It has become almost impossible to make any sense of President Trump’s quixotic war-making policy. Is he a hawk or dove or something else?
A screaming example is his ill-defined rationale and contradictory positions on two devastating bombings of Iran.
First off, note that he refuses to engage the U.S. Congress in any meaningful way on his largely one-man decisions to release the dogs of war. Congress, which has the unequivocal constitutional power to declare war, might as well not exist when it comes to our current foreign policy.
Note that he has called his Iran attacks a war.
With a few exceptions, the GOP controlled House and Senate have been mostly silent on a wide range of signature foreign policy initiatives in Trump’s first year of his second term in office.
How do you explain this contradiction? His June 2025 bombings of Iran’s nuclear laboratories, in his words, “completely obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities. Why then do we have this second round of bombings following his failure to win concessions from Iran’s leaders about future nuclear capabilities?
Was Iran’s nuclear power obliterated or not?
Last weekend’s new round of bombings, which resulted in the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, threw all the cards in the air. In a word salad of rationale, he said he seeks “freedom” for the people of Iran, whatever that means.
The failure to win further undefined concessions from Iran’s leaders in recent negotiations triggered the second bombing attack.
Congress has also had little influence on Trump’s attacks on small fishing boats off Central and South America. They allegedly were carrying drugs that end up in the United States. But since they were blown to smithereens, there is no evidence to support those allegations.
Trump’s show of military prowess in the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Maduro may have advanced his international position as a tough guy, but how does that alone stem the flow of drugs? The old guard is still in power.
In another part of the planet, and in line with of the old adage about “never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” the Trump administration has de facto allied with Vladimir Putin on his unprovoked war of attrition against Ukraine. The Trump MAGA gang has cut off almost all aid to the Ukrainians even though have fought the Russians to a stalemate in a war now in its fifth year.
For less than 5% of the U.S. defense budget, United States could partner with European nations and NATO to arm Ukraine like a porcupine to ensure that Putin never wins that war.
Even without U.S. support, Ukraine’s resistance to the unprovoked invasion of its country has deeply gashed both the Russian military and its economy. The Russian economy is its Achilles heel. It now spends almost half of it national production on supporting its go-nowhere war.
Trump is supposed to be the master of the art of the deal. Why does he not understand that a deal can’t be won without the high cards, without the leverage that the Western allies could together apply against Putin?
Again, Congress has been relatively silent. The Republican Party once had a stiff back in dealing with enemies and once agreed that Russia is our biggest enemy. The websites of Republican Wisconsin Reps. Scott Fitzgerald, Glenn Grothman and Sen. Ron Johnson contain almost no statements about standing up to Putin.
An organization called “Republicans for Ukraine” gave Fitzgerald a grade “F” and Grothman a “D” on support for Ukraine.
Will the Republican majority be equally silent and timid on Trump’s new “war” against Iran? It looks that way.
Is Republican leadership, using the word loosely, paying attention hard-won litmus tests to be met before going to war:
- Never fight more than one war at a time. (Napolean and Hitler)
- Don’t go to war unless attacked. (Gov. Lee Dreyfus)
- Develop full support of a big majority of American citizens, expressed through Congressional approval. (the founders, FDR)
- Develop international alliances before engagement. (Ike, George H.W. Bush)
- Deploy overwhelming force. (Colin Powell)
- Beware of egotistical politicians who use war-making to distract from domestic failures. (Trump, Putin)
- Articulate a set of clear objectives before committing troops.
- Have an exit plan for the U.S. (George H. W. Bush)
Trump fails to meet those hard-won learnings. Macho-style, he has only proven he can take out heads of lesser states – Khameini and Maduro in Venezuela. He hasn’t laid a glove on Putin.
Who’s up for nation-building in Iran and Venezuela?
Remember Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Torinus is a former Marine artillery officer and holds a graduate degree in international relations from the University of Stockholm.
