Douglas Rooks has been a Maine editor, columnist and reporter for 40 years. He welcomes comment at [email protected].

In 1867, just two years after the end of the Civil War, “Seward’s Folly,” the purchase of Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million, was negotiated by Lincoln-appointed Secretary of State William Seward. The deal was soon viewed in a more favorable light by those who settled the territory, though not necessarily by those who already inhabited the future 49th state.

The same is unlikely to be said for “Trump’s Folly,” the unprovoked and reckless attack on Iran that is now roiling the world economy and has tattered what remains of the Western alliance system in place since World War II. Still, Trump’s incoherent and contradictory statements, as often before, have induced a miasma in place of a national dialogue, where even the simple facts aren’t stated clearly.

To begin with, this is not a “war of choice,” or as some would have it, a “war of whim.” It is a war of aggression, engineered by one man without any notice or consultation — knowing full well, had he asked, the answer would have been no. Doubtless without intending it, Trump has put the United States on the same foreign policy level as Russia’s Vladimir Putin in his invasion of Ukraine.

Trump’s war on Iran resembles America’s earlier war of aggression, the George W. Bush-ordered attack on Iraq in 2003. Bush launched that war on the false pretense that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons; as it turned out, Saddam had even eliminated the poison gas arsenal he’d previously used on his own people.

At least Bush sought and obtained congressional authorization, gaining overwhelming support. European allies, however, were scarce; Britain under Tony Blair was the only major supporter. Bush’s war, however mistaken it proved to be, had at least a plausible justification. Trump’s has none.

Iran was no more and in some ways is less of a threat than through most of its 45-year life as an Islamic theocratic government. Within weeks of the start of the American bombing campaign — undertaken in cooperation with Israel’s bid to destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon — it was clear that neither of Trump’s war aims was achievable.

“Regime change” isn’t going to result from any bombing campaign, however extensive. It wasn’t going to work in Iran any more than it worked in Vietnam a half century earlier.

Containing Iran’s nuclear program couldn’t be accomplished by bombing either. Trump himself proved that with the joint Israeli-U.S. attacks last June. And while the bombing has undoubtedly “degraded” Iran’s military, at least in the short term, it’s doubtful anyone, even the president, would have seen this as sufficient justification.

The major result of the war to date is that the Strait of Hormuz, open before the war, is now effectively closed, with Iran cannily playing all sides. To the extent Trump’s ill-conceived blockade is effective, it will only drive oil prices higher — already at the uncomfortable level of $100 a barrel, with resulting risks of worldwide recession.

The U.S., frankly, is stuck. The idea that Iran will give up through negotiations what Trump couldn’t achieve through war is another fantasy. Resuming the bombing campaign is a poor option, and it’s obvious Trump never intended an invasion, for which we should all be thankful.

In this country, criticism of this Middle East disaster has been remarkably muted. Sometimes it takes an outside perspective to hit home. Earlier this week, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, cautiously supportive at the outset, now says “The Iranians are clearly stronger than expected and the Americans clearly have no truly convincing strategy in the negotiations. A whole nation is being humiliated.”

Even if you disagree with this assessment, it’s hard to see how the U.S. can come out except in a weakened condition. By diverting finite resources from Asia, the continent with by far the greatest foreign challenges, Trump has us bogged down in another fruitless Middle Eastern conflict with no satisfactory way out.

The sad fact of human nature is that wars are often broadly popular at the beginning. The cheering crowds that greeted the onset of what became World War I have haunted historical memory ever since. The Iran war, by contrast, was unpopular from the beginning, and will not improve with age.

We are left with consequences likely greater than any other actions by the current president, many of which could ultimately be reversed. Failed wars aren’t like that. We don’t yet know what its scope will be, but there will be a reckoning.