How Donald Trump ended up in the Iran mud

WashingtonDante's inferno is formed by descending circles, increasingly narrow, until the last one, where Lucifer is. The war in Iran is also entering a dark, uncontrolled descent. It has gone from a controlled air operation to the mobilization of troops in the region, prepared for a possible ground incursion. As Dante descended into hell, Virgil guided and advised him. Donald Trump also has his Virigils, but as the days go by, it is increasingly difficult to understand what kind of accompaniment he has received or if he has simply ignored the warnings.

When generals present plans for a possible operation to the President of the United States, they accompany them with a risk assessment. Normally, when previous presidents saw high danger, around 60% or 70%, they tended to curb them or seek alternatives. Trump's problem is that "he is more willing to pull the trigger" despite the risk, military sources explained to ARA when the war in Iran was merely an idea. Reality has proven them right. Against the warnings of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, the American president ordered the bombing of Iran in the early hours of February 28. "No retreat. Good luck," the commander-in-chief told the soldiers. Trump was not mistaken about one thing: he was buying a one-way ticket, in a situation where it seems increasingly difficult to turn back.

The purge carried out among the Pentagon's high commands has also changed the reality of the military leadership. A year ago, Trump and his Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, left a lot of dismissals within the army's high ranks. They brought down Air Force General Charles Q. Brown, who was also the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to lead the navy; General James C. Slife, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force; as well as the main legal advisors of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Shortly after, all were replaced by new figures, such as Caine, who is now the highest military authority after Hegseth and Trump. Despite initial fears, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has shown some independence.

One of the anecdotes circulating is that during the meeting with all the generals in Quantico, Caine stood firm despite Trump's complaints about the cold reception he had received. The American president went on stage thinking it would be just another rally and encountered military seriousness. According to sources familiar with the meeting, the generals were taken aback by his attitude, unbecoming of an event like that. Nevertheless, the initial reaction was to look towards Caine to assess how to act. When they saw that their superior maintained the code of martial conduct and did not laugh at his jokes, a sense of relief was generated. The generals felt more legitimized to maintain their composure and not play along with the Republican. But even for such a simple gesture, it became clear to what extent they depended on the hierarchy. If Caine had laughed, despite the disapproval caused by the tycoon's behavior, the reaction would have been different.

Video summaries of the war

It cannot be said that the war in Iran is a consequence of the Pentagon purge, but it is a factor that has influenced it. In the same way, it is also marked by the culture of loyalty to the leader that has been established within the White House. Every day, since the military campaign began, army officers have to put together a video summary of the day to inform the president. According to NBC, the clip lasts about two minutes and a good part of the content is images of "things exploding".

Although this is not the only way through which Trump receives information and advice on the war, these videos generate concern because they suggest that the president may not have the full picture of the situation. Another army officer explains that the reports presented to the president are usually better received when they focus on the victories obtained.

These videos, in part, could explain why Trump is so indignant with the information published by the media about the war. It is no secret that the president calls anything that goes against him "fake news", but it is true that he has been particularly belligerent with the military campaign. This would also explain why Trump insists on assuring with so much conviction that he has already "won" and that he has completely destroyed a large part of the Iranian military capacity. Obviously, the claims also respond to the need to justify a war that, a month later, is still unable to explain.

The escalation trap

Trump's fixation on victory also responds to another element that the University of Chicago professor Robert Pape defines as the "escalation trap." Every tactical victory leads to further escalation by the administration because a strategic victory is not being achieved. "When Hegseth says that killing the supreme leader means success and victory, it is true. He is not lying. The problem here is not tactical failure, but that tactical success does not automatically equate to strategic success. And undoubtedly, with the Iran war, this is what is happening. And this ends up generating that, for fear of losing, the United States and Israel are escalating stages, but continue to fail strategically, and the price and cost of withdrawing continue to increase as we move forward," Pape explains to ARA.

For decades, the University of Chicago professor has advised the different administrations that have passed through the White House, including Trump's first presidency. The expert in air operations highlights that, on the other hand, this time he has not received any kind of call from the government to ask for his advice.

Pape, based on the experience of having sat on numerous occasions with congressmen and military personnel to debate possible actions, presents another factor: the false sense of control generated by precision weapons and the large amount of intelligence increasingly produced by agencies. "I have seen how people react to this feeling that escalation can be controlled when they receive such detailed information. This is due to the power of precision weapons, which are so accurate and reliable that they end up generating excessive confidence about the situation. Furthermore, everyone knows that the United States and the Mossad hear everything; so they combine precision bombing with precise intelligence. And this is how we have arrived here," he recounts.

It is often said that Trump is impulsive and risky, but Pape emphasizes that in this case it is not a matter of character. The professor points out that this false sense of controlling the situation also affected Ronald Reagan with the decision to bomb Libya and Bill Clinton, Kosovo.

For Pape, the quagmire of the Iran war dates back to June 2025, when the United States bombed Iranian nuclear facilities with the B-2. The Republican said they had "annihilated" the regime's ability to develop the nuclear program, even though reports pointed in another direction. Not to mention the satellite images that showed how, days before, material had been transported from the Fordow uranium enrichment plant to other locations to prevent a possible attack. "Trump thought he had air power with precision weapons in June. That was the beginning of the trap," explains Pape.

The problem is that once you fall into the trap, it is very difficult to get out. The professor also highlights a reason why for 25 years the US had not considered bombing Iran. Trump has cited various reasons for attacking – for the ability to fire ballistic missiles or for a change of regime –, but the main one is uranium enrichment. Paradoxically, says Pape, "in May Iran had enough enriched uranium", whereas, "if we go back to the years of the Obama deal, the figure was zero. They had very little". For the professor, the situation in Iran goes beyond Trump, and the war has already evolved to such an extent that it has become a “trap”. According to Pape, if now, with the current context, the president were a democrat, "the problem would be the same". The US is facing “a first-order dilemma that they have not had in fifty years”. He warns that "the strategic question", the "real choice", is whether the United States can now afford "to leave behind a hostile nationalist regime as the world's oil hegemon and with large quantities of nuclear material within the country".