EDITORIAL: “Take Your Government” — When Trump Reenacts the Iraq Scenario with Iran

“Wiped out” yesterday, “imminent threat” today

In June 2025, Operation Midnight Hammer struck three Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Seventy-five precision-guided munitions. 30,000-pound bunker-busting bombs—the heaviest ever used in combat by the United States. After the operation, Trump declared: “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.” Completely and totally obliterated. Those were his words.

Eight months later, the same man is announcing major combat operations against the same country for the same reason: the nuclear program—the very one he had “obliterated.” During his State of the Union address on February 24, Trump warned: “They’ve already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas, and they’re working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States.” Iran is developing missiles that threaten Europe and will soon threaten the United States. But wait—wasn’t the program “obliterated”?

This is the fundamental contradiction of this war. If Iran’s nuclear program was “completely and totally obliterated” in June, why did it need to be bombed again in February? Both statements cannot be true at the same time. Either Operation Midnight Hammer failed—and Trump lied to the American people by declaring victory—or it succeeded—and the February strikes have no nuclear justification. In either case, someone is lying. And that someone is the same man who is declaring war.

Regime change is being denied while it’s happening

Vice President JD Vance has publicly stated that the goal is not regime change. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said the same thing. No regime change. Targeted strikes. Against nuclear capabilities. Period. Then Trump posted on Truth Social: “If the current Iranian regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a regime change???”

And yet, in his eight-minute video, he tells the Iranian people to “take over their government.” He tells the military to “lay down their arms.” He speaks of “the hour of your freedom.” That’s not the language of a limited strike. It’s the language of regime change. Word for word. Except you can’t say that officially. Because regime change, legally, requires authorization from Congress. So you say “targeted strikes” in front of the cameras and “take over your government” on Truth Social.

The same script, the same words

In March 2003, George W. Bush justified the invasion of Iraq by citing a “grave danger” posed by a “dictator” armed with weapons of mass destruction. In February 2026, Trump justified strikes against Iran by citing an “imminent threat” posed by a “terrorist regime” seeking nuclear weapons. Analyst Osama Abu Irshaid summed it up: “The administration is updating the visual lexicon of fear.”

The parallels are staggering. Bush had manipulated intelligence—weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Trump has his own version: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had initially stated that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Then, under pressure from Trump, she changed her position. U.S. intelligence is once again bowing to the presidential narrative. Just like in 2003. As if nothing had been learned.

Tulsi Gabbard. The former Democratic candidate who denounced interventionist wars. The former congresswoman who met with Assad in Syria to advocate for dialogue. Today, she is Trump’s Director of National Intelligence. And today, she is bending her analyses to justify a war. Power transforms people. Or perhaps it reveals them. In either case, the irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

What Iraq Should Have Taught Us

Iraq in 2003. “Mission Accomplished” in May. Then twenty years of chaos. 4,500 American soldiers killed. The Islamic State rising from the rubble. Libya in 2011: Gaddafi eliminated, open-air slave markets. Afghanistan: twenty years of occupation, 2,400 soldiers killed, the Taliban back in 2021.

Three wars. Three regimes overthrown. Three disasters. And yet, in 2026, Trump tells the Iranians, “Take your government.” As if the Iraqis hadn’t tried. As if the Afghans hadn’t tried. Each time, the Americans came with bombs and promises of freedom. Each time, the bombs remained. Freedom—no.

Europe Staring at Its Own Feet

In 2003, Tony Blair at least had the courage—or the blindness—to jump on Bush’s bandwagon. In 2026, no one is jumping on Trump’s bandwagon. The United Kingdom refused to allow its military bases to be used for strikes. Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz—European leaders have issued lukewarm statements. The website Responsible Statecraft called the European response “pathetic.” And it’s right.

The European Union has not even acknowledged that the strikes violated international law. The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force except in self-defense against an imminent attack or with the authorization of the Security Council. Iran has not attacked the United States. The Security Council has not authorized anything. And yet, Europe remains silent. Because Europe is afraid. Not of Iran. Of Trump. The coercion used against Tehran could backfire on Brussels. So we look the other way. We mumble. We wait for it to blow over.

Europe remains silent while a country is being bombed without Security Council authorization. Europe remains silent while a president calls for regime change on social media. Europe remains silent because it is afraid of tariffs. Tariffs. That is what is worth more than international law in 2026. That is what is worth more than 90 million Iranians. The fear of a tax on German cars is stronger than the courage to say, “This is illegal.”

