During the second Iraq War, General David Petraeus famously asked in his book: “Tell Me How This Ends.” No question could be more relevant to Operation Epic Fury and the ill-advised and potentially disastrous undeclared war against Iran.
Since the Korean War, no administration other than George H.W. Bush’s learned the lesson that while the U.S. military was proficient at winning battles, the U.S. was incapable of winning wars. The first Iraq War and operations Desert Shield and Storm were textbook examples of how to respond to armed aggression. And those who criticized the first President Bush for not marching to Baghdad in 1991 found out how catastrophic that would have been when his son, President George W. Bush, did precisely that.
At some stage, someone will write the definitive story of how this misguided and misjudged misapplication of American blood and treasure occurred. Perhaps President Trump believed that, after last year’s 12-day war and this year’s snatch of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, that U.S. military power was unlimited in what it could accomplish, or if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convinced the commander in chief that Iran would be a walkover, ultimately the public will be informed.
The question remains: What next?
Negotiations and sporadic ceasefires are now the battles being fought. “Jaw, jaw and not war war,” as Churchill wisely observed, is of course preferably. But how long can this go on without some resolution? After all, no matter how capable the U.S. military may be, all the ships, planes, submarines, airmen, sailors, soldiers and marines cannot be permanently kept at general quarters without great cost.
With gas and fertilizer costs skyrocketing with the price of food soon to follow, Trump and the Republicans face November elections that could easily lose one and possibly both Houses of Congress. The clock is ticking. Someone must be listening not only in Washington but Tehran as well.
The wild card is Israel, who did not appear to play any role in the negotiations other than what they will or will not do in Lebanon, that is a sticking point from Tehran’s perspective. Netanyahu and the Mossad must know that on the current course and without a regime change that is positive for Jerusalem, Iran will build a nuclear weapon even if it takes decades. Hence, the threat to Israel remains existential with or without a settlement.
As many commentators have noted, Trump has two extremely bad choices: Get in or get out. That means he can declare victory and hope to achieve diplomatically what the Obama administration did with its Iran nuclear agreement. Despite criticisms over sunset provisions and Iranian compliance, if all parties had followed that agreement, Iran would never have gotten nuclear weapons.
There was also a debate over whether Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa in 2003 declaring nuclear weapons forbidden by Islam. But his representatives stated that Iran’s nuclear weapons are its people, and Khamenei himself said that Iran would not build a bomb. It is unclear whether the new leadership will abide by those comments or not.
The point is that despite the growing pressure on Trump to end the conflict with some positive results sooner than later, Iran does not necessarily suffer from the same urgency. In Afghanistan, the saying went that while the West had all the wrist watches (i.e. technology), the Afghans had all the time, meaning the Taliban could win by not losing. Iran has reached similar conclusions.
History may not be helpful. Although President-elect Richard Nixon promised in the 1968 campaign that he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War, the plan was so secret that it took seven years for the North to finally win. If the Iranian negotiators are as tough as Hanoi’s, Trump is in for a rough ride.
It is possible, however, that a truce could be the long-term solution meaning a standoff. This is how the Korean War reached an ending without a formal peace agreement. The advantage is that the Strait of Hormuz could be opened, and some normality could return. The danger is that a spark could restart a conflagration that could not be contained. And what does Israel do?
Trump has one great skill. He almost magically avoids catastrophes wrought by business bankruptcies, serious criminal charges and two impeachments. Some of that magic is needed now.
Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI’s Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior adviser at the Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and former United Kingdom Defense Chief David Richards are the authors of a forthcoming book on preventing strategic catastrophe.
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
