Iran War Puts Trump on the Path to an “Endless War,” Reviving Lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan
The war between the United States and Iran is increasingly drawing comparisons with Washington’s previous conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the consequences of the fighting spread across the region and no clear path to an end has emerged. The development stands in sharp contrast to President Donald Trump’s pledges to avoid prolonged conflicts and put an end to what he has called America’s “endless wars.”
Nearly a quarter of a century after the September 11, 2001 attacks pushed the United States into a global war on terror, Trump now finds himself facing a major military confrontation that analysts warn could evolve into another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict, particularly as fighting, retaliatory attacks and economic pressure continue.
Researchers say the decision to enter a major confrontation with Iran represents a significant departure from the restraint that took hold in Washington after the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan. They warn that a prolonged conflict could leave a deeply entrenched confrontation for Trump’s successor if the war continues without a clear political settlement.
The current conflict differs from the Iraq invasion and Afghanistan war in the nature of US military involvement. Washington has relied primarily on airpower and naval capabilities rather than deploying large ground forces to seize and hold territory. While Iran has suffered military and economic damage, the campaign has so far failed to bring about the collapse of its government or fully achieve the objectives initially outlined by the Trump administration.
Months into the conflict, the war increasingly resembles a war of attrition marked by intermittent fighting, attacks and threats affecting energy supplies and maritime routes, while Washington continues efforts to tighten economic pressure on Tehran.
Analysts warn that the conflict could continue beyond the US midterm elections in November, potentially creating growing political costs for Republicans as the war affects fuel prices, the American economy and public support for the campaign.
The confrontation has also revived concerns that Washington may be repeating mistakes associated with the post-September 11 era, including underestimating an adversary’s ability to withstand military pressure and the difficulty of ending wars that begin with limited military objectives but develop broader political and security consequences.
The effects of the conflict have extended beyond the United States and Iran, with attacks targeting Washington’s Gulf allies and growing concerns over energy security and maritime routes. Neighboring states have consequently been seeking to contain an escalation they did not want to see.
Trump is also facing criticism over the limited international support for the campaign compared with the backing Washington received during the early stages of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Several European and Asian governments have expressed reservations about joining the conflict or providing direct assistance.
While Trump initially appeared to expect a swift campaign that would achieve his objectives regarding Iran’s nuclear program, the war has instead developed into a more complicated confrontation, with Iran maintaining its resistance and retaining the ability to disrupt global energy flows while US missile stocks face continued pressure.
Analysts say the absence of a clear exit strategy could turn the conflict into a major military and political test for the Trump administration, reviving the same question that followed the Iraq and Afghanistan wars: How does the war end, and what comes next?
