The attacks coincided with a personal moment of serendipity, as I happened to be thumbing through a used copy of Hans Morgenthau’s classic work in realist international relations theory, Politics Among Nations.
Trump and his associates often claim that their policy embodies a hard-nosed realism. Having a copy of the book with me provided an opportunity to test the substance of these claims.
Politics Among Nations defines national interest in terms of power, managed with prudence. It warns against moralism, ideological grandstanding, and ignoring long-term consequences.
The first Trump Administration’s Iran policy—from scrapping the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), through “maximum pressure,” to the January 2020 killing of Qasem Soleimani—had already strained this realist framework. But the June 2025 strikes on facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan have pushed things to the breaking point.
According to Trump, the Hollywood-sounding Operation Midnight Hammer was a “spectacular military success” that “obliterated” its targets with bunker-busters and cruise missiles. But given the customary bluster that preceded the attacks, it is probable that the Iranian government was able to transfer some or perhaps even all of the materials stored there elsewhere.
While the attack may have degraded immediate enrichment capacity, it also greatly exacerbated tensions with Tehran, prompting threats, proxy escalation, and global alarm. Morgenthau would likely see this as an example of force divorced from strategy, the result of overconfidence in power and a lack of prudence.
“The policy of the state is always directed to the creation, maintenance, and demonstration of power,” Morgenthau writes. “But to aim at power regardless of the circumstances and consequences is the very definition of political folly.”
The 2018 US withdrawal from the JCPOA was already a misstep from the realist perspective. Iran was in compliance; multilateral safeguards and inspections were in place. As a result, this move was not prudent, as it undermined American credibility and removed diplomatic leverage.
Morgenthau warned against tearing down cooperative frameworks, which help to facilitate diplomatic pressure. But that is precisely what Midnight Hammer does. By opting for unilateral military destruction, the White House has given the US a credibility problem. Strikes can be retaliated against, whereas deals, even imperfect ones, provide structure.
Trump’s pre-2020 policy of maximum pressure—sanctions and isolation—depended on the threat of using power as a form of punishment. Politics Among Nations argues that power must be applied with coherent ends and sustainable means. What the US president offered instead was economic attrition without a clear conclusion.
The 2025 strikes amplified this miscalculation. Bombing nuclear sites is easy to announce. But rebuilding diplomacy after bombs fall is harder.
Sanctions could be gradually eased; missiles don’t repair nuclear facilities or win political follow-through. Moreover, such strikes push Iran closer to hardline consolidation and nuclear proliferation—a predictable backlash according to Morgenthau.
With Operation Midnight Hammer, Trump and the Pentagon delivered a powerful performance. Asserting strength isn’t enough, however; it must lead to a strategic advantage.
This dramatic display of power, lacking the strategic clarity to give it depth, repudiates the fundamental principle of Politics Among Nations.
Although the US responded to a legitimate threat—nuclear capability—bypassing diplomatic alternatives risks escalation, Iran already threatened retaliation via missiles or strait closure; proxies may intensify insurgency.
Morgenthau did not regard diplomacy as appeasement, but as a crucial tool for promoting peace. Trump’s broken treaties and airport runway attacks reduced diplomacy to rubble. Now Iran appears to be strengthening ties with Russia and China.
Politics Among Nations warns against confusing domestic political theatre with foreign strategy. Trump’s aggressive posturing may have boosted his domestic approval, but at the price of strategic coherence.
Global reactions have splintered. China condemned the American violation of international law. The UN also raised legal concerns. Meanwhile, both the UK and India have urged restraint.
Morgenthau emphasises that overreach erodes power. The strikes may have delayed Iran’s nuclear expansion, but at the cost of global credibility.
Now the strategic picture is clouded. Washington stands more isolated.
Morgenthau would remind us that “interest defined in terms of power” demands judgment, not exuberance. Donald Trump’s Iran policy—sanctions, targeted assassinations, missile strikes—was consistently power-centric. But Morgenthau demands prudent power—strength guided by purpose and balanced with diplomacy.
By contrast, Trump’s governmental style is reactionary joie de vivre that slides into rage and grumpy self-pity whenever it meets the slightest check. That’s why his approach lacks consistency.
Morgenthau is careful to distinguish consistency from dogmatism, calling upon political actors to “judge the situation with all its complexities and contradictions and respond accordingly.” However, flexibility is one thing, and flakiness is another entirely.
Donald Trump’s approach to governing calls to mind an exchange between Colonel Kurtz and Captain Willard in Francis Ford Coppola’s Vietnam-era classic Apocalypse Now!
Amid the horrific conditions in his camp, Kurtz asks Willard if he finds his methods “unsound”. The response, delivered by Martin Sheen in a chilling deadpan, is, “I don’t see any method at all.”
Donald Trump’s approach to politics, founded on a toxic combination of white grievance and personal enrichment, is similarly devoid of method. In a world increasingly subject to nuclear peril, the president’s style of rudderless authoritarianism adds an element of unpredictability, and thus danger, to the mix.
To be sure, realism isn’t the only standard against which the administration’s actions can be judged. It marginalises ethical concerns that would complicate questions of reach and generality.
Nevertheless, realism is an appropriate standard here, if only because failure to make the case on that basis casts shade on the administration’s own justifications.
Leaked intelligence reports suggest that the Trump Administration’s internal assessment of Operation Midnight Hammer was not as rosy as its public pronouncements. In response, the administration reasserted its original claims and threatened to limit sharing intelligence with Congress.
This is hardly the sort of approach likely to burnish claims of hard-nosed realism. The assertion of “alternative facts” suggests that one is living in a completely different reality. Blaming the messenger, a modus operandi to which Team Trump turns with alarming frequency, inspires questions about which articles of clothing the emperor is wearing.
While the June 2025 American strikes on Iran may be militarily impressive, they expose the limitations of power divorced from strategy. Without political scaffolding, whatever gains they achieved are precarious and potentially self-defeating. From Morgenthau’s perspective, they risk undermining American influence rather than enhancing it.
True realism doesn’t just wield force: it knows when and how to hold it in reserve.
Please support The Battleground. Make a donation to help us produce more political writing like this.
Photograph courtesy of Airwolfhound. Published under a Creative Commons license.
