“Mushroom Cloud” – That Was Iraq War Too

Baseless Allegations Behind Both Wars

Donald Trump’s middle-of-the-night strike on Iran brings back thoughts of the United States' last Middle East incursion - George W. Bush’s strike on Iraq. While the ultimate impact of the Iran strike is sometime away, we see immediate and striking parallels and differences. Sadly, the biggest parallel was that both went to war based on faulty allegations.

The strike also once again renewed memories of the long record of American misadventures abroad, many focused on “regime change.” These “wars of choice” include the Iraq war and Trump’s call for regime change in Iran. As veteran diplomat Richard Haass observes, history teaches us that “regime change is easier to call for than to bring about.”

And while Bush got an immediate 10-point job approval bump upon launching the attack, this post will examine why the fallout for Trump will likely be the opposite.

Parallels: Identical Rhetoric and Faulty Intelligence

Both Bush and Trump used nearly identical language in the buildup to the wars. The Bush administration used the “smoking gun” vs. “mushroom cloud” rhetoric to create a sense of extreme urgency. Bush’s case for war centered on a “grave danger” from Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) – all later proved to be faulty, unproven, or just downright wrong. But unlike Trump, he did have mistaken intelligence in hand at the time.

For example, Bush’s “Yellowcake” claim: In his 2003 State of the Union, Bush famously said the British government had learned Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. But this was later found to be based on forged documents from Niger. The CIA had already expressed high skepticism about these reports before the speech was given.

Trump’s Failed Fact Check

Fast forward to early 2026. Trump painted a nearly similar picture as Bush in his State of the Union address, warning of a rogue regime and a looming nuclear threat from Iran. Analysts note that the administration is “recycling the rhetoric of 2003,” updating the imagery from mushroom clouds to underground tunnels and secret enrichment sites.

One key difference with 2003 is that intelligence estimates contradict Trump. A New York Times fact-check found that all of Trump’s justifications were “either false or unproven.” They included assertions that Iran has restarted its nuclear program, has enough available nuclear material to build a bomb within days, and is developing long-range missiles that will soon be capable of hitting the United States. Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, said Iran was “probably a week away from having industrial‑grade, bomb‑making material.”

None of the Trump or Witkoff claims are supported by intelligence reports. The New York Times cites a report by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) last year that it might take as long as a decade for Iran to have up to 60 intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of even reaching the U.S.

Public Opinion: Different Starting Points

George W. Bush’s job approval rating was approximately 58–60% just before the Iraq War began on March 19, 2003, which then experienced a “rally ‘round the flag” effect, surging to around 70% immediately following the invasion.

The “collapse” of public support for the Iraq War was not a single event but a steady erosion that transformed the conflict from a source of national unity into a symbol of partisan division. Support never truly recovered after the initial “Mission Accomplished” phase, even after the troops were withdrawn in 2011. More later on the erosion of public opinion for the Iraq war.

Trump’s Job Approval Underwater at Strike Launch

Trump launched his middle-of-the-night Iran strikes absent Congressional review. He devoted just two paragraphs to Iran in his State of the Union address last week, even as he was claiming that the U.S. was negotiating with Iran to limit its nuclear program. His approval rating had already sunk to near record levels, between 36% and 40%.

To put his approval woes in context, Trump faces a likely Democratic surge in the upcoming House midterms that would put an end to his unfettered reign and absence of checks and balances. He fears losing his protective shield, suffering endless investigations, impeachment, and Epstein file reveals.

Little Support Early on and Pre-Invasion

Public opinion generally takes some time to settle after a serious event. A new quick poll released this afternoon by Reuters/Ipsos, less than 48 hours after the United States and Israel launched the deadly joint military strikes, finds only some one in four Americans (27%) approving of the strikes, while a majority said they were either unsure about them (29%) or said they disapproved (43%). But such early polling in the absence of full information and critical commentary generally does not fully represent the public’s eventual verdict.

