Opinion
Nicholas Kristof
The Folly of Attacking Iran
Feb. 28, 2026
Credit...Atta Kenare/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesListen to this article · 7:04 min Learn more
Share full article
896
By Nicholas Kristof
Opinion Columnist
We Americans have begun another Middle Eastern war based on dubious intelligence claims, and as in 2003, I fear we haven’t thought through the substantial risks and uncertain gains.
President Trump says that the aim of this “massive and ongoing” war is no less than regime change: He has vowed to devastate Iran’s military force, destroy its nuclear program (again) and topple the leadership. Lofty goals. But fundamental questions remain: How likely is it that he can achieve all of this, and at what cost and risk?
War is uncertain. Sometimes it goes as smoothly as the Persian Gulf war of 1991, and sometimes you find yourself mired in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. I’ve reported from Iran over the years, and I’ve seen the popular resentment against the government, so maybe the attacks will lead Iran’s government to collapse the way its allies in Syria did in 2024.
But air wars alone have a poor record of overthrowing leaders: The United States under Presidents Joe Biden and Trump spent more than $7 billion bombing Yemen and couldn’t dislodge even the weak, unpopular and poorly armed Houthis.
In general, American military interventions have a better record of success when they have a precise, limited objective — like the operation in Venezuela to seize President Nicolás Maduro. This war with Iran appears the opposite, aiming for nothing less than the overthrow of a government of more than 90 million people.
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
Trump may have too sunny a view of what war with Iran would entail because Iran barely responded to the assassination of Qassim Suleimani in 2020 or to the bombing of nuclear sites last year. My guess is that Iran feels it now must re-establish deterrence and will continue to respond aggressively — not just attacking United States military bases but also perhaps striking ships in the Strait of Hormuz (through which one-fifth of the world’s oil passes) or organizing future terror attacks against American targets worldwide.
The point of military action is to make us safer, but Iran didn’t appear to be in a position to pose a substantial threat to America in the coming years. Despite claims by Trump or his aides, its missiles probably won’t soon be able to reach the United States, and its nuclear program is entombed and apparently on pause. By attacking Iran, I fear we increased risk rather than reduced it. Another cost of the war is that it will deplete munitions, such as Tomahawk missiles and various interceptors already in short supply, and divert us from America’s long-term strategic challenges in Asia. We will be degrading our military capacity to address the next crisis.
Like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Iran has a repressive and unpopular government that is a malign influence on the region. Iran just massacred thousands of protesters — at least 6,800 civilians and perhaps many more, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency. The regime is a pillar of misogyny, supports bad actors throughout the Middle East and holds back millions of well-educated people.
And as with Iraq in 2003, a war is not necessarily the best tool to deal with a brutal and hostile government. There are more problems in international relations than solutions, and in the past the illusion of an easy military answer has repeatedly caused tragedy for ourselves as well as for others.
I reached out on the eve of the war to a heroic Iranian human rights lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, whose courage and defiance of the regime have periodically landed her in jail. She told me that the best time for military strikes would have been January, when they might have stopped the slaughter in the streets.
Sotoudeh, like some other Iranians, seemed ambivalent about military action today. Before the massacres, she said, her position was, “You can’t bomb your way to democracy.” Afterward, repulsed by the massacres, she said she favored outside humanitarian intervention to protect protesters — but not unilateral military attacks by Trump.
Some wars are necessary; by contrast, this is a war of choice. There was a diplomatic path that showed promise in addressing Iran’s nuclear program. It appeared that Iran was willing to offer a deal that suspended uranium enrichment for several years and after that limited enrichment to very low levels under rigorous inspections, while also diluting its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
That would have been an unsatisfying solution, for it would not have addressed Iran’s missiles or its repression; diplomatic solutions often are unsatisfying, because they are the result of compromise. But Trump created a nuclear crisis with Iran in part by tearing up the imperfect nuclear accord that President Barack Obama had reached with the ayatollahs; if we had remained in the deal, it seems to me we would be in a safer place today — and at peace.
To undermine the Iranian government and bring about change, we had other approaches that would not have involved war. The United States could have tried to knit together the fragmented opposition and worked to destabilize the militias. It could have smuggled in many more Starlink terminals so that Iranians could communicate. The intelligence community could have prioritized investigations of the corruption of the leadership; I’d love to see leaks illuminating the wealth of top Iranian officials or reports of their children and grandchildren enjoying their sybaritic lifestyles at home and abroad. The United States can still do these things.
Arguably one of the factors that undermined the Iranian leaders the most last year was not a bomb but a video showing the lavish wedding of an Iranian hard-liner’s daughter, as she wore a strapless, low-cut dress; it went viral in Iran and underscored the hypocrisy and double standards of leaders who inflict on the public rules that they don’t follow themselves. We need more of those videos leaked.
All this is less dramatic than blowing up naval stations or oil refineries. But remember that in 1979 it was not machine guns and bombs that toppled the shah, but rather smuggled cassette tapes of sermons and songs. I question whether a bombing campaign can topple the ayatollahs, but they are so unpopular, I believe that at some point they can and will be ousted by a more organized and better-funded opposition.
Look, we all need some humility about what lies ahead. Doves like me have been right about some uses of force (such as the Iraq war) but wrong about others (such as the Iraq war surge). As I weigh the benefits and costs of this new war with Iran, I fear that we have sleepwalked into yet another perilous folly in the Middle East.
When you’ve witnessed the horror of war, you believe it should be a last resort — not an abyss we tumble into without legal basis or clear objectives, pushing us all unnecessarily into a riskier world in which the only certainty is bloodshed.
From the comments896
Nicholas Kristof
Opinion columnist
So, readers, what do you think of this war we've just started? Am I a nervous Nellie? Or do you share my doubts? Your thoughts?Read 166 replies
David A. Lee commented 9 hours ago
D
David A. Lee
Ottawa KS 66067 · 9h ago
@Nicholas Kristof To me your word "folly" is spot on. The man is unhinged, and thank God we have you to speak to us, Mr. Kristof. Carry on, as an old buddy of mine, a retired Army Captain told me. He, too, thinks Trump is just off base. To me, this is going to throw away any hope whatever that Mr. Trump and the Board of Peace will repair Gaza, which is heart-attack urgent. And, he is helping carry Israel and America into a further condition of complete international isolation. Putin must be licking his chops this morning. Again, Mr. Kristof, thank you.
Reply
3 Replies
535 Recommend
Dave P commented 9 hours ago
D
Dave P
Syracuse, NY · 9h ago
@Nicholas Kristof I appreciate this evaluation insight only the fact that we were in active negotiations of which there was no indication that they had been rejected or terminated less than 48 hours earlier. This total deception and lack of integrity undermines the whole United States approach to diplomacy.
Reply
4 Replies
749 Recommend
ElsaLis commented 9 hours ago
E
ElsaLis
Central NJ · 9h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
I am in complete agreement with you. PLEASE continue to speak out
against this action...Thank you!
Reply
351 Recommend
Artificial General Intelligence commented 9 hours ago
A
Artificial General Intelligence
Optimizing all matter that orbits Sol · 9h ago
@Nicholas Kristof it seems to me that this makes it far less likely that hostile regimes will be willing to negotiate with the United States. We rewarded the Iranians for their willingness to negotiate with us by launching an open-ended campaign to wipe out their leadership?
Reply
3 Replies
349 Recommend
PTinWI commented 9 hours ago
P
PTinWI
Wisconsin · 9h ago
@Nicholas Kristof I spent several years in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan as a senior intel officer. My immediate reaction is that it is much easier to get into wars than to get out of them. Trump has no understanding of the limits of military power and these attacks are probably not going to bring about regime change and may well backfire in many unforeseen ways.
Reply
11 Replies
1K Recommend
Mark Hazell commented 9 hours ago
M
Mark Hazell
North Cowichan, BC Canada · 9h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
This war is stupid beyond belief. The only explanation I can come up with is Trump's declining popularity in the US has prompted him to launch a war that will give him an excuse to cancel the fall election.
Reply
7 Replies
719 Recommend
LK commented 9 hours ago
L
LK
Maine · 9h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
Not only do I share your doubts, I am disgusted by Trump’s disregard for Congress and for the American people, who overwhelmingly do not want another American war in the Middle East. We’ve learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump’s hypocrisy - he touted himself as an American isolationist - is both predictable and infuriating. This war will have disastrous consequences.
Reply
4 Replies
540 Recommend
Tobias commented 9 hours ago
T
Tobias
Netherlands · 9h ago
@Nicholas Kristof. I fully agree, but I think there are even more risks involved: even if there is regime change, what comes next? The Sha, some generals, civil war?
However I heard many Iranians saying in the news’s here that they don’t care “please attack us”. So it’s really mixed and super dangerous anyway - definitely not in the interests of the American people. Very complex!
Reply
1 Reply
62 Recommend
Just Another commented 9 hours ago
J
Just Another
New York · 9h ago
@Nicholas Kristof , A bad and illegal action in terms of U.S. national interests, world interests, and democratic norms. But it's almost certainly driven in large part by Trump's view that he will gain net benefits politically (in the short run, he may be right), that it will divide the Democrats similar to the way that support for Israel does and the Iraq war did, and that it will give him further pretexts for executive orders and declarations of states of emergency that expand presidential power against opponents and disfavored groups.
Reply
1 Reply
111 Recommend
Gary commented 9 hours ago
G
Gary
Holland, MI · 9h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
Your last paragraph is a very good summary that I heartily agree with.
Reply
22 Recommend
Douglas Reiss commented 9 hours ago
D
Douglas Reiss
Pittsburgh · 9h ago
@Nicholas Kristof. I think this war was started by the pathological narcissist because: 1. “War” presidents tend to. Be able to deflect from other issues. For,both of these leaders, that is essential. For Trump,the focus on Epstein and the polls diminish drastically
Reply
110 Recommend
sless13 commented 9 hours ago
s
sless13
Mexico · 9h ago
@Nicholas Kristof With military action being Trump's first resort and his complete disregard of the Constitution and of Democracy, it is the U.S. that desperately requires regime change.
Reply
1 Reply
314 Recommend
Jay Belsky commented 8 hours ago
J
Jay Belsky
Sea Ranch, CA · 8h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
Anyone who is not a nervous Nelly is not paying attention.
Reply
79 Recommend
SceneSpieler commented 8 hours ago
S
SceneSpieler
New Jersey · 8h ago
@Nicholas Kristof One definite outcome of this war will be the increase threat to the US by middle eastern extremists. We’re practically begging for another 9/11 to be inflicted upon us. And while this threat rises, those who have custody over the nation’s security are too busy cosplaying and making social media clips while terrorizing our own citizenry instead of focusing on the real terror threats acts like this will most certainly exacerbate.
Reply
2 Replies
154 Recommend
Roy Wallace commented 7 hours ago
R
Roy Wallace
New York, NY · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
And all this from a man that never served a day in his entire like including during his time as president. How easily we stated that we may lose some of our own. Humpty Dumpty is about to fall.
Reply
72 Recommend
Observer commented 8 hours ago
O
Observer
Toronto · 8h ago
@Nicholas Kristof I interpret this war through the lens of Chris Hedges, who I’m sure you know personally. The odds strongly favor the U.S. getting trapped inside Persia by a forced ground invasion. This is Putin’s objective.
Gold has already jumped $500 today and it will continue. Iran will close the Straights of Hormuz and crash the U.S. economy while the Dollar continues its descent.
The only potential upside of this war is the possible removal of Khamenei, freeing the Iranian people from a nightmare that has lasted half a century, and the political downfall of Trump if US forces get trapped in Tehran.
That’s my take.
Reply
55 Recommend
West&EastCoast commented 5 hours ago
W
West&EastCoast
San Francisco · 5h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
Here’s what I think, as the daughter of a 40+ year US State Department policymaker, starting with the Kennedy administration:
Just what we all needed, a totally reckless, unprovoked war, started by an illegal attack, done unilaterally by a draft dodger President.
Reply
59 Recommend
Dazed and confused commented 7 hours ago
D
Dazed and confused
Los Angeles · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof Massively destructive folly it is. But is the invasion really “a diversion from America’s long-term strategic challenges in Asia”—or might it actually be central to those challenges? I understand that in 2025 China took 75–80 % of Venezuela’s oil and about 90 % of Iran’s crude shipments. To what extent do the military interventions in Venezuela and now Iran function as a form of energy denial aimed at choking the flow of discounted crude to China?
Reply
3 Replies
15 Recommend
Hugh Mongus commented 8 hours ago
H
Hugh Mongus
Oregon · 8h ago
@Nicholas Kristof That we had a couple of grifting real estate developers negotiating a complex arrangement that came to nought should surprise no one. The JCPOA, torn up by Trump during his first term is just another, in a long list of things he has discarded, with no plan to replace.
Didn’t he campaign on no forever wars?
Reply
1 Reply
102 Recommend
David commented 4 hours ago
D
David
New York City · 4h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
Ludicrous and illegal. How can one person decide to endanger 342,000,000 people without the agreement of our 535 elected representatives? This is not even a question of whether or not it's stupid; it is for all the reasons Nick Kristof states and more, but it is virtually guaranteed not to have a positive impact. It shows the world, friends, and enemies alike who we are, gives de facto permission to any nation like Russia and China to act similarly, and eliminates any credibility the USA ever had of being other than a war monger and criminal actor on the world stage. This is continued evidence trump is a madman, and his sycophants are useless tools of insanity.
Reply
24 Recommend
barbara the leopardskin beast usa commented 7 hours ago
b
barbara the leopardskin beast usa
Usasge · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof I recall a book by Barbara tuchman with acquire by ben Franklin that the pursuit of folk, is no virtue..once again we run into a country about which we know little. Big $ will be wasted. Trump will declare a win haha. Waste of...and the lives list will be the powerless.
Reply
11 Recommend
Tom commented 8 hours ago
T
Tom
Baltimore · 8h ago
@Nicholas Kristof As you said, nobody can predict with certainty how this war will work out. But one thing we can be sure of - bombing alone will NEVER cause regime change. It can set back nuclear development (as it already has). It can knock out missile production centers, if they are known, and delay missile development. But Iran can be bombed to rubble and there still will be a regime of ayatollahs - if anything, they'll even be stronger in power. Changing the government, as short-sighted as the objective is (given history), requires a massive invasion. Is this really what we are getting into? Even that did no good, ultimately, in Iraq.
Reply
2 Replies
20 Recommend
barbara the leopardskin beast usa commented 5 hours ago
b
barbara the leopardskin beast usa
Usasge · 5h ago
@PTinWI I was aware that except for oersia for a while Afghanistan had resisted conquest but we rushed in anyway. I wonder if anyone in charge knew what they were doing
Reply
6 Recommend
James Mitchell commented 8 hours ago
J
James Mitchell
Everett WA · 8h ago
@Nicholas Kristof. Thank you for speaking up, and for giving us this opportunity to join your voice. This man must be removed from office. I don't know how we get there, but it is essential he go.
I have drafted an amendment based on Japan's Article Nine that would forbid America from engaging in any offensive military action. I want to bind this nation to a defensive military. We would forego use of military action as a tool of diplomacy. We would respond to violation of territorial borders much as Ukraine has done, but would be forbidden of initiating such attacks. The amendment will be in print soon.
