Did Trump Just Make a Historic Mistake?

The strikes on Iran might look strong, but they could backfire in ways we’re not prepared for. This article unpacks why the rewards don’t outweigh the risks

Last night, President Trump pulled the trigger and the U.S. military directly took out three sites in Iran that were the site of their nuclear program. The provocative action was the attempt to fulfill one of the vows Trump made ten years ago when he first came down the escalator to run for president and has repeated since—that Iran could not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

The actions ordered last night might be in line with what Trump has previously said about Iran, but they are no less a mistake. While we should always wait for more information and be willing to adjust our thinking as appropriate, sitting here this morning I see this as a move that flirts with disaster for minimal potential gain, and can in no way, shape or form be morally justified.

The reason Trump’s action lacks a moral basis is simple—no one has ever demonstrated that Iran—even a regime in Tehran with a nuclear weapon—presents an existential threat to the United States.

Thus, we can set aside any disputes over how close Iran may or not have been to getting a nuke. Even if you believe the intel community—after at least 30 years of claiming Iran is a week away from a nuclear weapon, and after the intel world’s spectacular display of lying about nuclear weapons with Iraq two decades ago—even if you believe that this time, they’re telling the truth, Iran still can’t threaten the United States.

I recall taking a class on Arms Control back in 1990 at Indiana University. One simple fact I learned in that class has stayed with me for decades—it’s that there are two parts to a nuclear weapons program. The bomb itself is the easy part. It’s the delivery system that separates the men from the boys, so to speak, in the world of nuclear power. Even a nuclear-armed Iran has no capacity to fire a weapon halfway around the world.

Nor is Iran, or any other rogue power, even close to having a delivery system. Think about it. North Korea has nuclear weapons. Have they ever fired one at the United States? For that matter, has North Korea ever even used their nukes on South Korea? The North Koreans haven’t even been able to prevent their countrymen to the south from becoming far more prosperous than they are. Having a nuclear weapon can make a regime more secure from direct attacks, but that’s about it.

That’s not a reason for “pre-emptive” military strikes. It’s a great reason to secure our border—a country with a non-existent border is vulnerable to having a terrorist walk a nuclear bomb into the country. But Trump is already doing that. He also had economic leverage to use against the mullahs in Iran.

In short, he had less drastic options available to him to deal with a threat that is distant and not existential. In no world—at least for anyone who subscribes to Christian tradition on the conduct of war—is this a moral justification for military strikes.

Nor did Trump even attempt to claim that Iran represented an existential threat. He’s rhetoric leading up to last night was simply “Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon”, answering none of the questions I have laid out. His speech last night said simply that Iran was the “bully of the Middle East”, that they chant to ‘Death to America, Death to Israel’ and then he rattled off a series of atrocities that the Iranian regime commits.

All of that can be a basis for Israel to feel sufficiently threatened, and I pass no judgment on what the Israelis may or may not do in their own defense. But the United States has no treaty alliance with Israel, no obligation to act in its defense. If we want to provide intelligence reports to them as a source of help, fine. But carrying out the attacks ourselves, as we did last night?

This is all several bridges too far. To repeat—if you want to defend this attack from a Christian perspective—and Just War doctrine predates Protestantism by several centuries and should therefore be a source of unity among all believers—you have to show more than the fact that Iran has an aggressive nuclear program, more than that they are allegedly getting close (again), and more than that their government is really bad. You have to show that all of this threatens the United States. None of this has been shown, or really even been attempted to be shown.

All of which makes Trump’s actions last night simply wrong. If we get information that suggest otherwise, I’ll change my mind—and do so rather happily, because I don’t particularly enjoy writing any of this. But sitting here today, Trump’s actions and rhetoric look and sound a lot like Liz Cheney.

Now, where to from here? Let’s consider both the worst-case and best-case scenarios of last night’s strike:

The Bleak View

To raise any of these possibilities in MAGA circles on social media is to be accused of “black pilling”, or “being a Panican”. But I recently read a book that emphasizes the importance of preparing for the worst in any venture. The title of that book? The Art of the Deal.

So, here’s what’s being risked:

*That Iran has terror cells inside the United States, something made exceptionally easy by the four years of a wide-open border, and will activate a series of terrorist strikes on U.S. cities.

*That Iran will strike U.S. military bases and assets in the Middle East

*That Iran will close off the Strait of Hormuz, a vital pathway to global shipping and send energy prices soaring.

Any of these will lead to more U.S. action. And if they had been the first strike in this war, a U.S. military response would have been more than justified. Unfortunately, we’re the ones who hit first.

If the war drags on? Whatever positive reaction Trump gets in the short-term will disappear. Democrats will re-take the House of Representatives in the midterms. They will subpoena Tulsi Gabbard, whose intelligence reports were ignored and publicly trashed. Those intel reports will be made public, and the uselessness of an extended war will be laid bare for the world to see. Genuine anti-Semitism and broader anti-Israel sentiment will be fueled domestically. And we can get ready for President AOC in 2028.

