logo
Trump, Iran and the spectre of Iraq: ‘We bought all the happy talk'

Trump, Iran and the spectre of Iraq: ‘We bought all the happy talk'

Straits Times19-06-2025
This handout grab taken from footage released by the US Defence Visual Information Distribution Service (DVIDS) on June 11 shows the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz. It is reportedly headed to the Middle East to boost the US presence as the Israel-Iran conflict rages on. PHOTO: AFP
WASHINGTON – A little more than 22 years ago, Washington was on edge as a president stood on the precipice of ordering an invasion of Baghdad. The expectation was that it would be a quick, triumphant 'mission accomplished'.
By the time the United States withdrew nearly nine years and more than 4,000 American deaths later, the Iraq War had become a historic lesson of miscalculation and unintended consequences.
The spectre of Iraq now hangs over a deeply divided, anxious Washington. President Donald Trump, who campaigned against America's 'forever wars,' is pondering a swift deployment of US military might in Iran. This time, there are not some 200,000 US troops massed in the Middle East or anti-war demonstrations around the world. But the sense of dread and the unknown feels in many ways the same.
'So much of this is the same story told again,' said Vali R. Nasr, an Iranian American who is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 'Once upon a time, we didn't know better, and we bought all the happy talk about Iraq. But every single assumption proved wrong.'
There are many similarities. The Bush administration and its allies saw the invasion of Iraq as a 'cakewalk' and promised that US troops would be greeted as liberators. There were internal disputes over the intelligence that justified the war. A phalanx of neo-conservatives pushed hard for the chance to get rid of Saddam Hussein, the longtime dictator of Iraq.
And America held its breath waiting for President George W. Bush to announce a final decision.
Today, Trump allies argue that coming to the aid of Israel by dropping 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs on Fordo, Iran's most fortified nuclear site, could be a one-off event that would transform the Middle East.
There is a dispute over intelligence between Ms Tulsi Gabbard, Mr Trump's director of national intelligence, who said in March that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon, and Mr Trump, who retorted on June 17 that 'I don't care what she said'. Iran, he added, was in fact close to a nuclear weapon.
Some of the same neo-conservatives who pushed for the war in Iraq are now pushing for war with Iran.
'You've got to go to war with the president you have,' said Mr William Kristol, a Never Trumper and editor at large of The Bulwark, who was a prominent advocate of war with Iraq. 'If you really think that Iran can't have nuclear weapons, we have a chance to try to finish the job.'
And once again, the nation is waiting for a president to decide.
'I may do it. I may not do it. Nobody knows what I'm going to do,' Mr Trump said on June 18 when asked about his thinking on striking Iranian nuclear facilities.
There are the familiar questions about an endgame.
Mr Bush landed on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, and under a 'Mission Accomplished' banner, he triumphantly declared combat operations in Iraq were at an end.
But the country was in chaos as he spoke.
Today, many American officials fear there will be a wider war if the United States bombs Fordo, including retaliatory attacks on US bases in the region by pro-Iran militias and strikes on ships in the Red Sea by the Iran-backed Houthis.
Admiral William F. Fallon, who in 2007 and 2008 oversaw all US military operations in the Middle East as head of US Central Command, said on June 18 that he had concerns about Iran spiraling out of control after a US strike.
'What's the plan?' he said. 'What's the strategy? What's the desired end state? Iran not having a nuclear weapon is something few people would disagree with. But what is the relationship we would have with Iran in the bigger Middle East? We're just knee-jerking.'
One person who sees little similarity between the run-up to Iraq and now is David H. Petraeus, the general who commanded US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and led the 101st Airborne Division in the initial invasion in Baghdad. 'This is clearly the potential run-up to military action, but it's not the invasion of a country,' he said on June 18.
Mr Trump, he said, should deliver an ultimatum to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, and order him to agree to the complete dismantlement of his nuclear programme or face 'the complete destruction of your country and your regime and your people'. If the supreme leader rejects the ultimatum, Mr Petraeus said, 'that improves our legitimacy, and then reluctantly we blow them to smithereens.'
Mr Nasr said a hopeful scenario after a strike would be the total destruction of Fordo and an Iran that comes to the table and agrees to a negotiated end to its nuclear programme. But if the Iranians respond militarily, as they say they will, Mr Nasr said that Mr Trump would be compelled to counter-attack, particularly if Americans are killed on US bases in the region.
'And then you don't know where it's going to stop, and Trump is really risking a repeat of the Iraq War,' he said.
Iran is larger than Iraq, he noted, with a population of roughly 90 million and a far more capable, nationalistic military than the Iraqi army.
Mr John Bolton, a neo-conservative who served as one of Mr Trump's first-term national security advisers, was a big advocate for the war in Iraq and is now a supporter of a US attack on Iran.
'Bomb Fordo and be done with it,' he said on June 18. 'I think this is long overdue.'
He wrote a book about his time working for Mr Trump that enraged the president, and Mr Trump retaliated by revoking Mr Bolton's Secret Service protection, despite death threats that Mr Bolton faces from Iran.
The two no longer speak, so Mr Bolton said he had no idea what Mr Trump would decide. He was not sure if Mr Trump knew himself. But in his experience, Mr Bolton said, Mr Trump was 'frantic and agitated' in national security crises.
'He talks to a lot of people, and he's looking for somebody who will say the magic words,' Mr Bolton said. 'He'll hear something, and he'll decide, 'That's right. That's what I believe.' Which lasts until he has the next conversation.' NYTIMES
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Explainer-Why is Putin talking about a new nuclear weapons treaty with the US?
Explainer-Why is Putin talking about a new nuclear weapons treaty with the US?

