Trump’s Approach to Iran: Missteps and Misunderstandings

In January, Stephen Miller, a key figure in Donald Trump’s administration, spoke with CNN journalist Jake Tapper. Miller described the recent military operation to capture Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, as a triumph. He emphasized a shift in U.S. policy, stating that America would no longer play the role of the global ‘nice guy’. The aim was to act decisively, using force to pursue national interests.

Miller’s comments reflect Trump’s philosophy on power. The U.S. is undeniably a global powerhouse, with the largest economy and predominant currency. It boasts an advanced military, equipped with high-tech capabilities and elite special forces.

Confident in this power, Trump’s administration embarked on a controversial military campaign against Iran over two months ago. Trump intended to display U.S. strength, ignoring international law and relying on aggressive actions, a strategy favored by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The results have not aligned with expectations. Despite significant losses, including its leader and several officials, Iran managed a robust counteroffensive. This has led to substantial damage to U.S. allies and military installations. Additionally, Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz has created an economic crisis, driving fuel prices up and causing shortages worldwide.

Miller’s assertion, “We live in a world governed by strength, force, and power,” appears undermined by the ongoing conflict. The administration mistook power for the mere ability to exert violence, overlooking that true power involves broader capabilities and strategic wisdom.

Miller’s rhetoric echoes themes from Thucydides’ “History of the Peloponnesian War.” The ancient work recounts the struggle between Athens and Sparta, highlighting the harsh realities of power. The Athenians famously told Melos, a neutral island, “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must,” which underscores their dominance.

The current fallout from the Iran war challenges the administration’s understanding of power, suggesting that military might alone is insufficient for sustainable influence.