In the month following the coordinated airstrikes by U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against Iran, some enduring principles of warfare have come to light. The failure to heed historical lessons has culminated in a challenging scenario for Trump. He now stands at a crossroads: he can either attempt to declare a victory that lacks authenticity or escalate the conflict further.
One of the oldest military adages, attributed to Prussian strategist Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, states, "no plan survives first contact with the enemy." This insight, penned in 1871—when Germany became unified as an empire—holds significant implications for contemporary conflicts and the ongoing situation in the Middle East.
Trump may resonate more with Mike Tyson’s modern interpretation: “everyone has a plan until they get hit.” However, perhaps most pertinent to Trump's situation are the reflections of one of his predecessors, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower, a distinguished general during World War II and two-term Republican president, famously said, "plans are worthless, but planning is everything." He implied that the discipline and procedural rigor of planning are crucial for adapting to unexpected developments in warfare.
For Trump, the unforeseen aspect has been the Iranian regime's resilience. It appears that he anticipated a scenario akin to the rapid capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, earlier this year. They are currently detained in New York, facing trial. Maduro’s deputy, Delcy Rodríguez, has assumed the presidency and is reportedly taking orders from Washington.
Hoping for a similar outcome in Iran reflects a significant misunderstanding of the dynamics between the two nations. Rather than capitulating or disintegrating following the airstrikes that killed Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the regime in Tehran has maintained functionality and is mounting a counteroffensive—effectively leveraging their limited resources.
In contrast, Trump has conveyed a sense of operating without a strategic foundation. He tends to rely on instinct rather than engaging with the intelligence assessments and strategic frameworks that past leaders have utilized.
When asked about the potential duration of the conflict, Trump suggested in a Fox News Radio interview that he did not foresee a lengthy war, indicating it would conclude "when I feel it, feel it in my bones." His reliance on a close-knit group of advisers appears to foster an environment where dissenting opinions may not be welcome, ultimately hindering the efficacy of U.S. military operations.
Approximately four weeks ago, Trump and Netanyahu entrusted their strategy to a vigorous bombing campaign, which has recorded significant civilian casualties—1,464 according to HRANA, a U.S.-based human rights monitoring organization. Both leaders anticipated a swift resolution, even challenging the Iranian populace to initiate a rebellion against their government.
However, the Iranian regime has demonstrated remarkable persistence, and Trump is discovering why his predecessors hesitated to engage in a conflict designed to dismantle the Islamic Republic. The Iranian populace is acutely aware of the repercussions of dissent; following government crackdowns in January, where thousands of protesters were killed, official warnings have since circulated, threatening severe consequences for any potential uprisings.
The Iranian regime is characterized by its unwavering tenacity and organizational structure. Rooted in the aftermath of the 1979 revolution that overthrew the Shah and solidified during an eight-year war with Iraq, the regime thrives on established institutions, bolstered by deeply ingrained religious convictions and an ideology steeped in martyrdom. Consequently, eliminating leaders may cause temporary disruption, but it does not spell the end for the regime.
Though not equipped to rival U.S. and Israeli military strength directly, the Iranian leadership has been strategizing. In retaliation, they have expanded their conflict to target Gulf Arab nations and U.S. military bases in the region, seeking to extend the repercussions of the war.
Strategically, Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz—through which approximately 20% of the world’s oil supply passes—has already introduced instability in global financial markets, demonstrating their ability to inflict broad effects despite their comparative weakness in firepower.
Share this story