US President Donald Trump does not like to lose. And with his chances of winning the war against Iran increasingly slim, the world may soon be faced with the prospect of a volatile president dealing with a foreign policy dilemma that is beyond his control. Indeed, Trump may yet pull off a move that is hailed by geopolitical analysts as advancing US interests and justifying the human, economic and political costs of war. But as Trump finds himself in an increasingly difficult corner, it’s time to anticipate how he might respond to the Iran fiasco—and prepare for the possibility that his response could make the conflict even more dangerous.
The challenges of the Iran war seem to be increasing day by day. While the US military, working alongside the Israel Defense Forces, has largely succeeded in destroying Iran’s air, naval and ballistic missile defense capabilities, the political system of the country and sources of economic potential it turned out to be very easy. There is also the issue of remaining in Iran fissile material and nuclear power-not to mention the danger that Tehran emerges from the conflict determined that it can only defend itself effectively with nuclear weapons. Hopes for a seamless Venezuela-style transition to an acceptable leader or mass revolution have faded.
Trump’s past failure tactics may shed light on what’s to come in the Middle East. Trump is no stranger to failure: He has experienced high-profile setbacks in business, the judiciary and politics. A consummate survivor, he has a playbook of well-worn strategies when on the ropes. These involve bullying subordinates, shifting blame, suppressing the truth, and doubling down on fruitless strategies.
Trump’s approach to defeat became even more apparent after his 2020 election defeat. That fall, he backed a campaign that was heavily organized to try to stave off the inevitable outcome while also shrugging off blame for it.
The first thing in this was the denial, where Trump ignored his statements by election officials that the vote was fair. He then put a lot of pressure on his aides and colleagues, including urging Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” 11,780 votes to overturn the state’s results and asking then-Vice President Mike Pence to shirk his duty to certify the results. Trump too he asked senior officials of the Department of Justice “(j) say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and Republican congressmen.” When election official Chris Krebs reported that the vote was safe, Trump fired him.
The efforts did not end there. Trump empowered a group of fringe supporters, including former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and attorney Sidney Powell, to make false claims in front of the media and the courts—acts for which they were later indicted. Trump also doubled down on fruitless strategies: The president and his allies finally delivered 62 cases resist the results, only to lose each other.
During his period of disability, Trump and his supporters threw blame all over the place: at faulty voting machines, corrupt election workers, mail-in ballots, the media, Democrats, incredulous Republicans, judges who rejected his claims, and even. foreign actors.
Trump also tried to force media confirmation of his false claims. After Fox News and The Associated Press called Arizona for Joe Biden on election night, Trump publicly demanded a repeal and cheered on the outlet’s refusal. He attacked Facebook and Twitter for suppressing misinformation from his “Stop Stealing” campaign and blasted news networks that removed misinformation.
The most dangerous aspect of Trump’s response to failure was, of course, his encouragement of a January 6, 2021, coup in the White House. Although he denied being the mastermind behind the riots, his actions gave him legitimacy. And as his later pardon of the rioters made clear, he had no qualms about putting basic American institutions and lives at risk for his free cause.
Although these tactics were more serious in 2020, their origins go back even further. As a New York real estate magnate and in his personal dealings, Trump has shown a similar reluctance in the face of major obstacles. Faced with financial problems and bankruptcy in the 1990s, Trump put enormous pressure on his own lawyers and executives and aggressively created a media narrative by blasting reporters through private phone calls. sometimes under pseudonyms.
When Trump University was exposed as a scam, Trump he attacked the judge in the case and continued to plead guilty after paying a $25 million settlement. In response to the crowd at his 2016 inauguration, Trump provoked White House press secretary Sean Spicer to lie for him from the White House podium, claim that those who showed up were the most in history. In combating the lawsuit filed by E. Jean Carroll accusing him of rape and sexual assault, Trump pursued repeated appeals while increasing public attacks that a federal appeals court described as blame and which has never happened.
If Trump Dealing with the prospect of being out of Iran as he has restrictions in other areas, then the consequences can be huge. The negative effects would go far beyond the president’s image, reputation, or fortune—or those of his aides. Military values, alliances, and Washington’s international standing are all at stake in how Trump navigates the current. Like earlier hope about the war has fadedTrump and his allies have already begun to enact elements of his old playbook.
