Many were intrigued by Trump’s acknowledgment of past U.S. failures in the region and the historical disregard for those nations’ agency. But five weeks later, he authorized U.S. airstrikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran, and a day later endorsed “regime change” to “Make Iran Great Again.”
Flip-flops like this aren’t surprising; we’ve grown numb to presidents contradicting their own promises. Trump ran on “America First,” vowing to end endless wars—then escalated them. Before him, President Biden pledged to center human rights and end wars, yet continued arming Israel despite well-documented atrocities in violation of U.S. and international law, while his administration exploited loopholes to bypass congressional oversight. The deeper danger lies not in hypocrisy but complicity: accepting the fabricated narratives that justify committing reckless acts of war.
The war began erratically and ended performatively, but more dangerously, a consensus is emerging that it’s easier to accept distorted intelligence than challenge it. Some anti-war voices argue they are trapped in a dilemma, where embracing a false narrative—that the U.S. strikes were a success—feels safer than risking escalation. But this grim choice between war and acquiescence is not inevitable. It is the product of eroded norms and abandoned tools. We are not just normalizing unauthorized strikes; we are legitimizing deceit as a method of restraint.
This contributed to the normalization of deceit that we’re seeing today in the wake of the strikes on Iran. And it’s flourishing because we have long abandoned the one mechanism that could have prevented it: accountability.
Yes, Trump acted without approval. And although the war is ostensibly over—for now—the war powers resolutions introduced in Congress after the strikes deserve support. But authorization alone does not confer legitimacy or prevent atrocities. The Iraq War had congressional approval—thanks in part to fabricated intelligence—and there has been no accountability for those who mislead Americans into a catastrophic, illegal war.
We’ve allowed impunity to become bipartisan, and performance to replace principle. The audience is no longer the public; it’s donors, lobbyists, and political machines that punish dissent. Today, members of Congress are not just afraid of criticizing a president—they’re afraid of criticizing an ally, for fear of being labeled antisemitic or primaried by a challenger funded by pro-Israel super PACs.
Rather than a dilemma—accepting a false narrative to avoid further war—we have an opportunity. Now is the moment to distinguish ourselves from Trump’s corruption, recklessness, and “transactionalism” by standing for honesty, integrity, and accountability in U.S. foreign policy. That means highlighting what diplomacy can achieve and what war does not. We must avoid being dragged deeper into the failed logic of “peace through strength,” a doctrine that doesn’t prevent war but ensures its return.
But if we choose to support one of Trump’s narratives to avoid future conflicts, let it be these words from his speech in Riyadh: “In recent years, far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it’s our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use U.S. policy to dispense justice for their sins.… My job [is] to defend America and to promote the fundamental interests of stability, prosperity, and peace.” Perhaps one day, America will elect a president who truly believes this.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( We Are Wittingly Fooling Ourselves About Trump’s Attack on Iran )
Also on site :