Trump is waging war based on instinct and it isn’t working
Trump’s War Driven by Instinct Falters in the Middle East
Since the recent aerial strikes by U.S. and Israeli forces targeting Iran, time-honored lessons from military history have echoed through the Oval Office. The absence of strategic foresight has left President Donald Trump with a critical decision: either secure a hollow victory or push the conflict further. One enduring principle from the Prussian strategist Helmuth von Moltke the Elder highlights this dilemma: “no plan survives first contact with the enemy.” His words, penned in 1871 during Germany’s unification, marked a turning point for European stability—just as the current Middle East tensions may redefine regional security.
Leadership and Adaptation
Trump’s approach seems reminiscent of Mike Tyson’s punchline: “everyone has a plan until they get hit.” Yet, this mindset contrasts sharply with Dwight D. Eisenhower’s philosophy, which emphasized the importance of planning despite uncertainty. As a general who led the D-Day invasion in 1944 and later served as president, Eisenhower asserted that “plans are worthless, but planning is everything.” He argued that preparation allows for flexibility when the unexpected arises, a lesson Trump appears to have overlooked.
“The first thing you do is to take all the plans off the top shelf and throw them out the window and start once more. But if you haven’t been planning you can’t start to work, intelligently at least.”
Far from collapsing after the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the regime in Tehran continues to operate and retaliate. Its steady response underscores the gap between Trump’s intuitive strategy and the calculated efforts of past leaders. The contrast is stark when compared to the U.S. military’s swift capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in January. Maduro’s deputy, Delcy Rodríguez, now leads the country under Washington’s influence, a scenario Trump may have hoped to replicate.
However, the differences between Venezuela and Iran are stark. While Maduro’s regime faced internal unrest, Iran’s leadership remains resilient. Trump’s instinct-driven tactics, which prioritize gut feelings over detailed strategy, have left the U.S. forces without a coherent direction. This has diminished the impact of their military might, despite its strength.
Four weeks into the conflict, Trump and Netanyahu relied on a heavy bombing campaign to eliminate key Iranian figures. The attack claimed the lives of the supreme leader and his top advisors, with HRANA reporting over 1,464 Iranian civilian deaths. Their expectation of a swift outcome was based on the hope that Iranians would rise in protest, mirroring the uprisings seen in Venezuela. Yet, the regime endures, and Trump is learning why his predecessors hesitated to back Netanyahu’s aggressive stance against the Islamic Republic.