Reply
35 Recommend
Cheryle commented 8 hours ago
C
Cheryle
spain · 8h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
I doubt the war will accomplish any of its means. Lord knows the world has enough bad rulers that should not be in place. But we didn’t need a US President committing war crimes and tearing up a network of countries which had stopped world war three for the last sixty years. The soft war they we should be increasing is that one supporting Ukraine. We have an unprecedented chance to take down Putin, and Trump is squandering it and weakening NATO.
Reply
1 Reply
55 Recommend
Neda M. commented 7 hours ago
N
Neda M.
DFW, TX · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof Thank you for your journalism. Your voice and your thoughts are appreciated and respected. Thank you for your willingness to asking for your readers, thoughts.
A very complex and perhaps convoluted chapter has been unfolding. It is important to look at the whole of the last 47 years and the tyrannical regime that was put in place of the Shah regime - raising price of oil.
There are many books like Scott Anderson‘s king of Kings, Dr. Milani at Stanford research based book called the Revolution of 5%, among other others that indicate people of Iran were never in support of Islamic Republic’s severely oppressive regime at home and for funding terrorism abroad. 300% inflation while funding their own, and militias abroad.
There have been several movements from inside Iran that were brutally crushed by the government.
Iran is not the only country suffering, and there are human rights violations in many countries around the world.
Yet today, world’s attention is on Iran.
Having access to the straight of Hormoz for supply of oil to the rest of the world
And the endless supply of drones to Russia ….
The constitution stating Israel must be wiped off from map of the world, & many more
It is complex & undeniably we are not privy to all the facts that impact various decision makers
Iranians are mostly secular and want to improve their quality of life, their economy and their relationship with the rest of the world! We pray for peace and harmony in the world
Reply
12 Recommend
JB commented 7 hours ago
J
JB
New York · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof I’m sold it is the right thing to do after reading of the thousands of peaceful protestors slain by this regime. It’s time, enough of this nuclear cat and mouse games. It’s time to end Middle East governments that cannot separate church and state, starting with this one.
Reply
1 Reply
8 Recommend
Jorn commented 5 hours ago
J
Jorn
Sagebrush Country · 5h ago
@Nicholas Kristof History shows that bombing a country does not produce regime change. It's more likely to unite the country against its enemies who are now killing their families. Mr. Trump and his son-on-law are terrible negotiators. Their only tools are childish insults, threats and intimidation.
They did send diplomats because a negotiated settlement was not the goal of our government. No-one asked the American people if we wanted a completely pointless and extremely expensive war. Trump thinks he can distract us from the Epstein files, the lawless paramilitary group known as ICE, and his personal corruption by shooting off missiles. This is not why we pay taxes.
Reply
15 Recommend
Kevin S. commented 5 hours ago
K
Kevin S.
Abbotsford, Canada · 5h ago
@Nicholas Kristof maybe there’s pertinent intel we don’t know, but on the face of it, this move seems really stupid. Unless the strikes truly decimate the security apparatus, I don’t see how this leads to regime change or even civil war (neither of which are necessarily desirable in spite of the evil of the current regime). People aren’t going to rise up while bombs are flying. There’s no clear plan, it seems from the outside. Doing something significant and positive requires intelligence and follow-through, which the current US government seems incapable of.
Reply
10 Recommend
david commented 7 hours ago
d
david
washington · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof This isn't war. It is a business negotiation by another means. Venezuela was a mob style extortion scheme. Kidnap the president, tell the vice-president the USA, through nongovernmental third parties to avoid the law, is taking a cut of the oil or you are next. Today it was reported that Venezuela would start selling oil to Cuba, through private companies to nongovernmental linked Cuban companies contrary to the USA blockade. I expect a similar story with Iran's oil. And I would love to hear more from the NYT about Venezuela's oil.
Reply
16 Recommend
Man Over Board. commented 7 hours ago
M
Man Over Board.
Philadelphia · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof you have written extensively about how Netanyahu continues to use Trump for his own ignoble and ambitious goals, this Iran war is another example of that deception. It’s an illegal war to say the least, and unfortunately many innocents including children will die, and for what!?
Reply
15 Recommend
Fabrizio Titone commented 8 hours ago
F
Fabrizio Titone
Spain · 8h ago
@Nicholas Kristof Thank you for your article. I would add that this further attack is mostly result of the pressure exerted by Israel. I have been really impressed by the degree of influence of Netanyahu on Trump since his election. So, negotiations had to fail.
Reply
12 Recommend
Daniel commented 8 hours ago
D
Daniel
Boston MA · 8h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
I share your worries, but history favors the bold. I am hopeful that the coming days and weeks may yet open a new (better) chapter for the people of Iran, the region and the world.
Reply
11 Recommend
Assay commented 8 hours ago
A
Assay
New York · 8h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
There is no doubt about this is a folly. What is more important, however, are multiple reasons behind Trump has chosen this war. Sadly, none of the reasons are legitimate.
To begin with, there are no 'holy' intentions -such as saving Iranian citizens or promoting democracy -on part of Trump. Second, Trump is being played by Netanyahu and MBS; sadly. Third, history shows that rarely, if ever, military conflicts away from home truly succeed. Fourth, as NYT editorial board and you pointed out, there was no immidiate threat to the US from Iran. Capitol Hill should summon Witcoff to produce the proofs that made him claim that Iran is one week away from enriched nuclear fuel for creating bomb.
Last, but ot the least, this is a proven ruse used by Trump to redirect MAGA base's attention from his (alleged) involvement with Epstein and corral their support behind war.
Reply
1 Reply
29 Recommend
Kris commented 8 hours ago
K
Kris
Vancouver · 8h ago
@Nicholas Kristof I think ultimately this regime needs to be dislodged and there is no perfect way of accomplishing this without the attendant risks. To let things stand as they are hardly seem like much of an option after 47 years of this but the key will be how the Iranian people step up and take the initiative. Toppling this regime with bombs alone won’t be enough but it could be the impetus needed to light a fire under these people to take control of their destiny.
Reply
3 Replies
11 Recommend
Edward commented 7 hours ago
E
Edward
The Hague · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof I don’t know if this is “folly” but I do know it is illegal - unconstitutional under American law and unsanctioned under international law. Beyond this I am just struck by the hypocrisy and impunity. We always talk about Iran’s “proxies” in the region. Why are American bases in Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, et al not described as “proxies”? There are reports of ~85 casualties at a girl’s school. Will there be impunity for the Americans / Israelis who did this just as there was impunity for all the atrocities in Vietnam, Iraq and Guantanamo?
Reply
10 Recommend
Lily commented 5 hours ago
L
Lily
NC · 5h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
With such untrustworthy, unqualified and boot-licking military leadership in the Pentagon, it would be a miracle if this aggressive campaign doesn't quickly unravel to a pointless, costly disaster for the U.S. and the mid-east region. Its main purpose to Trump is clearly power and ego, not protection of the U.S. According to an opinion from an Iran expert that aired (EST) on BBC programming on NPR just before the U.S. launched the attack, Iran offered a nuclear agreement that was actually stricter than the one Obama negotiated, but the commentator guessed (correctly) that it wasn't flash-bang enough for Trump to accept it.
Reply
7 Recommend
Giovanni Ussia commented 8 hours ago
G
Giovanni Ussia
Italy · 8h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
Thank you so much for your humanitarian opinion against unecesessary wars which everybody with hearth and soul should agree -, I am afraid that people with such great power to destroy lives sitting on a sopha without risking his own should have much more respect for every single human life .
Reply
4 Recommend
Bud commented 7 hours ago
B
Bud
Omaha, NE · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof I have so many doubts! The Trump administration has undermined any credibility the US had for conducting such actions on the world stage. This attack following the Venezuela military action, all has the look of the US making a grab for strategic oil reserves. And how are we to think otherwise given the transactional nature of this presidency, and the culture of self-enrichment, privilege, and corruption that is rampant under Trump?
Reply
8 Recommend
Hal commented 8 hours ago
H
Hal
Texas · 8h ago
@Nicholas Kristof I am not sure how anyone could not share your doubts. This administration hasn't even bothered to explain why this it is necessary or why we are doing this beyond boilerplate statements that any President in the past several decades could have said. They aren't even trying to manufacture consent anymore, and they are certainly not even attempting to gesture at making this war legal. So yes, I too have serious doubts about a major war based on the premise "Iran bad."
Reply
8 Recommend
Donald commented 7 hours ago
D
Donald
Yonkers · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
We need to take our own professed values seriously. So on human rights overseas, why do we find it so easy to justify actions up to and including war against brutal enemies such as Iran, but we won’t lift a finger to pressure our brutal friends like Israel? In fact we arm them and our government under both parties lies and covered up their crimes. The hypocrisy here is so deep it undermines our alleged good intentions. How could we possibly care about human rights anywhere if we won’t even use nonviolent pressure on our thuggish friends and won’t obey our own laws? The Leahy Law forbids arming military units that willl use the weapons to commit war crimes. Truthfully, I don’t believe that we get into wars for benevolent reasons, so let’s just stop pretending otherwise.
And second, whatever the reasons, good, bad or nonexistent, Trump had no right to start a war without Congressional debate. That along with our utter hypocrisy on human rights should be the central point and not whether a given action might or might not work by whatever standards we use. All of this discussion means nothing if Trump can simply act as a king and make war whenever he wants.
Reply
11 Recommend
Derek commented 8 hours ago
D
Derek
Indiana · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof I think it’s most likely that President Trump has little knowledge or understanding of Iran or of past American experience in the region. His major arching motivation is, unfailingly, what’s in it for himself. My guess is that advisors with their own agenda presented a simple case to him and he seized the chance to look tough, by blasting things (and people). Even if the Iranian government falls (is that the goal? If so, was a round of missiles the best way?), however, all this can do is throw all the cards in the air. Where they land, no one knows. If Trump is thinking beyond today’s news cycle at all, my guess is he is envisioning a joint Saudi-Trump project to pump oil.
Reply
7 Recommend
laurenlee3 commented 4 hours ago
l
laurenlee3
Denver, CO · 4h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
Trump says we were in imminent danger from Iran. Imminent is the word that is supposed to cover the legality of a war started like Russia's to Ukraine, Germany's to Czechoslovakia, Japan to United States. Our leaders are liars, con men to the core. This war could go on for a very long time, especially since we would have to put boots on the ground to take down their government.
Reply
3 Recommend
@CMP commented 8 hours ago
@
@CMP
NJ · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
Trump's vaguely stated goals can only be achieved through a massive combined arms invasion of Iran. The regime is far too extensively embedded in Iranian society to be rooted out with strategic bombing.
The U.S. forces required would need to be at least 5x or 6x greater than those for Operation Iraqi Freedom, given the size of the Iranian military and the difficult terrain.
Reply
6 Recommend
RN commented 7 hours ago
R
RN
Zurich · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof I don’t think democracy gets implemented from the outside - the people in the country need to rise in large enough numbers and have conviction to change things. (By the way that applies to the US as well) And certainly violence and war carried by a foreign power is not the path to democracy.
Finally unilateral action that is illegal under international law is also not the path to promote democracy and (ironically) the rule of law…
Reply
5 Recommend
SCK commented 7 hours ago
S
SCK
Southern California · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
War of choice, I believe.
These are the reasons that prompted to start attacking Iran again.
- Mid-terms are coming and last two years of Trump will not be as strong as first two years.
- Iran is at it's weakest point but strong enough to control the population without yielding any demands of the youth of Iran.
- US, Israel believe, they can take the retaliation along with other US allies in the region.
- It will be impossible to get a better deal than Obama but Trump wants a better deal with the threat of war.
- This will create more hate towards average Americans who travel the world but they will be considered as collateral damage while the ruling class hiding behind security.
- The diplomatic negotiations are farce with just two Yes men of Trump. The decision of war was already taken before these so called negotiations.
I do agree with you that, US will be in a less than ideal position to defend anything in Asia, like Taiwan. Now China wants US to engage as many wars as it can and they believe in US there will not be any political will left to defend something in Asia or any other assets China wants to control.
The Houthi's resistance tells us that without boots on the ground, US will control nothing.
History is no lesson when the leaders ignore it.
Reply
22 Recommend
LaVerne LandauerBeaverton commented 3 hours ago
L
LaVerne LandauerBeaverton
Oregon · 3h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
The only reason for Trump bombing Iran is to enhance his view of himself. It’s simply all about his ego which is a delicate thing.
Reply
4 Recommend
Kelcy commented 5 hours ago
K
Kelcy
Colorado · 5h ago
@Nicholas Kristof "like the operation in Venezuela to seize President Nicolás Maduro"
That was a kidnapping.
It did absolutely nothing for the country.
The same regime is in charge.
Oh, wait, they are paying the trump family money so they can sell their oil.
Therefore what you have to be asking what is the corrupt trump family expecting to get from Iran.
Reply
6 Recommend
Fervent Moderate commented 7 hours ago
F
Fervent Moderate
North Carolina · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
Growing up, my family had a friend who had served with distinction including behind enemy lines in WWII and went on to serve in high-ranking military roles after WWII. He was also a very distinguished man who chose his words carefully. That's part of I'll never forget the contempt he expressed for those who he said were "Eager for war, but had never heard a shot fired in anger." Describes Trump and his bone spurs perfectly unfortunately.
Reply
13 Recommend
David Kepley commented 7 hours ago
D
David Kepley
Annandale va · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
Mr Kristof, I agree with early all of the points you have made about the folly of starting this war. I’ d add that if a president wants to undertake something as serious as war, he should confer either members of the relevant committees of congress. He should also follow the war powers act! He had an ideal opportunity to make his case to the American people during his state of the union address but said the bare minimum. As you said, this was a war of choice. No American people or property has been hit by Iran in the weeks leading up to the attack. Why not give diplomacy a chance? Trump is enamored of military force!
Reply
4 Recommend
Mike commented 7 hours ago
M
Mike
Seattle · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
An aspiring autocrat (Trump) with the near-unconditional backing of a home-grown theocratic party (the GOP) is attempting to change a theocratic autocracy something more palatable to Christian nationalism. What could possibly go wrong?
Reply
7 Recommend
Harpia commented 7 hours ago
H
Harpia
WA · 7h ago
@Nicholas KristofIran's theocracy is horrible for its citizens and for the world in general, I think most agree with this. However, this is an extremely poor planned military adventure. It assumes the following premises:
1. that will able to kill most of the religious leadership. (as an example, when one pope dies there is always thousands of cardinals waiting to become the next pope)
2. that an unarmed segment of the population will be able overthrow the regime.
3. that there is a clear majority of Iranians interested in regime change. (as in Turkey, I guess optimistically speaking that the opinions are even split regarding this)
4. or that a military coup will overthrow the regime. (why would the military stop completely a nuclear program?)
5. that a civil war will not be started (Kurds want to be independent and Iran and Turkey have no interest in that).
6. that there will be no need for American troops on Iranian soil to enforce whatever Trump wants and to keep peace.
