Wars have long been the ultimate test of American presidential power, and the most dangerous arena for overreach. They are unpredictable, costly, and resistant to control. What begins as a display of strength can quickly become a source of vulnerability. That pattern is beginning to emerge in the US’s ongoing conflict with Iran, both in how the war was initiated and how it is now unfolding. The current occupant of the White House may now be confronting that reality.
Indications are that Donald Trump may have gone to war on the advice of a group of neoconservatives — the architects of the Iraq War — along with the advice of pro-war senators such as Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Ted Cruz of Texas, as well as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
He did so after campaigning in each of his three presidential elections on a promise that he would not draw the US into another forever war in West Asia. He went to war despite clear warnings from the US intelligence community that Iran was not close to developing nuclear weapons and that Tehran, if attacked, would target Gulf States and could move to close the Strait of Hormuz.
The consequences of that decision are now becoming visible and substantial. Oil prices have surged, global markets have been rattled, and the economic effects are being be felt in the US. Business activity has slowed amid rising energy costs and inflation concerns, reflecting the broader fallout of the conflict.
More importantly, polling shows declining support for the war and the President’s handling of it. Trump’s approval rating has dropped to the mid-30s, with a majority of Americans disapproving of the conflict and its economic consequences.
There is also a deeper concern: Many Americans do not believe the administration has clearly explained the objectives for the war.
This is where presidential power meets its limits — not abroad, but at home. It may be easier to bring other nations to their knees than to convince the American people that a war makes sense for their well-being. Foreign policy can be imposed; domestic legitimacy cannot. Wars of choice, especially those undertaken without broad public support, tend to erode that legitimacy over time.
Trump appears to have entered the Iran conflict with a certainty that he could control its trajectory. But wars have a way of slipping beyond the control of those who start them. To understand how presidencies arrive at such moments, it helps to step back and consider the nature of presidential power itself.
It has often been said that the president of the US lives in a bubble, not just a figurative one, but a literal one. He is surrounded by layers of institutions, advisors, and power structures, all competing for his attention and shaping his worldview. Over time, that environment can breed an illusion of invincibility. That illusion frequently leads to bad decisions.
This mindset is definitely evident in Trump. He has always projected an image of absolute confidence — a belief not just in his political instincts, but in his own exceptionalism. It is a mindset that has served him well in politics, allowing him to bulldoze institutions, outmanoeuvre opponents, and impose his will with remarkable speed.
In his second term, Trump appeared to be at the height of his power. With a compliant Congress and a loyal political base, he moved aggressively to reshape the American State and the global order. From crackdowns on immigration to confrontations with universities, from tariff wars to dramatic interventions abroad, his presidency has been defined by disruption and chaos.
For a time, it seemed to work. But power exercised without restraint rarely goes unanswered. It invites its own reckoning — for Trump, that reckoning may be Iran. Major events such as war do not simply bend to presidential will. More often, they define presidencies, constrain them, and sometimes destroy them. Lyndon B Johnson’s presidency collapsed under the weight of the Vietnam war to such an extent that he chose not to seek re-election. George W Bush, who launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with overwhelming public support, left office deeply unpopular as those conflicts dragged on.
This demonstrates that the current state of affairs regarding war and citizens’ reaction to it is not new. Few individuals in human history have wielded the kind of power a modern US president does.
As the most powerful person in the world, commanding unmatched military, political, and economic force, a president can alter the fate of nations, shape global crises, and affect the lives of millions far beyond America’s borders.
In spite of this, a president does not have complete control over what transpires in response to his initiatives.
History shows that while presidents can shape events, they cannot ultimately command them. Those who believe otherwise often discover that power has limits — and consequences.
The Iran conflict has already begun to highlight the limits of presidential power and consequences of trying to exceed those limits. It may prove to be a moment of reckoning for Trump. Time will tell what the end result will be and who will pay the price for that reckoning.
Frank F Islam is an entrepreneur, civic leader and thought leader based in Washington DC. The views expressed are personal
