Nearly 24 years ago, four months after the 9/11 attacks, former President George W. Bush delivered a State of the Union address that laid the groundwork for the war in Iraq. Over the next 14 months, Bush administration officials traveled the country, testified to Congress and made a case to Americans for war.
They did so in exaggerated, misleading terms that often relied on scare tactics — and, by most any objective measure, the war was a strategic disaster for the United States. But Bush’s effort to rally public opinion, no matter how dishonest, stands in sharp contrast to President Donald Trump’s efforts to prepare the country for war with Iran.
Over the past several weeks, the U.S. moved two carrier groups into the Middle East, along with hundreds of bombers and fighter planes. It is the largest presence of U.S. military forces in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. On Saturday morning, the U.S. launched attacks on Iran, in coordination with Israel.
And yet, despite the eight-minute Truth Social video posted early Saturday morning, Trump made almost no effort to prepare the country for war or explain his actions.
Trump has shown complete indifference to getting buy-in from Congress or Americans for a military conflict that even his military advisers, in news media leaks, said could put a significant number of American troops in harm’s way and has a limited chance at success.
Indeed, Trump had the same opportunity as Bush did to make the case for war at the State of the Union this week — and he refused to take it.
In a more than 100-minute State of the Union on Tuesday, just a few days ago, Trump didn’t bring up Iran until more than one hour and 20 minutes into the speech, and even then, he offered no explanation for why an attack was in America’s national interest.
Surreally, Trump said in June 2025, when the U.S. military first attacked Iran (also with no effort by Trump to explain his decision to Americans beforehand), it “obliterated” the country’s nuclear weapons program. If that were true, it would suggest that an attack on the same program nine months later makes little sense. Trump said, “They [Iran] want to start it all over again and are at this moment again pursuing their sinister ambitions,” but offered no evidence or, if it is true, why there is an urgency to attack now. Indeed, even U.S. officials acknowledge that Iran has not actively resumed its uranium enrichment program after last year’s joint U.S. and Israeli attack.
The only argument that Trump could muster for why Iran’s nuclear ambitions pose a threat to the United States is that Tehran has “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 of America.”
So the threat to America is a nuclear bomb that doesn’t exist, perched on an intercontinental ballistic missile that isn’t close to being built?
But even that argument is highly misleading. According to a 2025 report by the Defense Intelligence Agency, Iran might be as much as a decade away from having such missiles.
Trump did point out that “it has been the policy of the United States never to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon,” which is certainly correct. But he didn’t explain to Americans why that is the case or why that policy, which until this summer never involved the use of military force, now requires it.
Perhaps the most bizarre part of the approximately three minutes that Trump spent talking about Iran was the president’s claim that Tehran wants to make a deal, “but we haven’t heard those secret words, ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon.’” Iranian officials have repeatedly said that they have no intention of building a nuclear weapon. After Trump’s speech, the country’s foreign minister said it again.
Considering that Iran has repeatedly lied about the extent of its nuclear program, one should take such statements with a large grain of salt. But if America is seeking an off-ramp to war — and if the president is to be believed when he says he prefers a diplomatic solution — it would be useful for him to say what that would be, rather than making a demand that Iran has already publicly satisfied.
It certainly doesn’t help matters that over the past few weeks, Trump and his aides have offered a host of rationales for war. When Iranian forces were massacring pro-democracy protesters late last year, Trump rattled sabers about using force to protect them and unseat the Iranian regime. Since then, Trump has repeatedly deflected questions on whether the goal of an Iran attack is regime change, which, if it were, would necessitate a much larger U.S. military operation and even, potentially, American boots on the ground.
Earlier this month, Trump even warned that Iran “cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region, and they must make a deal,” which would suggest that an agreement for Iran must be broader than an agreement on the nuclear issue, but also include an end to Iran’s support for armed proxies across the region. How can Americans assess the worthiness of going to war with Iran if the president cannot articulate a clear political and military objective or talk about how the use of force is in the country’s national interest? So the threat to America is a nuclear bomb that doesn’t exist, perched on an intercontinental ballistic missile that isn’t close to being built? U.S. attacks Iran will likely be a enjoy near-term military success. But what about the long-term economic, political, and reputational costs? What if a military attack doesn’t lead Iran to soften its position on nuclear production? Does the U.S. keep attacking until it does, and then escalate the situation to include regime change? What if the Iranian regime falls, leading to regional instability? What role and responsibility will the U.S. have in post-conflict stabilization? All these questions are not only unanswered, but also unaddressed by the president and his aides. We’ve seen this movie before. Last year, Trump and his aides spent months rattling sabers about attacking Venezuela before eventually seizing the country’s leader, Nicholas Maduro, and bringing him to the U.S. to stand trial. Yet Trump never went to the American people beforehand to explain the national interest in threatening Caracas. As was the case then and now, Trump doesn’t seem to believe he has any responsibility to explain his actions to Americans. (It’s worth noting that congressional Republicans have also shown no interest in demanding that Trump make the case for war or treat them like a co-equal branch of government.) The age of the imperial presidency, which began after World War II and the advent of nuclear weapons, has led to a steady decline in national deliberation about the use of military force. But we’ve never had a situation like the one we have today with Iran. Trump isn’t even pretending to try to make the case for war. If anything, this is the imperial presidency on steroids — as Trump decides to go to war with zero input from Congress (no congressional hearings) and zero effort to rally public opinion. It is yet another reminder of how disconnected Trump is not just from public opinion, but from the basic elements of democratic governance. Trump seems to believe that he can do whatever he wants, both at home and abroad, without even the fig leaf of democratic consent.
Michael Cohen is an MS NOW columnist. He is also the publisher of the newsletter Truth and Consequences and hosts the weekly podcast That ‘70s Movie Podcast. 