Reply
3 Recommend
Rcz commented 7 hours ago
R
Rcz
NC · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof I disagree with you only in that you state that you fear the implications of the attack were not thought through, and you fear it makes us less safe. I will respond that of course Trump did not think it through (his time horizon is about 5 minutes and his only thoughts are about aggrandizing himself and lining his pockets), and we are without doubt less safe. Otherwise, spot on!
Reply
4 Recommend
RW commented 6 hours ago
R
RW
California · 6h ago
@Nicholas Kristof another senseless folly over supposed weapons of mass destruction
Reply
3 Recommend
Arkansan commented 7 hours ago
A
Arkansan
AR · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
I am an Iranian American who came to the United States before the 1979 revolution and have lived here ever since. Like most people, I would never choose war—especially the troubling idea of citizens urging another nation to attack their own country. Yet this raises an unavoidable question: why would anyone reach such a point?
The answer lies in the Islamic Republic’s decades-long record of severe human-rights abuses, repression, and violence against its own people. Generations of Iranians have endured imprisonment, torture, executions, and the systematic denial of basic freedoms—especially for women. These realities stand in stark contrast to the principles of liberty and human dignity that drew many of us to America and that I deeply cherish.
The regime’s harm extends far beyond Iran’s borders through support for armed proxies, regional destabilization, hostage diplomacy, and alignment with authoritarian powers. A free Iran could help stabilize the Middle East, serve as a powerful democratic example, and reduce the geopolitical influence of Russia and China.
No one who values human life wishes for conflict. But many Iranians feel the status quo—ongoing repression at home and destabilization abroad—is itself a form of sustained violence. Any lasting solution must center on the rights, dignity, and aspirations of the Iranian people.
Sincerely,
An Iranian American
Reply
2 Replies
13 Recommend
MsMarion commented 7 hours ago
M
MsMarion
Washington DC · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
I’m in total agreement with you. I also sense a further motive on Trump’s part: to distract us from the Epstein files.
Reply
13 Recommend
Amb. Mark Asquino (ret) commented 7 hours ago
A
Amb. Mark Asquino (ret)
Santa Fe · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
This is a superb piece of analysis on the dangers or U.S. military action in Iran. I would add one additional point as a former, career diplomat. In addition to military assets in the Middle East, there are the staffs and families at U.S. diplomatic missions and thousands of other private sector Americans living in the region. All are vulnerable to attack by Iran's proxies and offer far softer targets than those on well-protected military bases.
Reply
7 Recommend
Sharon B commented 7 hours ago
S
Sharon B
Auburn, ME · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristoff
I appreciate your informative thoughts.
Reply
3 Recommend
Old Crank 67 commented 7 hours ago
O
Old Crank 67
Iowa · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof it is far too easy to start a war. And Donald Trump does not even pretend that he has to inform Congress and the American people before he unilaterally bombs various countries on whatever pretext he likes.
Unfortunately, the GOP majority in Congress will block any attempt at restraint, with the honorable exceptions of Thomas Massie and Rand Paul.
Reply
5 Recommend
Jim commented 3 hours ago
J
Jim
New Jersey · 3h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
What I didn't see mentioned by Mr Kristof, and know he is fully aware of this, is the sheer joy that Xi Jinping is feeling right now as he tells his generals to ramp up planning to invade Taiwan. Trump and his fool of a Defense Secretary have just greenlighted that invasion.
Reply
1 Recommend
Bojj commented 7 hours ago
B
Bojj
New York · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
Why this war with Iran — and why now?
With Trump, it is hard to believe this is about protecting our nation or safeguarding lives abroad. His record shows a pattern of self-interest over public interest. So the real question isn’t whether this serves the country — it’s how it serves him. Is this a political distraction? An attempt to manufacture a crisis he can later claim to have “resolved”? A play for personal legacy or favor with authoritarian leaders?
What it clearly is not is a principled defense of democracy or a faithful execution of the oath he took — twice — to uphold the Constitution. Escalating conflict without clear justification puts lives at risk and weakens the very values he swore to defend.
Reply
4 Recommend
JanD commented 7 hours ago
J
JanD
Charleston, SC · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof It is heartbreaking. No, you are not a nervous Nellie. This is what happens when we elect a person who is obviously not qualified to begin with, and whose faculties are failing before our eyes. Sadly, we will lose Americans in this folly, and our president could not care any less. His failure to consult with Congress should be grounds for impeachment, or maybe it's time to invoke the 25th Amendment.
Reply
8 Recommend
Jen commented 7 hours ago
J
Jen
Austria · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof The most incomprehensible thing about the situation is how many people are enabling the actions of Trump. As a European who grew up admiring the US, it is deeply worrying to witness what has become of it. And also, it feels like history is repeating itself - history, that the US has helped turn around at the time…
Reply
13 Recommend
Joe commented 7 hours ago
J
Joe
West Linn, OR · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof. Based on the justification of ousting a regime that is un popular, corrupt and responsible for deaths around the world as well as the deaths of its own citizens, I can see Canada and Greenland using the same logic to bomb the US to encourage regime change here.
Reply
10 Recommend
E Romero commented 7 hours ago
E
E Romero
Canada · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof I disagree.
