Donald Trump 1.0, before his second presidency which began in January, 2025, held a radically different position regarding the United States and potential wars than he (Trump 2.0) has held during the first thirteen months of his second term in the White House.
When President Trump was on the campaign trail in 2015/2016, 2020 and 2024, he repeatedly claimed:
- He had always opposed the war in Iraq.
- Therefore, he would never lead our country into another “endless” war, especially in the Middle East.
- Wars with the goal of achieving regime change were incredibly “naïve, dumb, and reckless”.
During his first presidency, Trump largely kept his promise regarding wars. His second term has been just the opposite. He has ordered military strikes on seven countries around the globe (eight, if we count the attack yesterday on Ecuador). Those nations are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Venezuela and Nigeria. He has not asked for nor received Congressional authorization for those military operations (our Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility to declare war).
These facts raise the obvious question: which version should we believe, Trump 1.0 or 2.0? The current war with Iran is particularly difficult because a variety of conflicting goals have been offered by the White House.
- Secretary Hegseth affirmed the war was not about “regime change” although he said the “regime has changed” and Trump 2.0 told the Iranian opposition to rise up and take over their government, because “we have your back”.
- Trump 2.0 stated a goal was to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile capability, but Trump already “obliterated” their nuclear stockpile in June 2025, right?
- Trump 2.0 affirmed another goal was to take out Iran’s current and future leadership. This is a long-term proposal and sure sounds like “regime change” to me.
- Trump 2.0 said another goal was to destroy Iran’s navy, although this goal was not even mentioned in the first days of the war.
- House Speaker Mike Johnson had a more difficult task. He knows that legally it is Congress that declares “war”. So, although Trump 2.0 and Secretary Hegseth have repeatedly referred to our operations in Iran as “war”, Johnson has called them merely a “military operation” which would not violate the Constitution. This war is war, regardless of Johnson’s semantic tricks. A war by any other name is still a war.
One of the biggest problems is that Trump 2.0 has not even sketched out an “end game”. There are two basic options. Either he leaves a functioning government in place (nation building and boots on the ground) or the US leaves Iran with a leadership vacuum that falls into civil war in the nation and a spiraling out of control war in the region.
A thousand deaths have already taken place in Iran, including more than 150 girls and teachers from an elementary school. Each human being is precious and killing innocent girls is criminal.
Even before he ran for the political office, Trump knew that some presidents launch wars to unite our country in support of a failing presidency. In October 2012, weeks before Obama was re-elected, Trump falsely predicted, “Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin — watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate”. Given that Trump’s current approval rate is lower than Obama’s ever was, is Trump’s war in Iran a last-ditch attempt to save the legacy of a failing, desperate president?
How do we square Trump 1.0 with the 2.0 version? It cannot be done. Staunch Trump supporters have become some of his most vocal critics. Tucker Carlson gets the last word about this war: “it is disgusting and evil!”
Lindy Scott 