Trump Nearly Started Another War — but War is Likely Brewing. The Media Barely Blinked.
Digital battlefield map of the Persian Gulf with ballistic light trails focused on Iran. (Graphic by MATEJMO via Getty Images)
Americans need to face reality. The U.S. military is in the hands of a volatile, aspiring dictator, whose only decision calculus in employing its incredible might is how powerful it will make him look in a given moment and how feared and respected he will become. A convicted felon and conman who calls himself “king,” who praises dictators and strongmen, and who has openly stated that he is above any law.
In just a few short months, American’s have seen Trump’s addiction to military power firsthand. The massive deployment of troops to the southern border. The militarized snatch-and-grab operations by ICE and the unlawful deployment of national guard to quell the protests against them. The egregious moves to employ U.S. special operations forces against drug cartels in the U.S. and Mexico. And the recent federal takeover of the D.C. police department with uniformed soldiers now patrolling the streets of the nation’s capital. Perhaps, given all of this backdrop, it’s slightly easier to understand why America quickly moved on after Trump nearly started another war.
“We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” That was the official assessment of Iran’s nuclear program in the U.S. intelligence community’s 2025 Annual Threat Assessment. These same words were delivered by Trump’s Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in her March 26 briefing to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. But somehow, less than three months later, Iran had become such an imminent nuclear threat that we committed an act of war — invading Iran’s sovereignty and exhausting up to at least half the U.S. military’s strategic inventory of advanced bunker-busting bombs in an effort to destroy its primary underground nuclear facilities. Facilities which, to this day, the American people cannot be assured were actually being used toward weaponized nuclear capabilities. Yet after public criticism from Trump, Gabbard quickly backtracked on her March assessment, claiming that she was wrong and that Trump’s assertions were then the reality. While an analysis by the Congressional Research Service, updated on June 24, gave no further indication that the intelligence from the March threat assessment had changed.
The same threat assessment states, “China’s nuclear weapons and advanced delivery systems pose a direct threat to the Homeland,” “Russia has the largest and most diverse nuclear weapons stockpile (and) could inflict catastrophic damage to the Homeland,” and that nuclearized North Korea is likely “prepared to conduct a nuclear test and continues to flight test ICBMs (to) threaten the Homeland.” It warns further, “Russia is increasingly supporting North Korea’s nuclear status in exchange for Pyongyang’s support to Moscow’s war against Ukraine.” This is in direct violation of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So, if we are going to talk about imminent threats, let’s get real. In the most immediate threat to the free world since WWII, nuclear superpower Russia — under the dictatorial regime of Valdmir Putin — has illegally invaded and continues to devastate democratic Ukraine. And in an unprecedented first, nuclearized North Korea now joins Russia on the battlefield. All of this while the Trump administration openly undermines our ally, severely limits its military aid, and repeatedly sides with Vladmir Putin in both policy and sentiment — most recently signaling that Ukraine should cede territory to Russia in order to end the conflict.
After the Iran strikes, pundits and mainstream media scrambled to show any semblance of merit or strategic thought in the decision to carry the operation out. But any attempt to objectively assess some kind of strategic reasoning on part of Trump or this administration completely ignores reality. There were two reasons behind the decision to strike Iran: America’s unholy alliance with Israel, and Donald Trump’s unquenchable thirst for anything that gives him a sense of power.
Under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel has become no less than a rogue state in the Middle East — inciting and prolonging regional conflict and instability, blatantly disregarding international law, and committing mass atrocities all under the auspice of the defense of the homeland. Through two administrations, the U.S. has near unconditionally provided the weaponry and military aid to enable all of this, which itself carries severe strategic and moral consequences that will have adverse ripple effects for decades. Yet, equally alarming is that Trump was so easily manipulated by Netanyahu into carrying out the strikes against Iran in the first place. Netanyahu has been crying wolf that Iran poses an “imminent nuclear threat” for over thirty years — despite contrary assessments from U.S. intelligence and the international community, and while Israel itself has for decades deceived the entire world in advancing its own secretive nuclear weapons program.
But Donald Trump feeds off an intense belief in his own grandeur while he thirsts for the respect and admiration from others to validate it. The chance to strike Iran came at a perfect time. The administration was being heavily criticized for its immigration enforcement policies, along with mobilization of the national guard to suppress related protests. Trump was openly agitated at the public mocking against him with the infamous “Trump Always Chickens Out” (TACO) nickname, in reference to his shifting positions during the tariff wars of his own creation. And his defense secretary Pete Hegseth has been embroiled in controversy since he took the seat — putting the Pentagon into chaos as I experienced first-hand before my removal for whistleblowing — with many in Congress calling for his resignation. The Iran strikes were a useful distraction from the turmoil and destruction unfolding under this administration.
The strikes also validated the delicate egos of this administration. Immediately following the strikes, their singular focus was not on what the operation meant for long-term strategy in the region or for Iran relations. Instead, Trump and Hegseth seemed obsessed with touting the tactical prowess of the military they gleefully command, bragging about the destructiveness of the bombings, and glorifying America’s long-range strike capability. They were so focused on combatting the perceived slights against them from the media — reporting that was informed by their own intelligence as well as analysis from experts like me — that newly-appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dan Caine was made to deliver a highly detailed public briefing on the entire operation, revealing sensitive operational practices simply to validate the claims of his bosses.
