DAVID MARCUS: Trump might have broken Iran, but he didn't buy it
By David Marcus
Published June 22, 2025
One of the most famous moments in the lead-up to the Iraq war in 2003 was when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited the Pottery Barn rule regarding the Middle East: "If you break it, you buy it."
Sadly, that is precisely what happened back then, as the war turned into a 12-year slog in which almost 5,000 American soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice without achieving the goal of a stable and modern Iraq.
That is the cloud under which American B-2 bombers pierced the night sky in Iran on Sunday, just after 12 a.m. local time, attacking three Iranian nuclear facilities in an operation aptly dubbed Midnight Hammer.
RUBIO DECLARES IRAN'S DAYS OF 'PLAYING THE WORLD' OVER AFTER TRUMP'S DECISIVE STRIKE
What the Trump administration understands here is that while it is good to learn the lessons of the Iraq War, it is bad to be paralyzed by them, and Saturday's strike was a good example of both principles.
Obviously, the most vital difference between this weekend's strike on Iran and the Iraq War is that we do not even have boots on the ground in Iran, much less designs on occupying it, which is what created the quagmire of Iraq.
Back then, we had Army colonels who, instead of leading battles, were trying to negotiate with rival tribal leaders in a culture they barely had time to understand, and no, they were not greeted as liberators.
That leads us to the second major difference between now and the Iraq War. Trump is only using the military for military actions, not some vague viceregal nation-building and policing mission.
A third major distinction between Iraq and our current hard place is that the government of Iran is still intact. In Baghdad there was no one in charge after Sadaam Hussein was chased off. Here, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini can still come to his senses and give up his country's nuclear weapons program, or whatever is left of it.
Last, but not least, the Iraq War was squarely led by the United States, with our "coalition of the willing" some distance behind us. This is a war between Israel and Iran. All we did was assist a close ally with a mission that caused no Iranian deaths.
On Sunday morning, both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance were making the TV circuit and both unequivocally stated that the United States is not "at war" with Iran, the polar opposite of 2003.
Any choice Trump made on Iran, to attack, not to attack, was going to come with risk. And there is certainly a legitimate fear that Iran could respond with attacks on our troops in the region, or even a terror attack in the U.S. that would draw us into a Middle East meat grinder.
But this was also true when Trump killed Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani back in 2020. Swift and deadly revenge was promised by the mullahs, but it never materialized. They knew then, and likely still do, that a wider war against America is madness.
Meanwhile, unlike Barack Obama, who drew more redlines in the sand of the Middle East than Yosemite Sam, all while never backing it up, Trump just showed America's foes that he will do what he says. That's as powerful a negotiating tool as there can be.
Even just hours after the attack, carried off flawlessly by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and his forces, you can sense that there is no great building fear of a wider war here.
Democrats, with a few exceptions such as staunch Israel-supporter Sen. John Fetterman, of Pennsylvania, are upset that Trump didn't get Congressional approval. But they aren't really warning about forever wars.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
The non-interventionist wing of the MAGA movement, which was very loud online against military action, has lost this one internal battle, but is mostly back in the fold. Nobody wins them all.
In the end, Trump did what he always does. He looked at a problem everyone said had no solution, like moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, or closing the border, and decided he would be the one who finally slammed the door on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
One week before Saturday's attack, the United States Army celebrated its 250th birthday with a military parade in Washington D.C. Critics called it pointless, or self-aggrandizement by Trump, when in fact, it was a display of America's incomparable military might.
