U.S. Media Worry: Trump May Launch Aggressive Strike Against Iran After Midterm Defeat
U.S. media are now expressing concern over whether Donald Trump, following a significant loss in the midterm elections, might resort to reckless escalation by launching a major military campaign against Iran.
The concern was raised by The New York Times. On the 5th, the publication argued that historically, U.S. presidents who find themselves in a “lame duck” position often attempt to reaffirm their authority as commander-in-chief through demonstrative military action.
A notable precedent is George W. Bush. After losing the 2006 midterm elections amid growing public discontent over the Iraq War, Bush dismissed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld but simultaneously increased troop levels in Iraq—prompting The New York Times to warn that Trump could follow a similar path.
While The New York Times cites an example closely resembling Trump’s current political vulnerability, Iraq and Iran are not comparable in strategic terms. Simply put, the scale of Iran’s territory would require significantly greater military deployment should Trump seek to emulate Bush’s approach. Yet, past experience has shown that even extensive bombing campaigns have failed to compel Iran to capitulate without ground forces—a reality that undermines the feasibility of such a strategy.
Moreover, Bush’s intervention in Iraq had congressional authorization, whereas Trump currently lacks such legal backing. His 2006 midterm defeat stemmed not from defiance of Congress, but from the war’s failure to conclude according to American expectations, resulting instead in prolonged entanglement.
To some extent, this reflects a broader American attitude: the public does not inherently oppose war, but resists conflicts that disrupt daily life. There remains a persistent desire to project power while avoiding the costs and consequences of military engagement.
If Trump were able to swiftly eliminate Iran’s leadership—as he did with Hugo Chávez in Venezuela—the same Democratic critics now condemning him might, at minimum, reluctantly acknowledge that he had neutralized a perceived threat and protected U.S. interests. But, of course, hypotheticals do not alter reality.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1881103392504970/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.