Am I saying all of this will happen? No. I am saying that all of this is now, because of last night, in the sphere of the plausible. It’s what’s being risked. With that in mind, let’s consider what’s being gained.

The Upside

Let’s start with the hope that this will pass by. While Iran has to be expected to do some type of response, at least to save face for their people, hopefully they’ll fire off a few missiles for show and negotiate a deal. If that happens, this can pass by quickly and we can move on to other topics—like, you know the stuff people actually elected Trump to do.

To that end, it’s worth noting that China and Russia were remarkably silent during this whole week and a half of tension. China buys its oil from Iran. Russia is an ally of Tehran. Neither Moscow or Beijing want a nuclear-armed Iran any more than the United States does. Did Putin and Xi give Trump a mafia-style wink and nod regarding this attack? If so, the possibilities that this passes without major incident is enhanced.

Then, given that Trump had given Iran a 60-day window to negotiate back in spring, and Israel’s attacks of last week that started this recent saga began on Day 61, Trump would gain a reputation as someone who means business. At a time when he’s negotiating trade deals that are seeking to reset the global economic order, seeing his agenda undermined on Capitol Hill and within the judiciary, the possibility that powerful people might start getting a little scared of him would be a good thing.

Whether that happens will depend on Trump’s next steps from here. Does he turn his fire on Republican War Hawks, like Lindsey Graham, who openly undermined the president’s peace efforts in Ukraine—something that drew Lindsey a pointed warning from the president on Friday. Does Trump turn his Department of Justice loose on investigations into the financial ties of rogue judges who are trashing the rule of law to stop him?

In short, does Trump leverage a “he means it” sentiment in a positive direction? While it’s an optimistic view, to be sure, the sunny optimistic possibilities have to be weighed along with the dark negatives.

All of these scenarios, along with countless others that I can’t envision are possible and the end result in these situations is often some eclectic mix of everything.

To me, however, the risks vastly outweigh the potential rewards and the risks seem more likely to happen. That’s even before you consider the moral element that this article led with.

A Long and Sad History

Here’s a brief primer on U.S. presidents since the end of the Cold War, that era that defines my adult lifetime:

*Bill Clinton campaigned on “It’s the economy stupid” and wanted a “peace dividend” to be used at home. Instead, he got involved in Bosnia and Somalia, among others. Worst, as the first post-Cold War president, he threatened to use NATO troops in Bosnia, something that let newly independent Russia know that the U.S. was ready to stay on the offensive in Europe.

*George W. Bush campaigned for an end to the nation-building that Clinton had started on and for a “humbler” foreign policy. Instead, he responded to 9/11 by letting Osama bin Laden go free while he tried to nation-build Afghanistan and launched the Iraq invasion under false pretenses, triggering $9 trillion in waste, countless lives ruined or damaged, and a migrant crisis that continues to haunt Europe.

*Barack Obama was elected on the most clear antiwar platform as we’ve seen in the modern era, ushering in an era of “Hope and Change.” Obama instead became known as “O-bomb-a” in antiwar circles, doing bombing campaigns of eight Muslim countries, getting enmeshed in Syria, running a coup in Libya that triggered yet another migrant crisis and ran a coup in Ukraine that set the stage for the disaster unfolding today.

*Joe Biden was elected by people who wanted a return to perceived normalcy. Biden instead provoked Russia by crossing the red line and talking about bringing Ukraine into NAT, and even installing nuclear missiles there. When Russia invaded, Biden (or whatever 20-year-old intern was making decisions for him), escalated a war that his own intelligence services told him had a 50/50 chance of going nuclear. His vice-president and heir apparent would say during themost recent campaign that she would have done nothing differently.

*Donald Trump, for four years between Obama and the Biden Empty Suit Era had an admirable and historic record as a president of peace, resisting efforts to enmesh us overseas. After overcoming the unprecedented retaliation of two assassination attempts and 91 indictments, winning a decisive election and completing the greatest comeback in the history of world politics, Trump decided to…give in and reward all his enemies with the attack they wanted the most.

What does it all mean? I means that whomever the people elect as president, regardless of how clear their voice is against forever wars, they are going to be ignored.

As someone who advocated for Trump precisely because of his demonstrated first-term record and a long history of America First advocacy before ever running for office, I feel no small amount of discouragement today.

It’s not that I think any other candidate or any other political faction would have done better. It’s that the events of last night are just one more piece of evidence (as if more were needed) that the politically disaffected people who simply say that none of our arguments really matter might well be the smartest ones in the room.

I understand you can’t give up—the only way “They” win is if “We” quit. But the president I saw last night acted out of weakness—a cave-in to the Military-Industrial Complex covered up, as all his predecessors did, with bravado rhetoric. Personally, I want this guy back. He was an actual fighter: