Thoughts before Iran invasion deserve scrutiny

New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan released an article on April 7, 2026, titled “How Trump Took the US to War with Iran.”

The article offers an inside accounting of the decision-making process beginning on February 1, 2026, with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to Washington DC and ending on February 28, 2026, when the attack on Iran began. The article reminded me of several books and articles of the 13 days in October of 1962, detailing President Kennedy’s decision making during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Graham T. Allison’s 1971 book Essence of Decision Making: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis continues to be used in public policy and public administration studies as a model of rational crisis decision making. I suspect Haberman’s and Swan’s reporting of the Trump crisis decision making may be presented in the future as a model of irrational impulsive crisis decision making.

Allison’s work details the care taken by the Kennedy team to carefully define the problem presented by the Soviet Union installing nuclear missiles on Cuban soil followed by identification of alternative solutions in addressing the problem and the positive and negative consequences of each alternative including the potential for nuclear warfare. The rational decision-making process led to President Kennedy’s decision to call Khrushchev’s bluff as the best alternative which resulted in the Soviet Union removing the missiles in October and November of 1962 and the US secretly removing outdated US missiles from Turkey and Italy as a concession to Khrushchev.

We compare the Kennedy crisis decision making to the Trump crisis decision making. Defining the problem with respect to Iran presented an unresolved challenge.

Was the problem a ruthless regime that must be toppled? Was the problem Iran’s nearly 1000 pounds of enriched uranium which could lead to the making of a nuclear warhead or bomb? Was the problem Iran’s long range missile development program? Was the problem Iran’s support for terrorist groups throughout the Middle East?

Identifying alternative solutions to multiple problems and the positive and negative consequences of each proved elusive.

Netanyahu insisted that a surprise massive, combined Israeli- US air attack would topple the regime by killing the top officials and encouraging a revolt of the Iranian people. Further, Netanyahu insisted the attack would destroy the military capability of Iranian forces to retaliate with attacks on US forces and Middle East nations harboring US forces. Netanyahu also asserted with confidence that Iran would not be able to close the Staits of Hormuz following such a devasting attack. US intelligence discounted Netanyahu’s best-case scenario as farcical while Secretary of State Rubio stated it was horse sh*t. Secretary of War Hegseth embraced Netanyahu ‘s optimism with an enthusiastic “Let’s go” statement while General Cain remained noncommittal regarding the wisdom of an attack on Iran.

Vice-President Vance expressed serious reservations about the wisdom of an attack but withdrew his objections after sensing which way the president was leaning. After President Trump’s favorite real estate broker and his son-in-law, both of whom are untrained and inexperienced in Iranian negotiations, informed Trump that they believed the Iranians were stalling in negotiations, President Trump ordered the attack reportedly because his gut told him it would work out and because he had a lingering hatred of Iran for their plot to assassinate him during his first term.

He ordered attacks on Iran without prior consultation with our NATO allies. He decided to go to war without careful consideration of the negative consequences and without seeking Congressional deliberation, advice or approval although US Senate and House majority leadership apparently offered no objection when informed of the impending attack shortly before the attack.

Following weeks of massive US and Israeli missile, drone and aircraft attacks on Iran, scores of Iranian regime and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leaders are dead; 1500-2000 Iranian civilians including 175 school girls are dead; extensive military and civilian infrastructure has been destroyed or damaged; and the Iranian Navy, Air Force and air defense systems have been destroyed or are in shambles.

Finally, Israel has further diminished Hezbollah forces in Southern Lebanon while killing hundreds of Lebanese civilians. However, the Islamic Iranian regime continues to rule in the absence of any popular revolt ; nearly 1000 pounds of enriched uranium remains in Iranian control; the long range missile development program still has life; the Straits of Hormuz are opened only to those ships approved by Iran; and countless missile and drone attacks have been initiated against Iran’s Middle East neighbors and US installations resulting in infrastructure destruction and the loss of human life including US military personnel.

In addition to our loss of 13 US military personnel, we have spent 1-2 billion dollars per day and seriously reduced our arsenal of sophisticated offensive and defensive weaponry. At home, the rate of inflation has risen to 3.3%, energy prices are up double digits, and the market is down significantly. Chances of successful negotiations are not good. Perhaps the worst-case scenario should have been given more consideration and gut instincts less weight.

On Easter Sunday, President Trump threatened to destroy the Iranian civilization at 8:00 pm, April 7, 2026, if the “crazy bastards” did not open the” f**king Straits”. The threat was followed by a last hour 10-day cease fire with Iranian demands that are totally unacceptable to the US and US demands that are totally unacceptable to the Iranians.

In the meantime, Israel continues to bomb Southern Lebanon resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths daily. Vice-President Vance has since led a US delegation in failed talks with Iran and President Trump is threatening to blockade the Straits of Hormuz.

The best result may be the reopening of the Straits of Hormuz — which were open before the war and — perhaps Iran’s agreement not to develop a nuclear weapon much as she had pledged in a verifiable agreement during the Obama Era only to have the agreement voided during the first Trump Administration.

The worst result may be a renewed massive assault on Iran resulting in more of the same destruction with the Islamic Iranian regime weakened but surviving and no settlement reached.

There must be a better way to run a nation.