Jeremy Bowen: Trump is waging war based on instinct and it isn’t working

Four weeks into the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, the White House’s approach has drawn criticism for its lack of strategic coherence. President Donald Trump, alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has launched airstrikes, yet the outcome so far has not aligned with their expectations. The resilience of Iran’s leadership has exposed a gap between the administration’s assumptions and the reality on the ground.

Instinct Over Strategy

Trump’s reliance on gut feelings has been a recurring theme, contrasting sharply with the meticulous planning of past leaders. This instinct-driven approach echoes a maxim from the Prussian general Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, who noted, “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” His words, penned in 1871 during Germany’s unification, underscore the unpredictability of warfare.

“No plan survives first contact with the enemy.”

Similarly, former President Dwight D. Eisenhower emphasized the importance of preparation, stating, “Plans are worthless, but planning is everything.” His experience leading the D-Day invasion in 1944 gave him insight into the necessity of structured strategy. Yet Trump seems less invested in such frameworks, often dismissing them as secondary to his personal instincts.

“Plans are worthless, but planning is everything.”

Trump’s impatience with planning is evident in his recent remarks. When asked by Fox News Radio about the war’s duration, he asserted it would be “short” and end “when I feel it, feel it in my bones.” This sentiment reflects a preference for immediate action over sustained strategy, even as the conflict drags on.

A Tale of Two Regimes

Despite the U.S. and Israel’s aggressive strikes, Iran’s regime remains intact. Unlike Venezuela, where President Nicolás Maduro was captured in January and his deputy Delcy Rodríguez now governs under Washington’s influence, Tehran has shown remarkable adaptability. The initial bombing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei failed to destabilize the government, which continues to operate and retaliate effectively.

Trump’s hope for a swift victory mirrors his earlier confidence in Maduro’s capture. However, the differences between the two countries are stark: Venezuela’s opposition lacked the cohesion to challenge the regime, while Iran’s leadership has weathered the attacks. This has led to growing frustration over the lack of a clear path forward.

The Cost of a Planned Approach

When Trump and Netanyahu initiated the bombing campaign, they anticipated a rapid collapse of the Iranian regime. The strikes targeted not only Khamenei but also key advisors, killing 1,464 civilians according to HRANA, a U.S.-based group tracking human rights abuses in Iran. Yet the expected uprising has not materialized, with Iranians remaining steadfast in their support.

Without a cohesive political strategy, the U.S. military’s formidable capabilities have been underutilized. Trump’s inner circle, tasked with executing his decisions, appears more focused on translating his instincts into action than on adapting to the evolving situation. This has left the administration vulnerable to criticism for its lack of foresight.

Eisenhower’s wisdom about the value of planning remains relevant. In 1957, he highlighted that while plans may be discarded, the process of planning equips leaders to respond effectively. Trump’s approach, by contrast, risks miscalculating the complexity of the conflict, leaving his team to improvise in the face of unanticipated challenges.