trumps iran campaign
|

Trump’s Iran campaign echoes the post-9/11 ‘forever wars’

WASHINGTON, USA – When Donald Trump campaigned for a second term in the White House, he promised to be a “president of peace” who would stop foreign wars, not start them.

Now, a quarter-century after the September 11, 2001, attacks that triggered America’s global “war on terror,” he is entangled in an unpopular conflict of his own making that analysts say risks becoming his version of a “forever war.”

With the 9/11 anniversary at hand, Trump’s war against Iran is drawing comparisons in foreign policy circles to the long, divisive conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq that preceded it.

It is also prompting questions about whether the US has again failed to learn the lessons of past conflicts or prepare a clear exit strategy.

“Trump has broken an important post-Iraq and Afghanistan constraint in Washington against launching another major, open-ended war in the Middle East,” said Sina Toossi of the Center for International Policy, a Washington think tank. “That could leave his successor inheriting … an entrenched US-Iran confrontation.”

Administration officials have said the war against Iran is nothing like the protracted post-9/11 engagements.
During the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US removed hostile governments, committed thousands of ground troops who took and held territory, suffered and inflicted much higher casualties and struggled to instill Western-style governance.

This time, the US is relying mainly on air and naval power, operations that have damaged Iran militarily and economically but have not defeated it or spurred Iranians to overthrow their rulers as Trump initially urged.

But after six months of war, the United States is mired in a battle of attrition punctuated by bursts of hostilities – exemplified by this week’s exchange of attacks on oil tankers – while Trump tries to tighten the economic noose around Tehran.

Analysts warn it is likely to drag on well past the US midterm elections in November, when voters’ opposition to the war could threaten Trump’s Republican Party’s chances of keeping control of Congress.

And, much like those earlier conflicts, there is no obvious exit even as the economic costs weigh on US consumers.

Tehran’s disruption of oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz has pushed US gasoline prices higher. The war has weakened Trump’s approval ratings and undermined Washington’s international standing, which was also one of the repercussions from the Iraq and Afghan wars.

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said Trump alone had “possessed the courage” to confront Iran over its nuclear program, that he had achieved all of his objectives and Iran’s economy was being crippled by stepped-up sanctions and a US maritime blockade.

She did not respond directly to Reuters’ questions on how the Iran conflict fits into America’s legacy of post-9/11 wars.

Lessons ignored?

Analysts say Trump has failed to heed the central lessons of the post-9/11 era, which began after al Qaeda militants crashed planes into New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon outside Washington, killing nearly 3,000 people.

Those include the steep political downsides of long wars and the dangers posed by an entrenched foe fighting for its survival.

The attacks led to decades of conflict, starting with the invasion of Afghanistan, where al Qaeda leaders were sheltering, and followed by the 2003 invasion of Iraq, based on what turned out to be faulty intelligence that it was developing weapons of mass destruction.

The twin wars undertaken by President George W. Bush overstretched the US military and destabilized the Middle East.

The resulting US public backlash helped fuel Trump’s rise a decade ago, and he won a second term in 2024 vowing to avoid military adventurism and focus on Americans’ economic concerns.

But similar to how the Bush administration underestimated the insurgencies the US would face in Iraq and Afghanistan, Trump and his aides have miscalculated Iran’s resiliency and ability to throttle a fifth of the world’s energy shipments, analysts say.

Notably, Trump’s “Operation Epic Fury” launched alongside Israel on February 28 was not precipitated by a 9/11-type national trauma but was deemed by critics to be a war of choice.

Experts have disputed Trump’s claims that Tehran’s nuclear program posed an imminent threat to the US.

Iran may be taking a page from Afghanistan’s Taliban, who returned to power five years ago after a chaotic US withdrawal, that a determined foe can outlast Washington’s superior firepower while domestic pressure erodes its resolve.

The Iran conflict has also illustrated the cost of going to war with few allies on board.

Bush secured significant international support before launching his Iraq and Afghan campaigns, though that backing waned over time.

By contrast, Trump attacked Iran with little prior consultation or explanation and has found European and Asian leaders mostly resistant to his demands for assistance.

Relations with Trump had already been strained by his threat to seize Greenland, his questioning of NATO’s utility, his reduction of weapons supplies to Ukraine and his sweeping tariffs on trade partners.

High cost for allies

The conflict has also mirrored the Iraq invasion in terms of a regional spillover that seemed to catch Washington off-guard, in this case Tehran’s retaliation against US Gulf allies.

With Iran’s neighbors quietly seeking to de-escalate a conflict they never wanted, a Gulf official lamented that the administration might be making some of the same errors of the post-9/11 wars.

“What was the (US) strategy here?” asked the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Saudi analyst Aziz Alghashian described “a sense of limitation and helplessness in the Gulf about the wars that are taking place due to the whims of the United States.”

The war’s shockwaves expanded on Thursday, September 10, with Yemeni government military sources saying Iran-aligned Houthis had seized control of the Yemeni port city of Mocha and gained further leverage over an important Red Sea oil-shipping route.

While the Iraq and Afghan wars ended as unpopular conflicts, both started with solid support at home.

Trump’s war enjoyed no such honeymoon in public opinion.

Most Americans were against it from the outset, and he has even drawn criticism from prominent figures associated with his “America First” movement.

Trump had initially expected to replicate his quick win from a January 3 raid that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.

But the Iran campaign instead has hardened into an uneasy stalemate that has not achieved most of Trump’s shifting objectives, including shutting down its nuclear program, and has depleted the Pentagon’s missile stockpiles.

