Donald Trump came into office promising to put an end to America’s seemingly endless wars and steer clear of new military conflicts, especially in the Middle East. While he often criticizes former President Joe Biden and Barack Obama for global instability, his harshest critiques are directed at President George W. Bush and the neoconservative agenda.
Yet, his recent order for a strike on Iran seems to align him with the neoconservative vision he once distanced himself from. Despite his earlier rhetoric, it appears Trump has become a figurehead for neoconservatism, and if he aims to make an impact, he must embrace that perspective.
Neoconservatism, which took shape during the Bush era, seeks to reshape the Middle East by dismantling authoritarian regimes, eradicating weapons of mass destruction, and ultimately fostering regional peace through U.S. military intervention. The invasion of Iraq was a pivotal move in this strategy. Although Trump previously mocked that conflict as a blunder, his decision to strike Iran suggests he is now employing the same rationale. It’s about using force for long-term strategic transformation in the region.
Now, Trump finds himself needing to adopt the Neocon Playbook to avoid the perpetual conflict he once vowed to bring to a close. This entails recognizing strategic objectives that extend beyond merely executing limited airstrikes. He must find a way to permanently obstruct Iran’s nuclear ambitions, dismantle its existing regime, and lay the groundwork for a reorganization between Israel, Iran, and the Gulf Arab states.
It’s important not to assume that Iran’s current leadership is permanent. The former Shah, Mohammad Reza Pallavi, ruled for almost four decades, and many thought his regime was secure until it collapsed in 1979. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been in power for about the same length of time, but its future is just as uncertain.
Recent attacks on both Israel and U.S. interests in the region have spotlighted the vulnerabilities of the Iranian regime. By asserting control over Iran’s airspace and undermining its nuclear capabilities, these actions challenge the foundations of Iran’s power. The current state of Iran may be more precarious than at any time since 1979, lacking the deterrents it once had and facing internal instability.
If the Iranian government were to fall, it might alter regional dynamics—potentially through a military coup inspired by Trump’s actions. For years, Iran has aimed to exert its influence in the region as a Shia power in opposition to the Sunni Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia. Israel views a nuclear-capable Iran as a significant threat, but a post-regime Iran that prioritizes stability could lead to a more peaceful coexistence with its Sunni neighbors, possibly even fostering improved relations with Israel.
Such changes might usher in a period of relative peace in a historically conflict-ridden region. However, achieving this depends on Trump’s commitment to following through on the strategy he has just initiated. Without that promise, his strike against Iran risks merely escalating tensions without bringing about substantial change. Incomplete measures could lead to unintended consequences, enhancing Iran’s nuclear pursuits and exacerbating regional conflicts involving Israel and the Gulf states. This aligns all too closely with the “eternal war” that Trump pledged to avoid.
Trump has noted that he was among the first to criticize “warmonger” Hillary Clinton during her support of the Iraq invasion, frequently attacking Bush for what he labeled a foolish decision. Yet, his own military action against Iran shows that he’s now aligning himself with the very framework he once ridiculed. The choices ahead are complex. He risks either becoming a proponent of the neoconservative agenda he seems to have adopted or ending up as a failed foreign policy figure—something he has often denounced in others.
