President Donald Trump has taken a mixed but generally hardline stance on U.S. policy toward Iran. While he has shown some openness to negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program, his administration continues to set maximalist demands. The U.S. has even imposed a two-month deadline for a deal, coupled with a belligerent approach towards Iran’s allies in Yemen. Trump has warned that Iran will be held responsible for any attacks by the Houthis, leading to new U.S. airstrikes in Yemen.
Several Republican hardliners, including Senators Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz, have long supported the use of force against Iran. Cruz has openly called for regime change, while Cotton has downplayed concerns about a prolonged conflict, suggesting a limited air campaign akin to Operation Desert Fox in 1998. Trump himself has echoed this sentiment, predicting a swift victory using U.S. airpower without ground troops. Cotton has even claimed that the war would be over in just two airstrikes.
Overconfidence in War Repeating Costly Mistakes from Vietnam to Iraq to Iran
Such confidence is reminiscent of past miscalculations in U.S. military history. Before the Iraq War, officials predicted an easy victory, but over 4,000 American soldiers died, and the U.S. remains entangled in Middle Eastern conflicts decades later. Similar overconfidence led to disastrous consequences in Vietnam, where officials underestimated the war’s complexity and costs. Trump’s administration risks repeating these mistakes by assuming a quick and decisive victory over Iran.
Trump’s Iran Strategy Risks Repeating Costly U.S. War MiscalculationsInitially, some of Trump’s advisors, like Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, warned against reckless military actions. Gabbard previously criticized the idea of war with Iran, arguing that it would be far worse than Iraq. However, her recent support for military action against the Houthis raises concerns about a shift in her stance. This change in tone could indicate increasing pressure within the administration to take a more aggressive approach.
The Costly Illusion of Quick Wars: Lessons from History and Present Risks
History is filled with examples of leaders underestimating the duration and cost of wars. In 1861, spectators expected the Battle of Manassas to be a quick Union victory, only for the Civil War to last four years with over 600,000 deaths. Similarly, European leaders believed World War I would be over by Christmas of 1914, but it dragged on for four years, claiming millions of lives. The pattern of overconfidence leading to prolonged conflicts has repeated itself in multiple wars, including Vietnam and Iraq.
A war with Iran would likely be far from a “cakewalk.” Iran’s regional allies, including the Houthis and Shiite militias in Iraq, could disrupt U.S. operations and global trade. Iran itself has substantial military capabilities, including the potential to block the Strait of Hormuz, causing severe economic repercussions. Additionally, Iran’s advancements in drone technology, which have been effectively used by Russia in Ukraine, further complicate the risks of military engagement.
Attacking Iran under the assumption of an easy victory would be a reckless gamble. The consequences could lead to another prolonged and costly war in the Middle East. The Trump administration should reconsider its aggressive stance and avoid repeating the mistakes of past conflicts that were based on misplaced confidence and strategic miscalculations.