PNN – Bobby Gush’s analysis shows that Trump’s war on Iran is not only characterized by strategic incoherence and an unprecedented tone in justifying violence, but is also rapidly eroding America’s global standing, from distrust of allies and contempt for partners to disruption of the global economy—a trend that could make “power without responsibility” a permanent feature of the new international order.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network, Bobby Ghosh, a prominent international journalist and analyst best known for his coverage of wars and geopolitical issues, wrote in a note for Time: “In the spring of 2003, I was in Baghdad when President George W. Bush stood aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared, ‘Mission accomplished.’ The city I was in was burning—the first sparks of an insurgency that would engulf Iraq for years. We—those on the ground—knew that the mission was by no means over. But Bush’s unwelcome triumph had an understandable political logic: He wanted to show his people and the world that the sacrifice—both of American wealth and Iraqi blood—had been worth it.
I was reminded of the moment when Donald Trump spoke with apparent glee on March 10 about his forces sinking 46 Iranian naval vessels instead of seizing them. “It’s more fun to sink them,” Trump said, quoting his commanders, adding, “I said, yes—they’d rather sink them.” Fun. The president of the United States described the destruction of a navy and the killing of sailors as “fun.” Bush’s “mission accomplished” was both politically hypocritical and factually incorrect. But Trump’s apparent delight in the violence he directs is something else entirely. It’s a message to all nations around the world—allied, adversary, and in between—about the ruthless, even nihilistic power that America has become.
I reported on Iraq during the American occupation for more than five years. I saw how the war weakened America’s standing not only in the Arab world but globally. The invasion itself was controversial; the occupation became a symbol of false pride; and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction turned initial doubts into permanent distrust. For all of this, Bush paid a heavy diplomatic price.
Bush spent months at the United Nations trying to justify his actions, lobbying allies and trying to create at least a semblance of legitimacy, and forged a tenuous “coalition of the willing” before invading Iraq. He and his team knew—even if they sometimes ignored—that America’s power depended not only on its military might but also on its moral credibility. When that credibility was damaged, they at least pretended to care. The president himself apologized for the Abu Ghraib scandals and for an American soldier’s desecration of the Quran. No member of his cabinet called the laws of engagement “stupid,” and no general described killing enemy troops as “fun.”
Trump has abandoned even that pretense. He launched a war against Iran on February 28—without a formal declaration from Congress, without a coherent public justification, and without warning most of America’s allies. This blatant unilateralism demonstrated that the US president has no interest in the structure of international norms, rules, and institutions that generations of American leaders—Republican and Democratic—have worked to build.
The reasons the Trump administration has given for this war have changed almost daily: Is it Iran’s nuclear program? Or ballistic missiles? Or support for regional allies? Or the imminent threat to American forces? All of these, apparently—depending on who is talking and when.
However, in his State of the Union address—a few days before the US military strikes on Iran—Trump announced that Iran could “soon” have missiles that could reach US soil.
Trump, Tehran and the world
The incoherence of the Trump administration’s war aims screams that reasons don’t matter. America will attack whenever and wherever it wants. The damage to America’s standing is clearly visible in the reaction of countries that Washington has considered its friends for years.
Look at India. New Delhi has spent years cultivating what it calls “strategic autonomy”—a careful balance between its relations with the United States and its historical ties to countries like Iran. On February 25, the Iranian frigate Dena took part in a major naval exercise organized by the Indian Navy in the port of Visakhapatnam. Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh presided over the opening ceremony.
Nine days later, a US submarine fired a Mark 48 torpedo into the hull of the Iranian ship as it was returning home in international waters off the coast of Sri Lanka. 87 bodies were recovered. Washington apparently never informed the Indian government of the attack.
The reaction in India was telling. Arun Prakash, a retired Indian Navy admiral, called the sinking of the ship a “senseless and provocative act.” Strategic analyst Brahma Chellani wrote that Washington had effectively “turned India’s maritime neighborhood into a war zone.”
Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of surrendering India’s strategic independence. Modi—who was eager to be seen as a friend of Trump and had recently visited Israel—was silent for days.
From New Delhi’s perspective, America’s unilateralism is seen as an insult to India, a country that has spent years trying to position itself as a “security provider” in the Indian Ocean. Diplomatically, it was a violation of the “unwritten law of maritime hospitality.” It made America’s friends feel like mere pawns in the game.
The Arab Gulf states are equally concerned, though they face different consequences. The governments of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman were not formally notified before the Trump administration launched military strikes on Iran.
Saudi Arabia has since quietly used its diplomatic channels with Iran to contain the fallout from the crisis. This is not the behavior of countries that see themselves as partners in a project; it is the behavior of countries that are trying to manage a crisis that has been imposed on them.
Then there is East Asia, where strategic positions are of a vital nature. Just three months ago, Washington unveiled a national security strategy that identified the “Indo-Pacific” region as the main arena of geopolitical competition, with containment of China as its central goal.
The Trump administration has informed South Korea that it may move Patriot missile defense systems based there—critical to deterring North Korea—to the Middle East. Seoul has opposed the decision, but Washington has not backed down completely. Taiwanese officials have also become increasingly concerned.
China is watching these developments carefully and quietly. Every week that the United States is involved in the Middle East is an opportunity for China to strengthen its position in the Pacific without being disturbed.
Great power, great cruelty
When Bush went to war in Afghanistan, much of the world still believed that America’s intentions were fundamentally benevolent—even when his judgment was disastrously wrong. That belief had largely disappeared by the time he launched the Iraq War.
Trump is going to war after he has already pressured the world with tariffs, threatened to annex Greenland, pressured NATO allies, and sought regime change in Venezuela—all in a world that has already recalibrated its assessment of America’s trustworthiness. Trump has made the trust deficit that Bush created a structural feature of world politics.
And then there’s the economic dimension. In Iraq, Bush disrupted a regional power that was already under sanctions and largely isolated. But Trump has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, a passage through which a fifth of the world’s oil and gas passes.
Oil prices have topped $100 a barrel for the first time since 2022. Gasoline prices in the US have risen 17% since the start of the war. Qatar’s gas production has been halted after Iranian drone attacks. A former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund has described the situation as a “nightmare scenario.” Natural gas prices in Europe have nearly doubled.
The world’s central banks are now facing an inflationary shock that will put the greatest strain on the poorest countries—countries that have neither a role in the conflict nor the ability to protect themselves from its consequences.
I often think about what the Iraqis I knew said in the dark years after the invasion: that America came to their country with good weapons but bad plans. They distinguished—often with a kind of generosity—between deliberate destruction and reckless destruction. This distinction was important to them even as they suffered from both.
I am no longer sure that such a distinction still exists for the world watching this war. When a president describes sinking ships as “fun,” when allies are surprised and friends are humiliated, when the reasons for war change with the news cycle and the global economy is shaken—the question is no longer whether the destruction is deliberate or reckless.
The question is whether anyone, anywhere in the world, still believes that American power comes with some sense of responsibility. What I see is that fewer and fewer people believe that.