David Hain — March 24, 2026
The Commander in Chief Clause can be found in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. The clause anoints the president with the responsibility of leading the military during wartime and deciding how much military force a conflict requires. But over the years, the Commander in Chief has adopted another vocation: the responsibility of communicating the government’s position, strategy, and intentions during a war to the American public.
Clarity in conveying strategic information is key to public support; when President George W. Bush launched an invasion into Iraq, his cogent reasoning, fear-mongering about the possibility of Iraq possessing nuclear weaponry, won the hearts of the American people, and support for the excursion was nearly unanimous. Conversely, a failure to communicate has historically cost a president their approval ratings. Harry Truman abruptly left the Korean war without proper explanation, and as a result, he left office with the support of less than 30% of the American public.
The same rules ring true for the current war in Iran. The war is close to surpassing its first month, and Iranian Supreme Leader Mutjaba Khamenei has vowed to refuse surrender; gas prices have significantly increased nationwide, with a shortage so critical, President Trump has started to withdraw oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The American constituency has been inexorably affected by the war, and want answers as to why it started in the first place. Now more than ever, America needs its Commander in Chief.
But throughout the war, President Trump has been sending mixed messages.
On March 11, at a rally in Hebron, Kentucky, President Trump claimed that the United States “won” the war in Iran; the qualifications of what “winning the war” means were unspecified—that was made even more confusing when considering that Trump’s initial aims of catalyzing regime change, decimating Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and obliterating the Iranian navy have been largely unfulfilled.
At that time, President Trump said that America was staying in Iran to “finish the job”. But just ten days later, with a job not done, President Trump claimed that the war in Iran was “winding down.” Perhaps Trump changed his mind, and decided that the United States had to repeal themselves early? That makes sense, until considering that the day before this statement was promulgated, 2,500 Marines were sent to Iran.
In the same week, President Trump asked Congress to allot $200 billion dollars toward the war in Iran, massively expanding its scope and lethality, and claimed to negotiate the end of the Iranian war with Tehran in an attempt to supposedly restore “peace” to the Middle East. It’s difficult to say the “goalpost is shifting,” or “priorities are changing” when the end goal in of itself is murky.
President Trump’s cognitive dissonance can be found within a volatile channel adjacent to Iran. The Strait of Hormuz sees 20% of oil exports nationwide pass through it, barrels churned out by the Gulf States that are largely sold to America. President Trump has pined to keep the strait open, issuing diplomatic negotiations, amnesty for sanctions, calls for international pressure and most recently, ultimatums. Trump knows that the United States needs the resources derived from the strait to function: so even though he wants to exercise his power over Iran, he’s also showing why an American dependency on oil can be so debilitating.
President Trump’s political opponents have been quick to point out the discrepancy. News stations across the country have covered Trump’s capriciousness, outlining the fear that the American military entered a war in Iran without a proper exit strategy. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) has questioned his own party’s hazy plan: “But at the end of the day, there has to be a kind of strategic articulation of the strategy, what our objectives are.”
Unfortunately, queries raised by people like Tillis don’t capitulate to the narrative that President Trump wants the Iranian war to have. In the last two weeks, Trump has begun leveraging charges of treason over media outlets that are covering the war in Iran “unpatriotically.” Trump and Pete Hegseth have called for “Patriotic Coverage” of the war: one that’s unabashedly optimistic about American superiority.
The war in Iran has drawn a controversial reception across the United States. But there is one thing that defenders and critics of the conflict can both agree on: war shouldn’t last forever. As the Commander in Chief, President Trump holds the power to prolong his assault on Iran, or exit with expediency. But regardless, the American public reserves the right to know which option he decides.
Read more here:
