In a detailed report published by The New York Times, correspondent Elizabeth Bulimar warns that President Donald Trump is facing the ghost of Iraq in Iran. Just as Americans once expected a swift, victorious war in Baghdad, similar miscalculations may now be unfolding with regard to Tehran.
More than two decades ago, Washington stood tense as President George W. Bush prepared to launch the invasion of Iraq. The expectation? A quick campaign, a clear victory, and the famous phrase: Mission Accomplished.
But after nine years, 4,000 American soldiers killed, and over 100,000 Iraqi lives lost, Iraq had become a historic lesson in strategic overreach and the unpredictable consequences of war.
Today, that same ghost looms over a divided and anxious Washington, where President Trump—who once ran on a platform of ending America’s “forever wars”—is now considering a rapid military deployment to Iran.
Echoes of the Past — With Modern Risks
Unlike 2003, there are no 200,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East, nor are there mass anti-war demonstrations around the world. Yet the sense of dread and uncertainty feels eerily familiar.
Vali Nasr, an Iranian-American professor of international studies at Johns Hopkins University, reflected on the déjà vu:
“This is the same story being told again. Once upon a time, we didn’t know better. We believed all the cheerful claims about Iraq—and they all proved false.”
The report notes several striking parallels between Iraq and Iran. The Bush administration viewed Iraq as an easy target and predicted that American forces would be welcomed as liberators. There were internal disputes over intelligence, and neoconservative pressure to oust Saddam Hussein played a pivotal role. The country awaited President Bush’s final declaration.
Now, Trump allies are arguing that assisting Israel in dropping 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs on Fordow—Iran’s most fortified nuclear facility—could “dramatically reshape the Middle East.”
Intelligence Disputes and Hawkish Rhetoric
The report highlights an intelligence rift between Trump and his own officials. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard stated that Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons. When asked about her comments, Trump dismissed them:
“I don’t care what she said. I believe Iran is, in fact, close to having a nuclear weapon.”
Some neoconservatives who once championed the Iraq War are again pushing for war with Iran. William Kristol, editor of The Bulwark and a prominent pro-Iraq War advocate, said:
“If you truly believe Iran must not have nuclear weapons, now is the time to act—even under this president.”
Strategic Fog and Familiar Questions
Once again, Americans are waiting on a presidential decision. Trump said on Wednesday:
“I might do it. I might not. Nobody knows what I’ll do.”
It echoes the infamous “Mission Accomplished” moment—when President Bush, speaking aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, declared the end of combat operations in Iraq, while chaos consumed the country behind him.
Today, U.S. officials fear a far larger regional war if America strikes Fordow. Iranian-aligned groups could retaliate against U.S. bases in the region, and the Houthis may launch attacks on U.S. naval vessels in the Red Sea.
Military Leaders Voice Doubt
Admiral William Fallon, who oversaw U.S. military operations in the Middle East in 2007–2008, told The New York Times that he is deeply concerned about Iran’s response to any American strike.
“What’s the plan? What’s the strategy? What’s the endgame?” he asked. “Few disagree that Iran shouldn’t get a nuclear weapon. But what exactly is our role in this broader Middle East context? We’re acting impulsively.”
General David Petraeus, who commanded U.S. forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, said he sees no parallel between Iraq and today’s situation in Iran.
“This is clearly not a ground invasion,” he said. “But Trump should issue an ultimatum to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: dismantle your nuclear programme entirely—or face the total destruction of your regime, your people, and your nation.”
The Danger of Miscalculation
According to Petraeus, if Iran refuses such an ultimatum, it would only strengthen U.S. justification for military action:
“Then we tear them to shreds,” he said.
Vali Nasr, however, offered a more cautious view. He said the ideal scenario for U.S. hawks is that Iran suffers the destruction of Fordow and then returns to negotiations.
But if Iran retaliates militarily—as it has repeatedly warned—Trump will be forced into a counterstrike, especially if American troops are killed in the region.
“At that point,” Nasr warned, “no one can predict how this ends—and Trump risks repeating the Iraq War.”
Iran Is Not Iraq
Iran is significantly larger than Iraq, with a population of nearly 90 million and a far more capable and unified military.
For John Bolton, a longtime proponent of war with Iran and Trump’s former National Security Advisor, the solution is simple:
“Bomb Fordow and be done with it,” he said on Wednesday, calling the move “long overdue.”
Bolton, who later clashed with Trump and wrote a tell-all book about his time in the White House, has since had his Secret Service protection revoked—despite ongoing threats from Iran. The two men no longer speak.
Bolton added:
“Trump often panics during national security crises. He listens to a lot of people until someone says something that clicks. Then he makes a decision—until the next conversation changes his mind.”
The Imperial Presidency and the Decline of Democracy
The article ends on a note of constitutional concern. Trump’s fascination with a monarchical view of the presidency has sparked alarm across the country. Last weekend, millions marched in the U.S. in nationwide protests titled “No Kings.”
“Nothing captures the essence of imperial overreach more than a president who follows his gut on war,” the article states.
“The U.S. presidency was never designed to function like this.”
The Constitution clearly mandates that Congress must authorise any foreign war, yet Trump may become the latest president to bypass this safeguard.
Regardless of one’s stance on Israel, Iran, or the broader Middle East, allowing one man to unilaterally wage war could shatter American democracy and undermine the very ideals on which it was built.
One Ummah. One platform. One mission.
Your support keeps it alive.
Click here to Donate & Fund your Islamic Independent Platform
