Consider This from NPR - Lessons from Iraq, as Trump teases attacks on Iran

Episode Date: June 18, 2025

In 2003, the U.S. launched a war in Iraq based on what turned out to be bad intelligence about weapons programs, then spent years mired in a conflict with no clear end.Today, President Trump is threatening to bring the U.S. military into another Middle East conflict. As with Iraq, the justification for a potential attack on Iran is the alleged threat of a nuclear weapon. We talk to journalist Steve Coll, author of The Achilles Trap: Saddam Hussein, the CIA, and the Origins of America's Invasion of Iraq about how this moment echoes the run-up to the war in Iraq and how it differs.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at [e-mail] more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Before Donald Trump became President Trump, he was a candidate in a very crowded Republican primary. And one way he stood out during his 2016 campaign was by bluntly attacking President George W. Bush for launching the Iraq War, like in this CBS News debate. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.

Trump criticized the war, but also Bush's justification for the war. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none. Bush did argue to Americans and to the world that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, was building weapons of mass destruction and that the U.S. needed to stop him. Here's Bush talking about Iraq in 2002. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.

It is seeking nuclear weapons. That assessment was, of course, inaccurate. No such stoppiles were found after the US invasion of Iraq. And the Iraq War would become a quagmire. It cost the US more than $2 trillion by one estimate. It killed more than 4,000 US service members and well over 100,000 Iraqis. And it outlasted Bush's presidency, only officially concluding near the end of President Obama's first term.

Today, I can report that as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over. And Obama would end up sending more troops into Iraq in 2014 after the rise of ISIS. There are still U.S. forces there today. This history is important because, as we record this episode Wednesday afternoon on the East Coast, President Trump is threatening to bring the US military into another Middle East conflict. As with Iraq, the justification for a potential attack

on Iran is the alleged threat of a nuclear weapon. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. It's very simple. They don't have to go too deep into it. They just can't have a nuclear weapon. Consider this. Trump hated the war in Iraq. Has he learned its lessons?

From NPR, I'm Ari Shapiro. musicians, the people making the art that nourishes us and speaks to our times. So listen to the Fresh Air podcast from NPR and WHYY. Hey everybody, it's Ian from How to Do Everything. On our show, we attempt to answer your how-to questions. We don't know how to do anything, so we call experts. Last season, both Tom Hanks and Martha Stewart stopped by to help. Our next season is launching in just a few months. So get us your questions now by emailing how to at NPR.org or calling 1-800-424-2935. I'm Jesse Thorne, Saturday Night Live's Ego Wodim loves to be silly and dumb. But she also says that according to Lauren Michaels, dumb is not her strong suit. But the essence of what he was saying to me is like, when people look at you, it's clear

there's a brain in there. That plus an inordinate amount of discussion about Lisa from Temecula, one of the great Saturday Night Live characters. That's on Bullseye for MaximumFun.org and NPR. It's Consider This from NPR. As of Wednesday morning, President Trump would not rule out U.S. military action in the conflict between Israel and Iran. I may do it, I may not do it.

I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do. I can tell you this, that Iran's got a lot of trouble. And one of the central questions here is how close Iran is to having a nuclear weapon. Trump has dismissed his own spy chief's assessment about the threat. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified to Congress that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. But on Air Force One yesterday, Trump said, quote, I don't care what she said, I think they were very close to having it.

All of this has echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq. To discuss that, I spoke with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Steve Call. His latest book is The Achilles Trap, Saddam Hussein, the CIA, and the Origins of America's Invasion of Iraq. U.S. intelligence has been catastrophically wrong before on the status of a Middle Eastern country's nuclear ambitions and programs. So as someone who covered the drumbeat to the war in Iraq in 2003, how are you thinking about this moment with Iran? Well, there are echoes and there are differences. Let's maybe start with the differences.

There's a much deeper public and agreed body of evidence about Iran's nuclear capabilities. They have the ability to enrich and are in fact enriching uranium to levels that could be used with a little bit of tweaking for a bomb. Everybody agrees about that. The question is their intention and here intelligence gets a little bit murkier, but that is a difference from Iraq. In the case of Iraq, there was no evidence publicly available despite intrusive inspections that the Iraqis were carrying out active nuclear bomb work. It was only the assertion of intelligence analysts that they were. And so if the available intelligence is one key difference, what do you see as the key similarities?

