So much for negotiating in good faith, despite the perniciousness of the Islamic Republic, the United States became a wild card diplomatically. As with Israel, they reserve the right to do whatever they please internationally, but their word is not worth much. This is an ongoing trend, not simply an idea of Donald Trump. Many of his Democratic critics do not question whether Iran should be changed, just the methods employed. Joe Biden tsk-tsked Benjamin Netanyahu while he placed Gaza on the rack, but did little to stop it. As with the Gulf War, America needs no “small cause” to unleash the dogs of war.

Trump’s love of performative diplomacy — if you can call it diplomacy at all –further confuses the issue. He has no idea who will take over after the first explosions. In Venezuela, he makes a deal with what appears to be the least obnoxious of the old regime. He wants to use the same tactic on Iran, allowing whatever enlightened elements are functioning. He cares not a fig for the human rights opposition, preferring a more conservative alternative. But no one knows really what is behind the curtain.

Nation-building is not Trump’s cup of tea; it is complicated, expensive, and worse long-term. Moreover, even if he found a “viable” alternative, most notably the Shah Reza Pahlavi, he would be gambling that the dynasty deposed in 1979 had improved its reputation. To replace an offensive despotism with a less objectionable one is uncertain.

Certainly, Iraq leaves no dependable clues. Despite the assurances of neo-cons, hawks of every persuasion, and the national security agencies, no leader emerged. It was so bad that the US resorted to pro-consuls, American governors at the outset. Elections were held, legislatures formed, and purple “I voted” thumbs; nothing changed. Radical militias, divided along sectarian lines, dominated the streets.

As a result, American soldiers bore the brunt of trying to learn about the ins and outs of Iraqi society while pursuing guerrillas. If the US is forced to do this in Iran, which is 3 times the size of Iraq with far more people, Trump might get a war that he did not anticipate. One thing is sure: the Donald does not like it is a “forever war.” This is not at all Venezuela, whose leadership quickly collaborated with Americans. This was largely because they made few demands of a Maduro regime absent Maduro. Iran is a theocratic state with factions, but they are not as malleable as those in Venezuela.

Trump has resorted to a sort of half-imperialism strategy that tries to moderate an extremist regime. It is fraught with hazards, chief among them are elements that might want change but are uneasy about being aided by foreign entities–especially Israel. Indeed, Trump might be presented with a quandary, being opposed by factions who did not like the Mullahs but really despise imperialists. Saying they only want to do good might be less than persuasive.

Perhaps the fates will smile on the U.S., but this remains to be seen. Trump might be opening a door unaware of what is behind it. Undoubtedly, no one internationally will trust him. Interventionists are satisfied and smugly so, but the sensible are less so.