If there were ever a strategic window to confront and remove an oppressive, terror-sponsoring regime, this is it. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis are weakened. The Iranian regime faces internal discontent and is aligned with Russia, supplying drones used to attack Ukrainian civilians.
At its core, the regime appears more vulnerable than it has been in decades.
Yes, the risks are real. But inaction carries risks too chiefly allowing the regime to regroup, rearm, and continue projecting violence across the region.
When you weigh 47 years of repression, regional destabilization, and bloodshed against the cost of decisive action now, the balance favors acting while the window is open.
Reply
1 Reply
1 Recommend
L R Smith commented 7 hours ago
L
L R Smith
Eden Prairie, MN · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof I believe history will observe that the actual precipitating cause of this military adventure had nothing to do with Iran. The Epstein files, specifically the 50 missing Trump-related pages, were getting too close for comfort so he needed a distraction. Wag the Dog.
Reply
11 Recommend
Bill commented 7 hours ago
B
Bill
Seattle · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
I can't think of one bombing campaign that has brought about a regime change that was more open and democratic. Even outright invasions often seem of mixed results (we just spent 20 years in Aphganistan).
We "succeeded" in Iraq because we had a coalition of forces and a land base to stage our military. I don't see any of that in place.
It is Congress's job to declare war. If the US is attacked the President has had the authority to respond but in the end it is Congress (and the people) who should decide. Trump just committed us to war with no ok and no discussion.
Reply
1 Recommend
Random guy commented 5 hours ago
R
Random guy
Bay Area · 5h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
The way I see it is that there are 3 evil regimes (the degree of evilness is arguable) attacking each other. Trump, Netanyahu and Khamenei are all playing with fire without a clear end game.
Reply
2 Recommend
David commented 7 hours ago
D
David
Virginia · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
You note "the point of military action is to make us safer." That is no doubt true in the abstract, but applying that rationale to this action may be Pollyannish. This might more accurately be remembered as the Epstein War, a calloused effort to deflect domestic attention (while further undermining of an international rules-based order). No one truly expects an Iranian regime friendly to the United States to emerge from this.
Reply
3 Recommend
Jeff Gosman commented 7 hours ago
J
Jeff Gosman
Winnipeg, Manitoba · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof - I am very worried! This is likely not going to end well. The whole thing saddens me.
Reply
4 Recommend
John Smythe commented 7 hours ago
J
John Smythe
CA · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
You mention vaguely in your article the depletion of munitions that we need to defend against threats from adversaries in Asia.
Please be more specific.
Take a clear stand against specific American adversaries in Asia if you believe they exist… Don’t just hint at it as a tool to argue *against* this attack, without establishing a strong position of what you *do* believe.
It’s easy to just be contrary.
What do you believe in? What are America’s values in your estimation? What are America’s interests?
Is any of that worth defending?
Do the only attacks against it come in the form of bombs lobbed directly into American soil?
What are you for?
Don’t just tell us what you’re against.
Reply
5 Recommend
susan stevens commented 7 hours ago
s
susan stevens
Philadelphia · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
Yes; war is not the answer---nor will it "work". and even if it did, does this mean Trump will look at Iran as another real estate deal to build resorts and condos???
Reply
2 Recommend
Plebeianmensch commented 7 hours ago
P
Plebeianmensch
USA · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
In the end this war will most likely intensify anti-American feelings not only in Iran and but also in the region as a whole. Israel's involvement in the war will show the world that the strikes in Iran were simply meant to serve Israeli interests. US-Israeli collusion will make the region more unstable than ever before.
Reply
3 Recommend
Cj commented 7 hours ago
C
Cj
Indiana · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
Of course you are spot on. You are fact-oriented, rational, logical. You have pulled together considerations of the issue from all relevant perspectives.
Isnt it interesting how many of us in our replies become more intense, working seemingly harder and harder to respond rationally to yet another erratic action by this administration.
Erratic emotionalism is almost never budged by the facts. Herein lies our current impotency.
Great article per usual, thank you.
Reply
1 Recommend
Ken commented 7 hours ago
K
Ken
Colorado · 7h ago
@Nicholas Kristof. Folly indeed. Iran is not a major threat to the U.S. and bombing it is in no way defending Americans, as Trump claimed. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a far greater threat to us and our Free World allies. We would be better served to invest resources to supply Ukraine with longer range weapons and to increase pressure on the weakening Russian economy. Instead Trump is abandoning Ukraine and propping up both Putin and Netanyahu.
Reply
1 Reply
4 Recommend
gary wilson commented 5 hours ago
g
gary wilson
austin, tx · 5h ago
@Nicholas Kristof
No matter the pros and cons of this action. The answer to its merit is based in one fact: the leadership who ordered it. This is the primary reason it was a mistake.
Reply
1 Recommend
Bill Southwell commented 5 hours ago
B
Bill Southwell
San Diego, CA · 5h ago
@Nicholas Kristof, you mention the Iranian threat (once again) to the world’s supply of oil. Clearly, the president wants just that so he can profit from his seized Valenzuelan petroleum.
Reply
1 Recommend
LShalev commented 6 hours ago
L
LShalev
No comments:
Post a Comment