President Donald Trump got a severe dressing down from the New York Times editorial board Tuesday as it decried a chaotic, ill-considered and badly planned nearly three weeks of war.
"The war has become an exemplar of Mr. Trump’s chaotic, ego-driven approach to the presidency," the board wrote.
"He has relied for advice on a smaller circle of aides than past presidents did when ordering military action and eschewed the careful process intended to surface objections and potential problems. He has made ridiculous and contradictory public statements, including a claim that the war has nearly achieved its goals. He has tried to mislead the world about the tragic deaths of dozens of Iranian schoolchildren, which were caused by a mistargeted American missile.
"Almost daily, he demonstrates why he cannot be trusted with the most consequential matters of government."
Trump launched military action against Iran without articulating a coherent strategy to the American public or international community, the Times wrote. He has demonstrated "no apparent plan for bringing about the demise of the Iranian regime, something he had said he seeks." If his objectives are more limited — such as seizing nuclear materials — he has "not offered credible ideas for accomplishing it."
Additionally, Trump "failed to plan for a predictable side effect of a war in the Middle East: a disruption of oil supplies that causes a price spike and impairs the global economy."
Despite tactical achievements, Trump's stated objectives lack strategic coherence, the Times went on. Shortly after launching strikes, Trump declared: "To the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand." He subsequently called for "unconditional surrender of Iran's government" and claimed he must "approve the country's next leader."
Yet Trump "has not even begun to explain how he will accomplish any of these goals."
Three critical strategic failures have emerged, according to the Times. First, Trump repeated historical mistakes by assuming regime change through air power alone would succeed. Despite this precedent, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have pursued vague regime-change scenarios — arming Kurdish minorities or encouraging Iranian security forces to defect. Trump encouraged street protests in January, but "Iran's regime massacred thousands of demonstrators and remained securely in charge of the country."
Second, Trump has not addressed Iran's nuclear stockpile. Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged that "People are going to have to go and get it," yet Trump responded to questioning about uranium: "We're not focused on that."
Third, Trump failed to anticipate economic consequences. Military adviser General Dan Caine warned that Iran would likely attack shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, but Trump dismissed these concerns. Oil prices have since "jumped more than 40 percent." Trump responded by lifting sanctions on Russia and pleading with traditional allies to protect shipping lanes.
The underlying problem reflects Trump's broader approach, the Times concluded. "Throughout his business and political career, Mr. Trump has often sought to create his own reality. When the truth is inconvenient, he ignores it and tells self-serving falsehoods." However, "war tends to be less amenable to spin than politics or marketing. The early reality of the Iran war is not cooperating with Mr. Trump's bluster."