Calling the Iran War a Quagmire Now is Ludicrous
Anti-Trump voices on the left, and some anti-war voices on the right, are already calling the Iran War a “quagmire”— after less than three weeks of fighting. Whether you opposed or supported the U.S.–Israeli war against Iran when it was launched on Feb. 28, 2026, to contend that it has descended into a quagmire after 18 days of mostly overwhelming U.S. and Israeli military success betrays advanced stages of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Ironically, some of these same voices — intellectuals like William Kristol and Robert Kagan — served as cheerleaders for the Iraq War, an actual quagmire that they supported year after year despite its seemingly endless nature.
In a remarkably short time period, U.S. and Israeli forces have achieved air supremacy over Iranian skies, decimated the Iranian navy, destroyed upwards of 70 percent of Iran’s missile launchers, killed many of Iran’s top political and military leaders, impeded Iran’s ability to support its regional proxies, and further set back Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Militarily, America and Israel are clearly winning this war. But after only 18 days, the critics are asking what is the end game. Is it regime change? Unconditional surrender? A situation where Iran’s threat to the U.S. and its allies is virtually eliminated?
Those questions are important, but a bit premature for a war that is less than three weeks old. Perhaps we are experiencing what I will call the “Iraq Syndrome,” which like the Vietnam Syndrome of years ago raises its ugly head every time U.S. forces go into battle. For years after the end of the war in Southeast Asia, politicians and opinion-makers would react to talk of potential U.S. military action with the cry “No More Vietnams,” which acted as a self-deterrent to U.S. presidents who thought about using military force to achieve geopolitical goals.
In the 1980s and 1990s, some astute geopolitical thinkers like Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell provided guidance to escape from the Vietnam Syndrome. The so-called Weinberger Doctrine resulted from a speech the Defense Secretary delivered at the National Press Club on Nov. 28, 1984. The United States, he said, should only commit forces to combat when the situation involved a vital national interest, the commitment of sufficient forces to achieve victory, the establishment of clear military and political objectives, reasonable assurance of support from Congress and the American people, and war is the last resort.
In 1992, Gen. Colin Powell added a codicil to the Weinberger Doctrine. The “Powell Doctrine” counseled that before committing military forces the objective had to be clearly defined, military force must be able to achieve the political objectives, the benefits of using force must outweigh the costs, the war’s consequences must be well thought out, and war should be waged as a last resort. Together, the Weinberger and Powell doctrines sought to banish the ghost of Vietnam and end the Vietnam Syndrome.
The Weinberger-Powell Doctrine is a prudent guide to the use of force to attain our geopolitical objectives. President Trump seemed to follow its guidance when he ordered the attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure last summer. The attack achieved its limited purposes, and Trump ended it in 12 days. The current war has broader military and political objectives. Many of the military objectives have been, or are close to being, achieved. The political objective of bringing about a less threatening Iran is moving forward, but wars — all wars — are full of surprises. As Clausewitz taught, nothing in war ever goes as planned because of “friction.” Most military plans do not survive contact with the enemy. The renowned strategist Edward Luttwak calls this phenomenon the “paradoxical logic of strategy.”
Nothing about this war right now — after 18 days — resembles a quagmire, and to say otherwise is simply to ignore what has been achieved thus far. The lessons of the Iraq War are indeed useful. Had our leaders then adhered to the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine that costly, endless war could have been avoided or at least been far more limited in its objectives. President Trump, Secretary of War Hegseth, and our military leaders would benefit from revisiting the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine, which can serve as an antidote to the Iraq War Syndrome.
READ MORE by Francis Sempa: