Trump’s Acting Enables a Futile Attack On Iran, Empowering the Extreme Right

Recent events have unfolded with a predictability that underscores the dangers of political theater. As I argued a few weeks ago, Donald Trump’s performance with Iran and the Gulf was a deliberate strategy to lull Iran and the world into believing that an attack was not imminent. This calculated display set the stage for a strike that, much like previous “decapitation” operations against adversaries, is both reckless and ultimately useless.

This latest attack, like targeted killings before it, is not a step toward stability or security. Its only clear beneficiaries are the extreme right in Israel and the United States, along with their Evangelical and alt-right supporters. For them, perpetual conflict is a political asset and a rallying cry. Meanwhile, the chaos and division unleashed by this war open the door wider for China and other global rivals to advance their interests at the expense of the West.

The real losers are the peoples of the region and the broader international community, who must now contend with greater instability, economic uncertainty, and the ever-present risk of wider war.

This attack on Iran is not just dangerous—it is strategically foolish. History has repeatedly shown that targeting and eliminating leaders of adversarial groups or states rarely achieves lasting results. The Israeli experience with Hamas is a textbook example: the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004 was quickly followed by the rise of Abdel Aziz Rantisi, who was himself replaced by Ismail Haniyeh, and then by Yahya Sinwar. Each new leader has often been more radical or tactically innovative than the last, and the cycle of violence has only escalated, culminating in the horrors of October 7th.

Expert analysis consistently finds that such targeted killings may provide a temporary sense of victory, but do not fundamentally weaken resilient, decentralized organizations. Instead, they often create power vacuums, fuel cycles of revenge, and undermine prospects for de-escalation or negotiated peace.

This is not a war of necessity or strategy—it is a war of political survival and ideological ambition. The lessons of the past are clear: removing one leader only paves the way for another, often more extreme, successor. The cycle continues, the violence escalates, and the underlying problems remain unaddressed.

The acting was the strategy, and the outcome is as predictable as it is tragic: a futile, dangerous conflict that serves the narrowest of interests while making the world a more perilous place for everyone else.