Foreign policy experts have warned that Trump's war with Iran carries many of the same risks as the 2003 invasion of Iraq - a conflict whose consequences still ripple through global politics, as "Hvylya" reports, citing analysis published by TIME.
"Even in scenarios where we had, like in Iraq or Afghanistan, some degree of planning for the day after, it ended in grief," said Ali Vaez, an Iran expert with the International Crisis Group in Geneva. "This time around, it is really based on wishful thinking." When George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, members of his administration predicted American troops would be greeted as liberators. For a fleeting moment, that seemed plausible. Then the war curdled into a quagmire that destabilized the region and drained American lives and treasure.
Experts warn that the danger in Iran may run deeper still. The fall of the Islamic Republic could fracture the country rather than reform it, unleashing internal power struggles, proxy conflicts, or even civil war. Popular dissatisfaction with the clerical regime does not automatically translate into revolution. Protesters lack weapons and organization; the Iranian security apparatus does not. If the regime endures or violently suppresses unrest again, the U.S. could face a decision it has tried to avoid: whether to send in ground forces.
Trump has not ruled out that possibility. He has said he believes the objectives could be achieved within four or five weeks, though he concedes the timeline could stretch longer. "I have no time limits on anything," he told TIME. "I want to get it done." His goals - eliminating the nuclear threat, dismantling the missile program, and installing a new government - represent the kind of open-ended ambitions that turned Iraq into a two-decade entanglement.
The historical parallel extends to domestic politics. Bush's war in Iraq became so politically toxic that members of his own party abandoned him. Trump, who electrified Republican politics in part by repudiating the Bush family's foreign policy legacy, now risks being ensnared by the very forces that helped undo that dynasty. The question hanging over Washington remains the one that has haunted commanders in chief for generations: presidents may choose how wars begin, but they do not get to decide how they end.