On Saturday, Iran and its supreme leader learned that those lines of marching troops, those machines and flyovers were much, much more than simply a parade.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM DAVID MARCUS Print Close
URL
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/david-marcus-trump-might-have-broken-iran-he-didnt-buy
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
2 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump-Schumer standoff heads for fall rematch
'Sooner or later, Donald Trump — Mr. 'Art of the Deal,' or so he claims — is going to have to learn that he has to work with Democrats if he wants to get deals, good deals, that help the American people,' Schumer said late Saturday night as the Senate prepared to leave town for the summer. 'Going at it alone will be a failed strategy.' Trump's decision to temporarily abandon his confirmations push rather than give in to what he called 'political extortion' from Schumer allowed the embattled Democratic leader to do a pre-recess victory lap after taking heat from the party base for months. Schumer came under fierce criticism in March for helping to advance a shutdown-avoiding spending bill written solely by Republicans. He warned at the time that a shutdown would only empower Trump and that the dynamic would be different come September as, he predicted, Trump became more unpopular. Nine other members of his caucus joined him. Trump initially urged Republicans to stay in Washington until all of the roughly 150 pending nominees were confirmed — a demand that could have essentially erased the Senate's planned four-week recess. But Schumer and Democrats demanded that Trump unfreeze congressionally approved spending in return for consenting to the swift approval of some nominees. Trump would not pay the price. In a post where he blasted 'Senator Cryin' Chuck Schumer,' Trump instructed senators to go home. Republicans flirted with adjourning the Senate to let Trump make recess appointments, but that would have required recalling the House — and reviving the Trump-centered drama over the Jeffrey Epstein files. Instead, they are vowing to pursue a rules change later this year to quickly push Trump's nominees through the Senate. Schumer relished the Truth Social post, putting a poster-sized version on display next to him as he spoke to reporters Saturday night and comparing it to a 'fit of rage.' He kept the heat on Monday, joining with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to demand a so-called 'four corners' meeting with Thune and Johnson to discuss a government funding strategy lest a government shutdown hit Oct. 1. (Republicans, who accuse Schumer of 'breaking' the funding process, haven't responded.) Though Schumer and Thune have had informal talks about September, they haven't delved beyond the broad strokes. The South Dakota Republican, asked about Trump and Schumer, predicted the two will have an 'evolving relationship.' 'At some point, obviously, there are certain things they are just going to have to figure out, because on some of these things where we need 60 [votes] there are going to have to be conversations,' Thune said in a brief interview.
UPI
2 minutes ago
- UPI
Trump threatens India with tariffs over buying Russian oil
India Prime Minister Narendra Modi shakes hands with U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, on Thursday, February 13, 2025. On Monday, Trump threatened India with tariffs over its buying of Russia oil. File Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo Aug. 5 (UPI) -- U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened India with increased tariffs over its purchase of Russian oil amid Moscow's war in Ukraine. The American president issued his threat Monday in a statement published on his Truth Social media platform, accusing Delhi of not only buying "massive amounts" of Russian oil, but selling much of it on the open market for "big profits." "They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the tariff paid by India to the USA," Trump said. Trump has long seen tariffs as a tool to right trade deficits and as a bargaining tool. He has also started to use it as a punitive measure to retaliate against countries for taking actions he disagrees with. Last week, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on India as he imposed tariffs against dozens of nations. On Friday, the American president was asked about the situation, and said that he's heard India was to discontinue buying Russian crude. "That's what I heard. I don't know if that's right or not, but that's a good step," he said to a question about the percentage of tariffs he was considering imposing on the ally. "We'll see what happens. Over the weekend, India refuted the claims, stating it was not altering its policies. In response to Trump's threat on Monday, India accused the United States, and the European Union, of hypocrisy, saying they began importing from Russia "because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict." "India's imports are meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer. They are a necessity compelled by global market situation," India's foreign ministry said in a statement. "However, it is revealing that the very nations criticizing India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia. Unlike our case, such trade is not even a vital national compulsion." It said the targeting of India was both "unjustified and unreasonable." "Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security."
Wall Street Journal
2 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Exclusive: White House to Target 'Debanking'
The White House plans to step up pressure against banks over perceived discrimination against conservatives and crypto companies, with an executive order that threatens to fine lenders that drop customers for political reasons. A draft of the order, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal, directs regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions might have violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws. 🔎 Go deeper:
