President Trump launched this campaign as a man confident in his own ability to break Iran through pressure, force, and a demonstration of absolute resolve. In his logic, it was supposed to be simple: Washington delivers a powerful blow, Tehran retreats, regional allies receive a signal that American power has returned, and Trump himself converts the military operation into political capital ahead of a new electoral battle.
However, in practice, everything went differently. Instead of a short, victorious campaign, the United States found itself in a protracted crisis where military goals became blurred, political consequences turned toxic, and the economic price became too visible for the average American. The US President initially threatened Iran with destruction, spoke of the demise of Iranian civilization, demanded the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and utilized the harshest possible rhetoric. Then, having failed to achieve an obvious result, he was forced to announce a truce.
It was this sharp reversal that became the primary symptom of the crisis. Washington attempted to project strength but faced a problem that could not be solved by airstrikes, sanctions, and press conferences alone. Iran did not capitulate. Its political system did not collapse. The military machine suffered losses but was not paralyzed. Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz, through which a massive portion of global oil supplies flowed before the war, turned into a lever for global blackmail.
As a result, the US found itself in a situation where the war no longer yielded quick dividends, yet every day of its continuation brought new losses, new political accusations, and new cracks within the American establishment.
The Hormuz Trap: Why One Strait Brought Washington’s Entire Strategy to Its Knees
The main surprise for the White House was not just Iran's resilience, but the fact that Tehran managed to shift the conflict from the military plane to the economic one. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz changed the very nature of the crisis. It was no longer just a US-Iranian war or another Middle Eastern conflict, but a strike against the energy artery of the global economy.
Before the military escalation, up to a fifth of the world's oil supply passed through the Strait of Hormuz. Therefore, any threat to shipping in this area is immediately reflected in prices, insurance, logistics, inflation expectations, and market sentiment. Iran understood this vulnerability perfectly. This is precisely why the strait became for Tehran not only a tool of pressure on the US but also a way to remind the world that a war with Iran would never remain local.
The paradox of the situation is that the US, while trying to increase pressure on Tehran, effectively entered the logic of a blockade themselves. Washington began its own restrictive actions in the strait area, and President Trump stated that the United States could collect fees for the passage of vessels alongside Iran. Politically, this looked like an attempt to seize the initiative. In practice, it served as an admission that the strait had become the primary battlefield rather than a secondary element of the conflict.
Thus, a military operation intended as a demonstration of American supremacy turned into an energy drama where every tanker, every insurance rate, and every fuel price spike worked against the White House.
31 Billion in the First Month: The Price of a War Americans Could Not Be Sold On
The war with Iran quickly became a heavy burden for the Trump administration. The first month of combat operations alone cost the American budget 31 billion dollars. These are only direct costs. Beyond this figure lie equipment losses, damage to military infrastructure, additional costs for troop redeployment, base reinforcement, ally protection, intelligence, logistics, and the subsequent restoration of combat readiness.
Even more dangerous for the White House was the prospect of further growth in military spending. In the federal budget proposal for 2027, the Trump administration factored in a 44 percent increase in defense spending - up to 1.5 trillion dollars. If such a budget is passed, US military spending would rise to approximately 4.5 percent of GDP. This would represent the sharpest increase in defense spending since the Korean War.
Furthermore, just last year, Congress already approved an additional 150 billion dollar increase to the Pentagon budget as part of the so-called "Big Beautiful Bill." In other words, America is entering a new cycle of militarization not from scratch, but against the backdrop of an already bloated defense budget, a growing deficit, and public exhaustion from foreign policy adventures.
For the average American, these figures are not important in isolation. They become politically explosive when they translate into the price of gasoline, the cost of groceries, shipping rates, utility bills, and the general sense that Washington is once again fighting somewhere far away while the ordinary voter pays the price.
A Gasoline Blow to MAGA: Why the War Hits the Core of Trump’s Policy
The most painful consequence of the crisis for the White House has been the rise in fuel prices. Due to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, oil prices spiked, and along with them, the prices of gasoline and diesel within the US soared. The average cost of gasoline increased by more than a third - to 4 dollars per gallon. Diesel fuel approached the 5.7 dollar mark.
