“I am especially proud to be the first president in decades who has started no new wars,” President Donald Trump declared during his 2021 farewell address. Throughout the 2024 campaign and into his second term, Trump consistently branded himself as the “Peace President.” It was a title he maintained even as his administration conducted military strikes, bombings, or specialized operations in at least six different countries.
On February 28, 2026, Trump added a seventh nation to that list: Iran. This decision to collaborate with Israel on a preemptive bombing campaign represents more than just a shift in Middle East policy; it marks the final, violent collapse of the “America First” doctrine. Despite campaigning on a platform of staunch non-interventionism, Trump has tethered American blood and treasure to the strategic whims of a foreign proxy. In doing so, he hasn’t just exposed a government that prioritizes non-national interests over its own citizens’ security; he has run headlong into a wall of public skepticism built on two centuries of broken promises.
A World Set Ablaze: The Immediate Aftermath of Escalation
The global fallout from Trump’s decision has been immediate and devastating. Oil and gas prices have surged to record highs, destabilizing the global economy. In retaliation, Iran has struck neighboring nations and reached into Europe. As a result of the escalating conflict, regional airspace has been brought to a virtual standstill. Commercial travel has evaporated, replaced by a predatory private charter market where a one-way ticket out of the danger zone can cost as much as $350,000. Perhaps most damningly, in a moment of sheer national embarrassment, U.S. Embassies across the Middle East have issued notices effectively telling American citizens they are on their own, signaling a total breakdown in the government’s ability to protect its people abroad.
Furthermore, a wave of attacks has struck as far as Norway and various locations across the United States. While these strikes are currently being attributed to Iranian sympathizers, formal investigations remain ongoing and the findings are far from final.
In addition to the domestic violence engendered by the conflict, the human cost is already mounting: at least six U.S. soldiers have been killed, alongside approximately 12 Israelis, 400 Lebanese, and 1,200 Iranians, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The fog of war, however, is being used to mask systemic failures and potential war crimes. Investigations are currently underway to determine why three U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles were downed. While the White House claims a mistake of friendly fire from Kuwait, Tehran has claimed credit for the shoot-downs. Furthermore, the horrific bombing of an Iranian school that killed 180 people, including school children and teachers, remains a point of bitter contention. While the U.S. deflects blame onto Iran, recently released video evidence suggests American munitions were responsible.
This “collateral damage“ highlights a long-standing deception. Since the inception of the War on Terror, the American public has been told that precision bombing eliminates the moral burden of civilian death. This was proved a lie given that over 1 million civilians died in the 2003 Iraq War. We saw this same rhetoric again after October 7, 2023. Despite assurances that the Israeli military, funded by the U.S., was “avoiding civilians,” the reality on the ground told a different story: 10% of Gaza’s population has been killed or injured, 270 journalists have been lost, and 94% of the region’s hospitals have been hit.
The hypocrisy extends to the domestic front. When Americans demand universal healthcare or subsidized education, they are told the coffers are empty. Yet, this war is currently costing taxpayers $1 billion per day. This fiscal recklessness is particularly galling coming from an administration that launched the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to slash spending. Ironically, while framed as a cost-saving measure, independent estimates suggest that DOGE’s operations and associated disruptions have actually cost taxpayers upwards of $20 billion. Nonetheless, Trump rose to power in 2016 and 2024 by branding himself the anti-war candidate; today, “America First” has been replaced by “Israel’s Security First.”
Rhyming Histories: From “Obliteration” to Regime Change
The justifications for this conflict are crumbling under scrutiny. President Trump initially claimed the strikes were necessary to stop a nuclear program he previously claimed to have “obliterated“ in June 2025. Similarly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has falsely claimed Iran was about six months away from a bomb in 2012, 2015, and 2018. In reality, intelligence estimates just prior to the war suggested Iran was years away from a weapon. It’s also worth noting that Iran had already agreed to give up nuclear weapons under President Barack Obama, until Trump pulled out of the deal. Most reports indicate that both sides were close to a similar agreement, but instead of diplomacy, Trump chose to bomb during the very window of negotiation.
Even the humanitarian justifications for the war ring hollow. While Trump claims to support Iranian protesters, his insistence on handpicking the next leader, rather than letting the Iranian people decide, reveals a desire for a puppet state.
Trump’s desire for regime change is furthermore corroborated by reports that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is reportedly arming and training Kurdish forces to spark an uprising in Iran. This strategy mirrors the U.K. and U.S.-led overthrow of Iran’s first democratically elected leader in the 1950s, an intervention that fueled such deep-seated antipathy toward the West that it eventually culminated in the 1979 Revolution. While history does not always repeat itself, it certainly rhymes. Meanwhile, Iran has already moved to stabilize its leadership succession by elevating Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the late Supreme Leader, to power.
The true catalyst for this war appears to be a total surrender of American sovereignty to Israeli interests. Initially, the U.S. admitted they struck Iran because they learned Israel was going to strike anyway, and they feared Iranian retaliation against U.S. assets. On March 2, 2026, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the press “The first is it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States….We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces.”
