Trump Faces the Limits of U.S. Firepower and the Lessons of Past Wars
NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-07-17 11:25:00 — www.nytimes.com
Trump Threatens Expanded Strikes on Iran, Doubles Down on Military Pressure
President Trump has maintained a steadfast belief throughout the nearly five-month war with Iran: that overwhelming U.S. military force will eventually compel Iran’s leaders to meet his demands. In a recent Fox News interview, Trump declared, “We’re going to knock out all their power plants. We’re going to knock out all their bridges unless they get to the table and negotiate.” When asked if he believed Iran was serious about making a deal, Trump replied, “I think they have no choice.”
Trump’s Strategy: Escalation and Civilian Targets
Trump’s approach echoes a discredited military doctrine from the early 2000s, which claimed that intense, precision attacks could quickly paralyze an enemy. Despite the lessons of prolonged conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan—where excessive force often produced more enemies—Trump has signaled a willingness to escalate further. He suggested that few Iranian military targets remain and vowed to expand the campaign to civilian infrastructure, including bridges and electrical grids, that support Iran’s military efforts.
Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims and Promises
Trump’s assertion that Iran “has no choice” but to negotiate under military pressure is contradicted by recent events. Despite thousands of U.S. and Israeli strikes that devastated Iran’s military leadership and infrastructure, Iran has managed to restore much of its ability to project power, according to senior U.S. officials. The renewed campaign has repeatedly targeted sites already struck earlier in the conflict, with limited impact on Iran’s capacity to threaten commercial shipping or close the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump’s vow to target civilian infrastructure raises serious legal and ethical concerns within the Pentagon, with some questioning whether such actions could constitute war crimes. The effectiveness of this strategy is also in doubt, as history shows that decapitating an enemy’s leadership does not necessarily lead to surrender or meaningful concessions.
Trump’s Rhetoric: Disparagements and Shifting Blame
In his interview, Trump disparaged successive groups of Iranian leaders, labeling them “evil” and blaming the latest group for stalling negotiations. This pattern of personal attacks and shifting blame has been a hallmark of Trump’s public statements throughout the conflict.
Conclusion: Escalation Without Resolution
Trump’s reliance on overwhelming force and threats against civilian infrastructure has so far failed to achieve his stated goals. The administration’s approach has left the U.S. negotiating with a fractured and embittered adversary, with little progress toward a lasting resolution. As the conflict drags on, Trump’s promises of quick victory and Iranian capitulation remain unfulfilled, raising questions about the wisdom and legality of his chosen strategy.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/17/us/politics/trump-iran-war-afghanistan-iraq.html