The War with Iran: Trump 1.0 vs Trump 2.0. Which Version Should We Believe?

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!”

For Better or for Worse: This is Trump’s War. Will He Own It and Take Responsibility?

Over the weekend, President Trump authorized the US military to carry out air attacks by B2 bombers against Iranian nuclear sites. Fighter pilots executed his orders on Saturday. In a speech to the nation later that evening, Trump immediately claimed the attack was a “tremendous success” and that the stockpiles had been “obliterated”! Although the dust was supposed to settle these last three days, more uncertainty and inconsistencies have arisen. Vice-President Vance had to walk back Trump’s “obliteration” claim, by acknowledging that the degree of destruction has yet to be determined. Late on Monday, Trump brokered a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Nevertheless, Israel definitely (and Iran possibly) violated the ceasefire. This morning as he was leaving the White House for his NATO trip to Europe, he responded to questions from reporters. His anger was quite evident. “I am not happy with Israel”, he retorted as he criticized Israel for unloading bombs on Iran making a mockery of his ceasefire. As he walked away, Trump himself dropped the “F” bomb. “Israel and Iran have been fighting for so long and so hard, they don’t know what the F*** they’re doing”.

There is no doubt about it: This is Trump’s war. It was not a war of necessity. It was a war of choice. Trump owns it…for better or for worse. Trump (and those who support this war) must answer some essential questions. Was this attack legal? Why did Trump break his campaign promise to not take the US into another endless war in the Middle East? Did Netanyahu “play” Trump by appealing to his weak ego? Will this attack be similar to the decade-long war in Iraq? If Iran’s government is still in place and still has some uranium stockpiles, is it still a terrorist state? If this conflict escalates and oil prices skyrocket, will Trump take responsibility, or will he blame others?

Was it legal? Congress has the sole power to declare war under Article 1 of the US Constitution. Since the end of WWII, presidents (both Republicans and Democrats) have violated the Constitution, but they gave the appearance of obedience by alerting congressional leaders (usually the “gang of eight”) before attacks had been launched. Trump did not even alert Democrat leaders until after the attack had occurred. It sure seems clear, that the president violated the Constitution.

Although Trump and his supporters deny it, this air attack seems similar to the war in Iraq that began in 2003. In the lead up to both, it was claimed that hostilities would last only a few days. Presidents Bush and Trump mentioned “regime change” as a goal, which would take years…at least. Both presidents appealed to questionable intelligence. Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. According to national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard, Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. Trump silenced her. Why?

Predictably, most Republican leaders have supported Trump and his attack. There have been sharp criticisms from some who previously defended Trump on every issue (like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon). Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican from Georgia and a staunch supporter of Trump, broke with the president on this military attack against Iran. She acknowledged that there’s a “very big divide” in the Republican party over the issue and that her position opposing foreign wars is becoming “more popular” among the MAGA base. On Monday she told CNN, “I got elected on the exact same campaign promises that President Trump got elected on. We promised no more foreign wars, no more regime change,”. Earlier in the day, in a lengthy post on X, she denounced Trump’s decision to authorize US bombings of Iranian nuclear sites. She claimed it “feels like a complete bait and switch” of his MAGA promises.

Taylor Greene was not the only Republican congressional representative to criticize the president’s decision. Thomas Massie is a conservative congressman from Kentucky. A week ago, prior to the attack, Massie had co-introduced a bipartisan War Powers Resolution in the House of Representatives in an attempt to restrict the president’s ability to escalate tensions with Iran. “The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn’t attacked the United States,” Massie said in a press release announcing the resolution. “Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.” After Trump announced that the attacks had happened, Massie responded, ”This is not Constitutional”. (Trump reacted not with evidence, but by creating a PAC in Kentucky to try and defeat Massie in the 2026 primary.)

I believe the War Powers Resolution should go forward and be voted on. We should make our cowardly representatives go on the record about this war. Polls taken after the strikes (Reuters, CNN) reveal that a majority of US citizens disapprove of Trump’s attack with only about 44% in favor. Stay tuned for more details.

A Potential War with Iran and the Attempt to get Reelected

It is well known that governments that are facing domestic problems often go to war in order to rally public support behind their failing administration. They hope that a majority of their citizens, in a spirit of nationalism, (not genuine patriotism), will overlook the domestic issues and come to the support of the executive branch of the government. This is what happened forty years ago when the failing government of Argentina went to war with England over the Falkland Islands.

In light of this political strategy, the following quote is illustrative:

“Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He’s weak and he’s ineffective. So, the only way he figures that he’s going to get reelected — and as sure as you’re sitting there — is to start a war with Iran.”

Nevertheless, this quote did not come from a liberal Democrat in a critique against Donald Trump. It was not penned by left wing radicals who hate our current president. No, this was a tweet by Donald Trump on November 16, 2011 in which he predicted that then President Obama would lead our country into a senseless war in the Middle East. President Obama did not fulfill Trump’s prophecy. He refused to start a futile war with Iran for personal political gain. Although Trump was wrong about Obama, he was right about human nature and how many politicians make decisions. Many rulers create international crises for their own personal benefit. Ironically, perhaps Trump was predicting his own behavior in 2020.

Citizens in the United States, and around the world, must learn from history. The war in Iraq was touted as a “just” war that we waged to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Although Saddam Hussein was evil, our military conflict was not justified. Trump himself opposed that war and campaigned on getting our troops out of never ending, futile and unjust wars in the Middle East. He has just ordered the deployment of thousands of soldiers to the Middle East.

A truly biblical position on political activity comes from Jesus Himself where he warns people to not be naïve. Jesus told them, “The rulers of the world lord it over their subjects, and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors (= Doers of Good). Do not be like them.” (Luke 22:25-26). Jesus calls his followers not to believe everything we hear. We are called to have a healthy dose of skepticism. People must hold their elected officials responsible to tell the truth and to act justly. It is my hope and prayer that we do not fall into an “easy believism”. May we rigorously seek the truth and may the truth win out.