The first principle of war is the establishment of a clear objective. However, what we witnessed in the opening acts of the recent strikes on Iran by the U.S. and Israel was not strategic consistency, but rather a "fragmentation of justification." The Trump administration opened fire while putting forward excuses that changed daily—ranging from regime change and securing safety to the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program. Ultimately, this war, which began without a clear understanding of its purpose, has paradoxically boiled down to the pathetic goal of "reopening the Strait of Hormuz." It is a self-contradictory situation, rarely seen in military history, where the U.S. must now pour all its resources into reopening a passage that would never have been blockaded in the first place had Washington not initiated the conflict.
In the past, former President George W. Bush earned the label of a "warmonger" for leading the United States into two wars. At the time, Trump ridiculed Bush as he floundered in the quagmire of post-war Iraq, calling him "perhaps the worst president in U.S. history." Yet, looking at the current state of affairs, the Bush administration was relatively systematic. At the very least, Bush made efforts to persuade allies of the legitimacy of his actions and did not ignore the imperialist responsibility of managing the chaos in Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Trump administration possessed neither a blueprint for Iran’s future nor a sophisticated scenario. Trump’s slip of the tongue—remarking that "most of those we had in mind as future leaders of Iran are dead"—is a self-admission that his administration plunged into war relying solely on destructive instincts, without any calculated post-war planning or exit strategy.
This lack of gravity is also evident in the operational codenames. Unlike the past, which championed titles like "Operation Enduring Freedom," the names chosen by the Trump administration—"Midnight Hammer" for the June strikes and "Epic Fury" for the current war—feel less like national strategies and more like personal emotional outbursts. This is why The New Yorker pointed out that this war is "not about imposing a liberal order on the Middle East, but about venting anger," labeling it "not hegemony, but a hit-and-run." The problem is that a "hit-and-run" in international politics can rarely end as a perfect, consequence-free crime. War is not an area that can be halted at will simply because one side wishes to stop, unlike "reciprocal tariff" policies.
Currently, Iran has confirmed its most powerful leverage by blockading the Strait of Hormuz, effectively holding the global economy hostage. It has proven that it does not require massive military might to paralyze global supply chains; the mere threat of laying mines is enough. To make matters worse, with the involvement of the pro-Iranian Houthi rebels in Yemen, the Red Sea is now also at risk of blockade, plunging the global energy market into unprecedented fear. Airstrikes alone cannot reopen the Strait, and deploying ground troops would be a political suicide mission fraught with the risk of a prolonged conflict and increased American casualties. Declaring victory and withdrawing without even locating the 440kg of highly enriched uranium—after citing the Iranian nuclear threat as a justification for war—would be the worst possible choice.
Consequently, Trump is now belatedly fishing for a way out through negotiations. However, within Iran, the voices of hardliners have grown louder over the ruins of their air defense systems, while the standing of moderates has vanished. The Iranian regime has arguably gained an opportunity to strengthen its international status, and experts warn that if the blockade of Hormuz continues until late April, international oil prices could soar to $150 per barrel.
As high oil prices persist, Trump’s probability of victory in the November midterm elections will inevitably shrink. The "Epic Fury" he unleashed has effectively returned as a precisely designed boomerang, obstructing his own political path. Anger without strategy is not a display of power, but a proof of incompetence. The bill for this reckless venting of frustration is now coming due, addressed to American citizens, the global economy, and Trump’s own political destiny.
[Copyright (c) Global Economic Times. All Rights Reserved.]