There are reports that, causing a war, Trump overturned warnings and General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, that American soldiers may be endangered by enough weapons and partner support. Trump has long record to sideline and even fire military officers and civil officers who do not agree with him. In the midst of a high-profile military conflict, such pressure can distort officers’ judgment, leading to claims of war damage, poor risk assessments, incomplete or misleading reports to Congress, veiled warnings of escalation, and influence on operational decisions that endanger lives and strategic objectives.
Trump’s quick approach to high-pressure disputes could add to the problem. If the White House pushes officials to achieve goals without enough legal oversightignore protection avoid civilian harmor otherwise violate the laws of war, the conflict may worsen, and military morale and readiness may be jeopardized. As legal challenges mount, it’s a waste of time and money, doubling down on failed military strategies due to mass intransigence could jeopardize the safety of US troops and Washington’s military reputation.
Trump’s second administration already lacks the voices of respected, uncompromising leaders, such as former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and former Defense Secretary James Mattis, who served in his first term. Those around Trump are now to fight how to spin a war narrative that itself may be spinning out of control.
If Trump returns to coercion, confining the few independent voices in his cabinet—such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—to relying solely on domestic aides, then levels of professionalism, decision-making, and internal cohesion will further deteriorate.
Trump’s tendency to hide and distort the truth is already evident in his administration’s approach to the Iran war. In the first week, Trump accused Iran of being behind the deadly attack on the elementary school – a strike that US investigators later associated to the US military after a preliminary investigation. Last week, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr threatened revoking Internet broadcast licenses for what he claimed were false reports about Iran’s attack on US refueling planes in Saudi Arabia.
These measures complicate the opaque information environment created by the Department of Defense unprecedented obstacles and the punitive stance on media access in recent months, as well as the global epidemic of artificial intelligence. disinformation campaigns over the conflict, turning the old fog of war into a more impenetrable smoke.
In times of war, misinformation does not simply mislead the public or seed distrust in fact-based reporting. If the markets do not believe the news, the risk premium goes updeepening the economic collapse. The dirty news landscape can make it impossible for Congress to judge the success of operations and distrust of partners of Washington
In the coming weeks, Trump’s “don’t admit defeat” rhetoric could lead to him firing inspectors general, retaliating against whistleblowers, and targeting attacks as sabotage. The Pentagon has already taken steps in Trump’s second term to confront critics and regulate oversight and complaint systems—which critics say it can discourage reporting, increasing the likelihood that misconduct may go undetected.
It is not difficult to imagine how Trump could avoid the blame for the failed Iran operation. Trump’s hostile response to allies’ refusal to send ships to the bombed Strait of Hormuz offers a glimpse of what this could look like. Moving forward, he can blame the US military for its shortcomings, the Gulf allies for refusing to escalate hostilities, China and Russia for supporting Iran, the Israeli government for encouraging war, the Democrats for wanting to assert their oversight powers, or all of the above.
Going further, if Trump comes to feel trapped or desperate, he may take drastic measures that involve the reckless deployment of ground troops or even the use of unconventional weapons, leading to a protracted conflict or a major world war. There is also a chance that, faced with changes in Iran, Trump will focus on another priority –Cuba or a domestic affair, perhaps—and he makes a controversial, high-wire effort to change his fortunes and confirm his continued dominance.
There remains the chance, of course, that cooler heads will prevail. Trump may choose to accept something less than a victory in Iran, engaging in normal conversation rather than court-marginal media denial and manipulation of the truth. But if he treats this conflict with Iran’s clerical regime as a struggle that defines his legacy, then the military and civilian leaders around him may be faced with important decisions about how to deal with ineffective orders that obscure the truth and put institutions and goals at risk.
Unlike in 2020, Trump still has nearly three years left in the White House, which means that those who defy him may face the risk of immediate punishment. But paying attention to the president’s bad instincts, on the other hand, can cost a lot in terms of life and security. Trump’s cabinet secretaries, generals, close advisers, and congressional supporters may end up being the only ones standing between the president and decisions that could escalate an already growing crisis and set back America’s national security for decades to come.
