Trump's Gamble for Resurrection in Iran

When Autocrats Go to War to Save Themselves

It makes no strategic sense for the United States to start a war in Iran. The Pentagon is already worried about running out of weapons and ammunition and declining recruitment numbers after years of supporting Ukraine and maintaining operations across multiple regions. Starting another major war under these conditions is not what military experts would recommend.

Add to that the fact that Iran is a much more formidable adversary than Venezuela and that a war would likely destabilize an important region even further, and you have a situation that will almost certainly make the United States less secure, not more.

So why would Trump start this war?

Because Trump is running out of options to keep himself in power and manufacturing war is one of the few strategies left.

When leaders believe losing office could mean political ruin for them or even prison, they sometimes gamble for resurrection by starting a war. The more personal consequences a leader faces for losing office, the more likely they are to gamble.

The basic logic is simple.

War can have several political benefits for a struggling leader.

First, it can create a rally-around-the-flag effect. Citizens often support their leaders in the early stages of a conflict to create a united front. Even critics will do this. We saw this in 2003 when George W. Bush’s approval ratings skyrocketed in the months after the US attack on Iraq.

Second, war shifts attention away from domestic problems. Suddenly the political conversation is no longer about affordability or the Epstein files - it’s about national survival.

Third, war can be used to suppress criticism at home and stigmatize opponents as unpatriotic. After the attacks of September 11, for example, critics of the Iraq War were frequently accused of undermining the troops or weakening national unity.

But there’s a fourth, darker possibility.

War can actually provoke retaliation from the enemy, which can then be used to justify a massive power grab (emergency powers, heightened domestic surveillance, and expanded executive authority that are very hard to do otherwise). Oh, and you can also make a more plausible case that elections need to be postponed. In other words, a leader’s political survival can actually depend on the enemy striking back.

Netanyahu has been giving a masterclass in this since 2023. Before the Gaza war, Israel was experiencing some of the largest protests in its history against Netanyahu. Once war broke out, the political landscape completely changed. The mass protests disappeared almost overnight while the wartime emergency allowed Netanyahu to form a national unity government and reduced pressure for immediate elections or political accountability. Netanyahu has every reason to keep starting wars because these wars are keeping him in power.

Donald Trump is trying to do the same thing.

Trump faces an existential political problem at home. If Democrats gain control of even one chamber of Congress, his agenda would grind to a halt and investigations into his deep corruption and criminality would immediately begin.

So how is he hoping the war in Iran will help him?

There are two possibilities.

The first is that war could allow him to delay or disrupt the midterm elections. Elections can sometimes be postponed under extraordinary circumstances such as natural disasters or war. If Congress acquiesces, a national emergency could create the political space to do that.

The second possibility is much more sinister. Trump’s real gamble may be to provoke Iran into attacking the United States. An attack on American soil would transform the political landscape overnight. Trump’s support would likely surge. Patriotism would dominate the national conversation. Security concerns would override nearly everything else. And emergency powers would suddenly become much easier to justify.

History shows that states of emergency are one of the fastest ways democracies slide toward authoritarian rule.

So how likely is this strategy to work?

If Iran doesn’t retaliate against the United States, the gamble will likely fail. That’s because the war is already deeply unpopular - so no rally-around-the-flag effect. The war will also likely make the economy worse and thus not serve to distract voters from their domestic problems. Instead, Americans will hate this war and they will blame Trump for it every single day it continues.

Trump also faces a major constraint that leaders like Putin do not. Trump won’t be able to fully control the narrative. The United States still has a free press, opposition parties, and a strong civil society. Americans will continue to hear how badly the war is going and how destabilizing it is and there is nothing Trump can do about that.

But if Iran were to strike the United States directly, everything would change. That’s when the strategy might actually work.

A nation under attack is a nation in emergency mode and emergency mode allows leaders to change the rules.

So let’s all pray that Iran doesn’t hit the U.S.

Not only because such an attack would be a tragedy for American citizens, but because it would also increase the odds that this war achieves exactly what Trump wanted: to keep himself in power no matter what the costs.