A Stoic SaysA Stoic Says logo - Daily Stoic philosophy and wisdom

April 11, 2026

Trump’s Iran fiasco has led him into the gravest territory | Sidney Blumenthal

In his latest piece, Sidney Blumenthal delves into the troubling consequences of Donald Trump's aggressive stance on Iran, highlighting how his misguided military strategy has spiraled into a dangerous escalation of threats and potential war crimes. Blumenthal argues that Trump's narcissism and refusal to heed military advice have led him into a quagmire, where his bluster masks a profound sense of impotence and fear. The article critiques Trump's rhetoric, which has shifted from bravado to alarming threats of annihilation, raising serious questions about his understanding of international law and the implications for global stability. As the situation unfolds, Blumenthal warns that Trump's actions may not only jeopardize his presidency but also threaten the very fabric of international relations.

Thumbnail for Trump’s Iran fiasco has led him into the gravest territory | Sidney Blumenthal

Stoic Response

War & ConflictPolitics & GovernanceJustice & Rights

Correspondence to a Roman Magistrate

From the Philosophers: Seneca and Musonius Rufus

1. The Essence of Leadership in Crisis

Noble magistrate, heed the words of wisdom from our forebears. As Seneca wisely proclaimed, “A good character, when it is put to the test, reveals itself.” In times of peril, the true nature of a leader is exposed. The current turmoil surrounding the actions of our leaders showcases a profound disregard for ethical governance and international law. When threats escalate to the level of war crimes, as noted in recent accounts, we must question the moral integrity of those in power. The situation demands a leader who embodies restraint and wisdom, not one consumed by bravado and narcissism.

2. The Perils of Hubris

Musonius Rufus once stated, “The wise man does not seek to harm others, for he knows that he harms himself.” The statistics reveal a grim reality: threats of annihilation and the targeting of civilian infrastructure are not mere bluster but a descent into chaos. The invocation of “bringing them back to the Stone Age” echoes a dangerous philosophy that disregards the sanctity of life and the principles of justice. The moral stakes are high; the very fabric of international relations hangs in the balance as we confront the consequences of unchecked aggression.

3. The Weight of Responsibility

As we reflect on these matters, let us remember the words of the Geneva Convention: “The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack.” The responsibility of a leader extends beyond mere rhetoric; it encompasses the duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The threats of genocide and the incitement to violence are not just political miscalculations; they represent a profound moral failure. As we navigate these treacherous waters, we must advocate for a return to diplomacy and respect for human dignity.

4. Practical Maxims for Governance

In closing, let us adopt these practical maxims for governance:

  • Prioritize Wisdom Over Bluster: True leadership is measured by the ability to act with prudence and foresight.

  • Uphold Ethical Standards: In the face of conflict, adhere to the principles of justice and humanity; the ends do not justify the means.

  • Engage in Dialogue, Not Destruction: Strive for peaceful resolutions; the power of words can build bridges where weapons destroy.

  • Protect the Innocent: Remember that the innocent are always the first victims of war; safeguard their lives as a testament to your character.

May these reflections guide your actions and decisions in these turbulent times.

Article Rewritten Through Stoic Lens

The Stoic Perspective on Leadership and International Relations

Introduction

In contemplating the actions of leaders, particularly in the realm of international relations, we must turn our focus to the virtues of wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance. The current situation regarding the United States' stance towards Iran offers a case study in the consequences of failing to embody these virtues. It is essential to examine the actions taken, the motivations behind them, and the broader implications, while recognizing what is within our control and what is not.

The Nature of Leadership

A leader's character is reflected in their decisions. In the case of Donald Trump, his approach to foreign policy has been marked by a tendency towards intimidation rather than reasoned discourse. The portraits he adorns his surroundings with serve as a metaphor for a leadership style that prioritizes image over substance. True leadership requires the courage to confront challenges with wisdom, rather than retreating into self-aggrandizement.

The Illusion of Control

Trump's military strategy regarding Iran illustrates the folly of believing that power can resolve complex geopolitical issues. He appeared to underestimate the realities of geography and the intricacies of international law. The warnings from military advisors were dismissed, demonstrating a lack of temperance and foresight. This dismissal of prudent counsel often leads to a misalignment between intention and outcome, resulting in escalation rather than resolution.

