The New York Times' editorial board laid into Donald Trump Sunday, hammering his war in Iran as significantly weakening American power and influence.
And it said the last few weeks have made the president's "glaring incompetence" crystal clear.
The editors broke down Trump's recent failings into a handful of major hits to U.S. national interests.
"We count four main setbacks for America's national interests that are the direct result of Mr. Trump's carelessness," the board wrote.
The most concrete damage to the United States — and the rest of the world — stems from Iran's enhanced control over the global economy through command of the Strait of Hormuz. Approximately 20 percent of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas traverses this waterway adjacent to Iran's southern coast.
Before the conflict, Iranian leaders feared that restricting passage would provoke additional economic sanctions and military retaliation. But once military action commenced, Iran sealed the strait to nearly all traffic except its own vessels. This strategy proves inexpensive because it relies primarily on the threat that drones, missiles, or small boats could destroy tankers. Forcibly reopening the strait, by contrast, would require an enormous military operation potentially involving ground forces and prolonged occupation.
Trump's failure to anticipate consequences regarding the strait demonstrates serious miscalculation, the editors wrote.
The two-week ceasefire Trump announced last week fails to restore previous conditions because Iran continues restricting traffic and has threatened to impose tolls in any final agreement. The war has demonstrated to Iranian leadership that controlling this waterway represents an achievable objective. Though alternative routes via pipelines may eventually emerge, such projects require considerable time. Currently, Iran possesses diplomatic influence it could scarcely have imagined six weeks prior. Resolving this situation would necessitate a coordinated global effort — "the sort of coalition that Mr. Trump is distinctly unsuited to lead," according to the Times.
America's military standing constitutes the second major setback. The current war, combined with ongoing U.S. military support for Ukraine, Israel, and other partners, has depleted substantial quantities of critical weapons stockpiles, including Tomahawk missiles and Patriot interceptors. Pentagon analysts believe the Iran campaign consumed more than one-quarter of America's Tomahawk inventory. Restoring these supplies to previous levels will require years, forcing difficult decisions about where to concentrate remaining military resources. The Pentagon has already withdrawn missile defense systems from South Korea.
The conflict has exposed vulnerabilities in American military strategy. The U.S. deployed billions of dollars in advanced weaponry to neutralize Iran's conventional military infrastructure, while Tehran employed inexpensive, disposable drones to restrict Strait traffic and strike regional targets.
"The world saw how a country that spends one-hundredth of what the United States does on its military can seek to outlast it in a conflict. It is a reminder of the urgent need to reform America’s military," the editors wrote.
America's alliances represent the third substantial cost. Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, and most Western European nations declined to participate in this conflict — an unsurprising response given Trump's previous treatment of these partners. When Trump requested their assistance in forcing open the Strait of Hormuz, most declined. Though these relationships retain importance, these nations have signaled they no longer view the United States as trustworthy. They are cultivating stronger mutual connections to better withstand American pressure.
"Perhaps the greatest long-term damage to the United States from the Iran war will be in its relationships with allies around the world," Daniel Byman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington wrote.
The Middle Eastern situation presents greater complexity. Iran's targeting of Arab neighbors during the war might strengthen relationships between those nations and America. This outcome remains uncertain, however. Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states have suffered economic damage and view Trump's ceasefire as abandonment. The preceding six weeks have given these countries reason to question his judgment and grasp of their interests.
The fourth significant damage involves America's moral standing. Despite its imperfections, the nation remains a beacon for millions worldwide. When pollsters survey where people would choose to live, the United States consistently ranks first by substantial margins. This appeal derives not solely from material prosperity but from freedom and democratic principles. Trump has consistently undermined these values throughout his political career, and particularly in recent days. His secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, made inflammatory remarks, including a threat to provide "no quarter, no mercy for our enemies."
Such statements constitute war crimes, the Times wrote. Trump and Hegseth have adopted a ruthless military philosophy contradicting the principles America championed following World War II. This reversal has corroded the foundation of American global leadership, which traditionally centered human dignity in arguments for democratic governance and openness.
The editorial board has consistently opposed Trump's political and governing methods. Yet satisfaction cannot be taken in recent failures. Combat has produced deaths, injuries, and destruction across Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and elsewhere. At minimum, 13 American service members have perished.
Americans must avoid rooting for national failure, including Trump's opponents. Everyone shares responsibility for the country he directs. The international community has similar stakes.
"There are no other democracies with the economic and military strength to counter China and Russia. When America is weaker and poorer, as this war has made us, authoritarianism benefits."
The path forward was laid out by the board.
"The best hope now may sound naïve, but it remains true," it wrote.
"Mr. Trump should at long last recognize the ineptitude of his impulsive, go-it-alone approach. He should involve Congress and seek help from America’s allies to minimize the damage from his war."