Pic: Access Post - Smoke rises from Gulf oil infrastructure following Iranian retaliatory strikes.
The phrase “fog of war” is commonly associated with battlefield confusion. It could just as easily apply to political messaging. Consider the eyebrow-raising statement by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, two days into Operation Epic Fury or Operation Lion’s Roar, depending on which of the joint protagonists you pick - ‘we didn’t start this war!’
Let’s see how we got to where we are. The question isn’t simply how it started. It’s whose war this actually is - who defined its objectives, who authorised its risks, and who now carries its consequences.
On Friday, US President Trump, together with Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, instructed their forces to attack Iran as part of a ‘joint operation’. Their reasons for doing so initially rested on dissatisfaction with a disputed lack of progress in talks with the Iranians regarding their intentions to develop nuclear weapon capabilities. Trump did not seek congressional authorisation. Formally, Congress declares war; practically, modern presidents lean on the War Powers framework and political momentum. That may be Washington’s habit, but it’s a dangerous habit for allies to be dragged into at speed. Also, no public evidence has emerged of prior consultation with allies in Europe.
Senator Mark Warner is one of the ”Gang of 8” in Congress, given access to all intelligence. He’s publicly stated, “There was no immediate threat to the United States,” although Israel could legitimately argue Iran is a constant threat. He added, “We have seen the goals for the operation change four or five times. Firstly, it was about nuclear capacity, then to attack ballistic missile sites, and then regime change”. Trump then stated that its purpose was to assist those wishing to overthrow the regime from within the country, but that was quietly dropped. The American Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, then announced that it was because Israel was inevitably going to launch an attack that the US had to act so as not to be caught out by Iranian reprisals.
When objectives move this quickly - nuclear sites, missile facilities, regime change, pre-emption - ownership becomes blurred. If the goals are fluid, whose war is it? Washington’s? Jerusalem’s? A reaction to inevitability? Or something improvised in real time? Senator Mark Warner again: “This is still a war of choice that has been acknowledged by others to be dictated by Israel’s goals and timelines”.
The lack of a clear strategy and/or consultation would naturally give cause for concern to America’s allies, already wavering after withering US appraisals of European defence readiness and values, an actual threat to Greenland’s sovereignty, and messaging that Europe must now look after its own backyard - including Ukraine in its four-year war with Russia.
Within three days, the war had already widened beyond its architects’ control. Iranian strikes hit Gulf oil infrastructure; six US personnel were confirmed dead by CENTCOM, and three F-15s were lost to friendly fire, though their crews survived.
Trump’s team was deployed to brief in defence of its operations, including the president’s stated disappointment with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer for not joining the US in its war, and that statement by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth that the US “did not start this war, but under Trump, we are ending it”. To be fair to Hegseth, he was likely referring to the long history of Iranian hostility to the US, harking back to the Iranian revolution and the rise of the clerics in 1979
Perhaps he was echoing Rubio’s assertion that Netanyahu forced the US’s hand? Either way, having to ‘dig in’ to defend military action so early in the operations phase is not a good sign and underscores why democracies need the benefit of legitimacy and convention to justify starting a conflict. None of this is to suggest Iran’s regime is benign or that repression should be tolerated. The question is whether this particular war, launched in this way, serves long-term stability or merely satisfies short-term political imperatives.
Meanwhile, the UK Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has found himself attacked by both the left and the right for deciding to keep Britain out of the conflict as best he can. Yet his stance has attracted praise too. He looks and sounds Prime Ministerial, which is a credit to his tenacity, given his unpopularity within much of his party and in the polls. A principled decision or pragmatic? That’s an interesting question. Some argue that his decision is based on his love of legal precedent, but the pragmatism may well have arisen from a realisation that Britain’s forces are not in a great position to become embroiled in a war. That’s putting it mildly.
In some respects, this may be the rude awakening the nation needed - finally to have to acknowledge that 30 years of peace dividend have left the UK desperately ill-equipped to defend itself, let alone anyone else. In this respect alone, Starmer is right to keep us out of a fight. Helping to arm Ukraine in its existential fight for survival against Russia is one thing, and Britain is right to do this, but to enter a conflict with no coherent strategy with a hollowed-out defence estate, and on the whim of an erratic ally, would be foolish in the extreme. If this is not Britain’s war, then restraint is not cowardice. It is statecraft. Joining it blindly would not be solidarity - it would be subordination.
So Trump might be disappointed, though I suspect he’ll quickly find other targets for his performative theatre. What is disappointing is the political opportunism shown by those on both the left and the right at what is a serious moment for Britain. Governments could, at one time, have expected support from across the political divide in the national interest - not anymore. I’ve argued against some of the disgraceful labels of cowardice on social media aimed at our Prime Minister for taking a stand against a questionable military action by the US. Even if you reasonably disagree with the decision, there is nothing cowardly about saying no to Donald Trump. Personally, I prefer statesmanship to Pavlovan subordination.
Even within Washington, there appears to be uncertainty over who is driving this conflict and to what end. Speaking on Times Radio, the former head of the CIA, John Brennan, said he felt the US president had been led into the war by Benjamin Netanyahu without a clear understanding of the complexities involved. He specifically noted that Trump had been lulled by previous military success in Venezuela. Brennan added he felt the action was needless and that there appeared to have been a lack of thought put into the strategic planning, other than bombing Iran. Tellingly, when asked about whether there would have been appropriate risk assessments, Brennan responded that senior intelligence staff were now inclined to be partisan and supportive of Trump. The lesson drawn here is that this is what happens when you turn your executive into an echo chamber. Brennan went on to describe the operation as ‘the second US mistake of tragic proportions in terms of impacting the region’, the first being Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. His parting shot was to describe the US president as being intoxicated by American military power and to predict that the fallout from this war would be felt for a long time.
It’s worth mentioning that Brennan was CIA director during Obama’s presidency, so one could argue that his is not an objective voice. However, his experience and ability to speak freely are serious qualifications. Someone who did warn Trump’s administration about the risks was General Dan Caine, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Trump’s most senior military adviser.
His concern was more with the military’s ability to sustain a lengthy campaign. Missile stockpiles at a time of rare-earth minerals supply shortage is a sensitive issue and one that will doubtless have troubled the UK government too. This may yet rear its head if the war drags on. Both Netanyahu and Trump have declared that any conflict will not be a drawn-out affair, but history shows that wars are easy to start, less so to stop.
Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani has declared the war as a contest of endurance, stating Iran – unlike the United States – is prepared for a prolonged conflict. The objective appears to be altering Washington’s cost-benefit calculations over time. Certainly, China and Russia will be watching from the sidelines, and both will be happy to see an extended war with the resulting erosion of military stockpiles and political capital that results.
So Donald Trump has gambled on a quick war. He may yet reap the kudos of a quick capitulation, but be prepared for some serious gaslighting if he doesn’t. He’ll use every trick in his MAGA book to denounce it as Netanyahu’s war. Wars require ownership. Clear objectives. Clear authority. Clear consequences. If this becomes Netanyahu’s war when it succeeds and America’s war when it fails, then it was never strategically owned in the first place. And wars punish that confusion.
But I’ll leave the last word with Senator Mark Warner:
"Israel is a great ally. But when it comes down to placing American military personnel in harm’s way…when we have American casualties and expectations of more, there needs to be proof of an imminent threat to American interests.”
The same can equally be said for Britain’s servicemen and women. And that should be first and foremost in the minds of its leaders when it comes to committing to war.