Trump Railed Against 'Endless Wars' So Why Is He Risking One?

Latest stories China's undersea Great Wall targets US sub supremacy Superintelligence is already here and now Pentagon strong-armed AI firms before Iran strikes Decades of antagonism

This is undoubtedly a war of choice, not necessity. That said, the Trump administration is likely hoping the US can be less involved in the Middle East after this war, if it results in a different Iran.

The sentiment that fuels Trump's antagonism towards NATO allies is the same that is motivating his war against Iran: the US wants to do less overseas.

Such a statement may appear ironic given the administration has undertaken America's largest military attack since the invasion of Iraq 23 years ago. But this is presumably the administration's end game with Iran, risky as it may be.

Half a century ago, Iran was second only to Israel among Middle Eastern countries with close working relationships with the United States. The post-1979 Islamic Republic, however, upended the region's power dynamics. Iran's top foreign policy priorities for decades have been projecting hostility towards the United States and Israel.

In that time, Democratic and Republican administrations alike have labeled Iran the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

For years, Iran has proudly supported Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria, and Shia militant groups in Iraq. Such groups have killed hundreds of Americans and tens of thousands of others across the Middle East. Iranian agents also sought to assassinate Trump and other senior US officials.

Iran and its proxy groups have cost successive American administrations – both Democratic and Republican – enormous political capital and resources for decades.

It should also be said the vast majority of Iranians are against the regime and have never felt more optimistic about a brighter future since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

Limiting factors moving forward

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has tried to distinguish the Iran war from the“forever wars” of the past, saying,“This is not Iraq, this is not endless.”

The administration is likely aware of other key differences, too. Compared to George W. Bush's war against Iraq in 2003, Trump has lackluster support for the Iran strikes.

Democratic lawmakers have called the attack both unconstitutional and against international law. Only 55% of Republicans support the attack, despite the fact Trump himself enjoys an approval rating among members of his party of around 80%.

The Trump administration hasn't helped itself with its incoherent messaging, either. It has used a number of justifications for the strikes, including stopping an imminent Iranian attack, destroying Iran's ballistic missiles, preventing it from acquiring nuclear weapons, cutting off support for its proxy militant groups and regime change.

Most recently, the administration said it had to join Israel's offensive against Iran because it was going to be drawn in by Iran's response anyway. And Trump refused to rule out boots on the ground in Iran.

These conflicting messages don't help sell the operation to a wary public, particularly one that is far more concerned about the economy than the Middle East. After all, the last time a foreign policy issue played a significant factor in a US election was arguably more than 20 years ago.

So, why engage in such an expensive and risky endeavour that even his own base doesn't fully support?