The Iran war has lasted for over a month. If your perception of this war comes solely from mainstream U.S. media, you might think the U.S. military is particularly incompetent—unprepared, indecisive, following Trump’s instincts, slipping on watermelons and landing wherever they fall.
But what is the reality? The current Iranian ruling class has been in office for only a month, because the previous leadership was completely wiped out. The Iranian navy has been annihilated, the air defense system destroyed, most missile stockpiles eliminated, production capabilities gone, and the nuclear program reduced to ruins. The internal repression machinery of the Islamic Republic is almost paralyzed, proxies are either silent or fleeing, and Revolutionary Guard commanders are absent, unable to coordinate, conducting only fragmented counterattacks based on pre-existing task plans.
In this context, mainstream media scours for evidence of American incompetence. For example: no plan for U.S. bases to be hit by missiles and drones; the war benefits Russia and the CCP; the Trump administration did not anticipate Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz; and so on.
These criticisms deserve attention but are not the main point. Yes, the U.S. had to ease sanctions on Russian oil, but Iran is Russia’s main Middle Eastern client and ally. Destroying Iran deals a far greater blow to Putin than any short-term gain from oil revenue. Furthermore, the Iran war “diverts” U.S. attention from Chinese aggression. A nation’s attention is limited, and any war divides focus—but has the U.S. displayed enough military power to deter the CCP? Certainly.
Mainstream U.S. media has fallen into a reflexive anti-Trump stance and a simplistic trap of repeating the past: the Iran war is like the Iraq war, and the Iraq war was a remake of the Vietnam war—wars that sooner or later end in chaos and failure.
For the best of our weekly content！
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Check your email to complete sign up
Today, let us compare history and use it as a mirror. Guess which president in history faced widespread criticism from both political elites and mainstream public opinion, causing deep divisions in U.S. society similar to Trump today. Pause and think—it was Abraham Lincoln. Yes, the president who abolished slavery, won the Civil War, preserved American unity, and is known for reconstructing the Republic.
READ MORE:
Lincoln was elected in 1860 with less than 40 percent of the popular vote. No Southern states voted for him, and many Southerners saw him as an existential threat. While he had support in the North, it was far from universal. In comparison, Trump received 46 percent of the popular vote and began with a base of Republican support. Lincoln had the lowest popular vote among all victorious presidents.
After the Civil War began, Lincoln’s approval fluctuated like battlefield outcomes: it rose after victories and fell after defeats, often remaining low. Early in the war, his support dropped to 25 percent. Domestically, large-scale conscription caused riots—New York experienced a draft riot in 1863—and there were strong calls from both parties to negotiate an end to the war.
Even in the 1864 reelection, Lincoln’s popular vote was 55 percent, but this was only in Union-controlled Northern states; the South did not participate. Thus, 55 percent was far from overwhelming. While soldiers supported him at 76 percent, civilians were deeply divided. In the North, opposition newspapers called Lincoln a tyrant, a wood-chopping fool, a dictator, criticizing his suspension of habeas corpus, imprisonment of dissenters, takeover of opposition newspapers, and draft riots that killed hundreds. Some accused him of prolonging or instigating the war.
In contrast, Trump never left the federal framework, did not enforce a draft, and did not violate civil liberties. Both Lincoln and Trump were controversial figures without broad consensus support. Lincoln’s challenges were far more severe due to civil war, which naturally intensified opposition.
Judging a politician’s merits and faults requires a long-term perspective. With history as context, evaluations may change. The best stance for us as contemporaries is to observe calmly, refrain from judgment, and leave the assessment of achievements and mistakes to future generations.