In a fully emotional outburst to the press upon being questioned on the merit and the effectiveness of the strikes, Secretary of Defense Hegseth insisted, “President Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history!” I have planned and executed hundreds of strike operations, and as I would expect from the Air Force and military in which I spent over two decades, the operation against Iran’s nuclear facilities was superbly executed. But it was far from the most complex and secretive in history. It was an operation planned for over fifteen years — one of many emergency contingencies that carry through administrations unaffected by political ebbs and flows. That we are prepared for such contingencies is vital for our national security. And that we can carry out such operations anywhere and anytime is paramount. But it was hardly the time and the reason. And, as we now know from the latest U.S. military assessment on the damage from the strikes, which mirrors the UN findings from June, Iran continues to have the capacity to enrich uranium toward nuclear weaponization within a matter of months if it so chooses. It is highly questionable as to whether or not this has been Iran’s goal.
Perhaps even more concerning than the operation itself was Trump’s behavior in the days following. In the days after the strikes, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei released a statement downplaying their effectiveness — calling the operation mere “showmanship” by Trump and claiming that Iran was the real victor in the exchange between Israel and the U.S. and Iran. In an aggrieved response, Trump unleashed a fury of deranged statements glorifying the violence and destructiveness of the strikes and threatening to do even more, demanding that the ayatollah acknowledge that Trump “won” the exchange. If that wasn’t enough, he posted a parody music video of the Beach Boys’ famous song “Barbara Ann,” with the chorus changed to “Bomb Iran,” depicting B-2 bombers dropping loads of bombs alongside lyrics that jeered, among other things, “Time to turn Iran into a parking lot.” A parody song celebrating war crimes — posted on social media by the president of the United States.
As disturbing as this is, it is not surprising. Adherence to the laws of war and a dedication to the safeguarding of civilians form the moral foundations for the modern U.S. military. As Americans, our commitment to these principles reflects the core American values that separate us from our adversaries. But Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth tend to show little regard for them. While restraint, honor, and humanity should be guiding tenets in the use of military force, this administration threatens to bury these virtues in favor of unrestrained violence with self-seeking ends. In fact, the Trump administration seems to worship the lethal power of the U.S. military. Especially its long-range strike capability, which it can dispatch on a whim with no oversight and under the false pretense that it is not committing to war.
The Trump administration seems to regard the use of America’s long-range strike capability as the primary method by which to apply their stated “peace through strength” doctrine. As someone who employed America’s strike capabilities throughout the war on terror directly planning and executing hundreds of strike operations, I can state from experience that strikes are neither a tool for diplomacy nor a means toward peace. They are an ultimate means of violence that should be utilized when all other options have been exhausted. There is an incredible level of responsibility that comes with the decision to unleash weapons of such extraordinary destruction. My years of training and wartime experience instilled in me that such decisions must be guided by restraint and temperance. Indeed, these qualities are the hallmark of a professional military and a civilized nation. Trump and Hegseth demonstrate neither. In fact, they tend to show little regard for the sanctity of human life. This is exemplified in the swift moves to cut my office at the Pentagon that was dedicated to the evolution of precision warfare and the better safeguarding of civilians. It is echoed in the enduring provision of weaponry to Israel even as its military systematically slaughters tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians under the banner of “self-defense.” And it is foreshadowed in U.S. military operations under this administration, where, during the recent campaign in Yemen, the number of reported civilian casualties nearly doubled within a two-month period as compared with the previous 23-year span of U.S. action in the region.
The strikes against Iran not only endangered U.S. troops throughout the Middle East, they risked escalation into all-out war. Ironically, it is only because of Iran’s own restraint that neither outcome has yet happened. As I stated in an interview, from a strategic standpoint, the operation only ensured that Iran will continue to be an adversary of the West for generations. It placed Americans at increased risk of an Iran-sponsored or influenced domestic terror attack. And it guaranteed the regime likely intensifies its sophisticated proxy warfare against western interests throughout the Middle East. Worse, it wholly de-incentivized Iran to genuinely participate in any nuclear non-proliferation. To the contrary, Iran will likely now see nuclear weaponization as the only path to ensuring its sovereignty — the regime has already threatened to leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We truly don’t know whether Iran was headed toward nuclear weaponization prior to the strikes. But we can reasonably state that, now, there is a pretty good chance it will.
The order to strike Iran had nothing to do with strategy, nothing to do with national security, and nothing to do with nuclear deterrence. It was the consequence of a tyrant and his devotees wielding the intoxicating weapons of fear and power using real bombs, with real nations and real lives on the line. It was a dangerous symptom of the ceaseless pursuit for glory, validation, and power on part of Trump and his administration.
Americans need to stop pretending that anything Trump or this administration does under the pretense of national security has any semblance of strategic thought, moral reasoning, or even love for this country. The Trump administration demonstrates neither the temperance nor the character demanded of those we must entrust with the incredible power of the U.S. military — and the reigns must not continue to be in their hands. The American people, and the world, must not be left wondering what will come next.
—
Wes J. Bryant is a former senior targeting advisor, policy analyst, and branch chief of civilian harm assessments at the Pentagon. He is a retired master sergeant and former special operations tactical air controller in the elite special warfare branch of the U.S. Air Force. He is a renowned defense analyst and is coauthor of the book Hunting the Caliphate: America’s War on ISIS and the Dawn of the Strike Cell.
