You Need to Fire Everyone Around You.
Wars are often born not out of necessity, but out of bad advice. Presidents do not usually wake up one morning and decide to plunge their country into conflict with a nation of nearly 100 million people. They do so because a circle of advisors, analysts, allies, and intelligence briefers assures them that the war will be manageable, that the risks are limited, and that victory is likely.
But what happens when those assurances turn out to be illusions?
If the United States has truly embarked on a war with Iran, then the most important question is not how the war will unfold. The most important question is this: what exactly did the president know before making the decision—and what did his advisors fail to tell him?
Because if even half of the following realities were overlooked, misunderstood, or hidden, then the president’s first act should not be escalated. It should be firing the entire strategic advisory apparatus that led him into this trap.
Below are ten things that any serious strategist should have understood before initiating a war with Iran.
1. Removing Khamenei Would Not Moderate Iran — It Would Radicalize It – and replace him with his son (Khamenei)
One of the enduring fantasies in Washington foreign policy circles is that eliminating an authoritarian leader somehow moderates a regime.
History shows the opposite.
If Iran’s Supreme Leader were removed or killed, the likely outcome would not be a reformist successor. It would almost certainly produce more militant leadership, one hardened by war and driven by revenge. I should remind you that beyond the supreme leader, a complete overhaul has occurred in Iran’s leadership, along the same lines, i.e., more militant members. In Iran’s case, the next leadership has been drawn from the most militant factions of the Revolutionary Guard — people who have spent decades preparing for precisely this kind of confrontation.
To add insult to injury, I am sure you are aware that Khamenei’s son is now seriously injured and has lost his wife, daughter, father, and mother. To say he has a grudge is an understatement. His father lost his hand to a bomb planted by the MEK, and when he finally consolidated power, he killed over literally 10’s of thousands of MEK members that they systematically apprehended.
Power vacuums inside revolutionary systems rarely produce moderates. They produce hardliners who win internal struggles by demonstrating toughness. Did anyone tell you?
2. Every U.S. Base in the Gulf Would Immediately Become a Target
The United States operates roughly a dozen military installations across the Persian Gulf region — in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, and elsewhere.
These bases are in an extremely vulnerable geographic area.
They are close to Iran. They are exposed. They are within range of thousands of Iranian missiles and drones.
Once a war begins, these bases stop being deterrents and start becoming targets.
Iran has spent decades preparing for precisely this scenario, developing layered missile capabilities designed to saturate defenses and overwhelm interception systems.
Any strategist should have anticipated that all these installations would immediately come under threat. Did anyone tell you this?
The assumption that they could operate safely during a major war with Iran is not well-planned. The US has not only lost billions of dollars’ worth of critical equipment and resources, but, more importantly, crucial defense systems that affect other theaters.
3. The United States Does Not Have Enough Interceptors for This War
Modern missile defense is not a magic shield. It is a resource-intensive system that relies on expensive, limited, and slow-to-replenish interceptors.
Iran, by contrast, has built an arsenal designed around volume.
Thousands of ballistic missiles. Thousands of drones. Swarm tactics designed specifically to overwhelm defenses.
The uncomfortable truth is that missile defense becomes increasingly ineffective when the attacker can launch large numbers of relatively cheap projectiles.
If the United States has already begun diverting interceptors from other theaters — Europe, the Pacific, or homeland defense — simply to maintain defensive coverage in the Gulf, then the scale of the problem is obvious.
This is not a short campaign problem.
It is a sustainability problem. In other words, if the campaign was not going to be a quick in-and-out mission, any extension would pose huge strategic consequences in other theaters. Did anyone tell you this?
4. Your Own Forces May Not Want This War
Wars are not fought by think tanks. They are fought by people.
And morale matters.
Reports of sailors sabotaging equipment, clogging toilets, or even triggering fires aboard carriers to force deployments to end may sound like rumors or isolated incidents. But even the perception of resistance inside the ranks reveals something deeper. This is serious.
Many American service members understand the strategic reality of a war with Iran.
They know it is not Iraq. They know it is not Afghanistan. They know it is not a quick strike operation. They fully understand that this was a war of choice.
And now, they realize that it could be a large, prolonged regional war.
When troops start signaling reluctance before a campaign has even fully begun, leadership should pause and ask why. What do they know that no one shared with you? What are they sharing with their friends and family back home? It could compromise not only this campaign but also domestic support. Did anyone tell you they were putting towels down toilets on ships, to screw up ship sewage systems to force redeployments outside the theater? Were you informed?
5. Your Allies Were Not Prepared — and Many Do Not Want This War
Major wars require alliances. But alliances require consultation.
If Gulf states, European allies, and Asian partners were not fully briefed or prepared for escalation, then the United States risks fighting largely alone.
Many of these partners depend heavily on regional stability for their economies.
Tourism hubs like Dubai. Energy exporters like Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Trade gateways across the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. The consequences are felt not only by these states around the Persian Gulf but also by global airlines, shipping companies, and banks… and the companies (and people) around the world that support them.
The war with Iran is not a strategic exercise. It is an existential economic threat.
Shouldn’t their reluctance be explored? Does this not signal any critical information? Launching a war, without consultation, isn’t intelligent; it robs the American people of vital feedback loops that only allies can provide. No one informed you of the consequences of your actions. No one around you pushed for this feedback.