China and Russia in the Shadows

While Europe remains silent, China is taking action. Beijing was finalizing the sale of CM-302 supersonic anti-ship missiles to Iran. Chinese spy ships were providing intelligence to Tehran. In January, China, Russia, and Iran signed a trilateral strategic pact. Not a mutual defense treaty. But a signal that Iran is not alone—even if neither China nor Russia will send soldiers to die for Tehran.

UN Secretary-General Guterres called for the “diplomatic path.” That’s what he always does: call for diplomacy while the bombs are falling.

Three rounds for nothing

There had been negotiations. Three rounds. In Oman. In Switzerland. In early February. Iran and the United States had sat down at the same table. They had talked. They had even planned a fourth round in Vienna. But Trump had one demand: zero enrichment. Iran had to give up all uranium enrichment. Not reduce it. Not cap it. Abandon it.

This is a demand that no sovereign country would accept. The right to peaceful enrichment is guaranteed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Making this demand is setting a condition designed to be rejected. It turns the negotiations into a mere pretext. “We tried diplomacy”—except that we set impossible conditions to ensure it would fail. The script is written in advance.

Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, claimed that Tehran was “a week away” from the bomb. At the same time, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt claimed that Operation Midnight Hammer had “obliterated” the nuclear program. Both statements came from the same administration. On the same day. This information chaos is no accident. It’s a strategy. When no one knows what’s true, anything becomes justifiable.

The 972 pounds of uranium in the room

The facts: In June 2025, Iran possessed 972 pounds of uranium enriched to 60%. The military threshold is 90%. Intelligence estimates put the time needed to build a nuclear weapon at three to eight months. This is real. It’s worrying. But it’s also the same situation as in 2003: a real but exaggerated threat, turned into a pretext for action whose objectives go beyond nonproliferation.

If the objective were purely nuclear, we wouldn’t be telling the people to “overthrow their government.” We’d strike the centrifuges and go home. What’s happening is a regime change disguised as a nonproliferation operation. And everyone can see it.

Oil, the Strait, the Bill

Brent crude surged to $73 per barrel in the hours following the announcement of the strikes—a 3.7% increase in a single day. Bloomberg forecasts that oil could reach $91 by the end of 2026. And if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz—that narrow passage just a few kilometers wide through which 20 million barrels pass each day, accounting for 20% of global consumption—prices would exceed $100. This isn’t just a hypothetical scenario. It’s a scenario modeled by CSIS, Oxford Economics, and Columbia University.

And yet, Trump launched the strikes without once mentioning the economic impact. Not a word about gas prices for Americans. Not a word about inflation. Not a word about the supply chains that depend on Gulf oil. Eight minutes of video. Promises of freedom. Death threats. And not a single word about the average American’s wallet—the very people who elected him on the promise of lowering prices.

Every dollar the price of oil rises is an invisible tax on every American family. Every European family. Every family in the world that depends on fossil fuels—which is to say, all of them. Trump was elected to lower prices. He has just launched an operation that will raise them. And no one in his administration seems to have done the math. Or maybe they did. And maybe the math doesn’t concern them.

Losses Accepted in Advance

Trump said something remarkable in his video. Something that no one has highlighted enough. “The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties. That often happens in war.” The lives of American heroes could be lost. There could be casualties. “That often happens in war.” It often happens in war.

“That often happens in war.” As if the deaths of American soldiers were an operational cost. A budget line item. An accepted risk. By whom? Not by the soldiers. Not by their families. By a man who has never worn a uniform. Who avoided Vietnam thanks to “bone spurs”—bone spurs on his feet. And who is now announcing, on his social media, that young Americans might die. “That often happens.” Yes. It happens. But it shouldn’t happen so easily.

The Safeguards That No Longer Exist

After Iraq, the U.S. Congress had promised to strengthen congressional oversight of decisions to go to war. Never again would a president go to war without authorization. Never again would intelligence be manipulated. Never again would Congress be bypassed. Twenty-three years later, those safeguards have been shattered. The president announces major combat operations on social media. Congress learns of it at the same time as the rest of the world.

Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie—a Democrat and a Republican—attempted a “discharge petition” to block the unauthorized war. Their chances of success are slim. Marjorie Taylor Greene—despite being a Trump ally—stated: “Americans do not want to go to war with Iran.” Even Rachel Campos-Duffy on Fox News questioned the justification. When Fox News doubts your war, something is seriously wrong.

The U.S. Constitution is clear. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress—and Congress alone—the power to declare war. Not the president. Not on Truth Social. Not in eight minutes between two posts. Congress. But the Constitution has become a decorative document. A picture hanging on the wall of democracy. Pretty. Old. And completely ignored when it suits the president.

Iran’s retaliation is coming

Iran has already responded. Three barrages of ballistic missiles on Israel. Three dead. Dozens wounded. An Iranian lawmaker, Ebrahim Azizi, posted on X: “We warned you! Now you have started down a path whose end is no longer in your control.” We warned you. You have set out on a path whose end is no longer in your hands.

In June 2025, following “Midnight Hammer,” Iran retaliated with 550 ballistic missiles and 1,000 suicide drones. Twenty-eight people were killed in Israel. 3,238 were hospitalized. This time, its capabilities are reduced. But Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz—20% of the world’s oil—and possesses the fury of a bombed-out nation that has nothing left to lose.

"Stay home—there will be bombs everywhere"

In his video, Trump issued a warning to the Iranian people: “Do not leave your homes because there will be bombs everywhere.” ” Don’t leave your homes. There will be bombs everywhere. Everywhere. This is the President of the United States saying this. Not an analyst. Not a general. The Commander-in-Chief. He’s telling 90 million Iranians to stay home because he’s going to bomb their country. And in the same sentence, he promises them freedom.

And yet, these homes are not shelters. Tehran has no network of civilian bunkers. No safe rooms. No warning system. When Trump says “stay home,” what he’s really saying is: pray. Pray that the promised freedom doesn’t arrive in the form of a crater in your living room.

“Stay home—there will be bombs everywhere.” This may be the most terrifying sentence of this entire war. Not because it’s threatening. Because it’s said in the tone of someone offering practical advice. As if “there will be bombs everywhere” were the equivalent of “it’s going to rain—take an umbrella.” The trivialization of destruction. The normalization of bombing. As if razing the neighborhoods of a capital city were a minor inconvenience in the grand plan for liberation. History will judge this phrase. And it won’t be kind.

The 12,000 dead who are being exploited

Trump justified the strikes in part by citing the crackdown on Iranian protests in December and January. He spoke of 32,000 deaths—a figure that independent estimates place closer to 12,000. Iran has denounced these as “big lies.” The exact figure lies somewhere in between. But what is certain is that thousands of Iranians have died in the streets, killed by their own government.

And Trump is using these deaths as justification. The logic is circular: the regime kills its citizens, so the United States bombs the country of those very same citizens. To “liberate” them. While telling them to “stay home” because there will be “bombs everywhere.” Liberation through destruction. We’ve seen this movie before.

What Eight Minutes Reveal

Eight minutes. That’s how long it took Donald Trump to declare a war that could reshape the Middle East for a generation. Eight minutes on social media. Without a vote in Congress. Without an international coalition. Without a postwar plan. With contradictions in every sentence. A “wiped out” nuclear program that needs to be bombed again. A regime change that’s denied even as it’s proclaimed. American casualties accepted in advance by a man who has never risked his own life.

And in the midst of it all, 90 million Iranians. Who are being told to stay home because there will be “bombs everywhere.” And who are being promised that when the bombs stop, they’ll be able to “take over their government.” As if the Iraqis had taken over theirs. As if the Libyans had taken over theirs. As if the Afghans had taken over theirs.

“The hour of your freedom is at hand.” The hour of your freedom has arrived. That’s what they always say. Before the bombs. Before the deaths. Before the chaos. Before the twenty years of occupation. Before the humiliating withdrawal. Before the next dictator takes the place of the old one. The hour of freedom. On Truth Social. In eight minutes. Between two posts. We’d like to believe it. We really would. But history has a memory that presidents don’t. And history says: it never works that way. Never.

The question no one is asking

The question isn’t whether the Iranian regime deserves to fall. A regime that kills 12,000 of its own citizens in the streets deserves no sympathy. The question is: Will American bombs liberate Iran or turn it into a new Iraq? Is “take your government” a promise or a disguised abandonment? Will Trump still be there when the Iranians need help rebuilding?

Or will the Americans, as in Iraq, as in Libya, as in Afghanistan, leave behind the rubble and return home declaring victory? While the people they have “liberated” search for drinking water amid the ruins.

Signed, Maxime Marquette