Bret Stephens is a highly paid conservative columnist for The New York Times. His opinions I generally find tolerable and, at times, useful in sharpening my own thinking. But his column of March 25, 2026, is baffling.
He argues that the war with Iran—measured against similar conflicts—is going just dandy: tactically precise, efficient, and mercifully light in American casualties. One is left to wonder whether he is looking through the wrong end of the binoculars.
The facts he cites may be accurate in narrow military terms. Beyond that, the argument collapses. This war was initiated in violation of American law requiring congressional authorization. It proceeds without a coherent objective—sustained instead by a shifting set of rationales that change with each presidential explanation.
The claim of an urgent nuclear threat is equally unconvincing. By the assessment of Trump’s own intelligence community, Iran posed no imminent danger and lacks the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon in the near term. Even the materials it possesses are now buried beneath the rubble created by American bombs—hardly an imminent strategic threat.
To compare this plainly unlawful war with past American conflicts that have cost hundreds of thousands of lives is not analysis; it is evasion. Each war stands or falls on its own merits. Historians may compare them; they do not justify one by pointing to the greater failures of another.
Yes, the bombing campaign has been precise—so far. It has inflicted damage that may take years to repair. But history offers a consistent lesson: killing leaders, destroying infrastructure, and inflicting civilian casualties rarely produce submission. They harden resistance. Even Iranians who oppose their theocratic regime are unlikely to surrender their national identity or their deep Persian pride. Gratitude to the United States is not a plausible outcome.
Mr. Stephens also downplays the global instability this war has unleashed. He notes that oil prices were higher during parts of the Obama administration without lasting harm. The comparison is misplaced. This conflict has not merely raised prices; it has destabilized supply chains and injected volatility into nearly every sector of daily life.
Nor should it escape notice that carefully timed announcements from the White House have triggered sharp market swings, allowing a small number of well-positioned actors to reap enormous profits, while the broader public absorbs the uncertainty. Markets can tolerate risk; they cannot function on caprice.
Which brings us to trust. The president’s erratic conduct—compounded by the uneven competence of his cabinet—has diminished the standing of the United States among its allies and peers. More troubling, it has eroded confidence in the reliability of American commitments. The result is not simply diminished influence, but a growing suspicion that American power is being exercised without discipline or restraint.
No, Mr. Stephens: this “splendid little war” is not going well. It has diminished the nation’s credibility, unsettled the global order, and will require years of steady leadership to repair the damage.
Thank you for pushing back on this naive and ill-informed op-ed. The only place of disagreement I would offer to your critique is that the bombing campaign has not been well-targeted when we remember the dead 175 school children. Thank you, Steven, for your persistent and thoughtful witness. It is much appreciated.
I concur Mr. Woolley!