Straits Times

time13 minutes ago

  • Straits Times

Explainer-Why is Putin talking about a new nuclear weapons treaty with the US?

Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Russian President Vladimir Putin holds a meeting with members of Russia's top leadership, as well as representatives of the government and presidential administration, in preparation for the upcoming Russia-US summit in Alaska, at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia August 14, 2025. Sputnik/Vyacheslav Prokofyev/Pool via REUTERS LONDON - Russian President Vladimir Putin said on the eve of a summit with U.S. Donald Trump that their two countries might strike a new deal on nuclear weapons as part of a wider effort to strengthen peace. THE SUMMIT IS ABOUT UKRAINE, SO WHY TALK ABOUT NUKES? Putin has been under pressure from Trump to agree to end the three-and-a-half-year-old war in Ukraine, something Moscow says is part of a complex of security issues that have raised East-West tensions to their most dangerous level since the Cold War. With Russian forces gradually advancing in Ukraine, Putin has rebuffed Kyiv's calls for a full and immediate ceasefire. But if the summit makes progress towards a new arms control treaty, Putin could argue that he is engaging on wider peace issues. That could help him persuade Trump that now is not the right time to impose new sanctions on Russia and buyers of its oil and other key exports, as the U.S. leader has threatened. It could also be part of a broader drive to improve relations with Washington, including on trade and economic issues, where the Kremlin says there is huge untapped potential. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Over 100 people being investigated for vape offences, say MOH and HSA Singapore Bukit Merah fire: Residents relocated as town council carries out restoration works Singapore askST: What to do in the event of a fire at home Singapore Jalan Bukit Merah fire: PMD battery could have started fatal blaze, says SCDF Singapore askST: What are the fire safety rules for PMDs? Asia AirAsia flight from KL to Incheon lands at wrong airport in South Korea Opinion Could telco consolidation spell the end of attractive mobile plans? Singapore From quiet introvert to self-confident student: How this vulnerable, shy teen gets help to develop and discover her strength WHY HAS PUTIN REPEATEDLY TALKED UP RUSSIA'S NUCLEAR ARSENAL? Throughout the war, Putin has delivered veiled threats about using nuclear missiles and warned that entering a direct confrontation with Russia could lead to World War Three. They have included verbal statements, war games, and lowering Russia's threshold for using nuclear weapons. The fact that Russia has more nuclear weapons than any other country gives it a stature in this domain that far exceeds its conventional military or economic power, allowing Putin to face Trump as an equal on the world stage when it comes to security. HOW MANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO RUSSIA AND THE U.S. HAVE? According to the Federation of American Scientists, Russia and the United States have estimated military stockpiles of 4,309 and 3,700 nuclear warheads respectively. China trails behind with an estimated 600. WHAT DOES THE EXISTING U.S.-RUSSIA NUCLEAR TREATY SAY? Signed by then-U.S. president Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in 2010, the New START treaty caps the number of strategic nuclear warheads that the United States and Russia can deploy. Each is limited to no more than 1,550, and a maximum of 700 long-range missiles and bombers. Strategic weapons are those designed by each side to hit the enemy's centres of military, economic and political power. The treaty came into force in 2011 and was extended in 2021 for five more years after U.S. President Joe Biden took office. In 2023, Putin suspended Russia's participation but Moscow said it would continue to observe the warhead limits. The treaty expires on February 5. Security analysts expect both sides to breach the limits if it is not extended or replaced. WHAT ARE THE OTHER NUCLEAR POINTS OF CONTENTION? In a symptom of the underlying tensions, Trump this month said he had ordered two U.S. nuclear submarines to move closer to Russia because of what he called threatening comments by Medvedev about the possibility of war with the U.S. The Kremlin played down the move but said "everyone should be very, very careful" with nuclear rhetoric. Separately, an arms race looms over shorter- and intermediate-range missiles, which can also carry nuclear warheads. During Trump's first presidency, in 2019, he pulled the U.S. out of a treaty that had abolished all ground-based weapons in this category. Moscow denied his accusations that it was cheating. The United States plans to start deploying weapons including SM-6 and Tomahawk missiles, previously placed mainly on ships, as well as new hypersonic missiles, in Germany from 2026. Russia said this month it no longer observes any restrictions on where it might deploy intermediate-range missiles. REUTERS

