Trump has called Middle East wars ‘crazy’, but the US-Israel war on Iran may be the craziest yet
By Mohamad Elmasry
It is difficult to overstate the extent of US President Donald Trump‘s Iran war misadventure.
Despite Trump’s claims to the contrary, his decision to go to war with Iran has produced an unmitigated disaster.
In one fell swoop, Trump has undermined his own political brand, hardened Iranian resolve, fractured his Maga (Make America Great Again) base, and driven the global economy towards crisis.
Perhaps the most stunning revelation of the past few weeks is that Trump, who has long championed himself as a strong leader with an “America first” political vision, is allowing a small foreign country, Israel, to direct critical aspects of American foreign policy.
Suggestions of Israel’s oversized influence on US politics have previously been dismissed by Republicans as antisemitic conspiracy theories. But the unfolding of the Iran war has made Israeli influence clearer and harder to dismiss.
On the war’s third day, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio let the cat out of the proverbial bag when he confirmed what analysts had already suspected – that Israel pushed America into battle.
The decision to enter into a major offensive war without the approval of the United Nations Security Council or the US Congress was already fraught with problems. But the fact that Trump was effectively forced into the decision by a nation geographically smaller than all but three of America’s 50 states is nothing short of extraordinary.
For Netanyahu, the Iran war was a career-long dream, a war of wars that could propel Israel into regional hegemon status. He has spent decades lobbying US leaders to go to war with Iran on Israel’s behalf.
Trump was the first president to fall for a trick that Netanyahu had tried before: Netanyahu reportedly threatened to attack Iran with or without US involvement, explaining that US assets in the region would come under fire in Iran’s retaliation.
Israel not only drove the decision to go to war in the first place, but appears to be actively dictating war policy.
On 18 March, Israel attacked Iran’s South Pars natural gas field. The attack precipitated a predictable Iranian response on critical Gulf energy infrastructure. The Israeli attack and Iran’s retaliation have caused the global energy market to spiral into crisis.
Oil prices, which had already risen 40 percent since the start of the war, have risen further still since the Israeli attack on South Pars.
Maga fractures
Unsurprisingly, Trump’s decision to follow Netanyahu’s lead has effectively divided his Maga base.
Prominent Maga personalities – including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Megyn Kelly, Matt Walsh, Nick Fuentes, and others – have publicly lambasted Trump’s decision to go to war, something that could jeopardise the midterm elections for the Republicans.
Overall, around 80 percent of Republicans support the war. That is, on the face of it, a respectable support figure. But it is meaningfully less than past major wars launched by Republican presidents. For example, the 1991 Gulf War, launched by Republican George H W Bush, had 89 percent of Republican support; the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, initiated by George W Bush, garnered 96 percent of Republican backing; and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also ordered by George W Bush, achieved 93 percent of Republican support.
In addition to the self-induced Maga crisis that the war decision has produced, Trump is also dealing with image problems that could affect his legacy.
Throughout the war period, Trump and his administration have arguably appeared disorganised, unprepared, and incompetent, offering up at least 10 different, often competing, justifications for the war.
Last week, Trump said, “maybe we shouldn’t even be [in Iran] at all”, drawing backlash from critics already angry over the administration’s apparent lack of an intelligible rationale for war.
On 14 March, after the US hit Iran’s oil-rich Kharg Island, Trump again drew outrage when he suggested that the US might hit the island again “just for fun”.
But messaging has not been the only cause of Trump’s image problem. Since the start of the war, the US president has appeared unprepared, oblivious to the war’s potential consequences, and unaware of what was happening on the ground.
Trump expressed surprise that a war on Iran would precipitate Iranian attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure. On 16 March, he exclaimed: “Nobody expected that. We were shocked [at the attacks on Gulf energy sites].” Trump went on to say that not even the “greatest experts” were able to foresee “that [Iran was] going to hit” the Gulf countries.
But, in the lead-up to war, numerous experts laid out, in precise detail, exactly this risk, and Gulf countries themselves understood it well.
Trump’s lack of understanding of something so basic has added to the perception that he is incompetent.
‘Anti-war candidate’
Compounding Trump’s image problem is the fact that he has long championed himself as a president of peace, often criticising past American presidents for starting unnecessary wars.