The Consequences of Misguided Actions

The escalation of threats and potential violations of international law cannot be viewed in isolation. Each action has a reaction, and the consequences of Trump's rhetoric have reverberated beyond his immediate sphere of influence. The threats of violence and destruction, while perhaps intended to project strength, reveal a deeper impotence when faced with the complexities of diplomacy.

The Role of Justice

In any conflict, the principles of justice must guide our actions. The Geneva Conventions and other international agreements exist to protect civilian populations and maintain a semblance of order amidst chaos. The rhetoric employed by Trump, which has shifted from bravado to threats of annihilation, raises significant ethical questions. Justice requires us to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, a principle that must not be compromised in the pursuit of power.

The Stoic Response to Fear and Uncertainty

The fear that drives aggressive posturing is a reflection of internal turmoil. When leaders resort to threats of annihilation, it often signals their own insecurities. The Stoic philosopher recognizes that true strength lies not in the ability to intimidate, but in the capacity to remain composed amidst uncertainty. The wise leader acknowledges their limitations and seeks to engage in dialogue rather than resorting to violence.

The Importance of Temperance

Temperance, or self-control, is essential in leadership. The escalation of threats, particularly those that target civilian infrastructure, constitutes a failure to exercise this virtue. The Stoic approach emphasizes moderation and the careful consideration of the consequences of one’s actions. In this light, we must reflect on the implications of such rhetoric and the potential for catastrophic outcomes.

Conclusion: A Call for Virtue in Leadership

As we observe the unfolding situation with Iran, it becomes clear that the path forward requires a recommitment to the virtues of wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance. Leaders must strive to embody these principles, recognizing that their actions have far-reaching consequences. In the face of challenges, let us advocate for a leadership style that prioritizes dialogue over intimidation, understanding over aggression, and justice over power. By doing so, we can hope to foster a more stable and just international order.

