Trump’s historic test: A second Lyndon B. Johnson incident?

The Nature of the War and Iran’s Current Position

As the 27th day of the war with Iran passes, Trump finds himself in a dilemma from which it is impossible to emerge victorious on his own terms. He must either sit at the table with Iran to work toward a lasting solution or pursue a policy of escalation, pushing the situation into an even more inextricable state.

This war, for which he did not fully define political goals, did not seriously think through or plan, and which he found himself in despite being opposed to it in principle, was already lost before it began, considering the nature of the conflict and the deep-seated weaknesses of the American military. So much so that, on the very first day of the war, strategy experts were stating that even in a conventional battle, the U.S. could sustain this war for at most 5 to 6 weeks, and that the only thing Iran needed to do to “win” was to “absorb” U.S./Israel attacks for 6 weeks.

Moreover, while Iran’s highly planned defense is turning into a ‘war of attrition’ developing to the detriment of the U.S./Israel, this war is drawing attention with its ‘asymmetric’ nature, targeting the Gulf countries that host U.S. bases and the global economy. In a sense, Iran is making the war too expensive and costly for the U.S. to sustain. The U.S.’s apparent tactical superiority is ironically turning into a strategic defeat. The fact that Trump and his staff view this trajectory as a surprise and failed to foresee it from the very beginning is a serious indicator of how unplanned and superficial their actions have been.

Today, Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz single-handedly and has increased its earnings from oil sales. Furthermore, Iran, which has the strong backing of Russia and China in terms of war technology, can turn this situation into a geopolitical opportunity to end American hegemony in the region and change the existing paradigm while holding the initiative. Even if Trump wants to take a logical step and move toward an agreement, Iran could emerge with less damage if the war drags on; therefore, it will not agree to a deal without getting exactly what it wants at the table.

Observations on the American Defense Industry Before the War

In mid-February, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Caine stated that after the arms aid provided to Israel and Ukraine, the American military’s ammunition stocks were at critical levels, warning that in a possible war with Iran, there would be serious difficulties regarding materials and logistics without allied support. Mackenzie Eaglen from the American Enterprise Institute points out that the supply of standard anti-ballistic missiles such as the SM-2, SM-3, and SM-6, which are launched from ships and consumed very quickly, is very limited, noting that replacing each one would take at least two years. These missiles are used particularly in the Red Sea to protect Israel and against paramilitary groups in Yemen. Ryan Brobst from The Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies notes regarding the THAAD and Patriot missile systems that only a few hundred of each defensive missile can be produced per year and that the current stock is far below the required number. Kathrine Thompson from the CATO Institute, a former senior Pentagon official, stated that the U.S. does not have the resources to allocate to different conflicts occurring simultaneously, indicating that a prolonged conflict with Iran would mean compromising on other priorities. What is striking at this point is the U.S.’s stance in the Asia-Pacific and its security commitments to South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. The U.S. is trying to keep the security doctrine of the 90s current today despite financial inadequacies and infrastructure deficiencies.

The War-Politics Strategy Pillar

In a day and age where the rift within the Republican Party is growing and rhetoric such as “The United States is ruled by Israel,” “American political will is under occupation,” and “We are fighting Israel’s war” is increasing among the American public, the best scenario for Trump is to prevent the war from dragging on. Keeping the damage the war has caused to the global economy and the destruction it has left on his own political career under control seems to be the most rational choice. For Trump to be able to distance himself from Netanyahu, who determines U.S. Middle East policy, would be the greatest victory for both his own career and American politics. Regardless of the conditions, sitting at the table with the Iranian administration and seeking a lasting solution could save Trump from a heavier price he would have to pay in an alternative ‘escalation’ policy.

In this context, the impasse Trump has fallen into bears serious similarities to the situation faced by U.S. Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson during the Vietnam War. Whether Trump will learn from Johnson’s mistakes or history will repeat itself, we will see in the near future.

The Choice of Escalation in Vietnam and Johnson’s (1963-1969) Political Suicide

The aerial bombardment known as Operation Rolling Thunder, which lasted from February 1965 to October 1968 and aimed to break North Vietnam’s resistance to fighting, would not yield the targeted result. Lyndon Johnson, who took office after the anti-war John F. Kennedy lost his life in an assassination in 1963, chose a policy of escalation in 1965, unlike his predecessor.

He ordered American ground troops to land to cut the logistical link between the Viet Cong forces fighting in the south and North Vietnam and to defend South Vietnam. By 1968, the number of American soldiers in the field had reached 500 thousand. Although Johnson often spoke of a victory being won, the contrast created by the images reflected in the media and the news coming from the field had largely shaken public confidence in Johnson. Finally, in 1968, the counter-offensive by Viet Cong forces, which went down in history as the Tet Offensive, was a turning point for the American public, despite being repelled, due to the psychological devastation it caused.

Protests soon turned into an anti-war social movement across the U.S. and spilled from university campuses into the streets. While the chaos created by the war led to a split within the Democratic Party, Johnson announced on March 31, 1968, that he would not be his party’s presidential candidate for a second term and withdrew from the race. That same year, Robert F. Kennedy, who was considered certain to lead the Democratic Party and was anti-war like his brother, lost his life as a result of an assassination on June 5, sharing the same fate as his brother.

Richard Nixon promised in the election campaign he started with the slogan “Peace with Honor” that the U.S. would exit the Vietnam War in an “honorable” way without appearing defeated. President Nixon’s “Peace with Honor” speech on January 27, 1973, and the subsequent Paris Peace Accords finally ended the Vietnam War (1955-1975) for the U.S., which Johnson had pushed into an inextricable state. In the war where 2.5 to 4 million people lost their lives, the U.S., which did not lose a single battle, ironically lost the war and its prestige.

Returning to Trump in the Iran War

The example of Lyndon Johnson, who stands out with the escalation policy he followed in the Vietnam War, serves as a historical lesson for Trump. As the November 3, 2026, midterm elections approach, the serious rift the war has created within the Republican Party and the MAGA base, and the drop in public confidence in Trump to 36%, are important details in this sense. Will Trump, whose circle is full of fanatical people like Pete Hegseth, Lindsey Graham, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who lack a rational worldview and read the Middle East from an eschatological framework, be able to withstand the pressure and blackmail of the Israel lobby? His stance in the Iran war will show this.

Trump appears as a figure open to manipulation while forming the soft underbelly of American politics. Israel’s insistence on war with Iran and the pressure it exerts on the U.S. in this direction have a long history dating back to the 1990s. So much so that it would be correct to say that since the early 2000s, the U.S. has effectively been a prisoner in the Middle East.

In a statement he made on March 4, former U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, while referring to the Obama era, mentioned that there was pressure to attack Iran during that period as well, and that if they did not act in this direction, Israel would attack Iran alone and drag the U.S. into the war indirectly. However, in his speech, he states that Obama’s clear stance and preference for strong diplomacy were effective on Israel.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had evaluated the attack on Iran within the scope of eliminating the threat this situation would pose to the American presence in the region before it emerged (pre-emptive strike), upon Israel’s statement that it would attack Iran alone if necessary. While Israel’s strategy on U.S. politics remains unchanged, it would be correct to say that President Trump is the very great opportunity that Netanyahu has been waiting for for 40 years to realize the “Greater Israel Project.”