For any American administration, this is an alarming signal. For Trump, it is especially so. His political coalition was built not only on cultural wars, migration rhetoric, and slogans about returning to greatness. A crucial element of his promises was economic normalization: cheap energy, strong industry, protection of the domestic market, the rejection of senseless wars, and care for the "forgotten American."
But the war with Iran struck at exactly these promises. Rising fuel prices automatically increase transportation costs, which affects the cost of goods. As diesel becomes more expensive, freight shipping costs rise. As shipping costs rise, the price of everything on store shelves increases. In a country where inflation remains one of the most sensitive political topics, this turns into a direct threat to the President's approval ratings.
This is where the main internal conflict of Trump’s policy arises. The voter was promised that America would not be dragged into new wars. They were promised pragmatism instead of globalist missionary policy. They were told the US would no longer pay for other people's conflicts. Now, that same voter sees a new war, rising prices, and White House explanations that provide no clear answer to a simple question: what was all of this for?
A War Without a Clear Goal: The White House Lost the Battle for Explanation
The American people were never convincingly told why the operation against Iran began. The authorities spoke of security, the nuclear threat, protecting allies, freedom of navigation, the containment of Tehran, and the need to show strength. However, all these explanations failed to form a coherent strategy.
Society senses when a war has a clear objective. It also senses when the authorities are improvising and changing arguments as events unfold. This is exactly what happened. First, Washington demonstrated resolve to go to the end. Then, it began talking about negotiations. Initially, there were declarations about crushing Iranian infrastructure. Then, reports surfaced that Iran's nuclear program had not been destroyed, but merely set back by a few months. First, they promised pressure that would force Tehran to retreat. Then, it became clear that Iran itself had gained a powerful lever of pressure through the Strait of Hormuz.
Consequently, public support for the war was weak from the start. According to polls, approximately 53 percent of Americans opposed the war, while only 38 percent supported it. For the US, where the first weeks of military campaigns often trigger a "rally 'round the flag" effect, this is an extremely troubling indicator.
President Trump’s approval ratings also dipped against the backdrop of the war. According to sociologists, 56 percent of Americans disapproved of his policy, and in some polls, this figure exceeded 60 percent. This meant the war did not mobilize the country around the White House; instead, it amplified existing distrust.
"Remove via the 25th Amendment": Why Trump’s Opponents Have Brandished the Constitutional Club
Against the backdrop of the war with Iran, talk of removing the president from office has once again surged in American politics. Following particularly inflammatory statements by Trump - including threats against Iranian civilization - more than 70 Democrats in Congress have called for the invocation of the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution.
This amendment allows for the removal of a president in the event of an inability to discharge the powers and duties of the office. In theory, the procedure can be initiated by the Vice President with the support of a majority of the Cabinet. Following this, the president is temporarily stripped of authority. However, the president may submit a written declaration to Congress stating that no inability exists. If a dispute arises, the final decision rests with both chambers of Congress. Removal requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
In other words, while the legal mechanism exists, it is politically nearly impossible to deploy against a sitting president as long as his party maintains control over him and remains unwilling to make an open break. This is why talk of the 25th Amendment sounds loud, dramatic, and media-friendly, yet has not yet materialized into a realistic scenario.
Joining the Democrats' demands are several figures from the right - Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, who ended her congressional career after a conflict with the president, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and conservative activist Candace Owens. However, active Republican politicians and the majority of congressmen have not supported the idea.
The reason is obvious. Vice President JD Vance and members of the administration remain loyal to Trump. For them, triggering the 25th Amendment would represent not just a legal procedure, but an actual palace coup within their own administration. Such a move requires not only grounds but also a political will that is currently nowhere to be seen.
Impeachment as a Spectacle Without a Finale: Democrats Make Noise, Republicans Hold the Line
Calls for impeachment are also mounting, but their practical prospects remain minimal. As long as Republicans maintain control of both chambers of Congress, even launching a full-scale process appears extremely difficult. Theoretically, the situation could change after the midterm elections in November 2026 if Democrats secure a majority in the House. But even then, impeachment would have almost zero chance of completion.
