Trump unleashes his politically incorrect war on Iran because of vibes
Once again, America has started bombing the Middle East.
You would think, after more than twenty years of experience, several collapsed states, millions displaced, and the minor historical footnotes known as the Iraq War, Syrian Civil War and Libyan Civil War that someone in Washington might occasionally stand up in a meeting and say: “Hey guys, maybe we should not do the bombing thing again.”
Nothing was sexed up
But no.
This time the target is Iran.
The official justification appears to be … vibes. Not weapons inspectors. Not even the famously flexible “intelligence dossier.” Nothing was “sexed up” this time. It’s the geopolitical equivalent of someone slamming their pint on the bar and announcing: “Right, that’s it, we’re having a fight.”
At least the Iraq War had a vague excuse
Now, to be clear: the Iranian regime is indeed awful. It represses its own people, brutalises dissent, kills protesters, foments ethnic and religious conflicts in its neighbours and runs a theocratic state that makes Oliver Cromwell look like a Burning Man attendee. However, bombing a country to improve the lives of its citizens has historically been about as effective as trying to fix a watch with a sledgehammer.
If anything, the planning for this adventure appears to be even thinner than the Iraq War. Which is quite a claim.
Iraq at least had PowerPoint slides, dossiers, and Colin Powell waving things at the UN like a disappointed geography teacher. This time the strategy seems to be: bomb first, think later, and then look surprised when the Middle East descends into another chapter of unrestrained violence that becomes a pox on everyone’s house.
The geopolitical equivalent of smashing a vase
The obvious question is: what exactly is the plan here?
Do the Americans and Israelis really want regime change, as they say? Well, bombing alone does not topple regimes. History suggests it tends to do the opposite: it rallies people around them. In fact we have seen this recently with Hamas in Gaza and now in Iran, where the regime was unpopular until someone started bombing it.
Or perhaps the real plan is something they cannot say out loud: that Iran collapses into chaos.
After all, chaos worked wonders elsewhere. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. Syria. The geopolitical equivalent of smashing a vase and then claiming you’ve improved interior design.
What America and Israel will accept
Iran has long been a thorn in the side of America and Israel’s vision for the Middle East. Yes, the regime destabilises its neighbours with the same enthusiasm for destruction and chaos as a mad arsonist king from a generic fantasy novel, but again I’m not defending the Iranian government.
However, America and Israel don’t need Iran as an ally or even intact. If the country were to collapse into a civil war, like Syria or Libya, then that would be just as acceptable to America and Israel. They’re more than willing to accept this as an outcome.
The cost of a civil war
A civil war in Iran would be catastrophic for ordinary Iranians. Huge numbers would die. Millions would flee. The entire region would destabilise further. Which is precisely why politicians cannot openly say: We are hoping for catastrophic state collapse.
So instead they say “regime change,” which sounds vaguely humanitarian, like they care about the Iranian people even while dropping explosives on them.
No more politically correct wars
Trump, and all the super tough American political posers who have the mentality of an angry ten year old playground bully, (they called the attack that started this war Operation Epic Fury) are keen on making this not a woke war - this is crucially different to their war on woke. To do this, they have targeted civilian infrastructure from football stadiums and airports to water desalination plants. Probably a war crime, if anyone is still counting.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said that this would not be a politically correct war. I guess by “politically correct” he means abiding by the Geneva Conventions and common decency. Good to note they’re saying that part out loud now. It’s looking like they’re borrowing from Israel’s recent playbook and engaging in war as unrestrained cruelty.
The right in Britain responds
Back in Britain, meanwhile, the public reaction has largely been: oh for God’s sake, not again. The British people have seen this movie before and remember how it ended: with extended inquiries, apologetic memoirs, and a lot of people insisting that intelligence is more of an art than a science, but we should still stake the lives of millions on it.
Naturally, there are exceptions. Nigel Farage and Suella Braverman have both suggested Britain should join the war, because apparently our foreign policy should be determined by whatever Donald Trump did that morning.
This is not because they have carefully assessed the strategic implications of another Middle Eastern war. It’s because Trump doing things tends to annoy left-wing people, which is their primary foreign policy doctrine. They’re also so besotted with the biggest, meanest chimp in the cage that they will join any fight he starts, like the little bully laughing at you while the big one hits you. The Richard Hammond of right-wing populism.
Geopolitics conducted like a trolling campaign
The theory appears to be: if liberals dislike something, Britain should immediately support it with fighter jets. It’s a fascinating way to run a country.
Trump himself, of course, seems to have started this because he felt it would make him look tough. Which is at least refreshingly honest compared with previous wars. George W. Bush had to assemble an excuse. Now we skip that step entirely. Wars begin because a powerful man woke up feeling cranky and wanted to posture on television.
Then the rest of the political ecosystem piles in, cheering, partly because they enjoy the spectacle and partly because it annoys people who read novels and occasionally post on Bluesky. This is, apparently, the grand strategy of the Western world in 2026: geopolitics conducted like a trolling campaign.
Mistakes are being made
If you wanted a metaphor for where democracy currently stands, you could do worse than the recent spectacle of billionaires and populists casually reshaping political discourse like bored teenagers setting fire to a bin in lieu of anything else to do.
Which is how we arrive at the current moment: another Middle Eastern war launched with minimal explanation, minimal planning, and maximum bravado. The bombs are falling, the civilians will suffer and somewhere in Washington, someone is probably already preparing the phrase that follows every disastrous intervention: “Mistakes were made.”
Iranian flag image created by Blondinrikard Fröberg and used under Creative Commons.