The next day, Trump contradicted this claim noting that the U.S. forced Israel to strike Iran. In response, Rubio denied what he said the day before noting “did we go in because of Israel….no.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt further muddied the waters, channeling the “alternative facts“ era by claiming the President’s decision derived from a “feeling based on facts.”
This dynamic is not new, as other modern Presidents have illustrated a propensity to let Israel lead their Middle East policy. In 1996, a frustrated President Bill Clinton famously asked after a meeting with Netanyahu, “Who’s the f**king superpower here?” President Joe Biden continued this trend, providing the weapons for what the United Nations called a genocide in Gaza while feigning helplessness to stop it. Now, Trump has completed the transition from superpower to proxy.
Trump’s fixation on regime change appears at odds with the “America First” agenda, as such an undertaking requires massive resources and boots on the ground, actual human beings, to execute. There is a good chance they will be U.S. citizens. As Trump himself noted recently “we expect casualties, but in the end it’s going to be a great deal for the world” But to what end? Observers have pointed out that only Israel seems to benefit, as dismantling the Iranian government is their official policy, not that of the U.S. Conversely, other critics argue that while the Israeli government might desire and benefit from this outcome in the short term, the resulting destabilization and backlash threaten to endanger Israel for generations.
Manufactured Consent: The Complicit Press and the Return of the Hawks
There are constitutional safeguards designed for when an administration pursues war without coherent or convincing justifications. Chief among these is the fact that only Congress has the authority to declare war. However, recent attempts in both houses to reclaim this constitutional war-making power have failed. These bills were not even aimed at ending the conflict; they were merely seeking to re-establish the fundamental principle that the legislature holds the power of the sword. This failure has created a vacuum for hawks to fill. From Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) unsettling fetish for perpetual conflict to Democrats like John Fetterman (D-PA) mimicking the GOP’s 2003 playbook, the bipartisan rush toward escalation is unmistakable.
The other supposed check on power, the news media, has been equally complicit in this march toward disaster. Cable news guests are effectively forced to offer qualifiers, such as “we know the regime is bad,” before providing even the mildest critique. These same outlets have balanced substantive criticism with a series of discredited warmongers from the past. They have resurrected the architects of the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters—figures like Condoleezza Rice, John Bolton, David Frum, and retired General David Petraeus — to provide “expert” analysis. Meanwhile, figures like Brett McGurk, who has survived four administrations while overseeing regional failures, dominate CNN’s coverage. The result is a curated discourse that offers only the mildest critiques of Trump while building the case for overthrowing the Iranian government. Even the BBC has engaged in manufactured consent, interviewing only those Iranians who support a U.S. invasion, a sentiment that ignores the broader nationalist reality on the ground.
The only pushback from the White House has been directed at the media’s coverage of the six U.S. soldiers killed in action; Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth claimed the press emphasizes U.S. casualties only because it “wants to make the president look bad.”
A Public Skeptical of the Century-Old Playbook
“Wars Often Lose Public Support Over Time. Trump Started This One Without Much,” screamed a New York Times headline. Indeed, by abandoning the traditional lies used to sell a war prior to its commencement, Trump has failed to convince the American public to follow him. Currently, support for his strikes on Iran ranges from 27% in a Reuters/Ipsos poll to 41% in a CNN survey, far below the level of public backing previous presidents received.
Historically, public support for war is at an all-time high at the outset and decays from there. This initial deficit suggests that after nearly two centuries of deception, the American public has finally become skeptical of a president attempting to drag them into conflict. We have seen this playbook before: from the false claims of a Mexican invasion used to justify the Mexican-American War, and the “Remember the Maine” rhetoric that blamed Spain for an accidental explosion to spark the Spanish-American War, to the obfuscation surrounding the Lusitania prior to World War I. This pattern continued with the lack of context provided to the public pre-Pearl Harbor, the “phantom“ attack in the Gulf of Tonkin that escalated the Vietnam War, the fabricated “Nayirah“ testimony used to manufacture consent for the first Gulf War, and the infamous phantom WMDs reported before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Months or years later, public support for war often evaporates as it becomes clear that the promised objectives are unattainable or the costs have become too high. Historical data underscores the volatility of these interventions: during the Cold War, the U.S. successfully achieved regime change only 40% of the time. Furthermore, even when a transition occurred, 40% of those new regimes collapsed into civil war within a single decade.
Conclusion
The “Peace President” has finally found his war, proving that even the most vocal “anti-globalist” is not immune to the century-old playbook of manufactured consent. By trading the isolationist promise of “America First” for the explosive reality of “Israel’s Security First,” Trump has not merely shifted his policy, he has shattered his brand. As the ghosts of the Maine, the Lusitania, and the phantom WMDs of 2003 find fresh company in the skies over Tehran, the American public is left with a grim realization: the mirage of peace has faded, and the only thing left behind is the same desert sand and endless war the nation was promised it would never see again. The proxy has become the principal, and the cost of this war is a debt that American blood and treasure will be paying long after the farewell addresses are over.
The post The Art of the War appeared first on Dissident Voice.
This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Nolan Higdon.