In the House of Representatives, impeachment can be approved by a simple majority. However, convicting a president in the Senate requires a two-thirds majority. This means that without a mass defection of Republican senators to the opposition, the procedure is doomed. Such a split currently seems unlikely.
American history has already seen two impeachments of Trump - in 2019 and 2021. Neither process resulted in his final removal. The probability of a similar scenario repeating now is extremely high: loud hearings, harsh statements, political mobilization, and media impact - but no final result.
Consequently, the real threat to Trump lies not in immediate removal from power. It lies elsewhere: in reputational erosion, the loss of trust among swing voters, and the transformation of the war with Iran into a symbol of his failed promises.
MAGA Still Holds, but the Cracks are Showing
Among Republicans and supporters of the MAGA movement, support for Trump remains high. The war is supported by 77 percent of Republicans and approximately 90 percent of those who identify with MAGA. The President's personal approval rating within this environment stays within the 80-90 percent range.
But Trump's problem is not limited to the core electorate. The core is still with him. It is ready to justify almost any turn of events. The real struggle is over those voters who supported Trump in 2024 not out of ideological devotion, but because of promises of stability, order, economic pragmatism, and a rejection of new wars.
These individuals may become the deciding factor in the midterm elections. They will not necessarily defect to the Democrats. However, they may simply not show up at the polls. They might punish Republicans in specific districts. They might begin to doubt. And in the American electoral system, the doubt of a few percent of voters often decides the fate of a congressional majority.
Thus, the war with Iran is becoming not only a foreign policy crisis but an internal test of the resilience of the Trump coalition.
The Face of War: How Pete Hegseth Became the Primary Symbol of a Failed Campaign
Trump’s decision to enter negotiations effectively demonstrated that the US could not achieve its objectives through military means. This is acknowledged even by media outlets that typically support the president. The Iranian regime stood its ground. Leadership positions within it have been taken by even harder-line figures associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Nuclear facilities were damaged, but the country retained its stockpiles of enriched uranium. Missile units, despite losses, remained capable of striking American assets and US allies in the Middle East.
Against this backdrop, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth took on a special role. He became the primary face of the war. He appeared before journalists, reported on successes, spoke of the imminent capitulation of the Iranian regime, accused the press of insufficiently patriotic coverage of the conflict, and attempted to craft an image of unconditional victory.
However, as contradictions mounted between official statements and the reality on the ground, Hegseth transformed from a herald of victory into a potential scapegoat for failure. His repeated claims regarding the total destruction of Iranian air defenses conflicted with reports that Iranians had downed American aircraft. His optimism irritated parts of the administration. According to one official, Hegseth was untruthful with the president, and the president subsequently disseminated misleading information.
Thus, the Secretary of Defense found himself in a precarious position: he promised success too publicly, reported victories too loudly, and tied his political fate too deeply to the outcome of the campaign.
Netanyahu, the Presentation, and the Bet on Iran’s Rapid Collapse
One of the key intrigues has been the role of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to available information, it was he who managed to convince Trump that joint actions by the US and Israel could swiftly deliver a military defeat to Iran and provoke an internal crisis in the country.
Weeks before the start of the war, Netanyahu flew to Washington and, in the White House Situation Room, presented a scenario in which strikes on Iran would lead not only to military weakening but to the political collapse of the regime. In this logic, the war looked almost like a surgical operation: strike, shock, internal unrest, and regime change.
However, within the American administration itself, this scenario was met with serious distrust. The CIA Director called it a "farce." Secretary of State Marco Rubio characterized it as "nonsense." Vice President JD Vance also did not support the plan. After the war began, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, resigned in protest, accusing Israel and its US lobby of instigating the conflict.
These details are significant because they show that the war was not the result of a unified strategic consensus. On the contrary, it began amid doubts, internal disputes, and resistance from parts of the apparatus. When the campaign stalled, these doubts surfaced and became part of the struggle to assign blame.
