When the 2003 invasion began, the word around the Bush administration was that “real men go to Tehran.” But the Iraq War became such a quagmire so quickly by unleashing sectarian chaos and destruction that plans of expanding the war to its neighbor in Iran were put on hold. Washington had bit off much more than it could chew, and 4,432 American soldiers were killed, with more than 30,000 wounded in action.

But the failure of Iraq did not lead to introspection from the neoconservatives, who put the blame almost entirely on Iran for all that went wrong with the ill-conceived nation-building program in Iraq. Iran remained on the target list and, ironically, was the beneficiary of the elimination of Saddam Hussein’s government. Nevertheless, appetite in Washington for a new war of choice almost entirely evaporated—particularly for one against a nation nearly four times the size of Iraq and with double the population. 

Yet American neoconservatives, along with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, seem to have found a way to put a war with Iran back on the menu, thanks to President Donald Trump. While Trump assembled a foreign policy braintrust dominated by neoconservatives in his first term, he tempered their desire for war with Iran when tensions escalated in both 2019 and 2020. He sang a different tune ahead of his second term, brought antiwar Republicans into his administration, and engaged in two months of negotiations with Iran that showed promise. 

On at least four occasions, Trump appeared to give Netanyahu a hard “no” on striking Iran’s nuclear program while those negotiations proceeded. Yet, at the fateful hour, his red light seems to have shifted to a yellow light, providing Netanyahu—a major Iraq War booster—with the ability to start his own war and create a fait accompli.

Dick Cheney is to George W. Bush as Netanyahu could soon be to Trump: The “America First” president is being led on a string by Israel’s prime minister, with Trump now tilting heavily in the direction of entering the war. 

Subscribe Today

Get daily emails in your inbox

Email Address:

The strikes—despite tactical successes by the Israeli military operation in killing some key Iranian military figures—look to be nothing short of disastrous. Hundreds of Iranian civilians have been killed, and their anger is rising against the military intervention, in contrast to Netanyahu’s appeals to rise up against Iran’s authoritarian leadership. Iran’s nuclear program has been damaged but not wiped out, while Netanyahu seems to gamble that the United States will enter the war and clean up the mess that he started. While strikes can set back Iran’s program, it can’t eliminate it over the medium or long term. Neoconservatives have been clear that they envision repeated strikes that pave the way for a U.S. occupation of Iran, or a new regime-change war. Meanwhile, Iran has struck back with missile strikes in Israel, spreading destruction and death and forcing many Israelis into air bunkers on a nightly basis amid the battery. While Israel has the military edge, Iran has demonstrated its ability to inflict pain—which would be targeted at American soldiers if the U.S. were to enter the war.

The way to avoid this morass—and Trump being shackled with the consequences of Netanyahu’s illegal war of aggression—is Trump telling Netanyahu to stop the war. Yet instead of this, he appears to be preparing to enter on the side of the belligerent. Monday night, he posted on Truth Social that Tehran—home to approximately 10 million people with millions more in the suburbs—should be evacuated. Many residents are simply unable to do so, due to physical realities including wartime limitations on gasoline amid the Israeli bombardment. Moreover, instead of a cessation of bombing, which would open up space for a return to nuclear negotiations, Trump seems to be using the threat of U.S. entry into the war not to leverage a ceasefire, but instead to dictate the terms of Iranian surrender. Given that choice, Iran’s leaders will probably keep fighting and hope it is a bluff—just as Hussein did under threat of war.

Trump should look closely in the mirror and wonder why the reflection looks so much like George W. Bush. He’s even gone so far as to dismiss the assessment of his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who just weeks ago asserted that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon. Prompted by the press on Air Force One, Trump was dismissive, saying, “I don’t care what she said.” The Bush administration was hammered repeatedly for cooking the intelligence on Iraq’s alleged WMD program. Now, Trump has provided a clear historical parallel as a broader war looms.

There was no imminent threat to Israel or the U.S. from Iran when Netanyahu ordered the strikes last week. There still is no imminent threat to the U.S., seemingly, from Iran—which is directing its fire back against Israel and avoiding steps that would trigger America’s entry into the war. What possible benefit can Trump secure by entering this messy war, with uncertain outcome, which is likely to tilt Iran’s political elite hard in the direction of weaponization? This war will have a long trail of consequences, and many, including Trump, are likely to rue the day that the U.S. follows Netanyahu into it.