Donald Trump ordered the bombing of Iran without first building a solid narrative on why it was necessary and urgent. Without explaining to Congress or the public. And apparently, without a precise plan on what the political objectives are, how much time and resources will be needed to achieve them, and the consequences for their allies in the region, neighboring countries, or markets. The last 90 hours show how the United States and Israel saw a unique opportunity, one they had been waiting for since 1979. With a weak Iran, no real control over its airspace, limited capacity to respond, and with its regional proxies in a precarious state. And they decided to take advantage of it, with undeniable military success after killing Jamenei and 50 senior officials. However, now the operation is starting to get complicated, chaos has erupted in the area, and the White House and the Pentagon, preparing to send more troops and fighter jets, no longer even rule out the possibility of deploying troops, a huge taboo for the MAGA movement.
"I am not bothered by the deployment of soldiers on the ground. All the [previous] presidents used to say 'There will be no troops on the ground.' I don't say that. I say 'they probably won't need them,' or 'if they were necessary,'" the president responded to The New York Post on Monday. For Trump, the worst is yet to come, or so he told one of CNN's star presenters: "We haven't even started attacking them with force; the big wave hasn't even happened yet. The big wave will come soon," he anticipated.
"I think the polls are very good, but I don't care. I have to do what is right. This should have been done a long time ago," added Trump when asked by the media about the lack of public support. An urgent Reuters/Ipsos poll over the weekend showed that only 27% of Americans approved of the attacks, while 43% disapproved and 29% were unsure. A CNN survey raises the approval to 41%, compared to 59% who disapprove, which would basically reflect the overall approval rating of the White House, standing at 41/57%.
Trump's statement must be analyzed with caution. Since Saturday morning, he has spoken with dozens of journalists and has given each one a different piece of information, an opinion, or a different view. About the reasons, the threat posed by Iran, and the urgency of the attack. But also about what might happen now. Thus, he expressed surprise that the Revolutionary Guard was able to launch missiles at American allies and their bases, from Iraq to Kuwait, from the United Arab Emirates to Saudi Arabia, passing through Israel or Cyprus. He talked about a transfer of power to a new government and immediately about the likely scenario of an internal insurrection that would overthrow the ayatollahs and the military. "We don't know who the leaders are. We don't know who they will choose. Maybe they'll get lucky and find someone who knows what they're doing... They don't know who is running the country now, they don't even know. It's a bit like the unemployment line," the president told CNN on Monday.
In recent days, Trump has fantasized about a scenario similar to that of Venezuela, with the rapid fall of the leader and the submission of the regime in a few hours, but now he claims that the plan was always an intervention of "four or five weeks" aimed at destroying Iran's missile facilities, annihilating its Navy, ending its nuclear ambitions, and cutting off the funding of terrorist groups. However, it seems clear that this is impossible with a few days of bombings, so the U.S. military is preparing for a long confrontation.
General Dan Caine, Chief of Staff, stated on Monday that more troops and planes are on their way to the region, while the president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insist on a timeframe of at least four, five, or six weeks. "The work has barely begun and will continue" with the arrival of more fighter jets in the coming days, Caine said, and at that point, the U.S. will be "practically where we want to be in terms of total combat capability and power," he added without providing specific details on the composition and total number.
"There are no soldiers in Iran right now, but we are not going to engage in the exercise of what we will or will not do. I think it's one of those fallacies that have been committed for a long time, that this department, presidents, and others tell the American people, and our enemies exactly what we are going to do, how long we will be there, exactly how far we will go, what we are willing to do and what we are not. It's nonsense," the Pentagon official said at a press conference alongside the generals.
Shortly before ordering the attack last Friday, the U.S. government began to talk about Tehran reviving its nuclear program, accumulating material, developing long-range missiles. Then they focused on the idea of a regime change or at least a change within the regime, Venezuelan style. But Trump admitted on Sunday that some of the figures they had identified as possible replacements for Ali Jamenei had been eliminated in the bombings. Afterwards, the focus shifted to "reducing threats," emphasizing the danger posed by Tehran for decades. Due to nuclear bombs, ballistic missiles, support to Russia, or being "the world's largest sponsor of terrorism." This led to persistent talk of a "deal," one of the buzzwords. And then the option of a regime change resurfaced, encouraging citizens to take to the streets, only to later insist that they stay indoors because the worst is yet to come from the sky.
Yesterday, the Chief of Staff was more specific: "The mission is to prevent Iran from projecting power beyond its borders". "The objectives are completely intertwined. That is, Iran has the ability to project power against us and our allies in ways we cannot tolerate. Whether it's ballistic missiles and drones, offensive capabilities, its Navy, terrorism," added Hegseth.
The problem is that all of this clashes with the aspirations of the MAGA movement and years of promises of peace and criticism of "warmongers" and those who want to "nation-build." There are dozens and dozens of speeches, interviews, and rallies of Trump saying that, before and after returning to the White House. Now, with images of hotels on fire in Dubai, canceled flights, friendly fire downing three planes worth hundreds of millions of dollars in Kuwait, the first four American soldiers killed, and rows of children's corpses in schools, the MAGA movement is more than uncomfortable, in a decisive election year.
"So far we have heard that, although we have eliminated the entire Iranian regime, this has not been a regime change war. And although we had already destroyed their nuclear program, we had to intervene because of their nuclear program. And although Iran was not planning any attack against the United States, they could have, depending on who you ask. And although we are not fighting this war to liberate the Iranian people, they are now free, or could be, depending on who takes power, and we have no idea who that will be. The message on this is, to put it mildly, confusing," wrote conservative influencerMatt Walsh, who has four million followers on the X network, on social media.
In his inaugural speech, Donald Trump said that his "proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier. That's what I want to be (...) We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars we end, and perhaps most importantly, by the wars we never get involved in." Since then, Washington has once again launched interventions across the planet.
Republicans have begun to build a shield, but one that is difficult to sustain. Senator Ted Cruz, on television, tried to argue that Trump never said he wouldn't get into a war, but rather "endless wars." Senator Lindsey Graham, the hawk who has been pushing the hardest in recent months to attack Iran and who is now lashing out against Spain, argues on talk shows that "it is not the president's job" to have a plan for the day after, but only to neutralize threats. In his intervention yesterday, Defense Secretary Hegseth continued in that line, admitting that the U.S. is at war but that it will not be "an eternal war" like those in Iraq or Afghanistan.