The arrogance of Trump’s America

IT is a very curious thing that some 13 days into a war which has encompassed most of the Middle East and engaged the critical interests of virtually the entire globe, the prime perpetrator of that war, a global superpower, cannot provide a coherent rationale for it. President Trump has said much on the topic, but his ramblings provide little clarity. By some reckonings, Trump has cited 10 different, often contradictory reasons at one time or another, running from the simply false (Iran has intercontinental ballistic missiles posing an imminent threat to America; Iran is two weeks from fielding a nuclear weapon) to the absurd (Trump had a ‘feeling’ Iran might launch a pre-emptive strike). If it’s understanding we seek, we will have to look elsewhere.

For a true answer, it might be more useful to look at the negotiations which immediately preceded hostilities. The US side focused on three issues: eliminating the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon; eliminating the threat of Iran’s ballistic missiles; and eliminating Iranian support to its allies in the Axis of Resistance. In short, the American aim was Iran’s unilateral disarmament, apparently believing that its relative military weakness would force it to capitulate.

There is much we don’t know about these talks, but given reporting from many sources we probably have all we need to judge their seriousness and intent. Regarding nuclear weapons, Iran was apparently showing remarkable flexibility, including willingness to ‘downblend’ its highly enriched uranium to low-enriched reactor fuel, strictly limit its nuclear fuel stocks, and place the entire system under intrusive international monitoring. Although insisting as a matter of principle on its right to enrich uranium, this, too, was to be subject to an international consortium which would put Iranian enrichment under multilateral control. Considerable work remained to be done, but Iran seemed to be on a glidepath to an agreement substantially more stringent than the 2015 JCPOA which Trump abrogated in 2018. Still, this apparently was not enough. One must ask why.

Regarding Iran’s so-called ‘proxies’ (a maddeningly misleading description), they hardly pose the short- or even medium-term threat they once did. Hamas has been all but annihilated, Lebanese Hezbollah is little better off, and even the relatively intact forces of the Houthi militia are sufficiently cowed as not to have dared enter the current conflict.

The US president’s current policy towards Iran, and potentially a host of others, can be summed up in three words: ‘submit, or die.’

That leaves missiles, about which Iran apparently refused all discussion. But just what was actually at stake here from a US perspective? Iran is assessed as being at least 10 years away from producing a projectile capable of reaching the US. We don’t know what practical range limits the US would have sought (or its Israeli ally would have insisted upon), but we can safely assume these limits would not have protected the Arab Gulf. They would surely have aimed to protect Israel, however. That is the nub of the issue.

Over the year-plus of Trump’s second term, we have seen him grow progressively more confident, arrogant and aggressive in his use of overwhelming American military power, especially against those whom he assesses as being incapable of defending themselves. An examination of last June’s 12-day war is instructive. At the outset, Trump was sceptical of Israel’s attacks on Iran, and refused to be drawn in. As Israeli successes mounted and as it became clear that Iran could be struck from the air with impunity, however, the tone changed. Trump began to refer to Israeli actions as what “we” were doing; assured he could not be seriously harmed, the school-yard bully in him could not resist: soon he would exult triumphantly in the “obliteration” of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Fast-forward to the present, and Trump is fairly drunk with his ability to militarily coerce lesser powers: Venezuela yesterday; Iran today; perhaps Cuba tomorrow. It is all of a seamless piece with his ongoing trade-related bullying of anyone, including European allies, whom he deems vulnerable to intimidation. America, which once had pretensions, at least, to moral leadership, is now a global gangster.

Viewed in this context, it is clear that Trump’s decision to attack Iran had less to do with the substance of negotiations than with the fact that Iran dared negotiate at all. His current policy towards Iran, and potentially a host of others, can be summed up in three words: ‘submit, or die.’ The fact that Trump was admittedly surprised that Iran would react by attacking his Arab allies only underscores the point.

Having reached this stage in his devolution, Trump’s enthusiastic military alliance with Netanyahu makes eminent sense. As Israel enters the endgame in its progressive dispossession of the Palestinians, its consistent message to the Palestinians themselves and to any in the region who rise to their aid — from Gaza, to Ramallah, to Beirut, to Sana, to Damascus, to Tehran — is clear: resistance is futile.

If Israel were an innocent victim of aggression from Iran and its regional allies, Trump’s insistence on Iran’s permanent disarmament vis-à-vis Israel might have an ethical justification. If US policy combined taming Iranian radicalism and achieving justice for Palestinians, it might be worthy of respect. But no such respect is due.

As former chief of counterterrorism at CIA, I know a bit about the subject. Terrorism is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve a political end. Iran has long shown little compunction regarding use of terrorism, but neither has Israel. If there were any ambiguity on the latter account, Israel’s ongoing obliteration of Gaza and its state-sanctioned murders of West Bank Palestinians have erased it.

Indeed, as the war drags on, we are already seeing Israel’s target set in Iran slide towards civilian infrastructure and cultural sites, reportedly to the Americans’ alarm. We can soon anticipate the ‘Gazafication’ of Iran.

The latest tragedy of the Trump presidency is that he has fully harnessed American power to Israeli ends. Trump’s own shifting motivations in pursuing this war may be a muddled mix of strategic confusion and primitive instincts, but its objective rationale is clear: to make the world safe for Israeli war crimes and apartheid. Strip away the excuses and self-deception, and that’s all we have left.

The writer is a former US official and author of 88 Days to Kandahar.

Published in Dawn, March 13th, 2026