6. Israel May Have Sold Washington a Fantasy
Israel has long warned about the Iranian threat, and its intelligence services are among the most capable in the world.
But allies also have interests.
And sometimes those interests include drawing the United States deeper into conflicts it cannot fight alone.
If Israel presented the war as quick, decisive, and manageable — while privately acknowledging that it would require major ground involvement — then Washington may find itself bearing the burden of the war largely on its own.
No ground invasion. No massive Israeli troop commitments. Just American forces absorbing the consequences, i.e., American blood and treasure.
If that is the case, then the United States has been handed someone else’s strategic problem.
Note that Israel’s offensive in Lebanon is designed fundamentally to offset a request by the US for assistance in a ground invasion of Iran. In other words, Israel is not only not providing troops but can easily deflect the request by saying it’s bogged down in Lebanon. It’s a very clever tactic.
You sent Kushner and Witkoff to negotiate with the Iranians and make recommendations – not realizing that they are also Israeli shills. You not only listened to Netanyahu but surrounded yourself with his agents. No one told you the truth, that after the war started, the US would be largely left on its own – without meaningful Israeli support. No one told you the truth, that Israel is a manipulative and useless ally. That the relationship is one-way and only benefits Israel. There is never ANY net gain in any involvement with Israel. They win. The US loses. (Yes, US politicians gain – personally, but American interests are hugely compromised).
No one had the balls to share this reality with you.
7. Iran Can Close Not One — But Two Global Chokepoints
Much attention focuses on the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil passes.
But the strategic map is bigger.
Iran and its regional allies also possess influence over the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the gateway between the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.
A credible threat to both chokepoints simultaneously could disrupt an enormous portion of global energy flows.
And it does not require a massive naval fleet.
Sometimes the threat itself is enough.
Insurance premiums spike. Shipping routes change. Tankers stay in port.
Global markets react instantly. None of this is good for the U.S. The strategic consequences were never shared with you.
8. War Would Disrupt Much More Than Oil
Energy markets are only part of the story.
The shipping lanes running through the Gulf and Red Sea also carry critical commodities that underpin modern industry. More than 30% of the world’s Urea (fertilizer), sulfur, helium, Aluminum… to name a few.
Fertilizer (Urea) shipments are essential to global agriculture. Helium is used in semiconductor manufacturing and medical technology. Sulfur produces sulfuric acid; a critical industrial feedstock used in virtually every chemical process. Aluminum is crucial to aerospace and industrial supply chains. These are not only critical raw materials, but strategic in so many ways. The US cannot build more armaments, i.e., sustain a war, without semiconductors or Aluminum.
Disruptions to these flows ripple across the global economy. American farmers feel it. Manufacturers feel it. Technology companies feel it.
This is how regional wars become global economic shocks. Did anyone tell you – this is about more than oil and gas?
9. The Digital Backbone of the World Runs Through This Region
Less visible than oil tankers are the submarine fiber-optic cables that carry global internet traffic.
90% of East-West communications flow through these corridors connecting Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.
Damage to these cables — whether accidental or intentional — can degrade global connectivity.
Financial systems are slowed down. Cloud services degrade. International data transfers become unreliable.
And in a world increasingly dependent on data infrastructure, that matters enormously.
Even more concerning: major data centers themselves are becoming strategic targets.
If AI infrastructure, cloud networks, or digital logistics hubs are damaged in wartime, the effects extend far beyond the battlefield.
Global AI build-out — one of the largest infrastructure expansions in history — suddenly becomes vulnerable.
10. Iran Is Not a Small Target
Perhaps the biggest strategic miscalculation of all is scale.
Iran is not Iraq. It is not Libya. It is not Serbia.
It is a country larger than Western Europe with nearly 100 million people, vast mountain ranges, and decades of preparation for asymmetric warfare.
Its missile forces are dispersed. Its facilities are buried in hardened bunkers inside mountains. Its militias and proxies span the region.
Destroying such a system quickly would require an enormous, sustained campaign.
And the assumption that Iranian citizens would welcome foreign military intervention ignores a basic reality of nationalism.
Many Iranians deeply oppose their government. But that does not mean they welcome foreign attacks on their country. Ordinary Iranians are not going to be pawns for the US and Israel. You can’t destroy their country, humiliate them publicly, threaten to steal their natural resources, and then expect them to put their lives on the line for you.
History shows that external threats often unite populations that were previously divided. This notion that Iranians would rise and force regime change was a mirage sold to you by the people around you (and Israel). And you believed them – didn’t you?
The Strategic Question
War is sometimes unavoidable. But entering one without understanding the terrain, the adversary, and the consequences is not a strategy.
It is negligence.
If the president truly launched this conflict without fully understanding these realities, then the problem is not merely the war itself.
The problem is the system of advisors who assured him that it would be simple.
Because if those people failed to grasp even a fraction of the strategic landscape surrounding Iran, then they should not be guiding American policy.
They should be looking for new jobs. This includes Israel’s leadership, but especially those closest to you – i.e., Pete Hegseth!
Mr. President, this is an opportunity to clean house.
Leave a Reply