Has the Scapegoat Already Been Found? Why Hegseth Fears Becoming the Primary Culprit
Today, Pete Hegseth increasingly fears that he may be held responsible for the campaign's failures. For the White House, this would be a convenient scenario. The president maintains the image of a supreme leader who was allegedly given incorrect information, while the Secretary of Defense becomes the man who overestimated military capabilities, underestimated Iran, and sold the president an overly optimistic picture.
Such logic is particularly relevant on the eve of the midterm elections. Trump has already begun to distance himself from the most controversial and toxic figures in his administration. Among those reportedly under pressure or facing rumors of dismissal are Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Hegseth’s name is appearing in this context with increasing frequency.
Hegseth himself feels this. His behavior at the Pentagon increasingly resembles not the calm management of a military department, but a nervous struggle for survival. He is obsessed with leaks, suspects disloyalty, demands absolute discipline, and attempts to control the information environment surrounding him.
The Pentagon Without the Press: How the War on Leaks Became a War on Journalists
One of the most controversial pillars of Hegseth’s policy has been the aggressive crackdown on information leaks. While formally framed as a defense of classified data and institutional discipline, the Pentagon’s measures have been perceived as a systematic attempt to suppress inconvenient reporting and replace professional journalism with loyalist media outlets.
Even after a court ruled that the Pentagon’s new restrictions were unlawful and an infringement on press freedom, the rules effectively remained in place. Following the implementation of restrictive accreditation policies, nearly every major news organization - from the liberal Guardian and NPR to the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Newsmax, and Daily Caller - withdrew from the Pentagon press pool.
In their stead, only minor conservative outlets and influencer-driven projects agreed to work under the new conditions. These include Lindell TV (founded by Mike Lindell), YouTuber Tim Pool, and sites such as The Gateway Pundit, The Post Millennial, Human Events, The National Pulse, RedState, the Turning Point USA YouTube channel, and the Washington Reporter blog. Of these, only The Gateway Pundit and RedState rank among the most-visited conservative resources.
The objective was clear: Hegseth’s Pentagon sought to trade a critical press for a controlled media echo chamber. However, the move backfired. Instead of order, it fostered a climate of secrecy, fear, and the suspicion that the true scale of the military’s problems was being concealed.
Polygraphs, Suspicion, and Paranoia: How Hegseth Alienated His Own Military
The demand for absolute loyalty has eroded trust within the military hierarchy itself. In a hunt for the sources of leaks, Hegseth and his attorney, Tim Parlatore, initiated polygraph tests for Pentagon staff and military personnel. Following a surge of complaints, the White House was forced to intervene and demand an end to the practice.
But the damage was already done. A sentiment took hold within the ranks that the Secretary viewed his subordinates not as professionals, but as potential traitors. This atmosphere erodes the chain of command more effectively than any news leak ever could. The Department of Defense relies not just on orders, but on trust, reputation, and the stability of established procedures. When leadership is exercised through suspicion, personnel decisions become erratic, and generals no longer understand the criteria by which their service is judged.
The case of Lieutenant General Douglas Sims serves as a prime example. After coming under suspicion for leaks, Hegseth initially blocked his promotion. Following an investigation that cleared Sims, and at the urging of the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Caine, the Secretary agreed to the promotion - only to reverse himself again. Consequently, Sims resigned after 34 years of service.
Such incidents have a corrosive effect on the officer corps, signaling that a career can be derailed not by lack of merit or experience, but by political paranoia and the Secretary’s whims.
The Report That Rocked Washington: Why the Pentagon’s Intelligence Chief Was Fired
A pivotal moment in this narrative was the dismissal of Lieutenant General Jeffrey Kruse, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Hegseth removed him in August 2025, citing a "loss of confidence," yet the political undertones were unmistakable.
In June, Kruse’s agency prepared a preliminary assessment of US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. The document concluded that the strikes had only delayed Iran’s nuclear program by a few months. This directly contradicted the White House’s official narrative of total destruction.