Source Body Text

Donald Trump has hung nine glowering portraits of himself throughout the White House, each one projecting a variation on the theme of intimidation. But gazing into his narcissistic pool of grimacing images has not calmed him when in his mind’s eye he stares into the abyss of the worst failure of his life. Trump’s fiasco has inspired him to heightened performances of profane, vile and vicious threats. His grammar of atrocity has escalated from hateful rhetoric to threats of war crimes. What might have initially appeared as rage-quitting the video game that the White House communications department makes of his Iran War has crossed an inviolable red line of international law. His pouting and foot stomping have led him into the gravest territory. When Trump launched his war, he seemed to have convinced himself that it would be over within days, with the complete capitulation of the Iranians and its oil in his hands to auction off at his whim and self-enrichment. He had been warned by the chair of the joint chiefs, however, that military hardware could not resolve the problem of geography. He waved away the caution as meaningless. The Iranians proceeded to achieve superior leverage by clamping a vise on the strait of Hormuz. The prospect of a lone drone or mine was sufficient to teeter the global economy. Trump had nothing to say to counter the fees of Lloyd’s of London, the shipping insurance firm, which declared the strait a “very high-risk area” and raised the rate of its premium astronomically on a daily voyage-by-voyage basis. The traffic dried up. Trump had the bombs, but not the cards. Less than two weeks after he had begun his war, on 11 March, Trump confidently said: “Any time I want it to end, it will end.” He knew it would end “soon” because there was “practically nothing left to target”. His greatest monument, greater even than his ballroom, more lasting than the glittering gold appliques he slapped on every wall in the White House, would be rubble and ruin. Two days later, he said he would know when to end the war “in my bones” – presumably not his bone spurs. In his only significant speech to the nation on the war, on 1 April, Trump blustered that he was “now winning bigger than ever before”. He had “beaten and completely decimated Iran”. The job already done, he passed on the task to “the countries of the world that do receive oil through the Hormuz strait” to “just take it,” which “should be easy”. He added brightly: “It will just open up naturally.” Declaring victory, he waved the white flag. Trump’s speech, the most confused and banal wartime address ever delivered by a president, was at best a stopgap. But for what? He did not even offer a sliver of Micawberism, the empty hope that something will turn up. But, in a phrase, he offered a rudiment of an idea. All at once, he expressed his exasperation, exhaustion and anger at his impotence. The day before his speech, Trump had signaled his rhetorical escalation, speaking about “very hard” strikes and “finishing the job”, despite having also talked about having “won” and proclaiming “victory”. Now, he introduced a new trope. “We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong,” he said. His targets, it became clear, would be infrastructure: power plants and oil fields. His disinhibition had formed itself into a doctrine of war crimes. Secretary of defense Pete Hegseth posted the next day: “Back to the Stone Age.” Trump’s words were reduced to a slogan for official messaging. In his strategic vacuum Trump had swiftly spiraled down to Hegseth’s primitive level. When Hegseth assembled the generals and admirals on 30 September last year, he lectured them on his “warrior ethos” denouncing “wokeness” “beardos” and “fat generals”. He declaimed: “No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for warfighters ... You kill people and break things for a living. You are not politically correct and don’t necessarily belong always in polite society.” His speech was an assault on the US Standing Rules of Engagement, which incorporated the Geneva Conventions. Hegseth’s great crusade, which called him to Trump’s attention, was to exonerate three men charged with war crimes, for whom Trump granted pardons. If there were to be a volume about the Trump national security team along the lines of James Mann’s classic work of the group surrounding George W Bush, Rise of the Vulcans, it might be entitled Rise of the Flintstones, based on the 1960s cartoon about a Stone Age family and their pet dinosaur. Unlike Hegseth’s vision, though, The Flintstones was a peaceable kingdom. Trump’s and Hegseth’s evocation of the “Stone Age” floated effortlessly out of the ether of a toxic past, echoed without reference to its author, air force general Curtis LeMay, who said that the correct strategy for the Vietnam War was to “bomb them back to the Stone Age”. LeMay was the most vocal of the critics within the military’s high command of John F Kennedy, accusing his diplomacy that ended the Cuban Missile Crisis as “almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich”. JFK privately encouraged the making of the film Seven Days in May about a rightwing military coup as a warning. It appeared three months after his assassination. LeMay became George Wallace’s vice-presidential running mate in 1972 on the American Independent Party. At a press conference, LeMay announced nuclear weapons would be “most efficient” to be used in Vietnam. Wallace grabbed the microphone to disagree. LeMay was not heard from again, until his “Stone Age” refrain was repeated by Trump. Consumed with fear of losing his Iran War, Trump tweeted on 5 April: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH. Praise be to Allah.” Trump’s targeting of civilian infrastructure would be a war crime, his vulgarity starkly revealed his flop, and his mockery of Islam of a piece with his contempt for the Other. Trump’s blast of hatred fit his early Muslim ban and thousands of statements captiously describing immigrants as “bloodthirsty killers”, “vicious monsters”, “bloodthirsty rapists”, and “poisoning the blood”. By Easter morning, the 37th day of Trump’s Iran war, on 7 April, he had thoroughly terrorized himself. He ramped up his rhetoric to threaten genocide. His exit strategy was annihilation. “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” he tweeted. If Trump’s world crumbles, the world itself must end. The level of his threats measures the degree to which he feels threatened himself. If he threatens extinction, it is because he is frightened that he faces extinction. Trump’s statement, an incitement to genocide, was by itself a war crime. He had violated numerous treaties ratified by the United States. The Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol 1, Article 48, states: “In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives.” The Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol I, Article 54: “It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population … ” The Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol I, Article 51, Paragraph 2: “The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.” The Genocide Convention, Article III, which the US has also ratified explicitly, punishes “direct and public incitement to commit genocide”. The crime of “incitement to genocide” originated in the trial of the Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher, who was found guilty of “incitement to murder and extermination” at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg in 1946 and hanged. The law on “incitement to genocide” evolved from Streicher’s prosecution. Robert P George, a professor at Princeton, a highly influential conservative legal scholar and political philosopher, and a preeminent figure in the Federalist Society, issued a statement: “I don’t see any way to interpret President Trump’s ‘prediction’ that ‘a whole civilization will die tonight’ as other than a threat to order the military to commit crimes against civilians. If he issues such an order, it will be the duty of military leaders to refuse to comply.” Then, with Trump’s doomsday deadline approaching, rather than order Hegseth to re-enact the last scene of Dr Strangelove in which Slim Pickens as Major TJKong rides a bomb down to its target like a bucking bronco to trigger the destruction of the world, Trump abruptly stopped the movie. He blinked. A ceasefire was declared. Calamitous at war, Trump has set out to prove himself dreadful at peace. He offered the Iranians a joint venture to charge tolls at the strait of Hormuz. He said “big money” could be made. “It’s a beautiful thing.” Will he seek to build an Arch of Triumph at the strait? Sidney Blumenthal, former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, has published three books of a projected five-volume political life of Abraham Lincoln: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel and All the Powers of Earth. He is a Guardian US columnist