Can Donald Trump Win a War with Iran If He Can’t Explain Why He Started It?

United States - Ekhbary News Agency

The Unclear War: Does the US Have a Strategy for Victory Against Iran?

In the two and a half days since Donald Trump initiated a new war in the Middle East, the President and his administration have presented an astonishingly diverse, and often contradictory, set of rationales for the American military strike on Iran. These justifications, as meticulously counted and analyzed, have included outright regime change, offering assistance to the oppressed peoples of the Islamic Republic, stripping Iran of its ability to project power beyond its borders, thwarting future Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks while simultaneously avenging past ones, and executing pre-emptive actions against imminent threats to U.S. forces. Furthermore, justifications have extended to pre-empting Iran's development of ballistic missiles capable of reaching the U.S. mainland and halting its nuclear program, a program President Trump himself had, as recently as the preceding week, declared "obliterated." Many of these explanations appear to be founded on questionable premises, with some already seemingly abandoned.

This bewildering inconsistency raises perhaps the most urgent question concerning the most significant military action undertaken by the United States since the 2003 invasion of Iraq: Can the U.S. achieve victory in a war of its choosing when it cannot articulate a clear reason for its initiation or define what, precisely, constitutes victory? The ambiguity surrounding the war's objectives risks undermining any potential for success and strategic clarity.

President Trump himself has been the primary architect of much of this confusion. In an eight-minute video released shortly after the strikes commenced, the President vaguely alluded to "imminent threats" while simultaneously recounting a long list of grievances concerning Iran's decades-old campaign of terror against the U.S. and its allies. His call for regime change was explicit, though the extent of American support for such an endeavor remained notably ambiguous. He addressed Iranians, stating, "the hour of your freedom is at hand" and "now you have a President who is giving you what you want," urging them to help overthrow "this very wicked, radical dictatorship."

However, in several rapid phone interviews conducted over the weekend with various news outlets, President Trump presented a divergent vision for victory. He suggested to The New York Times that the "perfect scenario" would mirror his recent intervention in Venezuela. In that instance, after seeking to remove Nicolás Maduro from power, the U.S. subsequently abandoned its long-standing support for the democratic opposition and endorsed Maduro's Vice-President to govern the country. Regarding the prospect of Iranians choosing their own ruler, the democratically elected U.S. President appeared to dismiss this possibility, seemingly announcing that he alone would determine the next leader of Iran.

On Monday morning, the Pentagon leadership convened its first press conference since the commencement of the attacks. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed the growing concerns regarding U.S. objectives, stating that the goal of "Operation Epic Fury" was to "destroy" Iran's Navy, its missile capabilities, and its nuclear ambitions. "This is not a so-called regime-change war," he insisted, paradoxically adding, "but the regime did change." This statement, like much of the communication from the Trump administration, was both confusing and misleading. While Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was reportedly killed in the initial wave of strikes, his repressive government, at least for the time being, remains in power. Secretary of State Marco Rubio did little to clarify matters, announcing hours later that the operation's focus was the "destruction of their ballistic-missile capabilities," with regime change downgraded to a "hope" rather than a defined "objective."

During his first public remarks on the military campaign at the White House on Monday, the President conspicuously omitted any mention of regime change, aspirational or otherwise. He also failed to acknowledge the protesters whom he had recently encouraged to rise up against their leaders. Crucially, he did not discuss the foreseeable consequences of the war, such as oil price spikes or potential terrorist reprisals within the U.S. Furthermore, he did not mention America's key ally in the region, Israel, nor did he acknowledge the conflict's rapid escalation. Iran has already launched retaliatory strikes against Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, marking this as the most geographically extensive war in the Middle East in decades.

From President Trump's brief, blustering remarks, one would be unaware of this dramatic regional spread. He offered no evidence beyond assertion to support his claim that Iran posed an "intolerable threat" to the region and the American people. He also failed to explain why he initiated this war without congressional authorization or a more concerted effort to gain public approval, which, according to post-strike polls, does not favor his actions. Perhaps most remarkably, given his years-long promises to his supporters of "no new wars" and an end to U.S. military entanglement in the Middle East, he did not address his stark reversal from a "war-hater" to a "warmonger."

He did, however, pledge intense focus on defeating Iran for as long as necessary, even if it extended "far longer" than the four to five weeks he initially estimated. "I don't get bored," he insisted, "There's nothing boring about this." Yet, merely forty-six seconds later, he transitioned to discussing the "very, very beautiful" new White House ballroom he is constructing, which he believes will be "the most beautiful ballroom anywhere in the world." This pivot from matters of war and international security to personal architectural projects represents a striking lack of political tone-deafness, a phenomenon rarely seen in presidential addresses.

The article concludes by referencing an observation by Robert Satloff, executive director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Satloff noted that by presenting a "Chinese menu of possible objectives," Trump strategically leaves himself the flexibility to claim victory regardless of the actual outcome. "It will be what Trump says in retrospect was the objective," Satloff observed. This approach raises profound questions about strategic intent and the very definition of success in modern warfare, particularly when articulated by a leader whose justifications appear to shift with the political winds.

Ekhbary News Agency