The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Kenneth Hillas was a U.S. diplomat for 33 years and until recently taught at the University of Maine’s School of Policy and International Affairs.
Donald Trump is not the first president to fail to address the American public about going to war, or to seek congressional authorization. In the last 50 years this has happened four times: Ronald Reagan in 1983 (invasion of Grenada); Bill Clinton in 1999 (NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo); Barack Obama in 2011 (NATO bombing campaign against Libyan forces); and Trump’s June 2025 one day of bombing Iran. All but the last event were aimed at averting or resolving a humanitarian crisis and focused on a limited area.
By contrast, the present war with Iran spans an area from the eastern Mediterranean to the central Indian Ocean, was not provoked by a humanitarian crisis, and was not necessary to avert an imminent Iranian threat. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a nonpartisan and respected organization, said recently “it is clear that it would take Iran years to fully rebuild its enrichment plants” that were bombed in June 2025. Moreover, with 200 oil and LNG tankers bottled up in the Persian Gulf — 20% of world oil exports pass through the Strait of Hormuz, which is about 24 miles wide and borders Iran — the impact on the global economy is acutely apparent, as was predictable.
Iran’s strategy is to leverage this global economic vulnerability to create political pressure on the U.S. to end the war, and also by attacking neighboring Persian Gulf states, all seven of which host U.S. bases or have a U.S. military presence, to make them pay an economic and political price if the war continues. After a week of war, America’s closest allies, while willing to let U.S. bases on their territory be used, are unwilling to join as combatants. This is a big contrast with the U.S. experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How is it that the Trump administration pivoted so quickly from celebrating the “total obliteration” of Iran’s nuclear program to claiming there was an imminent threat of nuclear war with Iran? (Notably, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth last year claimed any denial of the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capabilities was “fake news.”)
The answer appears to be the 15 times Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke with President Trump in the first two months of 2026. Netanyahu, long opposed to any new Iran nuclear accord, has urged Trump to remove the ballistic missile threat to Israel. Notwithstanding Trump’s claim that Iran was on the verge of deploying missiles capable of striking the U.S., the U.S. intelligence community has told Congress that is not a likelihood for almost another decade. On Feb. 23, Netanyahu reportedly informed Trump that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would meet with senior security and military Iranian leaders on Feb. 28, according to an Axios report. Frustrated with the limited progress made in the three rounds of negotiations with Iran, Trump apparently bought into Netanyahu’s “now-or-never” argument.
Oman’s foreign minister, who has mediated the Iran-U.S. talks, claimed on Feb. 26 that the latest round of U.S.-Iranian negotiations were making progress, and so did unnamed U.S. officials at the time.
Arms control negotiations are complicated and historically take time. The U.S.-Soviet Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty took nine years to conclude. President Trump’s lack of patience and the illusions about the effect of removing the Iranian supreme leader stand out as the principal explanation for the decision to go to war now.
In announcing the start of the war, Trump cited regime change as a major objective. It quickly became clear this did not sit well with his supporters, and he then started claiming without evidence that Iran was preparing to attack U.S. forces in the region. It would not be surprising that, after the successful capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Trump was heady with hubris.
Another explanation for going to war was offered by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who told Congress that the U.S. had to strike because it knew an impending Israel attack on Iraq would make U.S. forces in the region a target, only to walk that back after being contradicted by Trump. Israeli officials reportedly said Israel would not have attacked Iran without U.S. support. For his part, Defense Secretary Hegseth has asserted this is not a regime-change war, even though it has changed the Iranian regime. Good luck to readers parsing that.
Every senior military officer understands that war must serve political goals. If the war’s purpose is a less hostile Iranian regime, the paradox is that a leading contender to become Iran’s new supreme leader is the son of the last one; and Mojtab Khamenei is closely linked with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The consolidation of power by Revolutionary Guard hard-liners, who are implacably hostile to the U.S., will not create a more stable and secure Middle East.
Lamentably, the road to America’s war with Iran was paved with impatience, imprudence and incoherence. That is why the Founding Fathers gave Congress authority on questions of war while making the president commander in chief. This Congress, however, is reluctant to fulfill that role.
