accepts a multi-religious and multi-ethnic Middle East and ends any nuclear ambitions would be an ideal outcome. But how likely is that? How likely is this war to drive such fundamental change?

Bizarre as the Trump media approach is, in its confusion and naivete it seems to mirror a similar befuddlement about the objectives of the war itself. Seeking regime change, Trump has repeatedly urged Iranians to rise up and overthrow their government. But Hegseth has denied that aim, instead saying it’s all about destroying “the missile threat” from Iran, obliterating its navy and leaving it with “no nukes.”

And Trump more recently has argued that Iran would “soon” have missiles that could hit targets inside the United States. As he did so, Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that administration officials knew Israel was going to strike Iran, which would lead to counterattacks against U.S. forces and potential casualties. So, it decided to strike first to minimize the risk.

“We knew there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” Rubio said.

Rubio later backtracked, saying “I was asked very specifically… did we go in because of Israel? I said no, this had to happen anyway.”

Of course, the war has given antisemites plenty of ammunition to paint Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the Rasputin who pushed Trump into the war, as the prime minister unsuccessfully tried to do with prior presidents.

The Anti-Defamation League warned that “antisemitic and anti-Zionist groups are framing the U.S.-Israel operation against the Iranian regime as the latest evidence of the so-called ‘Zionist war-machine’s’ efforts to co-opt American foreign policy to advance Israeli and/or Jewish interests.” The ADL added that “Influencers who regularly traffic in antisemitic or anti-Zionist rhetoric are leveraging the U.S.-Israel operation… to promote longstanding conspiracy theories about Israel, such as blaming Israel for 9/11.”

As the Times of Israel reported, “These accusations are coming from far-right and far-left accounts as well as anti-Israel groups, such as Students for Justice in Palestine, that are inclined to discredit Israel. An SJP Instagram post read: ‘Imperialism and Zionism are one enemy — the common enemy of the entire region, and indeed, the people of the world.’”

Such accusations build on statements by both Democrats and Republicans that the war serves Israel’s interests more than America’s.

“A war between Israel and Iran may be good for Netanyahu’s domestic politics, but it will likely be disastrous for both the security of Israel, the United States, and the rest of the region,” Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, said. “We have no obligation to follow Israel into a war we did not ask for and will make us less safe.”

Republican influencer Tucker Carlson, who reportedly met with Trump three times in the weeks preceding the war, implied in an interview with U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee that Trump was threatening to strike Iran at the behest of Israel — a sentiment Huckabee slammed as “offensive.” The New York Times later reported that Carlson urged Trump to “restrain” Netanyahu, saying that Israel’s desire to attack Iran “was the only reason the United States was even considering a strike.”

For his part, Trump has said the drive for the war came the other way around. Asked if Israel had pushed the U.S. into the strikes, he said, “No, I might have forced their hands,” referring to Israel. The Iranians, he said, “were going to attack. If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that.”

Meanwhile, Trump drew on his experience in his quick-hit strike on Venezuela to sketch out how a post-war Iran should look. He told Axios that “I have to be involved in the appointment” of Khamenei’s successor, and that the late leader’s 56-year-old son “is unacceptable to me,” and “a light weight.”

“We want someone that will bring harmony and peace to Iran,” Trump said. He added that he must “be involved in the appointment, like with Delcy in Venezuela.” The acting president of Venezuela is Delcy Rodríguez, who Trump says is “doing a great job.”

“Harmony and peace,” sure.

Just how this war will turn out remains a huge question, of course. But it is likely that many more people will die and that Trump and his minions will remain just as callous to that as they have been so far.

Despite how the Trumpies see it, this war is no game. Real people are dying. Real uncertainty clouds the future. A bit more reality would be welcome in Washington.