When the report leaked to the press, it struck a blow to Hegseth and the entire administration. If the intelligence was accurate, the war had failed its primary objective. If the facilities were merely sidelined rather than destroyed, the US had invited a massive political, financial, and strategic crisis for a negligible result. In this context, Kruse’s firing appeared less like a personnel decision and more like a punishment for providing an inconvenient truth.
The General Purge: The Pentagon as a Battlefield for Ideological Retribution
Simultaneously, Hegseth launched a sweeping purge of senior military leadership. While officially justified as a need to refresh command and restore morale, the dismissals frequently targeted women, racial minorities, and officers appointed during the Biden administration.
The first to go was Charles Q. Brown, the first African American to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He was followed by Navy Chief Lisa Franchetti, Coast Guard Commandant Linda Fagan, General Jennifer Short, Navy Reserve Chief Nancy Lacore, and Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield - all high-ranking women.
Rear Admiral Michael Donnelly was denied a post as Commander of the 7th Fleet after conservative media outlets highlighted that he had authorized a drag show on the USS Ronald Reagan seven years prior. The episode was weaponized as a symbol of "culture wars" within the military, despite its impact on a critical command in the Indo-Pacific.
Even active conflict did not halt the purge. In early April, Hegseth demanded the resignation of General Randy George, the Army Chief of Staff. A Biden appointee and veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, George was dismissed alongside General David Hodne and Chief of Chaplains Major General William Green.
In total, since taking office, Hegseth has dismissed over two dozen generals and admirals. He has overhauled the Joint Chiefs of Staff, replacing six of its eight top officers. Under his watch, nine four- and five-star generals have left the service - a number equivalent to the total dismissed by US presidents over the previous 150 years.
Fear of the Successor: Hegseth’s Two-Front War
A secondary conflict has emerged between Hegseth and Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll. Viewing Driscoll as a potential rival for his position, Hegseth has sought to marginalize him. Last year, he successfully sidelined Driscoll from negotiations with Ukraine. Later, he attempted to have Driscoll fired and replaced with his own aide, Sean Parnell.
However, Driscoll found a powerful ally in Vice President JD Vance, a former university classmate. This has transformed a personnel dispute into a broader power struggle within the administration. Hegseth is no longer merely running the Pentagon; he is fighting to preserve his status and maintain his personal line to the President.
In March 2025, Hegseth blocked the promotion of two female and two African American officers to general rank. For months, he pressured Driscoll to scrub their names from the promotion lists. A more glaring example involved Major General Antoinette Gant. Hegseth’s Chief of Staff, Ricky Bariah, demanded that Driscoll cancel her appointment as Commander of the Military District of Washington - a high-profile ceremonial post. Bariah reportedly claimed President Trump would not want to stand next to a "Black female officer" at official events. Driscoll appealed to the White House, where he was supported, forcing Hegseth to back down.
The Final Verdict: Seeking Victory Abroad, Finding Crisis at Home
The operation against Iran was intended to project American strength. Instead, it exposed the vulnerabilities of the US political system - its susceptibility to internal division, media hysteria, personal ambition, and electoral math.
The military result remains ambiguous. Iran has not fallen. Its nuclear program was not eliminated. The Strait of Hormuz has become a tool for regional blackmail. Fuel prices have squeezed American households. The President’s approval ratings have faltered. Democrats are wielding the 25th Amendment and impeachment as political weapons, while right-wing critics have begun to distance themselves from the administration. Inside the Pentagon, the result is a "war of all against all" defined by purges and paranoia.
The ultimate danger for the White House is that the conversation has shifted. It is no longer about Iran; it is about who will take the fall for a campaign sold as a display of power that became a domestic crisis. Trump will look to blame his subordinates. Hegseth will claim he was only following the President's will. Intelligence agencies will point to their ignored warnings. Democrats will decry the administration's recklessness.
The inescapable fact is that Washington entered another war promising a quick result and exited it searching for someone to blame. The longer that search continues, the clearer it becomes: the most significant American defeat may not be in Iran, but in a political system that can no longer distinguish strategy from improvisation, or victory from a televised image.