The Independent - Six months on, Donald Trump’s Iranian ‘excursion’ must end - News Editorial

Aug 28, 2026

An editorial argues that Donald Trump’s six-month-old military intervention in Iran—described as a misguided “excursion”—failed at the outset due to lack of US planning, unrealistic targets, absent exit strategy, and poor preparation and intelligence. It criticizes the war’s misread Iranian public mood, the betrayal of promising help, and the shifting casus belli leading to persistent resistance rather than regime change. The piece concludes that the conflict should end, noting nuclear and geopolitical realities and the Strait of Hormuz’s already free status.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages118

Reading Time4 h 57 min

AccessFree to download

Six months on, Donald Trump’s Iranian ‘excursion’ must end

Critique of planning, allies, and exit strategy

Misjudged conditions and failed “regime change”

Nuclear, allies, and the Strait of Hormuz

| FRIDAY 2 8 AUGUST 2 0 2 6 | WWW. INDEPENDENT. CO. UK | | --- | --- | Friday 28August2026 News/ Editorial Six months on, Donald Trump’s Iranian ‘excursion’ must end t was doomed before it even started. Operation Epic Fury, Donald Trump’s foray into Iran, which began six months ago, went against the advice of the US military and security services; no allies were consulted, save the Israelis, who recruited America into what was their private war with Iran; and it lacked any plan, realistic targets or exit strategy. As has now been widely acknowledged, what Trump once childishly called his little “excursion” has turned into the most stupid war America has ever involved itself in, exceeding Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq both in its misconnection and its baleful consequences. It was, above all, the work of one man: President Donald J Trump. As usual, he thought he knew best. It was clearly the wrong war for America to intervene in, not just because it was so senseless, but because there were others where US power and prestige could have been more fruitfully deployed. The most obvious is, of course, Ukraine, where, had Mr Trump continued the policies of his predecessor (and of his own instincts in his ﬁrst term, when the trouble was brewing) , it is quite conceivable that Ukraine might well have prevailed by now, armed as it would have been with all the weaponry and anti-missile defences that have been squandered in and around the Persian Gulf. A Ukraine that is independent, free and at peace would by now be a member of Nato, one of its strongest components, and on the way to joining the European Union. Vladimir Putin might not have survived his defeat, and Russia would have returned to the path of righteousness. Even if none of that has come to pass, simply staying out of Israel’s war on Iran was the obviously wise thing to do from the outset. Half a year on, that is now beyond doubt. In terms of timing, the war on Iran was decided on at a time when the factors that might have led to success were not in place. There was insuﬃcient international preparation (assuming that was ever going to be contemplated); and, more crucially, the mood of the Iranian people was misread, perhaps for lack of intelligence, perhaps because the Americans didn’t care. Whatever forces of resistance, freedom and liberation were still present after their brutal suppression by the Revolutionary Guards previously, they were not strong nor numerous enough to bring about that most elusive of American foreign policy dreams,“regime change” One of the greatest betrayals in US history came when President Trump told the people of Iran that “help is coming” when it was not. Fortunately, the Iranians were shrewd enough not to trust him. As for the casus belli in Iran, that was sometimes clear, but too often not, and constantly shifting. Regime change came and went, much to Mr Trump’s evident surprise; this was not another Venezuela. No matter how many mullahs and generals the American and Israelis executed, more popped up to replace them, less well known to the spies but generally more militant and less amenable to a “deal” They tainted the president with viciously satirical “Lego” videos, deliberately ridiculing a man who has the thinnest skin on the planet to Lear-like impotent rage. In any case, the Islamic Republic has survived. There was no“unconditional surrender” as Mr Trump demanded, nor did Iran volunteer its oil reserves to be placed under US control, nor its Supreme Leader to be picked from a menu by Mr Trump. The Americans also wanted to end the nuclear threat, which was, to some extent, under control before the war and was about to be settled under a deal brokered by the Omanis in January when Benjamin Netanyahu sensed the whiﬀ of peace, picked up the phone and persuaded Mr Trump to join him in a once-and-for-all victory move against a shared historic foe. Iran is still in possession of its “nuclear dust”, as Mr Trump

FAQs

这篇社论主要批评了特朗普对伊朗的军事行动哪些问题？

文章认为行动从一开始就缺乏周密规划、现实目标与退出策略，并且在盟友协商、国际准备和情报判断上存在严重不足。

文中如何看待“政权更迭（regime change）”的结果？

文章指出“政权更迭”设想反复出现又消退，伊朗共和国并未如预期被推翻，反而在打击后不断出现新的力量。

作者认为美国当前的主要战争目标是什么？

文章称美国的主要目标是“解放霍尔木兹海峡”并挽救世界免于能源危机，同时强调海峡在冲突开始前已对各国开放。

Aug 28, 2026

Uploaded by Seraphina