In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson attempted to justify the Vietnam War, claiming it aimed to ensure ‘every country can shape its own destiny’ to secure US freedom. Yet, even then, he conceded that ‘force must often precede reason,’ acknowledging the inherent flaws in such imperialistic endeavors. This ‘moral mission’ has become a recurring, hollow justification for successive US presidents embarking on wars, often with devastating consequences. Driven by a misplaced belief in limitless military superiority and self-proclaimed noble intentions, US presidents have consistently been drawn into conflicts, only to find themselves entangled, confounded, and ultimately defeated by opponents they gravely underestimated. Ironically, it was once believed that Donald Trump, who campaigned against ‘endless wars’ disconnected from his supporters’ lives and who seemingly understood that military power does not equate to victory, would avoid such a fate. However, Trump’s ‘little excursion to Iran,’ as evidenced by circulating peace agreement drafts, is widely seen as a resounding defeat. Regardless of the outcome – likely a return to the pre-conflict status quo – this war stands as a testament to confused objectives, poor planning, and fundamentally flawed assumptions. While the current conflict may not match the sheer scale of the Vietnam War, which lasted years and claimed 58,220 US soldiers, its consequences for the global superpower could be far more profound. Indeed, this ‘excursion’ may well mark a greater geopolitical turning point for the United States, forcing it to confront its failure not just in battle planning, but in its fundamental grand strategy for an interconnected world. Trump’s belief that progress comes through conflict, not cooperation, has been thoroughly debunked. The specter of Vietnam has always haunted Trump, not merely due to his draft dodging, but because his political rise is, in many ways, a product of that era’s disillusionment. As Harvard Professor Fredrik Logevall notes, many of America’s current woes – alienation, mistrust of government, and a breakdown of civic institutions – are rooted in the Vietnam War. Logevall argues that Americans transitioned from naivety to a corrosive cynicism post-Vietnam, a cynicism that now alienates them from their government and threatens the very fabric of their democracy. It was within this deeply polarized political landscape that Trump found his footing. Domestically, the Iran conflict may not mirror Vietnam’s societal upheaval, with only 13 tragic casualties. While unpopular from its inception, its primary domestic fallout might be limited to midterm electoral punishment for an already unpopular president due to energy price inflation. However, the international repercussions of the Iran war are poised to be far more enduring. Unlike the fall of Saigon in 1975, which failed to trigger the feared ‘domino effect’ across Southeast Asia, Trump’s war of choice signals a defeat with widespread global implications. This war, initiated by Trump, is a clear signal of defeat, destined to reshape multiple geopolitical landscapes. Crucially, it signifies the utter collapse of Israel’s two-decade-long strategy for regime change in Iran, accelerating the already rapid decline of the Israeli government’s influence in Washington. Even former Israeli military intelligence head Danny Citrinowicz describes the war as an ‘operational success but a strategic fiasco’ for Israel. The conflict is compelling Gulf monarchies to fundamentally reassess their geopolitical alliances, questioning whether US military bases truly provide the security necessary for their economic diversification. While some might dismiss the new Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei’s assertion that support for US bases is irrevocably lost, Trump’s claims of Saudi Arabia or Qatar normalizing relations with Israel or joining the Abraham Accords now appear utterly absurd – ‘delusional as a moon made of green cheese,’ as former US ambassador Dan Shapiro put it. The Gulf states, recognizing the futility of continued conflict, now prioritize an ‘imperfect peace,’ seeing no other viable path forward, as noted by former US undersecretary for the Middle East, Barbara Leaf. The conflict unequivocally confirmed the transformative role of inexpensive drones as a great equalizer in modern warfare – a lesson Iran absorbed from the Ukraine conflict far more effectively than the Pentagon. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s promises of ‘death and destruction from the sky,’ with 13,000 targets hit in the first month, yielded no victory, only an alarming depletion of US missile stockpiles and treasury funds. The fallout is poised to severely impact Europe. As global economic pressures squeeze living standards, centrist governments in France, Germany, and the UK face potential electoral defeats that could further destabilize the EU. This challenge will be exacerbated if Trump follows through on his threat to withdraw US troops from NATO states, punishing them for their perceived ‘cowardice’ in not supporting his ill-fated venture. For the US foreign policy establishment, including the Council on Foreign Relations, the missteps in Iran serve as definitive proof that Trump’s highly personalized, predatory diplomacy only breeds greater global disorder. The CFR has initiated a fundamental review of US strategy post-Trump, with convener Rebecca Lissner warning that the war ‘has delivered a potentially fatal blow to a US-led international order that was already on life support.’ Allies are now hedging, middle powers are forging independent coalitions, and regions once under Washington’s sway are gravitating towards new power centers. Former State Department official Mira Rapp-Hooper starkly labeled it ‘superpower suicide.’ In the short term, the Iran war has forced Democrats to confront two critical, already answered questions: Has US interest truly been served by its unwavering proximity to Israel and its leadership? And would the US not be more powerful by returning to alliances founded on shared values and international law, rather than narrow self-interest? For Iran, despite facing economic challenges, the war has paradoxically strengthened its resolve. While Tehran may still need to make concessions on its nuclear program, the conflict has undeniably bolstered its position. Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group asserts that the war has granted Iran three significant advantages: ideological revitalization, the discrediting of foreign military intervention within the country, and the restoration of its deterrence strategy. The US deployed its ultimate deterrent – war – and it failed. In the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has recognized the immense strategic asset provided by its geography and globalization, an asset that will take years of new infrastructure to diminish. Unsurprisingly, the global condemnation of Trump’s war is so universal that he agonizes over signing a document that essentially returns him to square one, at a staggering cost of $50 billion. His predicament echoes Johnson’s 1965 lament to Lady Bird: ‘I have the choice to go in with great casualty lists or to get out with disgrace. It’s like being in an airplane and I have to choose between crashing the plane or jumping out. I do not have a parachute.’ According to Gideon Rose of the CFR, writing in Foreign Affairs, Trump has rapidly cycled through the stages of grief that Vietnam inflicted. He first mirrored Johnson’s Vietnam narrative of ‘entry, escalation, frustrated stalemate, and negotiations,’ before adopting the Nixon-Kissinger tactic of ‘blustery threats, followed by gradual realization of the need to extricate via an unsatisfying fudged deal.’ Trump’s repeated threats to ‘blow countries up’ bear an unsettling resemblance to Richard Nixon’s ‘Madman Theory,’ a strategy of calculated irrationality that ultimately failed. Nixon, as recounted by HR Haldeman, believed his ‘Madman Theory’ could force North Vietnam to the negotiating table. He wanted them to think he was capable of anything, even using nuclear weapons, to end the war. This desperate tactic, however, proved ineffective. Trump, like Kissinger before him, harbored the arrogant belief that nations like Iran and Vietnam could not resist indefinitely. Kissinger’s 1969 dismissal of North Vietnam as a ‘little fourth-rate power’ with no ‘breaking point,’ and his consideration of nuclear options, underscore the profound misjudgment inherent in such imperialistic thinking. Just as with Vietnam, Iran demonstrated its unwavering resilience. After surviving the chaos of leadership assassinations, including the loss of its Supreme Leader, the Iranian nation proved it had no ‘breaking point.’ Indeed, resistance is deeply embedded in Iranian national culture. Trump’s misguided fixation on imposing a ‘Venezuela model’ by seeking an internal replacement, rather than a broader insurrection, further aided Iran’s leadership. It now appears Israel genuinely envisioned former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad taking power, preferring him over the exiled Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi – a testament to the desperation and miscalculation of the regime change advocates. Trump’s expectation of a swift regime collapse and a self-explanatory victory proved utterly false. When this failed to materialize, he scrambled for justifications, delaying a TV address until April 2nd. By then, a significant portion of his audience, impacted by soaring gasoline prices, had already lost faith. In contrast, Johnson, despite his flawed justifications, at least felt compelled to explain the deployment of US servicemen and unite the country. He even renounced the presidency when he perceived himself as an obstacle to national healing. Trump’s fallback narrative – that Iran must never possess a nuclear weapon – was riddled with contradictions. Iran had already agreed to this in the 2015 deal, from which Trump unilaterally withdrew. Furthermore, his claims of having ‘completely and totally obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear capabilities during the brief June 2025 war were swiftly debunked by experts, including former EU negotiator Federica Mogherini, who affirmed ‘there was no evidence that Tehran posed an imminent nuclear threat or that diplomacy had been ineffective.’ Mogherini concluded that the war was ‘illegal and reckless from the very first day.’ Analysts had correctly predicted that such a conflict would empower Iran’s most conservative elements, destabilize the region, and send global energy prices soaring – predictions that largely proved accurate, to the detriment of US interests. Exasperated White House briefers increasingly pointed to Benjamin Netanyahu’s role in pushing Trump towards war. While the Israeli prime minister denied forcing Trump’s hand, admitting they ‘jointly weighed the risks,’ his concession that ‘the problem of the Hormuz strait became understood as the war went on’ reveals a shocking lack of foresight regarding a critical geopolitical choke point. This was an astonishing admission, especially considering that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is a commonplace doomsday scenario, a standard question in International Energy Agency job interviews. Yet, the US was forced to improvise a response, highlighting its profound unpreparedness. Few in the Pentagon anticipated Iran’s strategic ingenuity in employing ‘triangular coercion,’ targeting Gulf state oil and gas facilities, alongside exposed US bases, effectively leveraging regional vulnerabilities. This tactic, where a coercer lacking direct leverage over a resilient target manipulates a third party with leverage into a clash of interests, proved highly effective for Iran. In essence, while the war may not have directly swayed the US, it significantly impacted those who could. It was the alliance of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, and Pakistan that ultimately prevented Trump’s return to conflict. These regional powers are now poised to hold the reins in the Middle East, and their independent relationships forged with Iran, rather than subservience to US dictates, will define the future of the region.
#IranWar #USForeignPolicy #GeopoliticalShift #VietnamSyndrome #TrumpLegacy #MiddleEast #DeterrenceFailure #RegionalPower #IsraelStrategy #GlobalOrder
