The United States is still good at many things, but holding elites to account is not one of them. President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush pardoned the officials responsible for the Iran-Contra scandal, and Barack Obama declined to prosecute the men and women who had authorized the illegal use of torture. The architects of the disastrous wars in Vietnam and Iraq remained respected members of the establishment for the rest of their lives, in some cases occupying leadership posts or comfortable sinecures at prominent institutions and continuing to opine on foreign-policy matters whenever they wished. Nor were the fraudsters who brought us the 2008 financial crisis ever held to account—we just turned the page and moved on. Given that record, it isn’t so surprising that the United States tends to repeat past errors.
The war with Iran is a case in point. It remains to be seen whether the cease-fire announced on Tuesday will hold, but it is already clear that going to war again was a terrible blunder. Two months ago, the Strait of Hormuz was open, Iran was contained and its leaders were unpopular, oil and gas prices were lower, and its U.S. weapons stocks were fuller. Today, oil and gas prices have soared; inflation is rising; Iran controls the strait and is earning money from tolls; and its government is younger, more hard-line, and enjoying greater public support. U.S. missile stocks are depleted, and some key facilities in the region have been severely damaged. And the entire world has been shown that the United States is led by an impulsive old man who has no idea what he is doing. At this point, there’s no reason to delay imposing accountability on those responsible for what has been an unnecessary strategic disaster.
The United States is still good at many things, but holding elites to account is not one of them. President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush pardoned the officials responsible for the Iran-Contra scandal, and Barack Obama declined to prosecute the men and women who had authorized the illegal use of torture. The architects of the disastrous wars in Vietnam and Iraq remained respected members of the establishment for the rest of their lives, in some cases occupying leadership posts or comfortable sinecures at prominent institutions and continuing to opine on foreign-policy matters whenever they wished. Nor were the fraudsters who brought us the 2008 financial crisis ever held to account—we just turned the page and moved on. Given that record, it isn’t so surprising that the United States tends to repeat past errors.
The war with Iran is a case in point. It remains to be seen whether the cease-fire announced on Tuesday will hold, but it is already clear that going to war again was a terrible blunder. Two months ago, the Strait of Hormuz was open, Iran was contained and its leaders were unpopular, oil and gas prices were lower, and its U.S. weapons stocks were fuller. Today, oil and gas prices have soared; inflation is rising; Iran controls the strait and is earning money from tolls; and its government is younger, more hard-line, and enjoying greater public support. U.S. missile stocks are depleted, and some key facilities in the region have been severely damaged. And the entire world has been shown that the United States is led by an impulsive old man who has no idea what he is doing. At this point, there’s no reason to delay imposing accountability on those responsible for what has been an unnecessary strategic disaster.
I’ve already offered some preliminary views on who is to blame for the boneheaded decision to go to war, along with some thoughts on who should not be blamed. Primary responsibility rests with U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the aides who enabled them, of course. But such decisions do not arise out of thin air. In democracies, the road to foolish wars of choice is paved by pundits, lobbyists, advisors, and other alleged experts who sometimes spend years working to convince policymakers that unleashing the dogs of war will make a vexing foreign-policy problem disappear. Their efforts gradually normalize the idea of using military force, making a momentous and fateful decision on which thousands of lives depend seem like just one option among many.
The formula for war is almost always the same: After portraying the chosen enemy as the epitome of evil and incapable of reform, the war party assures us that the campaign will be quick, easy, cheap, and bring far-reaching and long-lasting benefits. They repeatedly warn that time is running out and failure to act now will have dire consequences. They tend to be studiously silent about the innocent civilians who will be killed and the hardships survivors will face after we’ve blown a lot of stuff up, and they confidently predict that the populations we are attacking will welcome our actions. This familiar recipe is then endlessly repeated until the stars line up and some foolish leader decides the warmongers are right.
So, who are some of the leading voices who helped legitimize Trump’s decision to go to war? Bret Stephens of the New York Times undoubtedly counts among them. Stephens has been a strident advocate of war with Iran for years, just as he backed (and still defends) the invasion of Iraq in 2003. From his lofty perch at one of the world’s most prominent news organizations, he wrote in 2024 that “We Absolutely Need to Escalate in Iran.” He reiterated this view on the eve of the war, in a column entitled “The Case for Striking Iran.” He remains fully committed to the fight today, penning subsequent columns assuring readers that the war is going well and warning against any slackening of U.S. efforts. If you appreciate having your taxes used for war crimes and enjoy paying $6 or more for a gallon of gas, feel free to send him a thank-you note.
Like Stephens, Matthew Kroenig of the Atlantic Council has called for war against Iran for more than a decade, beginning with a 2012 article, “Time to Attack Iran.” This article was a textbook case of how not to do strategic analysis, as Kroenig combined best-case assumptions about how a war would go with worst-case predictions for what would happen if war did not occur. Kroenig recycled these arguments in a subsequent book and hasn’t changed his views one iota since. He repeated his call for war again in 2025, insisting that there was little danger of a wider war because Iran would not escalate in response. (Apparently, Iran’s leaders failed to read his analysis; if they did, they clearly were not persuaded by it.)
The American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Michael Rubin also distinguished themselves as fervent advocates for war. On the eve of the war, these stalwart uber-hawks held a lengthy podcast conversation explaining why they hoped Trump would initiate regime change, predicting that toppling the Iranian government would be easy, and casually discussing the merits of assassinating its leaders. Pletka continues to defend the war, despite its rising costs and Trump’s evident desperation, and none of the three seems remotely concerned by the human costs of the war, the repeated violations of international law, or the possible commission of war crimes.
Niall Ferguson of the Hoover Institution should likewise be held to account. As befits someone who also supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Ferguson told a podcast in early 2026 that the United States should “finish the job” it had started last summer. In his words, “It would be, without question, a benefit to ordinary Iranians; it would be a benefit to the region as a whole—and indeed the world—to remove this evil regime from the face of the earth. Let’s do it.” When Trump granted his wish, he assured readers of the Free Press, “One thing I can confidently promise about the U.S.-Israeli war against the Islamic Republic: It will not last long.” Ever flexible, Ferguson more recently seems to have backed away from his initial optimism and has taken to wondering if the war might go “global.” One wishes he’d given some thought to that possibility before beating the drum for war.
Retired four-star Gen. Jack Keane deserves notice, too. Although other retired military officers have questioned the wisdom of this latest war, Keane has been an especially consistent supporter. Before the war he told Fox that military force was “the best option,” and called it a “historic opportunity” for regime change. He’s continued to defend the war ever since, praising Trump’s decisions and predicting that it would end soon.
No discussion of Iran warmongers would be complete if it excluded Mark Dubowitz and his various associates at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). A key organization in the Israel lobby, the FDD was one of the most active opponents of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka, the nuclear deal, or JCPOA) that had drastically reduced Iran’s enrichment capacity and its stockpile of enriched uranium, thereby extending the time it would take Iran to break out and create an actual weapon. Having failed to stop the original agreement, the FDD helped convince Trump to withdraw from the JCPOA during his first term—even though Iran was in full compliance—and adopt a policy of “maximum pressure” intended to topple the clerical regime. Critics warned that abandoning the deal would cause Iran to resume enrichment and move closer to the bomb (and it did) and the United States would eventually face the decision of using force, with all the negative repercussions we are now experiencing. That possibility didn’t trouble Dubowitz, however, who told NPR in early February that the United States had to “strike first and then talk.” Since then, the FDD has been a consistent cheerleader for the war, despite the growing evidence that Trump miscalculated and the human costs the war has imposed around the world.
And then there is former U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton. Although Bolton has become highly critical of Trump, including his handling of the war, he’s long supported using force to overthrow the Iranian regime and opposed diplomatic efforts to improve relations between Washington and Tehran. He opposed the 2015 nuclear deal, supported the failed “maximum pressure” campaign in Trump’s first term, and told PBS in early March 2026 that the U.S. decision to go to war in February was “totally justified,” adding that “the world would have been a lot safer place if we had done it 20 years ago.” Despite having fallen out with Trump himself, therefore, Bolton deserves to be included among the voices who helped bring this war about.
These names are hardly the only prominent voices who called for attacking Iran before Feb. 28, 2026, and who have continued to defend the war since then. I’ve omitted politicians—such as Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham or Tom Cotton—along with talking heads such as Fox News’s Mark Levin or Sean Hannity. I’ve undoubtedly missed other important figures who have helped create a political climate where U.S. leaders would once again decide to start an open-ended conflict in the greater Middle East, despite the enormous consequences for the world economy and America’s ability to address more serious national security challenges. Feel free to add more names to my list and keep track of whether any of them eventually concede that their advice might have been mistaken.
If the war really does end in a major U.S. defeat—as is looking likely at present—the people who pushed for it are likely to claim that going to war was the right idea and blame Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President J.D. Vance, et al., for failing to execute their brilliant scheme properly. But this alibi won’t wash, as the administration’s incompetence was apparent before the order to attack was given and there was little reason to believe the war would go swimmingly.
If Americans want to stop making the same mistakes, they need to pay far less attention to such chronic purveyors of bad advice. To be sure, the desire for accountability can be taken too far, because foreign policy is an uncertain business and nobody gets everything right all the time (including me). Sensible people admit their mistakes and learn from experience, however, while ideologues and activists tend to double down. When someone keeps offering the same prescriptions, gets the same bad results each time, and never seems to learn, it is time to look elsewhere for guidance.
It’s a free country—still—and I’m not suggesting that the voices who sold this latest dumb war should be prosecuted or fired or punished or abused in any other way. I still believe that what John Stuart Mill called “the liberty of thought and discussion” tends to produce better policy over time, and we shouldn’t try to suppress views with which we disagree. But preserving the right to free expression and an openness to opposing views doesn’t require us to give all voices equal attention or prominence.
Holding chronic dispensers of bad advice to account could start by identifying who they are and keeping track of what they said, which is why I wrote this column. Looking forward, one might hope that reporters seeking expert guidance for a story might turn to other voices more often, instead of reaching for the same familiar names in their Rolodex. Journal editors might treat the warmongers’ submissions with greater skepticism, and news networks and podcasters seeking enlightened commentary might showcase these failed prophets less often than they currently do. Most important of all, policymakers seeking wise counsel on tough foreign-policy problems should rely on others for insight and advice.
