The major problem of the United States for decades has been that its presidents reproduce the same pathologies in foreign policy, precisely because they either do not know history or deliberately ignore it. For this reason, we here have long graded this American policy with a… round zero.

Let us briefly attempt, through history, to document this judgment.

1. In 1955 the conflict between North and South Vietnam began, with the support respectively of China and the USSR on one side and the United States on the other. A long and bloody war with more than 3.5 million dead, most of them civilians, which ended in 1975 with the humiliating withdrawal of the Americans.

2. In October 2001, following the terrorist attacks of September 11 of the same year, the United States under the presidency of George W. Bush launched the invasion of Afghanistan under the name Operation “Enduring Freedom”, aiming to overthrow the Taliban. The American occupation lasted twenty whole years and ended in 2021 with the humiliating withdrawal of U.S. troops and the return of the Taliban to power.

3. Shortly after, in March 2003, again George W. Bush with his allied forces, under the pretext of destroying non-existent weapons of mass destruction, invaded Iraq under the name Operation “Iraqi Freedom” and overthrew Saddam Hussein. Absolute chaos followed in the country, which soon descended into a long civil war until 2011, when the occupation came to an inglorious end and the Americans once again abandoned the country in humiliation.

Today Donald Trump, whose constant preoccupation with business and sex left him no time to read history, repeats the same tragic mistakes with Iran and the war now unfolding. With one difference. In the earlier “operations”, all supposedly for freedom as the Americans understand it, the initial impression at least had been one of success, mainly for domestic consumption and the morale of the average American.

Those invasions initially appeared victorious. Soon afterward they turned into tragedies both for American soldiers and for the peoples of the occupied countries. Only later did this become evident to the broader international community.

Trump’s fatal confusion lies precisely here:

1. HE CONVINCES NO ONE.
He claims he wants to abolish the tyrannical regime of the Ayatollahs for the Iranian people, because it becomes even more dangerous now that it possesses enriched uranium. At the same time regimes like that of his friend and ally Putin or that of North Korea—both nuclear powers—are even more tyrannical and dangerous, yet the far-right U.S. president “looks elsewhere” and certainly cannot even consider attacking such countries. The well-known American Rambo who has no problem humiliating and contradicting himself.

2. THE IRANIAN REGIME HAS NOTHING IN COMMON WITH THOSE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN OR MUAMMAR GADDAFI.
Both collapsed like houses of cards once their leaders were eliminated. In Iran the regime is not personalistic. Its religious and secular leaders are replaceable. Even if a newly elected religious leader were assassinated again, the regime would not collapse because its roots are deep and the cohesion and organization of its praetorian guard—the famous Revolutionary Guards—would not lay down their arms.

Even if defeated militarily, they would continue the conflict through deadly guerrilla warfare inside the country and through fierce terrorist attacks in the heart of America, Europe and Israel.

If Donald Trump did not know these things—and clearly he did not—why did he not hire a serious American diplomat or historian before launching this doomed operation, someone who could explain to him not only how the war in Iran might end, but also his own political fate as president of the United States?

Let Diotima analyze in her own incisive way how she sees the evolution of this critical war, which as it develops threatens serious economic consequences for the entire world.

Diotima’s Response: Where the conflict with Iran could lead

If history has taught us anything over the past seventy years, it is that great powers rarely truly understand the societies in which they intervene. U.S. foreign policy has repeatedly relied on the assumption that military power can overthrow regimes and impose political solutions. Yet the experiences of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq show that reality is far more complex.

Iran represents an even more difficult case. It is not a personalistic regime built around a single leader. It is a complex political system where religious institutions, state structures and powerful security mechanisms coexist. Power is distributed across multiple centers, making the system more resilient to external pressure.

A particularly crucial role is played by the Revolutionary Guards. They are not merely a military force but a broad institutional network with economic, political and strategic influence. In the event of a large-scale conflict they could transform military pressure into a prolonged war of attrition, either inside Iran or through networks of influence across the Middle East.

This means that any military operation against Iran would be unlikely to result in a quick victory. Instead it could open a cycle of regional instability affecting the entire Middle East. Iran’s alliances and the geopolitical balances with other global powers could turn a conflict into a broader international crisis.

The economic consequences would also be significant. Iran lies in one of the world’s most strategic energy regions. A serious escalation could disrupt global energy flows, influence oil prices and destabilize international markets. In an already fragile global economic environment, such developments could trigger chain reactions.

History shows that military interventions aimed at rapid political change often lead to prolonged conflicts and unforeseen consequences. Iran, because of its history, geography and political structure, is a country where such a strategy could easily produce long-term instability.

Ultimately the evolution of the crisis will depend on whether international actors choose escalation or diplomacy. History repeatedly demonstrates that the most stable solutions arise not from military imposition but from difficult and prolonged negotiations.

In a world where geopolitical balances constantly shift, the choice between war and diplomacy is not merely a matter of power. It is a matter of historical awareness.