Israel's finance minister announces settlement plan to 'bury' idea of Palestinian state
Israel's finance minister announces settlement plan to 'bury' idea of Palestinian state

CNA

time13 minutes ago

  • CNA

Israel's finance minister announces settlement plan to 'bury' idea of Palestinian state

TEL AVIV: Israeli far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced work would start on a long-delayed settlement that would divide the West Bank and cut it off from East Jerusalem, a move his office said would "bury" the idea of a Palestinian state. The Palestinian government, allies and campaign groups condemned the scheme, calling it illegal and saying the fragmentation of territory would rip up any internationally backed peace plans for the region. Standing at the site of the planned settlement in Maale Adumim on Thursday (Aug 14), Smotrich said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump had agreed to the revival of the E1 development, though there was no immediate confirmation from either. 'Whoever in the world is trying to recognise a Palestinian state today will receive our answer on the ground. Not with documents nor with decisions or statements, but with facts. Facts of houses, facts of neighbourhoods," Smotrich said. Israel froze construction plans at Maale Adumim in 2012, and again after a revival in 2020, because of objections from the US, European allies and other powers who considered the project a threat to any future peace deal with the Palestinians. The move could further isolate Israel, which has watched some of its Western allies condemn its military offensive in Gaza and announce they will recognise a Palestinian state. Palestinians fear the settlement building in the West Bank - which has sharply intensified since the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel that led to the Gaza war - will rob them of any chance to build a state of their own in the area. In a statement headlined "Burying the idea of a Palestinian state", Smotrich's spokesperson said the minister had approved the plan to build 3,401 houses for Israeli settlers between an existing settlement in the West Bank and Jerusalem. In Maale Adumim, Smotrich told Reuters the plan would go into effect on Wednesday. Breaking the Silence, an Israeli rights group established by former Israeli soldiers, criticised Smotrich, accusing him of encouraging West Bank settlement activity while the world's attention was on the Gaza war. "This land grab and settlement expansion will not only further fragment the Palestinian territory, but will further entrench apartheid," it said. Nabil Abu Rudeineh, the Palestinian president's spokesperson, called on the United States to pressure Israel to stop settlement building. "The EU rejects any territorial change that is not part of a political agreement between involved parties. So annexation of territory is illegal under international law," European Commission spokesperson Anitta Hipper said during a press briefing. Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said the move showed that Israel "seeks to appropriate land owned by Palestinians in order to prevent a two-state solution". Qatar, which has mediated between Hamas and Israel in efforts to secure a ceasefire in Gaza, condemned Smotrich's actions as a "blatant violation of international law". HOUSE BUILDING "IN A YEAR" Peace Now, which tracks settlement activity in the West Bank, said there were still steps needed before construction. But if all went through, infrastructure work could begin within a few months, and house building in about a year. 'The E1 plan is deadly for the future of Israel and for any chance of achieving a peaceful two-state solution. We are standing at the edge of an abyss, and the government is driving us forward at full speed," Peace Now said in a statement. Palestinians were already demoralised by the Israeli military campaign which has killed more than 61,000 people in Gaza, according to local health authorities, and fear Israel will ultimately push them out of that territory. About 700,000 Israeli settlers live among 2.7 million Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel annexed East Jerusalem in a move not recognised by most countries but has not formally extended sovereignty over the West Bank. The UN and most world powers say settlement expansion has eroded the viability of a two-state solution by fragmenting Palestinian territory. The two-state plan envisages a Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, existing side by side with Israel. Israel cites historical and biblical ties to the area and says the settlements provide strategic depth and security. Most of the global community considers all settlements illegal under international law. Israel rejects this interpretation, saying the West Bank is "disputed" rather than "occupied" territory. Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand imposed sanctions in June on Smotrich and another far-right minister who advocates for settlement expansion, accusing both of them of repeatedly inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