For example, when campaigning for president in 2015 and 2016, Trump called the US war on Iraq a “big, fat mistake”, and repeatedly claimed that he had always been opposed to it.
Trump has also called past American wars “stupid” and lamented that the US “spent $8 trillion in the Middle East” instead of “fixing our highways, our tunnels, our bridges, our hospitals… our schools”.
During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump labelled himself as the anti-war candidate.
At an autumn 2024 campaign rally, Trump said that if his opponent, Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, won the election, she “would get us into a World War Three, guaranteed”. Meanwhile, Trump claimed that if he were victorious, he would “stop wars” and bring “peace in the world“.
During a separate 2024 campaign rally in Uniondale, New York, Trump was even more explicit: “We’re not going to have war in the Middle East,” he declared.
At another rally, Trump said: “If I win [the election], I guarantee we will have peace in the world again.” On another occasion, he said, “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”
The current war on Iran is not simply an instance of a politician breaking a campaign promise – rather, it represents a sitting president actively undermining his own image.
Losing ground
Trump has also appeared weak in the face of Iran’s effective shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical lifeline for global shipping.
On 15 March, Trump demanded that Nato allies and China help secure the strait.
After Trump threatened Nato with a “very bad future” if they refused to help, rejections poured in, one by one.
In a rambling address on 17 March, Trump simultaneously lamented the lack of help from the international community and insisted that the US was so powerful that it didn’t “need anybody” to help reopen the strait.
On 21 March, Trump, appearing increasingly desperate, issued an ultimatum to Iran: “If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN … the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 hours, the United States … will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS.”
After Iran signalled defiance and threatened to attack Gulf power plants in response to any American attack on its power infrastructure, Trump was forced to back down.
Although Trump claimed to have communicated with Iranian leaders and made progress towards the resolution of the conflict, Iranian leaders denied Trump’s claims, suggesting that there had been no dialogue with the Americans.
A Times of Israel editorial this week noted that Trump looks “increasingly desperate” to solve a crisis of his own making.
The latest round of desperation follows last week’s news that Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff was ignored by Iran’s foreign minister when he texted him asking for a ceasefire.
The dilemma
Trump’s decision to wage war has clearly backfired. He is now looking for an off-ramp.
The problem, though, is that time is very much on the side of the Iranians, who don’t want to end the war until they have inflicted such a high cost that neither America nor Israel will think about attacking again.
As one expert analyst said last week, “Iran is playing the long game”, saving munitions for the time when Israeli and American interceptors run low and Iranian strikes will be more devastating.
Trump could walk away now, but it is unlikely that many would find his victory declaration convincing – the Iranian regime still stands, likely more hardened now than ever.
If Trump continues much longer, however, he risks letting the quagmire spin further out of control.
The war has already caused far-reaching damage – thousands of casualties, extensive damage to infrastructure, and a deepening economic crisis, among other things – but a protracted war will cause even greater fallout.
When the dust settles, the damage will be widespread.
Gulf countries have already been hit hard, and the road to recovery will be long. Qatar alone has announced $20bn in annual lost revenue following Iran’s strike on the Ras Laffan liquefied natural gas complex, with similar damage reported elsewhere in the Gulf.
Lebanon, too, has been devastated – Hezbollah entered the war on 2 March in defence of Iran, and Israel’s attacks on the country have killed more than 1,000 people, including 118 children, since. Analysts say Israel is using the war as a pretext to make inroads on its “Greater Israel” project, which includes Lebanon.
Additionally, the war has likely made problems it was supposed to solve far worse. Iran’s leadership has almost certainly learned one clear lesson from the war – that it requires stronger deterrence to prevent future attacks. Experts note that Iran may be more motivated than ever to pursue a nuclear weapon once the war ends.
Broader regional consequences are also concerning. Iran’s relations with the Gulf, which had been improving, have been severely damaged, perhaps irrevocably. Moreover, it is unclear how the US will convince Gulf allies that its military presence in the region is a source of security rather than danger.
In the past, Trump said that America’s Middle East wars were “crazy“. The war on Iran may prove the craziest of them all.