Still, Trump is not without defenders.
Mark Dubowitz, head of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think tank that takes a hard line against Iran’s rulers, denied Trump had plunged the US into an endless war and insisted he had scored successes that would eventually bring victory.

“It’s been a 47-year war waged by the Islamic Republic against America,” Dubowitz said. “And now we’ve struck back.” – Rappler.com

Similar Posts

  • |

    North Korean hackers develop AI tools for cyberattacks

    SEOUL: A North Korean-linked hacking group has reportedly expanded its use of artificial intelligence to strengthen cyberattacks, automate operations and analyse stolen data. The group, identified as Kimsuky, has developed and collected a range of AI-related tools that could help its operators conduct attacks more efficiently, according to a South Korean cybersecurity company. The company said it discovered infrastructure linked to Kimsuky containing several programs designed to run and manage artificial intelligence models locally. These included Ollama, GPT4All and Msty. The hackers also appeared to be using retrieval-augmented generation technology. The system can help AI models search and process large collections of documents. Researchers said the use of locally operated AI models could allow the group to analyse sensitive information without sending data to external AI services. This could give hackers greater control over stolen material and reduce their reliance on third-party platforms. The investigation also uncovered AI agent development frameworks, speech-to-text software and an AI-assisted coding tool called Cursor. According to the cybersecurity firm, the findings indicate that Kimsuky may be moving beyond the simple use of generative AI for creating phishing messages. The group could now be seeking to integrate existing AI models into different stages of its cyber operations. These may include malware development, stolen-data analysis and attack automation. Researchers also identified documents related to finance and cryptocurrency on the infrastructure. Some of the files appeared to have been generated using artificial intelligence. The documents were designed to look like legitimate investment reports and other professional workplace material. Such files could potentially be used as decoys or to make malicious campaigns appear more credible. The findings have not been independently verified. However, cybersecurity researchers and government agencies have repeatedly linked North Korean state-backed groups to international cyber operations. North Korean cyber units have been accused of conducting espionage campaigns, stealing money and targeting cryptocurrency-related assets. Authorities in the United States and South Korea have previously warned about the activities of such groups. Kimsuky has long been associated with cyber-espionage operations targeting governments, organisations and individuals. The group has also been accused of gathering intelligence to support North Korea’s strategic interests. The latest findings point to a growing role for artificial intelligence in cyber operations. Security researchers have warned that AI tools can make phishing campaigns more convincing and help attackers process information and develop malicious software more quickly.

  • | | |

    Israel strikes southern Lebanon, Hezbollah Command…

    BEIRUT: A fragile ceasefire in southern Lebanon is facing another major test after Israeli strikes killed at least 11 people, including civilians, according to Lebanese officials and international media reports. Israel said the attacks targeted Hezbollah positions and claimed to have killed a senior commander. The Israeli military said it had targeted Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon and claimed that a Hezbollah commander, identified in reports as Abu Hassan, was killed. Israeli officials have described the strikes as a response to Hezbollah activity in the area. Lebanese officials, however, said civilians were among those killed in the attacks. Reports said three children and two women were among the victims, while several others were wounded. One of the strikes reportedly hit a home in the village of Ansar, where members of the same family were killed. The latest violence comes despite a ceasefire intended to prevent a renewed escalation between Israel and Hezbollah. The continued strikes have raised fresh fears that the fragile truce could unravel. Lebanon’s leadership has condemned the attacks, warning that continued military action could undermine efforts to restore stability along the border. The escalation also comes amid unresolved disputes over Hezbollah’s weapons and Israel’s military presence in southern Lebanon. With tensions still high, residents in affected communities remain fearful that another cycle of violence could begin.

  • | | | | | |

    Trump orders one-day pause in Iran strikes as talks continue

    US President Donald Trump has reportedly ordered a one-day halt to military strikes against Iran, temporarily interrupting a nearly two-week-long series of attacks, according to reports from US media outlets. The pause comes as uncertainty remains over whether the decision represents a temporary break in operations or the beginning of a broader ceasefire process. Reports suggest that the US military had been preparing for possible further strikes against Iran, but Trump has not yet approved any new major offensive. According to US media reports, military plans for continued operations were presented to the president, but Trump instructed officials not to proceed with attacks on that day. The decision marked a significant shift after a period of repeated strikes targeting Iranian positions. Trump later told reporters that the United States still had the option to continue military action and increase the intensity of attacks if necessary. However, he indicated that pursuing a diplomatic solution could be a more effective strategy. “The smart strategy is to make a deal,” Trump was reported as saying, adding that Iran appeared to be becoming more serious about discussions while the US remained prepared for possible military action. The reported pause came as an Omani delegation arrived in Iran for discussions aimed at addressing regional tensions and negotiating a possible agreement related to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Officials suggested that a deal between Iran and Oman could potentially be reached during the weekend, after which the final decision would depend on Washington. Meanwhile, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed that Iranian forces had destroyed several US military aircraft and drones during attacks on American bases. The group claimed that 17 drones, an F-15 fighter jet, a P-8 aircraft, a C-17 transport aircraft, and eight refueling planes were destroyed. The claims from both sides have not been independently verified, and officials have continued to provide competing accounts of the military developments. The situation remains highly sensitive as regional tensions continue, with diplomatic efforts taking place alongside military preparations. The coming days are expected to determine whether the temporary pause leads to broader negotiations or whether hostilities resume.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *