Eliot Cohen’s View on Trump’s Iran Strike
Eliot Cohen, a military historian and former State Department official, believes President Donald Trump made the right call with the recent strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Despite being a longtime Never Trump conservative and fierce critic of Trump, Cohen praised the strike as a rare moment where Trump acted with “brutal clarity” against a “cruel and dangerous regime.” Cohen argues that previous administrations, including his own under George W. Bush, failed to effectively address Iran’s nuclear ambitions. He credits Trump with seizing a critical opportunity to use American military power decisively, setting a precedent for future actions against Iran’s nuclear program. ## How Effective Was the Strike Against Iran’s Nuclear Program. Question: Did Trump’s strike significantly delay Iran’s nuclear capabilities as claimed?
A: Cohen cautions it is too early to provide an exact damage assessment, noting that even after major conflicts like the Gulf War, bomb damage evaluations remained debated for months or years. While Trump claimed the Iranian nuclear program was “obliterated, ” Cohen points out that official intelligence assessments, including a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency report, suggest the setback may only be a few months. However, Cohen also notes the Israeli intelligence community—often more accurate on Iran—estimates much greater damage. Cohen’s educated guess is that combined Israeli and American actions could delay Iran’s nuclear option by five to ten years, though this remains speculative. ## Can Intelligence on Iran’s Nuclear Intentions Be Trusted. Question: How reliable are U. S. intelligence assessments on Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
A: Cohen expresses deep skepticism about the reliability of intelligence, particularly when politically charged. He dismisses statements by Tulsi Gabbard, former director of National Intelligence, as lacking credibility and suggests that intelligence judgments are often influenced by political considerations. Cohen highlights that the intelligence community’s record on Iran has been uneven, whereas Israeli intelligence has generally been more accurate due to their direct stakes in the region. As a result, he sees intelligence assessments as murky and advises caution in taking any single report at face value.
Does Trump’s
Does Trump’s Approach to Iran Mark a Shift from Previous Administrations. Question: Has Trump dealt with Iran more effectively than previous U. S. presidents?
A: Cohen believes Trump has done more than any prior administration to confront Iran militarily. He notes that sanctions and negotiations have only partly slowed Iran’s nuclear program, which continued to advance. The Trump administration’s willingness to use force, combined with Israeli covert operations and airstrikes, marks a new level of pressure. Cohen argues this approach “sets a precedent” for using American military power against Iran’s nuclear ambitions, something earlier administrations avoided due to lack of political will or opportunity. ## Is Iran a Rational Actor or an Existential Threat to Israel. Question: How does Cohen reconcile Iran’s rational caution with its existential threat to Israel?
A: Cohen explains the tension between Iran’s rational self-preservation instincts and its aggressive rhetoric toward Israel. He emphasizes that Iran’s leadership fears direct confrontation with the United States because they are “not fools, ” yet they remain determined to acquire nuclear weapons to counterbalance Israel. Israel, with its own nuclear arsenal, views Iran’s ambitions as an existential threat, especially given Iran’s support for militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Cohen’s view is that Iran seeks a nuclear umbrella to expand regional influence but is unlikely to risk total leadership annihilation by attacking Israel outright.
Could Trump’s
Could Trump’s Military Actions Bypass Congress Without Consequences. Question: Should we worry that Trump might use military force without congressional approval?
A: Cohen acknowledges his long-standing criticism of Trump but stresses that personal dislike should not cloud analysis of decisions. He points out that past presidents, including George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have conducted military actions with or without congressional authorization. The Bush administration obtained two authorizations for the Iraq War, but Obama’s bombing campaign in Libya lacked congressional approval and faced little media backlash. Cohen concludes that Trump likely dislikes war and uses force sparingly, possibly due to his background as a businessman who prefers building over destruction. Nonetheless, Trump’s unilateral military decisions raise questions about executive power limits. ## What Lessons Has Cohen Learned from Iraq for Iran Policy. Question: How does Cohen’s experience with the Iraq War shape his view on dealing with Iran?
A: Reflecting on his early support for the Iraq invasion—a war that proved far more complex and costly than anticipated—Cohen admits to misjudgments about the nature of the regimes the U. S. confronts and the outcomes of military interventions. He emphasizes the importance of humility and caution when forecasting wars. However, Cohen differentiates Iran from Iraq, seeing Iran as a more rational but dangerous regime whose nuclear ambitions pose a distinct challenge. His prior mistakes lead him to advocate for a proactive, but measured, use of American power combined with realistic expectations about the limits and risks of military action.
Trump’s Middle
Is Trump’s Middle East Policy Driven by Business or Strategy. Question: Does Trump’s business background influence his approach to the Middle East?
A: According to Cohen, Trump’s affinity for the Persian Gulf stems partly from his business instincts and comfort with the region’s wealth and deference. Cohen describes Trump as a businessman of “a certain rather unsavory type” who appreciates the economic opportunities, jetliners, and gold present in Gulf states. This commercial angle coexists with Trump’s strategic view that a “tamed dictatorship” in Iran could be open to deals. Cohen suggests Trump also seeks personal legacy gains, such as a Nobel Peace Prize, while recognizing the region’s geopolitical dynamics and balancing between force and diplomacy.
Why Do Experts Often Misjudge Wars and Conflicts Like Iran
Q: Why have experts consistently misread Iran’s intentions and the outcomes of military actions?
A: Cohen laments the arrogance and lack of humility among journalists, pundits, and policymakers who have repeatedly misunderstood the Iranian regime’s nature, goals, and behavior. He refers to his 2023 article “Beware the False Prophets of War, ” where he argued that prognosticating war outcomes is inherently uncertain and that Western governments have often failed to gauge wars accurately as they unfold. Cohen’s experience in government and academia convinces him that assumptions about Iran’s rationality and objectives require continual reassessment to avoid costly errors. – – – This Q&A with Eliot Cohen reveals a nuanced hawkish perspective that simultaneously critiques Trump personally while endorsing his strike on Iran as a rare and necessary use of American power. Cohen’s analysis challenges common myths about intelligence certainty, the rationality of Iran’s leaders, and the limits of presidential war powers. His insights remind us that foreign policy often requires balancing skepticism, strategic patience, and decisive action in an unpredictable world.
