The Iran war was sold like a quick hit, clean win, and strong-man flex. Instead, it’s uglier full of strategic arrogance… and a White House already blaming the press for the mess.
One of the deeper problems here is the persistent Western habit of confusing military shock with political collapse. We have seen this assumption before — in Iraq, in Libya, and at times in Afghanistan. Remove the top layer, and the rest is supposed to crumble.
But ideological regimes rarely behave that way. Pressure from outside often strengthens internal cohesion, at least in the short term, because it confirms the narrative the regime already sells at home.
Your point about Hormuz is also key. Iran does not need to win a conventional war to create strategic leverage. Disruption is enough. In a globalised energy market, even temporary uncertainty can translate into economic pressure far beyond the region.
And that is where strategy and politics collide. Military operations can be planned in weeks. The economic and geopolitical consequences can last for years.
History keeps reminding us of that — though policymakers often seem determined to relearn the lesson the hard way.
Two things come to mind, one observational, the other perhaps nefarious! First, Trump believes that the U.S. would cease to function without him, so the ego-driven projection is that the rest of the world is the same. Take out the leader and the opponent is at your knees. Finding out this isn't true with Iran will cause all sorts of blame to occur before he accepts the principle that it isn't true anywhere.
Secondly, I note he is asking only specific countries to come to his aid. However NATO might offer to help, on one condition: the entire removal of tariffs from all members! That should be transactional enough for the Con Man.
At this point, I can't see removal of tariffs being enough--that barely touches on the damage he has done. He keeps bragging about the billions he's made in office; they hear that; they deserve a substantial share. Then maybe--maybe!--they could come to the table.
Great reporting there Fred. I love Christiane Amanpour, she simply tells it like it is, always factual & not timid about speaking up, on any subject!
I think the first sentence is the recap should read "Trump WAS sold the war would...." because he sure as hell didn't sell it to the American public.
A sharp piece, Fred.
One of the deeper problems here is the persistent Western habit of confusing military shock with political collapse. We have seen this assumption before — in Iraq, in Libya, and at times in Afghanistan. Remove the top layer, and the rest is supposed to crumble.
But ideological regimes rarely behave that way. Pressure from outside often strengthens internal cohesion, at least in the short term, because it confirms the narrative the regime already sells at home.
Your point about Hormuz is also key. Iran does not need to win a conventional war to create strategic leverage. Disruption is enough. In a globalised energy market, even temporary uncertainty can translate into economic pressure far beyond the region.
And that is where strategy and politics collide. Military operations can be planned in weeks. The economic and geopolitical consequences can last for years.
History keeps reminding us of that — though policymakers often seem determined to relearn the lesson the hard way.
— Hans Boserup, Dr.jur. 🇩🇰
Hans... this is exactly it.
There’s this recurring fantasy that shock equals collapse… when history keeps showing the opposite.
Pressure doesn’t always break systems... sometimes it locks them tighter.
And you nailed the second layer most people miss...
the war might be measured in weeks… but the consequences get paid in years.
That’s the part nobody puts in the headline.
Appreciate you adding that perspective.
Two things come to mind, one observational, the other perhaps nefarious! First, Trump believes that the U.S. would cease to function without him, so the ego-driven projection is that the rest of the world is the same. Take out the leader and the opponent is at your knees. Finding out this isn't true with Iran will cause all sorts of blame to occur before he accepts the principle that it isn't true anywhere.
Secondly, I note he is asking only specific countries to come to his aid. However NATO might offer to help, on one condition: the entire removal of tariffs from all members! That should be transactional enough for the Con Man.
Jim... that first point is a big one.
There’s a pattern there: assume leadership equals control… remove the leader… expect collapse.
Reality tends to be messier than that.
On your second point, I suspect most countries are doing the math right now.
Helping reopen a crisis they didn’t start… while being squeezed economically at the same time… isn’t exactly a compelling offer.
This is where politics, ego, and economics all start colliding.
At this point, I can't see removal of tariffs being enough--that barely touches on the damage he has done. He keeps bragging about the billions he's made in office; they hear that; they deserve a substantial share. Then maybe--maybe!--they could come to the table.
And this mother fucker is trying to back away from responsibility.
Obama did it. And Iran was sticking to it. Until Trump blew it up. Oman was facilitating negotiations until the criminals attacked.
Keith... there’s truth in that.
The deal was limiting Iran and under inspection… then the U.S. pulled out in 2018 and the whole thing started to unravel.
Oman’s been trying to keep talks alive ever since.
Problem is… diplomacy keeps getting overtaken by events.