February pre-strike polling by YouGov finds only less than 3 in 10 Americans support military intervention in Iran, with only Republicans widely supportive:

• By 48% to 28%, Americans are more likely to oppose than support the U.S. taking military action in Iran;

• Less than 20% of Democrats but a majority of Republicans support intervention;

• By 42% to 33%, Americans were more likely to oppose than support the U.S. using military force to overthrow the now dead Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

More troubling is that a majority of Americans don’t trust Trump to “make the right decisions about the use of military force, “ according to recent AP-NORC polling. About 6 in 10 Republicans do have a high level of trust in Trump, while roughly 9 in 10 Democrats and 6 in 10 independents have a low level of trust in him.

The same poll does find that about half of U.S. adults are “extremely” or “very” concerned that Iran’s nuclear program poses a direct threat to the United States. That follows Trump’s baseless claim that Iran is developing long-range ballistic missiles that “could soon reach the American homeland” – even though Trump claimed his June strike had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program.

‘Rally Round Trump?’ Probably Not

Is Trump gambling that a military strike will boost his standing as midterms approach. Probably a losing hand.

1. Affordability, not foreign incursions, was what thrust Trump into the Oval Office. Affordability remains the top priority as people struggle with paying the bills. Wars costing billions of dollars and taking lives are low on the list of priorities and seen by many as a distraction from the issues that impact them most.

2. A likely spike in gas prices resulting from the Middle East war will hit people’s wallets and further fuel Trump’s slide. Gas Buddy estimates that the national average could climb between 25 cents to 50 cents a gallon between now and April or May to the mid-$3 range from under $3 dollars now.

3. Trump’s 2024 platform emphasized “no more wars” and an “America First” foreign policy that would avoid new military entanglements. He repeatedly told war weary voters he was the only candidate who could stop escalating global conflicts. Needless to say, once in office, there was a sweeping expansion of military deployments. See Council on Foreign Relations overview.

4. Sadly, war casualties will erode public support because they act as the most vivid, emotionally and politically salient signal of a war’s costs. And casualties are probably inevitable.

5. Research covering U.S. conflicts from 1950–2020 finds that only a small fraction of military actions generate any approval bump at all. Trust in Trump’s decisions on use of military force is already low and highly polarized. And many Trump MAGAs believe in “no more wars,” though many MAGAs are more loyal to Trump the person than his policies.

American Adventurism Usually Ends Badly

The final verdict on the wisdom of this strike will take some time as the smoke clears and we have a clear vision. However, there’s one immutable fact we’ve learned over the years: American adventurism usually ends badly.

These misadventures also often result from what scholars call kinetic diplomacy -- using force first rather than last, employing less diplomatic groundwork. That includes attacking Iran as the U.S. was pretending to negotiate a nuclear arms deal. Another reason for misadventures is that “decapitation” air strikes alone without eventual troops on the ground are a formula for failure. And for Iran, Trump has pledged “no troops on the ground.”

Remember that many in President George W. Bush’s camp believed that the invasion of Iraq would change America’s image in the Arab world from being a supporter of dictators to one of liberators. Vice President Dick Cheney commented, “People will greet us as liberators.” The Iraq occupation was met by a widespread insurgency that lasted for years.

As noted economist Paul Krugman notes, slogans of Bush’s time, such as “Mission Accomplished” are “now used ironically to denote foolish projects doomed to catastrophic failure.”

Evaporating ‘Flag Rallies’

As noted, we witnessed in the Iraq invasion during the Bush administration initial overwhelming support for the Iraq invasion – job approval up about 20 points, at 71%. Even a narrow majority of Democrats (53%) believed Bush made the right decision. But by 2014, as setbacks mounted, public opinion cratered.

For sake of comparison, these numbers are nearly identical to feelings towards the war in Afghanistan triggered by the 9.11 attack.

In Sum

We don’t know the ultimate impact of the Iran strike both in the Middle East and in the U.S. Yes, Bush’s Iraq invasion first resulted in a “rally round the flag effect” for Bush. But public support soured by the end. Same for the Afghanistan war. Bottom line: America’s track record on foreign invasions is sobering at best. And Americans are more focused on paying their day to day bills than on costly foreign incursions.

###