The War Hawks' Predictions Have Aged Like Milk
Authored by Nolan Denaro via Antiwar.com,
When Donald Trump launched the Iran War on February 28, the usual suspects were in full support. From the moment the conflict ignited, many couldn't help but immediately express admiration for the president, saying that only a brave, noble, and strong leader would've had the courage to do what Trump did here. For weeks, we heard that this war was essential, that we would be better off as a result, and that to be unsupportive was to be siding with the IRGC.
Alex Brandon/APAs weeks went by, however, it became apparent that the rosy picture that had been painted in the war's infancy was not based in reality. One month turned into two, and then three, and here we are now about six months later, with none of the war's stated objectives having been achieved. Because of the historic nature of this defeat, it is important to reflect on how we got here.
Who were the voices cheering the administration on as it led us down this dark path?
Why did they have such hatred for those of us who opposed the war?
Most importantly, who can't we trust going forward?
Ben ShapiroAmong the war's top early cheerleaders was Ben Shapiro. From the first moments of the conflict, Shapiro was praising Donald Trump's decision to launch the war.
"President Trump is the most courageous commander-in-chief in modern American history," Shapiro excitedly said. "What he just did is the bravest move by a president of the United States of my lifetime, bar none, without a doubt."
Shapiro also immediately made it his mission to smear the war's critics. Doing his best play on David Frum's 2003 article "Unpatriotic Conservatives," Shapiro began labeling some of the most prominent anti-war voices - including libertarian Dave Smith - "America-haters." In a March 4 episode of "The Ben Shapiro Show," Shapiro makes some very bold - and uninformed - predictions for how the war would play out.
Addressing concerns early on in the war about U.S. munition stockpiles, Shapiro urged his audience to ignore the naysayers, and rest assured that " we do have significant stockpiles." To build on his narrative, he claimed that the Iranian's were "running out of missile launchers." "This is a major problem for them," he emphasized.
"The status is pretty good," Shapiro told his podcast listeners, "things are moving pretty well."
Shapiro's blind faith in the government narrative was not enough to will the U.S. to victory, however. His uncritical rereading of Trump's Truth Social post - in which he claims that we have a "virtually unlimited supply" of munitions - may have convinced his audience to get on board with the war, but this trust in the administration eventually crashed against the rocks of reality.
The U.S. does not have "unlimited" munitions. The Iranian's ability to launch missiles has not been effectively degraded. This war has not gone as the administration intended, and the biggest proof of this is the conflict's length. The war was originally sold as a weeks-long offensive, but it turned out to be a drastically larger undertaking than the White House anticipated, and one that has engulfed the Trump presidency.
Marc ThiessenNeoconservative Marc Thiessen, a former George W. Bush speechwriter, was among the war's most enthusiastic boosters early on. Once a leading figure within the "Never-Trump" movement, Thiessen has become a vocal supporter of the President. This change of heart is mainly due to Trump abandoning his dovish 2016 rhetoric, and embracing a more hawkish foreign policy.
In an op-ed for the Washington Post on March 3, Thiessen outlined what he viewed as the mastery of Trump's Iran strategy.
"At this moment, the U.S. is striking Iran from the air - eliminating the regime's leadership, its retaliatory capabilities, its nuclear program and its infrastructure of repression." Thiessen explained. "Expect this campaign to last for weeks, not days."
Thiessen also expressed faith that the Iranian population could be organized - as one collective unit - and mobilized in an orderly fashion to achieve America's objectives, saying "there is no need for a U.S. invasion force. The Iranian people are the boots on the ground, and the fate of the country is in their hands."
This uprising of course did not happen, and based on the size of the crowd that attended the funeral for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, there are signs of a "rally around the flag" effect having taken place in at least some capacity.
In an effort to play to Trump's ego, Thiessen struck a familiar cord, saying "If he succeeds in defeating Islamic radicalism in Iran, Trump will take his place alongside them as one the most consequential presidents in U.S. history."
Surely we should expect a follow-up on these wildly-incorrect predictions, right? This war not only wasn't wrapped up in "weeks" like Thiessen had assured us, but his premature claims of success have also proven false.
To be fair to Thiessen, let's assess the success of this war by his own standards, which he kindly published in his Washington Post op-ed on March 11. His three "levels of success in Iran" are as follows:
"Level One: The United States eliminates the regime's ability to project force beyond its borders."
"Level Two: The Iranian regime collapses and is replaced by a new government answerable to Washington."
"Level Three: The Iranian people rise up and take back their country."
As for the first objective, Iran's ability to effectively close the Strait of Hormuz has showcased an expansion - not a retraction - of Iranian influence in the region. Ships have been struck multiple times in the past month, even as we are told the military fighting is on pause.
The Iranian regime has also not collapsed as Thiessen has hoped, and they are no more answerable to Washington than they were before. In fact, due to the unwillingness of Trump to hold up his end of a potential deal, Iran has become more reluctant to negotiate.
As I previously explained, Thiessen's dreams of a people-powered uprising were not based in reality. If you think about the plan in simple terms, you can quickly see its problems. The idea was that the U.S. was going to bomb Iran, assassinate the country's political and religious leader, kill innocent civilians, threaten to eliminate all of Persian civilization, and then the everyday people would suddenly become motivated to rally to the cause of the foreign nation that is attacking them. This is an illogical proposition, but one that was genuinely believed by neoconservative ideologues like Marc Thiessen.
Jesse WattersFox News' primetime hosts were leading the war's propaganda effort, and none were as shameless as Jesse Watters. Watters monologues on his show "Jesse Watters Primetime," as well as his remarks on "The Five" have been shockingly detached from reality, and his statements immediately following Trump's initial strikes have not aged well.
"We're crushing them," Watters told the panel of "The Five" on March 3. "These guys were nuking up, Trump's not going to wait around."
"With Venezuela and Iran, we've basically tipped over two petro-dictatorships," Watters said, just a few days into what has turned into a prolonged conflict. "We now control almost the entire world oil market."
It is genuinely unbelievable how history manages to repeat itself like this. In what is now an infamous moment of presidential embarrassment, George W. Bush spoke on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, in front of a banner that read "Mission Accomplished." He gave the speech only a few weeks after the launch of the Iraq War. Despite Bush's proclamation of a completed mission, the war would go on to last for years, resulting in thousands of American troop deaths, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent. This speech has since served as a reminder of how hubris can blind political leaders from military realities. Much like in 2003, it seems that many were blinded by hubris in Iran. The thought of an American strategic defeat against Iran was unfathomable to the war-hawks. This is because they are in a bubble, where they only hear feedback which reaffirms their pre-existing ideology. If they were to have heeded the warnings of the wise voices who opposed this war (John Mearshiemer, Scott Horton, Jeffrey Sachs, Andrew Napolitano, Ron Paul, Tucker Carlson, etc.), they would've at least understood the incredible risks inherent in this project.
But, of course, their strategy relies on maintaining an unshakable narrative: the war will be a success, without a doubt. The skeptics of foreign interventionism - despite all of the ridiculous smears - have once again been proven right. Perhaps we should listen to them sometime. We would be much better off.
Nolan Denaro is an independent political analyst, writer, and host of "The Quest For Clarity" podcast, which can be found on YouTube and Spotify. His work has been published by Antiwar.com, Responsible Statecraft, the Libertarian Institute, The Daily Caller, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He writes on U.S. foreign policy, economics, and current events, with a particular focus on war and imperialism. He writes opinion pieces on his Substack, and you can follow him on X @nolandenaro. Nolan can be reached for correspondence at nolansdenaro@icloud.com.
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/28/2026 - 21:45