Underestimating Iran Risks a Costly, Protracted War for the U.S.

History offers repeated warnings about the danger of underestimating an opponent. Leaders who expect quick victories — from Adolf Hitler in 1941 to Vladimir Putin in 2022 — have instead encountered prolonged resistance, costly stalemates or outright defeat. The latest example may be President Donald Trump’s 2026 campaign against the Iranian regime, which could reflect a similar miscalculation.

Why Leaders Misjudge Adversaries

There are many reasons such catastrophic miscalculations occur. Intelligence can be flawed or disregarded. Competing government factions and influential interest groups can pull leaders toward risky policies. Ideology, personal obsessions or public pressure to punish another state can also play decisive roles.

“Arrogance of power,” as the late Senator J. William Fulbright described it, is the conviction that a state’s strength proves its cultural or moral superiority — and therefore its right to impose its will abroad.

Historical Lessons

Hitler’s doctrine of Aryan supremacy and contempt for Slavic peoples led Nazi Germany to expect a swift collapse of the Soviet Union in 1941. The plan included brutal policies such as the so-called “hunger plan” and the “final solution.” Instead, Soviet forces halted the Wehrmacht at Moscow, turned the tide at Stalingrad and fought on to victory at Kursk and Berlin.

Similarly, Putin’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine was premised on a belief that Ukrainians would quickly acquiesce. Instead, Ukraine asserted its national identity and mounted fierce resistance. Reports document heavy Russian casualties and the destruction of substantial equipment, while Ukraine retained the overwhelming majority of its territory.

Trump, Iran and the Risks of Miscalculation

President Trump’s 2026 actions and language toward Iran — including calls for “major combat operations in Iran” and pejorative references to Iranian leaders — resemble the rhetoric of leaders who have underestimated their foes. Trump has labeled Iranian leaders “deranged scumbags” and called Iran the “loser” of the Middle East; senior U.S. officials have echoed harsh criticisms of Tehran’s government.

It is less clear whether Trump’s hostility targets only the regime or extends to the Iranian people. His public statements emphasize preventing a nuclear-armed Tehran and condemn Tehran’s repression — noting, for example, claims that the regime killed tens of thousands during protests. But the overall tone suggests ordinary Iranians were not front and center in the message.

Unlike Hitler or Putin, who denigrated both enemy leadership and entire populations as inferior, Trump appears principally to have misread the resilience of Iran’s ruling apparatus. That distinction matters but does not eliminate the core danger: misjudging an opponent’s capacity and will often turns a short campaign into a grinding conflict.

Probable Consequences

If the United States has underestimated the Iranian regime’s durability, a quick victory becomes unlikely. The conflict could end within weeks — or it could stretch into a prolonged, bloody and expensive war that increases casualties on both sides and imposes heavy economic costs. Equally concerning is the high probability that widespread destruction will turn ordinary Iranians against the United States instead of seeing it as a liberator. In that scenario, President Trump would have, like his predecessors, gravely misjudged his adversary’s patriotism and resilience.

Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University–Newark.