Many will say... it is easy to end a war.
Yet the truth in Iraq and Ukraine proves that once a war starts, it is exceedingly difficult to end... even if the majority of citizens oppose the war.
Atlantic: The unpopular US war in the Persian Gulf
The American media outlet Atlantic emphasized that recently, on November 3, 2026, the Democrats won the elections in the US, while Trump, the Republican president whose political career nears its end in two years, was waging an unpopular war in Iran, a war he himself started and which the majority of Americans want to see ended.
Note the similarities of this situation with 20 years ago: In 2006, the Democrats won the midterm elections, while George Bush, the Republican President whose term was nearing its end, was waging an unpopular war in Iraq, a war he had started himself and which the majority of Americans wanted to end.
What happened with Iraq?
At that time, with the Democrats taking control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 12 years, The Atlantic magazine conducted a poll of 44 foreign policy experts regarding the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
Most experts who participated in the survey, published in a 2007 article, predicted that American policy would move in the direction voters wanted: ending the war.
At that time, in 2007, there were approximately 130,000 to 150,000 American troops in Iraq.
73% of respondents predicted that in 5 years, namely in 2012, the United States would no longer maintain a significant military presence in Iraq, a presence defined in the survey as at least 50,000 troops.
This prediction proved partially accurate, yet it oversimplifies what transpired next.
Ending a war is ultimately difficult
A review of what happened in Iraq serves as a useful reminder that it is far easier to win elections by opposing a war than to actually end that conflict.
In January 2007, just days after the Democratic-controlled Congress took office, George Bush did the exact opposite of what the anti-war coalition wanted.
He announced to the public that he was launching Operation Surge, a plan that would increase the number of American troops in Iraq to roughly 170,000.
Democrats in the House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution opposing the policy.
Nearly two months later, they passed a bill allocating 124 billion dollars in emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which required the US government to begin the process of withdrawing its troops from Iraq within a few months.
George Bush's veto
Yet George Bush vetoed the bill, arguing that "setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure" and that America must not reveal its plans to its enemies.
In December 2007, Congress, under pressure to support the military, agreed to allocate an additional 70 billion dollars in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In 2008, as conditions in Iraq improved, George Bush began the process of reducing the US military presence and transferring responsibility for security matters to the Iraqis.
The "dumb war"
Obama, who entered the White House promising to end the "dumb war," continued scaling down US military activity.
By 2012, nearly all American troops had left Iraq, yet this state of affairs did not last long.
Obama eventually sent American troops back into Iraq in 2014, in response to the rise of the terrorist criminal organization Islamic State (ISIS).
Trump kept the military...
Trump, who had criticized the war in Iraq during his 2016 election campaign, also kept American troops in Iraq to continue the fight against ISIS.
Only during Trump's second term, in 2026, did the last American troops leave Iraq.
Overall, the US military presence in Iraq continued for years, across multiple Congresses and presidents...
How should the United States have withdrawn from Iraq?
The most popular answer, which received 46% of the votes, called for a gradual withdrawal of troops from Iraq aimed at minimizing chaos.
The lowest level of support, at just 5%, favored the option of an "immediate and complete withdrawal of American forces."
Americans want the war with Iran to end
Today, most Americans want the war in Iran to end, yet there is less consensus on how it should end.
Here, the comparison with the US withdrawal from Iraq is no longer entirely accurate, because it appears the US has less ability to dictate the course of developments in Iran.
The reason for this is that the current war is being waged against an established political system rather than against insurgents who scattered following the American military victory.
Moreover, Iran's capacity to challenge American interests, by closing the Strait of Hormuz, attacking American military bases, and targeting US allies in the region, could complicate American plans.
Furthermore, America's enemies in Iraq did not possess the capability to acquire nuclear weapons in 2006.
There is, however, disagreement regarding Iran's capability to acquire nuclear weapons.
Trump stated in a recent interview that if Iran "gets nuclear weapons" during his presidency, he will be criticized far more heavily than ever before.
He may be right...
Although Americans overwhelmingly desire an end to the war, the vast majority also believe that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons.
Yet Trump's remarks ignore the fact that in 2025 he claimed with certainty that missile strikes had destroyed Iran's nuclear capabilities, a point that now calls into question the credibility of his public argument in favor of the war.
As January 2027 approaches, America will once again confront a situation in which a Republican president continues insisting on the correctness of his decision to launch the war, while the majority in Congress presses Trump to end it.
The war with Iran will be hard to end
If Trump continues waging war, knowing he will never face voters again, Congress can stop him by cutting off funding for military operations against Iran.
Yet do the Democrats have enough votes for such a move?
And are they willing to accept the consequences?
Just as in 2006, lawmakers often hesitate to act when they foresee potential political risks.
In this instance, their concern is that they will be held responsible if the United States fails or Iran acquires nuclear weapons.
Instead, US Senators and Representatives may be tempted to settle for less than forcing Trump to reverse his position.
The Republican-controlled Congress had previously passed a bipartisan resolution in June 2026 requiring Trump to seek congressional authorization to continue the war or withdraw American troops from Iran.
Yet when Trump ignored the resolution, lawmakers allowed him to continue the war without any consequence.
Trump has since acknowledged that the war helped Democrats win the House and Senate elections and has stated that he expects the conflict to end soon.
Yet Trump appears to be abandoning the idea of a diplomatic solution, announcing that Vice President Vance, a critic of the war with Iran, will no longer participate in the talks.
The US does not need a deal with Iran
Trump wrote on the social network Truth Social: "We don't need a deal with Iran. We have their money, hundreds of billions of dollars, and we control the Strait of Hormuz!"
It appears likely that Americans will argue among themselves over policy toward Iran for years to come.
The history of the war in Iraq shows that even when voters desire peace, ending wars whose continuation a president supports is a far more difficult process...
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών