An Unsimple War (they all are)

Mar 10, 2026

By Michael Golden

Last night, as I watched the dignified transfer of the coffin carrying 26-year-old Kentucky Army Sgt. Benjamin N. Pennington, I thought about his life. His actual life. The fact that it was gone. I thought about his total years of living, less than half of mine. I thought about where I was when I was 26.

I nearly put the word ‘complexity’ into the headline of this article, which is not a good strategy for optimizing readership. This is because people generally prefer to see a strong point of view when reading an opinion piece. ‘Unsimple’ isn’t much better. Craving clarity is a very human quality.

But hot wars that are happening in real-time do not afford a writer the opportunity to state things in black and white. At least not this one. Not with a straight face.

Before I get started with this list of nuanced dichotomies, two notes:

Setting aside my opinion about Donald Trump as a human being or American leader, let us stipulate that for anyone who occupies the Oval Office, most decisions are difficult and freighted with huge consequences. You are the president of 340 million people, and it’s rare that you’re pleasing more than 55% of them at any one time. Sort of a hard job.
I have a tendency to try to look at most things from opposing perspectives — even if I don’t always voice the one I disagree with. A famous American author said it best (although I don’t claim to have a ‘high intellect’).

In my eyes, the current war carries with it a number of competing truths and possibilities:

I was in favor of Israel striking Iran, and I was in favor of the United States coordinating with Israel to execute our own strikes. I believe that Iran is an immediate threat to Israel’s existence, that it continues to be a malign actor that makes everything much harder in the region, that it violently represses its people, and that it poses a medium to long-term threat to the United States.

At the same time, I have major reservations about the bigger picture. The Trump administration had nine months since it first bombed Iran (which I favored) to seek congressional support for using any future military force. It didn’t seek it. The administration has had a year in office to design plans for how to manage the predictably ghastly aftermath of a military strike like this one. With a wide array of ‘options’ being bandied about by various administration officials, it does not seem like a real plan exists.

There was a nuclear deal in place, the JCPOA, signed by President Obama and the president of Iran, that blocked the Republic’s two paths to accumulating weapons-grade fissile material for a nuclear weapon. There was transparency in the deal, and having it obviated the U.S. from having to consider military action against Iran — action that could lead to a broader war. Less than a year ago, both the IAEA and the U.S. Intelligence community assessed that:

“Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”

President Trump pulled America out of the deal in 2018, saying it was one-sided and that he didn’t trust Iran. And I believe trust is what the president’s decision to strike the Republic likely boiled down to. The Iranian negotiators refused to make hard promises that Trump sought, while according to the president’s negotiator, Steve Witkoff, the Iranians said that they could produce up to 11 nuclear weapons immediately. None of this is trust-inspiring behavior.

I see the military strikes as of this writing as being a success. Based on much reporting, I believe that Trump had already made up his mind about striking Iran. I also believe that the administration’s (haphazardly communicated) timeline for how the Israeli/American attacks played out is true.

At the same time, I’m astonished by the amateurish and totally confusing explanations that the administration continues to give for attacking Iran. It’s not that I ordinarily trust what the president says after his tens of thousands of verified lies, but organizationally, this Keystone Cops routine is a killer for building any confidence among Americans for an already controversial, life and death campaign.

The president has said that he doesn’t fear putting ground forces into Iran. In other words, he’s willing to risk the lives of more soldiers like Army Sgt. Pennington and the six other Americans who’ve already died. Then the president reversed field and started to claim victory yesterday, implying that we would not need to put boots on the ground. I believe this is his actual preference.

At the same time, there are still 900 pounds of enriched uranium in Iran. This constitutes at least one part of the remaining nuclear threat. To find it, you would by definition need to put boots on the ground. You can’t destroy it; you need to retrieve it. You would need explosive ordinance disposal experts, air cover for them, and more troops to help with infiltration and exfiltration. The president has trapped himself between a rock and a hard place: Without getting at that weapons-grade uranium, there is still a nuclear threat — but he’ll need at least a small ground operation to achieve his first stated goal.

Regime change is possible. But it was always a long shot. As Iranians courageously protested and sacrificed their lives by the thousands at the murderous hands of the IRGC, President Trump told them that “help is on the way.” Setting aside my opinion about Trump’s true level of concern for the people in the uprising, he did send help. But it was partial…

… The problem is that they don’t just need more — they need A LOT MORE. Indications coming from the Republic’s security apparatus and its appointment of a new hardline leader, Mojtaba Khameini, lead one to believe that changing the regime — wholesale — would require a ground war.

Finally, a reader left me a voicemail yesterday to share an opinion. He is not Jewish, but describes himself as a supporter of Israel: “a Zionist at heart.” The reader made reference to an article I wrote that explained the split among Jewish American voters on Donald Trump — and a specific quote from Tanya Zuckerbrot, who unabashedly made her single-issue case for why she voted for the president in 2024. Then the reader said:

“She voted for Trump only because of Israel. I mean, one issue. And I just feel compelled to say, I’d just like to remind all Jewish Americans that we do not live in the United States of Israel. And our job as Americans is to vote for our safety and security and Israel’s safety and security.”

There’s a mixed message there, but also a clue for Jews in America and Israel to pick up. I know this person; he’s a smart guy and not opposed to Israel. But in his remark you can hear his frustration with voters who choose a candidate based solely on their commitment to Israel. I don’t think he meant it in the harshly negative way that many have cast this sentiment in the past, but the joint attack on Iran nevertheless brings this issue to the fore.

To be clear, Donald Trump does what he wants to do. Though Netanyahu has been persuading him for years to hit Iran, especially over the last 14 months — and 14 weeks — the president decides for himself. As moronic as he often sounds while talking about his decisions, there’s no question who makes the call.

But the fact is that public support among Americans for Israel has dropped substantially since Israel’s recent war of self-defense against Hamas — and especially in the 18-24 age bracket. It is also true that Democratic support has dropped on the same question. Sharply.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a solution for the problem. But if you’re an American who is aligned with the core principles of the Democratic Party — and you’re also passionately pro-Israel, it’s a problem.

I don’t know anyone who likes war, with the possible exception of Dept. of War Secy. Pete Hegseth, whose bloodthirsty glee in public remarks literally gives me chills.

I also don’t know any American who isn’t sickened by the deaths of U.S. soldiers. I don’t know any American who isn’t sickened by the deaths of 175 young girls at a bombed school. Or any innocent civilian for that matter.

‘War is hell’ is a battle-tested cliche for a reason. But I’ve always thought it had a deeper meaning; the implication being that there are rare times when as hellish as war is — it’s necessary.

Nearly every American president we’ve had has made a decision to engage our military in a foreign conflict. With the benefit of hindsight, we can identify the decisions that turned out to be good or bad for our country. It is a scale, of course.

I’m glad this president did what he did, both for Israel and the United States. Yet I’m terrified about how the nascent war will continue to unfold. I hope with all my heart that when we look back on Donald Trump’s decision and subsequent actions, we’ll think they were good ones.

Not simple.