Driven by self-aggrandizing optics and a thirst for imperial legacy, Donald Trump’s pursuit of a ‘big, big’ war on Iran risks igniting a regional conflict with nuclear consequences – one that could collapse US hegemony, not reinvigorate it.
As the prospect of a US–Israeli military assault on Iran grows, the likelihood of a full-scale war is no longer far-fetched. What is often overlooked, however, is that such a conflict will not remain contained, and would trigger a chain reaction far beyond West Asia – one that could end in nuclear tragedy.
At the core of this danger lies a simple, but dangerous, thirst for legacy.
Among the most perilous aspects of US President Donald Trump’s Iran policy is his compulsive need for contrast – to define himself as the antithesis of former president Joe Biden, and more exceptional than former president Barack Obama.
This impulse is not rooted in policy reform but in overt aggression, a performative posture designed to craft a presidency of spectacle. In such a framework, war becomes more than a strategic option – it becomes a vehicle for self-immortalization. That imperial hubris, coupled with a narcissistic obsession with legacy, pushes the world closer to nuclear calamity.
Trump’s obsession with distinction
A stark illustration of this mindset is Trump’s 2020 decision to assassinate Iranian Quds Force commander general Qassem Soleimani. As the New York Times (NYT) reported, Pentagon officials had presented Trump with several response options following protests at the US embassy in Iraq, including the “most extreme” one: targeting Soleimani.
“They didn’t think he would take it,” the report said, pointing out that “in the wars waged since the 11 September 2001 attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable.”
His radical choice aligned with Trump’s long-running fixation on outshining Obama, particularly in eclipsing the 2011 Osama bin Laden raid and undoing the Iran nuclear deal – also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Trump repeatedly derided the JCPOA as “the worst deal in history,” withdrawing from it in one of his earliest foreign policy acts. Ironically, the man who once accused Obama of planning a war with Iran to secure re-election ended up coming closest to triggering one himself.
The Soleimani assassination was designed to burnish nationalist credentials and reinforce a mythology of Trump as a president of action and defiance, regardless of the global cost.
Signalgate
A window into Trump’s current foreign policy ethos came via a recent leak dubbed “Signalgate,” exposing how decisions in his administration pivot not on strategy, but on optics and political vendettas.
In a private Signal chat mistakenly shared with The Atlantic journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, senior Trump officials were seen discussing potential strikes on Yemen – not with strategic precision, but with partisan spin.
US Vice President JD Vance warned that the public would likely question the decision, especially given its economic and political fallout in the US and EU.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded: “Messaging this to the public will be tough no matter what. Nobody knows who the Houthis [Ansarallah] are – which is why we need to keep the focus on: 1) Biden failed, and 2) Iran funded.”
He added that the attack had little to do with Ansarallah-aligned armed forces and more to do with “restoring freedom of navigation” and “reestablishing deterrence – which Biden cratered.” Foreign policy, here, is reduced to a performative grudge match.
Historical legacy
Trump treats electoral victory not as a mandate with limits but as an open license – permission to govern through whim – and, as such, has been quite open about the possibility of extending his presidency for a third term.
For him, the presidency is a referendum on himself. In a recent post on X, Trump quoted Napoleon Bonaparte: “He who saves his country does not violate any law.” The sentiment speaks volumes. Like Napoleon, Trump sees himself above the law, bound only by his imagined destiny.
Trump’s decisions – especially regarding Iran – often carry this Napoleonic signature: bold, risky, and personal. He is not just pursuing policies; he is sculpting mythology. Just as Napoleon framed imperial campaigns as national salvation, Trump frames escalations as acts of patriotic courage, relying on military aggression not just for strategic advantage, but to consolidate his image as the indispensable leader.
The portrait of Andrew Jackson now hanging in the Oval Office underscores this vision. Jackson’s ruthless push for “national greatness” through expansion and forced removals is no footnote in Trump’s ideological framework – it is a blueprint. Where Jackson saw Native Americans as obstacles to be erased, Trump frames Iran in similar terms: an uncivilized force resisting US supremacy.
Trump’s Iran obsession is not just geopolitical, it is civilizational. “Make America Great Again” is more than a campaign slogan – it is the 21st-century echo of Manifest Destiny. The world, in this vision, is a series of territories – some compliant, others defiant. For Trump, Iran is the latter: not a sovereign nation, but a strategic blemish.
The US president’s rhetoric draws on even older ideas – mirroring the 14th-century European colonial belief that lands beyond the continent were up for grabs, void of agency or sovereignty. Gaza, Panama, Greenland, Canada – Trump’s language reflects a mindset that the world is divided into zones of control, and everything beyond US borders is negotiable, if not already claimable.
An imaginary country
In his bid for legacy, Trump plays the role of conqueror, not administrator. He does not merely seek to defeat Iran, but to rewrite the story of American decline – with himself as the force of its reversal. What frustrates Trump is not just that Iran contests US hegemony – as many other Global South and major power states have begun to do – but that this defiance enables other nations across the region and beyond. Iran’s sovereignty is intolerable not because of its weapons or ideology, but because it dares to reject the US-imposed order.
As long as Iran maintains its sovereignty and supports regional resistance groups and nations that defy Washington’s agenda, it becomes a symbol of disobedience – a target not only for sanctions, but potentially for war.
Yet history warns against underestimating Iran. It is an ancient, deeply nationalistic, civilizational society where even opponents of the ruling elite rally when foreign threats emerge. Soleimani’s assassination proved this. Millions poured into the streets to mourn him – not only government loyalists, but critics, dissidents, and diaspora communities as well. His death united the country in rage and grief.
The outrage only deepened when Trump threatened to bomb Iran’s cultural sites. Any future military strike would likely have the same effect, uniting even critics of Iran’s government behind national defense. This national unity, combined with Tehran’s anti-imperialist posture and support for regional resistance movements, places it in direct opposition to the Trumpian worldview.
What makes this scenario even more volatile is Trump’s misleading belief that coercive pressure to force regional behavior shifts is guaranteed to succeed. While Persian Gulf monarchies and some European powers may have buckled under Trump-era coercion, Iran is built to resist such tactics. The “maximum pressure” campaign may have coaxed normalization out of some Arab states, but Iran is neither Bahrain nor the UAE.
Trump treats Iran as if it were a fictional entry on a map, like the “Gulf of Mexico” – an object rather than an actor. But Iran is home to 85 million people, with a resilient military and a sophisticated political system. The mistake is fatal: you cannot intimidate a country you do not understand.
Devastation in Trump’s image
Should the US and Israel launch a large-scale strike, Iran’s response could be shattering. It might include closing the Strait of Hormuz, striking US bases in the Persian Gulf, and leveling critical Israeli infrastructure.
In an existential scenario, Tel Aviv could even consider nuclear retaliation. Western military analysts have long warned against underestimating Iran’s reach – from drone swarms to high-precision missiles.
Every US base in the region would be a target. From Qatar to Kuwait, American assets are hosted in countries ill-equipped for prolonged war. Iran has already warned that those who facilitate aggression will not be spared. Remember that the Iranians survived the eight-year western/Gulf-backed war with Iraq, despite the fact that the nascent Islamic Revolution had barely found its feet and oil was at $8 a barrel.
A regional war would put enormous pressure on Persian Gulf states to rein in Washington, or risk political, economic, and military destabilization on their own soil.
In the Signalgate exchange, Vance reminded colleagues that while only three percent of US trade flows through the Suez Canal, “40 percent of European trade does,” adding that Trump may not grasp this contradiction. Escalation with Iran would upend not only US objectives, but global supply chains and energy markets that directly impact its main allies.
Already, US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) has warned that Iran may now be less than a week away from producing weapons-grade uranium – down from the previous 10 to 15-day estimate.
Hastening imperial collapse
A military strike would likely fast-track, not prevent, Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Under existential threat, the Islamic Republic could announce itself as a nuclear power – breaking from a decades-long policy and permanently shifting regional deterrence dynamics.
The consequence? Regional war morphing into global crisis; oil surges to $300–$500; markets collapse; supply chains fracture; nuclear postures harden worldwide. This is not fiction. It is pattern recognition.
The man who might launch a “legacy” strike to “restore greatness” could end up delivering the final act of imperial overreach – not through triumph, but catastrophe.
In the end, Trump’s decisions – fueled by narcissism, historical delusions, and imperial nostalgia – may not reverse US decline, but accelerate it. If remembered at all, Trump’s legacy could be one not of victory, but of global collapse, ushered in by the US.
