Jeremy Bowen: Trump is waging war based on instinct and it isn’t working
Jeremy Bowen: Trump is waging war based on instinct and it isn’t working
Timeless principles of warfare have quietly echoed through the Oval Office in the month since US President Donald Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched airstrikes against Iran. The reluctance to adapt from historical patterns has placed Trump in a difficult position. If he fails to secure an agreement with Tehran, he must decide between a hollow victory or further escalation of hostilities.
“No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” This maxim, coined by the Prussian military strategist Helmuth von Moltke the Elder in 1871, captures the essence of modern conflict. It was during the unification of Germany as an empire that Moltke’s insight became a cornerstone of strategic thought, much like the current war might reshape the security landscape of the Middle East.
Trump’s approach reflects a different perspective. He may favor Mike Tyson’s contemporary take: “Everyone has a plan until they get hit.” This sentiment aligns with his tendency to rely on instinct rather than comprehensive strategy. Eisenhower, a former military leader and president, emphasized the importance of preparation, stating, “plans are worthless, but planning is everything.” His words, delivered in 1957, underscored the necessity of foresight in navigating unforeseen challenges.
“When an unexpected emergency arises, the first thing you do is to take all the plans off the top shelf and throw them out the window… But if you haven’t been planning, you can’t start to work intelligently at least.” Eisenhower’s advice highlights the value of disciplined preparation, even as plans evolve during crises.
Trump’s optimism for rapid results mirrors his earlier hopes in Venezuela. In January, he orchestrated a swift capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who are now imprisoned in New York. Maduro’s deputy, Delcy Rodríguez, continues to lead the country under US influence. Yet, this strategy’s success in Venezuela contrasts sharply with its current failure in Iran.
Despite the initial strikes by Israel and the US, Iran’s leadership remains resilient. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s death did not destabilize the regime; instead, it demonstrated their ability to endure and retaliate. In contrast, Trump’s leadership appears to be improvisational, driven by personal intuition rather than strategic planning. His advisors, tasked with executing his vision, seem more focused on supporting his instincts than challenging them.
Four weeks into the conflict, Trump and Netanyahu’s strategy has led to significant civilian casualties—1,464 Iranian lives lost, according to HRANA, a US-based organization tracking human rights abuses. Their expectation of a swift victory was predicated on the belief that Iran’s regime would crumble under pressure. However, the opposition has remained subdued, recalling how government forces had previously suppressed thousands of protesters.
