The outcome in Iran is emerging as a two-staged agreement where, in the second stage, Iran agrees to as-yet undefined limits on its nuclear program over a period of ten to twenty years. President Trump will declare victory, but he will have a hard time explaining how his agreement is much better that the ten-to-fifteen year deal that former president Obama reached in 2015.
Yet, with the destruction of so much of Iran’s weaponry and its military-industrial complex, he has set back Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon for years in a way the Obama did not. And, with a decade of advances in remote surveillance technology, arguably, American ability to detect deal violations will be robust, enabling immediate responses.
Beyond trading removal of the American blockade for Iran’s opening of the Strait of Hormuz, we do not know what Iranian demands he will have to meet to reach a deal. No deal is ever one-sided.
He will have a hard time explaining the rationale of yet another Mideast war to Americans who supported him in 2024 when he said “No more foreign wars.” He will remind the public that he also promised never to allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon.
Americans will look closely at Trump’s ultimate deal to assess whether the agreement with Iran achieves the no-Iranian-nuke promise in a way that justifies the exception to the no-more-wars promise. The assessment will turn on how much Iran retains of its nuclear program. Yet a six week aerial-bombing-only campaign is not a full-scale “endless” war.
To say the war has achieved far less than expected, and entailed significant negative consequences, is understatement. Iran was supposed to collapse and capitulate within weeks, at least according to the Israelis. It hasn’t.
To date, the conflict has been a contest to see which side could outlast the other in the pain game: the world without about one-fifth of regular petroleum, fertilizer and aluminum supplies or Iran without any imports or exports.
As time has worn on, the President has faced the conventional dilemma: do I accept less than the original goals or do I double down on what has failed so far? Do I follow the Israeli assessment that more bombing will achieve what it has failed to accomplish so far.
Actually, in his 60 Minutes interview, Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran’s enriched uranium would have to be removed from the country. The interviewer asked how, and Netanyahu replied “you go in, and you take it out,” which can only have meant the use of ground troops.
Most Americans oppose the war. Most polls have simply asked whether or not the person “supports the war” or some monochromatic equivalent. If Americans were asked directly whether they supported a ground invasion, the only reasonable assessment is that the opposition would be much greater. In one poll in which 43% opposed the war and only 27% supported it (the rest were undecided), over half said they would be more likely to oppose the war if there were U.S. troop casualties.
Thus, doubling down would have been an extremely high-risk option, especially because the President did not seek anyone’s support before launching the war – not Congress, not the American people, not our allies, not the U.N. All alone, he owns this war - lock, stock and barrel.
Yet, he has not been alone. He has been joined at the hip with Netanyahu. It will be difficult to dissuade Americans from the widespread perception that Netanyahu has undue influence over Trump.
Never before has the U.S. joined Israel in a full-scale joint military offensive. Previous American military coordination with Israel has involved only defense of the Jewish State, not offensive operations.
Indeed, previous American presidents have restrained Israelis in their foreign wars. Famously, former president Ronald Reagan called then Israeli Premier Menachem Begin and told him to stop bombing Beirut, Lebanon. Begin stopped the next day.
The U.S. has supplied weapons and military assistance, most recently in June 2025 when America helped defend Israel from Iranian missiles and drones launched in retaliation after Israel first attacked Iran.
The only exception is the single bombing run last June – Operation Midnight Hammer - that devastated Iran’s major nuclear facilities.
The widespread perception that Israel led the U.S. into war is supported by reporting that Netanyahu made a presentation in the White House Situation Room on February 11th strongly advocating the full-scale attack that was launched 17 days later. In his 60 Minutes interview, Netanyahu did not dispute the reporting.
New reporting indicates that, not only did Netanyahu say regime change was achievable, but that Israel had lined up former Iranian President Mahmoud Amadinejad to take charge after the planned assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei. Why Amadinejad made sense is unclear, but he has not taken over.
Reportedly, Netanyahu claimed in the February 11th meeting that the Iraqi Kurds would join the invasion and the Iranian people would rise up to overthrow the government. Neither has happened.
Reportedly, Netanyahu assured President Trump that Iran would be so devastated that it would be unable to block the Strait of Hormuz. Wrong again – and apparently once too often.
Trump has been alone – except for Netanyahu – from the start, but doubling down would isolate him even further. The conflict has passed the 60-day limit on the president’s leeway to conduct major military action without Congressional approval.
The administration claims that the war ended with the ceasefire in early April. Iran knows this, which has taken much of the punch out of the President Trump’s threats to resume bombing.
Four Republican senators just voted for a resolution requiring the president to seek Congressional approval. A similar vote in the House was likely. Trump could veto the resolution (or ignore a concurrent resolution that takes effect without a presidential signature), but that would be defying Congress, not just acting without its support.
Then, there are the midterm elections. The Iran War has dragged the president’s approval rating down to new lows, suggesting almost certain loss of the Republican majority in the House as well as the possible loss of its majority in the Senate.
If Republicans lose both houses, President Trump will be a lame duck. Does he really want to sacrifice the second half of his second term by doubling down on Netanyahu’s bad advice? Apparently, despite criticism from American neocons, he has decided “no.”
Red Jahncke is a nationally recognized columnist, who writes about politics and policy. His columns appear in numerous national publications, such as The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, USA Today, The Hill, Issues & Insights and National Review as well as many Connecticut newspapers.
