When Donald Trump ran for a second term, he promised to be a “president of peace” and claimed he would end foreign wars rather than start new ones. However, as the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks approaches, he is now involved in a conflict with Iran that some analysts say might become a long-term engagement, similar to past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
According to experts, Trump’s conflict with Iran raises concerns about whether the U.S. has learned from its past mistakes or has a clear plan for exiting the situation. Analysts like Sina Toossi from the Center for International Policy point out that Trump has broken a key restraint in Washington against starting major wars in the Middle East, potentially leaving subsequent leaders with a complicated relationship with Iran.
Trump’s administration insists that this conflict is different from earlier wars, where the U.S. committed ground troops, took over territories, and faced heavy military casualties. In contrast, the current strategy relies mainly on air and naval forces, aiming to weaken Iran economically and militarily without directly overthrowing its government. Even after several months of fighting marked by intermittent hostilities, such as attacks on oil tankers, the U.S. finds itself engaged in a conflict characterized by slow attrition and increasing economic pressure, especially on gasoline prices.
As the midterm elections approach, opposition to the war might impact Trump’s party’s chances. The war is affecting U.S. consumer prices and reducing Trump’s approval ratings, as well as harming America’s global reputation, similar to what happened during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Despite this, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly claims that Trump’s actions have successfully confronted Iran’s nuclear ambitions and that the nation’s economy is suffering under heightened sanctions.
Experts argue that Trump has ignored crucial lessons from the post-9/11 era, particularly the political risks associated with prolonged conflicts. The response to the 9/11 attacks ignited years of military engagement, beginning in Afghanistan and later Iraq, often based on wrong assumptions about threats. This has led to a backlash against the U.S. and contributed to Trump’s rise, as he promised to keep military interventions at bay while focusing on domestic issues.
There are fears that Trump is miscalculating Iran’s resilience, just as previous administrations underestimated the challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan. His military actions, including “Operation Epic Fury,” are viewed by critics as a choice rather than a necessary action, without the urgent motivation from events like 9/11.
Iran’s capabilities have drawn comparisons to the Taliban, suggesting that a focused opponent can endure U.S. military might while domestic pressures might weaken the American resolve. Trump’s war has also exposed the downsides of engaging without broad international support, unlike the earlier wars which had stronger international coalitions.
In the Gulf region, there is concern that the U.S. may be repeating previous errors. Local officials express frustration over the conflict, emphasizing the lack of a clear strategy. While the early Iraq and Afghan wars initially had public backing, Trump’s conflict with Iran has faced significant opposition from the onset and has attracted criticism even from his base.
Despite difficulties, some defend Trump’s actions, claiming he is engaged in a long-standing struggle against Iran. They argue that successes could still lead to favorable outcomes, insisting that the U.S. is finally responding to decades of hostility from Iran.
With information from Reuters
