Thirteen American service members have been killed and over 300 wounded since President Trump and Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu initiated military action against Iran one month ago. For the families mourning lost sons and daughters, the shifting justifications provided by the American commander in chief are deeply infuriating.

The Price of Sacrifice and Shifting Justifications

The President has offered more than half a dozen reasons for the conflict, ranging from regime change to ending Iran’s nuclear program, even dismissing the operation as a “little excursion.” A retired soldier attests that service members understand they can be expendable, but they expect their sacrifice to be for something worthwhile.

The Personal Core of Foreign Policy

Foreign policy is fundamentally personal, resting on the willingness of individuals and families to fight and sacrifice. Armies do not fight wars in isolation; societies do, making popular consent critically important. In contrast to most major conflicts of the last century, the current war in Iran holds less than 40% approval, potentially making it one of the least popular wars the U.S. has ever started.

This low approval mirrors the President’s own popularity. Notably, the President has made no significant effort to convince the American public to support the war, offering no explicit justification for why this conflict is necessary now.

The Difficulty of Achieving Military Objectives

Iran’s Geostrategic Challenges

While Iran is relatively weak economically—its national economy is smaller than Connecticut’s, and its defense spending is only about 1% to 2% of that of the U.S.—its geography presents a major obstacle. With 1,000 miles of coastline, Iran is prepared to wage naval guerrilla warfare, capable of inflicting significant damage on the global economy through the Strait of Hormuz.

Military analysts suggest that simply using airstrikes cannot achieve goals like regime change or ending nuclear programs. This was evident last summer when the administration claimed to have “obliterated” the Iranian nuclear program without success.

The Limits of Airstrikes and the Doom Loop

Achieving control, rather than mere influence, would require far more troops than the U.S. is likely willing to commit, especially without considerable allied support. Iran is significantly larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Experience shows that “shock and awe” fades quickly, and determined groups with explosives can inflict substantial pain.

The reality is that Iran will wait out the U.S. and inflict pain strategically. This sets up a scenario where Iran can inflict economic pain, and the U.S. and Israel can inflict physical pain. Since neither side possesses a knockout blow, they are destined for a “punishment doom loop.”

The Inevitable End: Unbearable Domestic Pain

For Iran, mere survival constitutes a victory. For the United States, however, the mounting pain will eventually become unbearable, leading to some form of détente. Potential souring points include terrorism, cyber attacks, and direct economic impact.

Global oil expert Bob McNally warns that if the Strait of Hormuz is not kept open, Americans could face gas prices at an “all-time high.” However, the specific catalyst matters less because the public already opposes the war and finds the costs too high.

Since the commander in chief has failed to offer a coherent reason for entering the conflict, normal public signals for ending a war may be ignored. The core lesson suggested by retired U.S. Army Strategist ML Cavanaugh, co-founder of the Modern War Institute at West Point, is that a war cannot be won if it cannot be explained—especially not to the families of those who have fallen.