Well, some of it is the political use of intelligence to justify a war, to articulate to publics in democratic societies, whether in Israel or in the United States, that, oh, we've got evidence that justifies this preemptive attack. you're going to have to trust us. That sounds similar even though we can see in the case of Iran a much clearer and longer explicit nuclear program. Nonetheless, the threshold decision to attack is based on intelligence, so that's similar. There's a second similarity that struck me over the last few days in particular, which is the disconnection between war aims and credible means to achieve those aims. What do you mean by that? What is the aim here? And I take it you think the credible

means are not available. Yeah, well, let's start with the question. What are those aims? It's not clear. Israel has acted preemptively to stop Iran from breaking out and building a weapon at an unacceptable pace. That was the first and remains an important part of Israel's explanation for why it had to attack. At the same time, Prime Minister Netanyahu has talked about regime change, has called upon the Iranian people to take matters into their own hands, a call that echoes one that George H.W. Bush made in early 1991 when he called on the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. And that didn't end well because the aim of fomenting an internal rebellion was not matched by any

ability of the United States to support the rebels. Here too, no one is expecting the United States or Israel to launch a ground invasion of Iran and topple its governments, and yet there's talk, loose talk about regime change as the goal of the entire operation. What do you make of the disconnect between Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard saying Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and President Trump apparently deciding he knows differently?

Well, it sounds like Director Gabbard is articulating a judgment that has been publicized in the recent past, a judgment of American intelligence that Iran has not made an explicit decision to go all the way towards building a weapon. It sounds as if Israel is reporting that their intelligence is of a different character. And this seems to explain the gap between the president and his director of national intelligence. Ms. Gabbard is reporting what we understand to have been a long-standing US judgment. And the president may be listening to his allies in Tel Aviv who are telling him,

well, you've got to get up to date with what we've learned. In the run-up to the Iraq War, Secretary of State Colin Powell famously told President Bush that what he called the Pottery Barn Rule applied in the war, if you break it, you own it. Do you think that principle is relevant here? Well, the Iraq war, after all, was a ground invasion. So once American forces reached Baghdad and chased Saddam Hussein out of his palace, they were the occupying power and they owned the country and we all remember the unhappy result that unfolded, I think. The analogy here is probably closer to the intervention in Libya because that was just a bombing campaign. It was undertaken for limited purposes, but it set off a chain reaction that neither President Obama, who ordered American participation, nor many of the other allies in Europe and the Arab

world who participated in the intervention, could foresee. It resulted in a very complex civil war that's in some ways still going on today more than a decade later. So these kinds of interventions may start out with limited aims, but our recent experience in the Middle East and elsewhere is that they don't always end there. Do you think an off-ramp is likely, or does the momentum seem to be moving

in the wrong direction? I think the key question for me now is what is President Trump going to decide to do? Israel is managing its own foreign policy. They have since the October 7th attacks been quite forceful in taking their own security into their own hands. They've done that here. That's one path that the United States can't control. I think that's been demonstrated. What it can control is its own intervention and how far it goes. And I think as the president said today, nobody knows what I'm going to do. And that sounds like that includes himself. That's journalist Steve Call, who is now with

The Economist. Thank you. Thanks Ari. Thanks for having me. This episode was produced by Michael Levitt and Connor Donovan. It was edited by Tinbeat Ermias and William Troup. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigan. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Ari Shapiro. On this week's Wild Card podcast, author Jason Reynolds says he loves to cry. I am a crybaby of all crybabies. It is my favorite thing about myself. Why?

Because it reminds me that the expectations of masculinity didn't get me. I'm Rachel Martin. Jason Reynolds is on Wild Card, the show where cards control the conversation. The best kind of celebrity interview is one where you find out that the person who made a thing you love also thinks in a way that you love. Nothing is more foreign than when Ariel says in The Little Mermaid, I want to be where the people are. I don't want to be where the people are. I just don't. I'm Rachel Martin.

Listen to the Wild Card podcast, only from NPR. Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon Prime members can listen to Consider This sponsor free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get Consider This Plus at plus.npr.org. That's plus.npr.org.