Mar 26, 2026
3 min read
The president disappoints and fears his people because the war in Iran represents a major reversal of the origins of "Trumpism," which was born in response to many years of policies far removed from the interests of the American middle class.
The first disagreements between the United States and Israel since the outbreak of the war in Iran are emerging: Donald Trump shows signs of wanting a quick end to the conflict, while it is still too early for Benjamin Netanyahu, as the destruction of Iran's offensive potential is not yet over.
To understand what influenced the American president, you should follow the debate that took place in his house.This military intervention has provoked strong opposition from the very beginning on the US right, which shows no signs of abating.
To understand the extent to which Donald Trump has frustrated and threatened some of his own people with the Iran war, the attack Oren Cass has launched against him is an icon: one of the young economists in the "America First" world who strongly supports tariffs and protectionism.
The right-wing site American Compass is influenced by Cass who will attack this war from all angles. As a Trumpian economist. It is wrong if it turns into a military; It is wrong, even if it causes the global economy and the collapse of the Iranian government soon. In any case, the author says, the president, he argues, will have the right to imperialist logic over the interests of the American people.
To understand his critique, Kass invites us to go back more than thirty years, to the end of the Cold War.At that historic moment, the United States found itself in an unprecedented position: the only world superpower with the power to shape the international order.From this context arose a bipartisan doctrine, shared by Republicans and Democrats, assigning Washington an almost universal mission: to ensure stability, promote democracy, protect free markets, intervene when necessary to prevent conflicts or imbalance crises.
Already in the early 1990s, under the presidency of George H.W.Bush, this vision was formulated in strategic documents that attribute to the United States "primary responsibility" in maintaining world order.Bill Clinton, soon after, reinforced this attitude by speaking of America as an "indispensable nation".At the same time, neoconservative thought developed an even more explicit theoretical justification: the US has not only the right, but also the duty to lead the world, by spreading political freedom and capitalism.
It is this vision that the author defines as a form of empire.An empire that presents itself as benevolent, but requires high and often hidden costs.To support globalization and the liberal international order, the United States has accepted heavy trade-offs: deindustrialization of some interior regions, growing inequality, priority attention to distant crises compared to the everyday problems of American families.
According to Cass, it is the failure of this plan that explains Trump's political rise.Trumpism was born as a response to decades of politics that were seen as distant from the interests of the average American.He promised to return to a tougher foreign policy, focused on the interests of the country, less prone to military intervention and global missions.
The article argues instead that the war against Iran represents a sensational change of direction.Trump ultimately chooses the logic he criticizes: putting global power projection ahead of domestic interests.This is not a departure, but an unexpected continuity with the structure it promised to dismantle.
The author recalled that Iran had already warned against intervention, stressing that there were no solid reasons to believe that US military action could bring positive results in time.Instead, US resources – material and political – should be focused on domestic priorities and strengthening existing, now fragile, alliances.
Like any war, this war also has direct effects on human life, destruction, and unrest.It is precisely for this reason, according to Cass, that the use of force should be the last resort, guided by mass debate, a clear justification of the process, and a strong political consensus.This was not the case in Iran.
Then anything but the dangerous escalation theory.The swift and limited operations of the past may have given the White House the illusion that it could intervene militarily without long-term consequences.But the conflict with Iran is different: it is a clash between actors who can react to sanctions and actors who can control the timing and pace of escalation.
The most likely outcome is not the collapse of the Iranian regime, but survival with further radicalization.The regime under attack tends to harden it, repress internal dissent more harshly, rallying nationalism against an external enemy.
Another important thing is energy.The Middle East remains the heart of the world's energy system, with Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz.Analysts have predicted for decades that Tehran could block this part of its strategy in the event of conflict, significantly reducing the world's oil and gas supplies.
Contrary to the promise of improving household purchasing power, rising energy costs directly affect American consumers.But the effects go further: High energy prices discourage industrial investment, slow production, and threaten the reindustrialization strategy favored by the administration.
Globally, the energy crisis will also weaken America's allies, especially those that rely heavily on oil imports from the Pacific.Countries like Japan will face greater economic problems and diplomatic relations will be complicated due to the war.Even important strategic documents, such as negotiations with China, will be delayed or put on the back burner.
In addition to this, the conflict has caused direct economic losses. Initial estimates put it at hundreds of billions of dollars, a figure that raises questions about sustainability and spending priorities. Every dollar invested in war is taken away from other needs: infrastructure, health care, education, technological innovation.
Cass recalls the need for congressional authorization to initiate conflict.This mechanism ensures that such serious decisions are subject to democratic scrutiny and joint costing.Omitting this step means weakening the legitimacy of the action and increasing the risk of strategic mistakes.
Finally, there is an invisible but equally important cost: that of political intelligence.The President of the United States has limited time, power and priorities.When war broke out, everything took a second place.Economic reforms, public policy, innovation, immigration: all documents are suspended or slowed down.It is the price of "extended", excessive waste of resources in the world.
According to Cass, the reason for war is often based on a circular logic: maintaining globalization is necessary to protect America's interests, therefore any action that strengthens hegemony is automatically justified.But this project, he noted, does not show that such interventions improve the lives of citizens.In this context, the position of the neoconservatives acquires a symbolic value.Those who previously criticized Trump for the unpredictability and incompetence of his Violent foreign policy now support the war.It's a combination that reveals a deep continuity between Trumpism and the establishment it supposedly replaced.It is not Trump who has moved, but the dominant thought system that is reabsorbed.
The war against Iran was more than a strategic mistake. It is a sign of a deep choice: to continue investing in a model of global leadership that many Americans have rejected. If this choice proves to be a failure, the cost will not only be economic or military, but also political and cultural.
26 mars 2026
