When Donald Trump decided to strike Iran, he never felt the need to build a strong narrative to justify it unlike what his predecessor George W Bush did on Iraq
By their own admission, the Iran war may have tripped Donald Trump and the Republican Party in the latest US mid-term elections. At the heart of popular opposition was the illegality of the war and the absence of any believable reason for it. And, of course, the economic consequences which hurt all Americans.
But, this is not the first time that the US has embarked on a military adventure – without an acceptable rhyme or reason. An earlier war that made no sense was the one initiated by another Republican president George W Bush, against Iraq in 2003.
How Bush received support for Iraq invasion
That war, unlike the current one against Iran, happened with full public support. The US media and even some among the opposition Democrats, including Hilary Clinton, backed the Iraq invasion. How did Bush manage to get the country behind him, something that Trump could not? As they say, it’s the narrative, stupid.
Also read: America’s midterm course correction: Reforming capitalism, not replacing it
The neoconservatives, who believe in US military interventionism, controlled the Bush administration. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the like. They had been waiting for a long time to eliminate the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein or what we now call “regime change”.
It was during the earlier administration of Bush Sr. that Saddam invaded Kuwait, leading to the Gulf War of 1990-91. An international coalition, authorised by the UN Security Council, beat back Saddam’s troops and freed Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, which had lasted around seven months. But the international coalition was not satisfied. Economic sanctions were imposed on Iraq and attempts were made to trigger an internal rebellion against Saddam, among other things. But, he stayed firm and was able to resist any covert move to oust him from power. This was seen as a job unfinished.
The neocons got an opportunity to build a narrative against Saddam a decade later, following the al-Qaeda strike on the World Trade Center and other targets in the US, or the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration secured the UNSC nod to attack Afghanistan, in search of the al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
Linking Saddam to Osama bin Laden
In a devious move, the US administration assiduously created a story against Saddam – linking him first to Osama bin Laden, then to a series of anthrax powder attacks in the US killing five people (where some officials received envelopes through the postal service with the deadly powder inside) and finally to the import of “yellow cake uranium”, or chemical material from Niger.
Also read: Trump’s rout holds critical economic lessons for other governments
While the anthrax powder attack was traced to a US microbiologist in 2008 – the other two stories were subsequently found to be baseless.
Trump’s list of failures in his second term, particularly, can be traced to the inherent futility of his transactional style of functioning.
Rattled by al-Qaeda’s audacious strike in the heart of the US, the general public was in a mood to believe any story coming from the administration. And, the hawks within the government fully used the prevailing insecurity to the hilt. Bush spoke of the “weapons of mass destruction”, a term for the so-called biological and nuclear weapons in Saddam’s arsenal, and how he was ready to use it against his neighbours.
Much of the media, including respectable mainstream dailies across the US, chimed in with their own so-called investigations, sourcing information from exiled opponents of Saddam Hussein who wanted to see his ouster. The narrative appeared rock-solid and few in the US were willing to listen to anyone who doubted the narrative or found holes in the anti-Saddam stories.
There were a few dissenters, including IAEA inspector Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, US diplomat Joseph Wilson, Senator Edward Kennedy and journalists Jonathan Landay and John Walcott of Knight Ridder. But they were marginalised in the general din for action against Saddam.
Trump’s failures in second term
In comparison, when Trump influenced by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and hawks within his own administration decided to strike Iran, he was so convinced by his own misplaced beliefs he never felt the need to build a strong narrative that his predecessor had so successfully spun around the US media and public.
Also read: Trump's 60 Minutes interview: 15 biggest takeaways, from Iran to immigration to UFOs
And, Trump being Trump, secure in his narcissistic worldview merely sounded out Iran’s nuclear programme as an impending danger to the world before moving in for the kill. The first time, in June 2025, in tandem with Israel, he ended the strikes in 12 days after bombing specific nuclear sites. Not satisfied with the outcome of those strikes, he again struck at the end of February this year – assassinating Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
Iran’s unexpected response this time – laying siege to the Strait of Hormuz – gutted Trump and Netanyahu’s plans. Trump expected to be serenaded for his visionary strike on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and so did Netanyahu. Trump’s worldview, of seeing the world from a businessman’s point of view rather than that of a politician, seems to have let him down.
Trump’s list of failures in his second term, particularly, can be traced to the inherent futility of his transactional style of functioning. His inability to resolve the Ukraine-Russia war, failure to sort out differences with Iran and the increasing alienation of US allies in Europe have been variously linked to his mechanical application of business practices in politics – seeing negotiations as a zero-sum game where one side wins and the other side has to necessarily lose.
Political negotiations in general are, by all accounts, far more nuanced, where give-and-take is intrinsic to their success. But Trump is given to arm-twisting and using bullying tactics with the opposite party. If his negotiators are doing this with Iran, the world has seen him first-hand using these tactics publicly in his dealings with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Trump’s comeuppance has been faster. Netanyahu’s too. Having set out to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure with no credible justification to back it, the US president and his administration stand defenceless against the wrath of his once-loyal supporters, who turned against him last week.
Trump, as head of the world’s most powerful nation, seems to think of the rest of the world as supplicants who cannot defy the US. So, when countries like Iran, Canada or India resist his moves, Trump has no answers other than more bullying and more arm-twisting. He cannot be bothered to build a narrative and move shrewdly for the kill, as any experienced politician is wont to do.
Desperate struggle to free Strait of Hormuz
His predecessor, Bush Jr, was a career politician, listened to his advisers and the deep state to build a forceful narrative that could not be easily discounted. Much later, after the US invasion had achieved its main task of eliminating Saddam, his Baath party infrastructure and the government super-structure, including disbanding Saddam’s military, the world and, in particular, the US public realised they had been taken for a royal ride.
In the meantime, support for Bush continued for a few years, after the 2003 Iraqi invasion. He even won a re-election in 2004 as president, a standing testimony to the popular support he still commanded. It was only later, during his second term that the well-constructed narrative against Saddam crumbled when his military and intelligence officials were unable to justify even one of the charges against the former Iraqi president.
Not just that, the invasion messed up the Middle East, including triggering the rise of the dreaded Islamic State group and the shredding of Iraq’s delicate sectarian balance.
A bruised Trump still in office, lame duck or not, is potentially capable of doing anything to retrieve some credibility – including resuming bombing Iran
The Republican Party paid a price for the Iraq fiasco in 2008, when the Democratic Party candidate Barack Obama won the elections. Obama had been a bitter critic of the US’s Iraq invasion and that is considered a major factor in his victory both in the Democratic primaries and in the presidential election.
Trump’s comeuppance has been faster. Netanyahu’s too. Having set out to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure with no credible justification to back it, the US president and his administration stand defenceless against the wrath of his once-loyal supporters, who turned against him last week. Netanyahu’s condition has been no less appalling, unable to win a majority in the recently concluded Israeli general elections.
The story, of course, has not ended. What started off as an attempt to change the Islamic theocratic regime has now turned into a desperate struggle to free the Strait of Hormuz for international trade.
A bruised Trump still in office, lame duck or not, is potentially capable of doing anything to retrieve some credibility – including resuming bombing Iran. Before doing that, he has to quickly find a saleable narrative, and that fortunately seems painfully elusive.
