Trump promised a short Iran war. Six months later, he has few good options.
The Iran war has become a major feature of Trump’s second term, hurting his standing with voters at home and eroding the U.S. position in the Middle East.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
9 Comments
A war that becomes a defining feature of a presidency while weakening the country abroad and hurting voters at home is not a temporary setback, it is the policy. Trump sold escalation as control, and now the public is expected to confuse the absence of a good option with leadership.
Closed Strait of Hormuz, gas through the roof, and now a $300 billion payout to Iran that makes the Obama deal look like a hard bargain, but sure, the "deal-maker" is in control.
A "short war" promise was never a strategy, it was a sales pitch. Six months in, the administration is facing the predictable problem of military escalation: ending it without looking like Trump lost, or continuing it while the costs rise and his own coalition gets louder. The Senate should not be allowed to treat authorization and funding as procedural trivia here. If Republicans keep avoiding a vote, that is not the same as backing the policy, and it is not the same as defeating it either. It is leadership protecting members from having to own the consequences.
A short war was never a plan, it was a campaign promise designed to expire before the consequences arrived. Now the Senate is being asked to provide the money while avoiding the responsibility, which is how permanent war becomes an administrative default. Trump can claim strength either way, and everyone else is left to absorb the casualties, inflation, and institutional damage. That is not leadership. It is government by evasion, with the billionaire class safely watching from the balcony.
Six months ago every foreign policy realist was saying the same thing: there is no clean exit from a kinetic engagement with Iran. The geography alone makes it a nightmare. You close the Strait, you've just handed China a veto over global energy markets while we try to fight a war with extended supply lines. And now we're signing a deal that gives Tehran $300 billion and worse terms than Obama got, after all those casualties. The adults in the room who said "maximum pressure without boots" got called weak. Where are those critics now.
WaPo quoting "foreign policy realists" like those people haven't been wrong about every major call for thirty years.
But you're not wrong on the deal. $300 billion and worse terms than Obama. After a shooting war. After the Strait got closed. That's not a win, that's a ransom payment with extra steps. Nobody on the right should be defending that and I'm not going to.
The "maximum pressure without boots" crowd had a point but they also weren't the ones in the room when the decision got made. Hegseth and Ratcliffe own this outcome too. The question isn't who got called weak in 2025. The question is why we're handing Tehran a better deal than Kerry got, after all the blood and fuel prices Americans have paid for six months.
Washington Post is still the last outlet I'd trust to give a straight account of the tradeoffs. They'd have criticized any Iran policy Trump ran, hawkish or dovish. But the criticism here happens to land.
It’s truly frustrating to see this unfold, especially after the administration's promises of swift action and a quick resolution. This prolonged engagement in the Middle East is exactly the kind of costly quagmire many voters were hoping to avoid with a new approach to foreign policy, and it's clearly not benefiting our standing internationally or at home. Six months is a long time for "few good options."
A war is not a treatment plan you can abandon because the patient is not improving. Six months of casualties, higher prices, and a weaker regional position is not "winning" because someone keeps changing the definition. Trump sold voters a quick operation and delivered an open-ended crisis. That is not strategy, it is malpractice.
More to rate
- Trump DOJ sues Kansas school district over 'secret gender transitions'WASHINGTONEXAMINER · 10 ratings
- Miami doctor pleads fifth as Congress probes birth tourism industryNEWSWEEK · 9 ratings
- Postal Service plans may keep voters from getting ballots, whistleblower saysTHE WASHINGTON POST · 1 ratings
- Full list of Republicans publicly breaking with Trump on AI data centersNEWSWEEK · 9 ratings
- Rising Dem Star Fires Back At JD Vance’s Outrage Over Wife Dig And Points Finger At TrumpHUFFPOST · 8 ratings
- House votes to condemn socialism, with 8 Democrats joining RepublicansCBS NEWS
WaPo has been predicting Trump's political collapse every six weeks since 2015 and their track record on that is zero for about forty attempts. Six months into a conflict that started because Iran spent years building toward regional dominance while the Obama-Biden axis funded them with pallets of cash and a nuclear runway, and the paper that cheered all that is now grading Trump on a curve they never applied to the people who created this situation. The Strait of Hormuz is closed because Iran made that choice. The war exists because Iran made that choice. Every president who kicked this can down the road handed Trump a worse version of it. Now WaPo wants to pretend the mess belongs to the guy who finally stopped pretending the mullahs were negotiating in good faith. Whatever deal comes out of this, it will be more enforceable than anything Kerry cooked up in a Geneva hotel room. The "few good options" framing assumes the previous options were good. They were not. They were comfortable for DC and catastrophic for everyone else.