Israel's Smotrich announces settlement plan to 'bury' idea of Palestinian state
Israel's Smotrich announces settlement plan to 'bury' idea of Palestinian state

CNA

time13 minutes ago

  • CNA

Israel's Smotrich announces settlement plan to 'bury' idea of Palestinian state

TEL AVIV: Israeli far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced work would start on a long-delayed settlement that would divide the West Bank and cut it off from East Jerusalem, a move his office said would "bury" the idea of a Palestinian state. The Palestinian government, allies and campaign groups condemned the scheme, calling it illegal and saying the fragmentation of territory would rip up any internationally backed peace plans for the region. Standing at the site of the planned settlement in Maale Adumim on Thursday (Aug 14), Smotrich said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump had agreed to the revival of the E1 development, though there was no immediate confirmation from either. 'Whoever in the world is trying to recognise a Palestinian state today will receive our answer on the ground. Not with documents nor with decisions or statements, but with facts. Facts of houses, facts of neighbourhoods," Smotrich said. Israel froze construction plans at Maale Adumim in 2012, and again after a revival in 2020, because of objections from the US, European allies and other powers who considered the project a threat to any future peace deal with the Palestinians. The move could further isolate Israel, which has watched some of its Western allies condemn its military offensive in Gaza and announce they will recognise a Palestinian state. Palestinians fear the settlement building in the West Bank - which has sharply intensified since the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel that led to the Gaza war - will rob them of any chance to build a state of their own in the area. In a statement headlined "Burying the idea of a Palestinian state," Smotrich's spokesperson said the minister had approved the plan to build 3,401 houses for Israeli settlers between an existing settlement in the West Bank and Jerusalem. In Maale Adumim, Smotrich told Reuters the plan would go into effect on Wednesday. Breaking the Silence, an Israeli rights group established by former Israeli soldiers, criticised Smotrich, accusing him of encouraging West Bank settlement activity while the world's attention was on the Gaza war. "This land grab and settlement expansion will not only further fragment the Palestinian territory, but will further entrench apartheid," it said. Nabil Abu Rudeineh, the Palestinian president's spokesperson, called on the United States to pressure Israel to stop settlement building. "The EU rejects any territorial change that is not part of a political agreement between involved parties. So annexation of territory is illegal under international law," European Commission spokesperson Anitta Hipper said during a press briefing. Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said the move showed that Israel "seeks to appropriate land owned by Palestinians in order to prevent a two-state solution". Qatar, which has mediated between Hamas and Israel in efforts to secure a ceasefire in Gaza, condemned Smotrich's actions as a "blatant violation of international law". HOUSE BUILDING "IN A YEAR" Peace Now, which tracks settlement activity in the West Bank, said there were still steps needed before construction. But if all went through, infrastructure work could begin within a few months, and house building in about a year. 'The E1 plan is deadly for the future of Israel and for any chance of achieving a peaceful two-state solution. We are standing at the edge of an abyss, and the government is driving us forward at full speed," Peace Now said in a statement. Palestinians were already demoralised by the Israeli military campaign which has killed more than 61,000 people in Gaza, according to local health authorities, and fear Israel will ultimately push them out of that territory. About 700,000 Israeli settlers live among 2.7 million Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel annexed East Jerusalem in a move not recognised by most countries but has not formally extended sovereignty over the West Bank. The UN and most world powers say settlement expansion has eroded the viability of a two-state solution by fragmenting Palestinian territory. The two-state plan envisages a Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, existing side by side with Israel. Israel cites historical and biblical ties to the area and says the settlements provide strategic depth and security. Most of the global community considers all settlements illegal under international law. Israel rejects this interpretation, saying the West Bank is "disputed" rather than "occupied" territory. Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand imposed sanctions in June on Smotrich and another far-right minister who advocates for settlement expansion, accusing both of them of repeatedly inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store