The twists and turns of the Iran war, six months in, should come as no surprise.

President Donald Trump is just the latest commander in chief to see the vision of a decisive military campaign risk becoming a longer and more complicated conflict − one that could end up defining his legacy in the White House, like it or not.

Think Vietnam and Afghanistan and Iraq.

"This is a president who failed to learn the lessons from past presidents when it comes to a military deployment," Leon Panetta, who served as White House chief of staff for President Bill Clinton and Defense Secretary for President Barack Obama, told USA TODAY. "He had no clear objective, no clear strategy to achieve that objective, and no endgame, and that has been the fundamental mistake that’s been made in the past Middle Eastern wars and is being made again in this war in Iran."

More: Expect higher prices after Trump admin's latest moves on Canada, Iran

To be clear, the Iranian campaign hasn't yet approached the time and costs of those earlier conflicts. The wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan each stretched for more than 19 years, and the Iraq war lasted for more than eight.

"This is not Iraq. This is not endless," Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth assured Pentagon reporters during the war's first week. "Our generation knows better, and so does this president."

But Iran already shares some traits with what became known as "forever wars," the sort of entanglement candidate Trump promised never to repeat. Victory hasn't been quick and doesn't seem certain.

The president's boasts about decimating the opponent's armed forces haven't prevented it from striking back with drones and missiles. Back home, voters are skeptical about why the war was launched and how it's going.

As "Epic Fury" approaches the half-year mark, here are four hard lessons for Trump − ones that his modern-day predecessors would recognize, some ruefully.

More: Approval for Iran war reaches new low, poll finds
1. The exit can be hard to find
Three days after the war began with U.S. and Israeli strikes on Feb. 28, Trump was asked how long it would last.

Get the Susan Page newsletter in your inbox.
Get the latest story from Susan Page right in your inbox.


"We're already substantially ahead of our time projections, but whatever the time is, it's OK," he told reporters at the White House. Four to five weeks, he projected, "but we have capability to go far longer than that."

The timetable has taken longer than he predicted because the goals have proven elusive. That is the same calculation that made it difficult for President Lyndon B Johnson and President Richard Nixon to negotiate an end to Vietnam, and for President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama to justify leaving Afghanistan even after political support in the United States had eroded.

In his first term, Trump briefly increased troop levels in Afghanistan, then negotiated a timetable to withdraw.

In Iran, while many top leaders have been killed, the same Islamic theocracy remains in firm control. The status of its nuclear program, degraded by bombing strikes in 2025, hasn't changed. And this has gotten worse: Tehran has been able to significantly disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial waterway that before the war offered safe and free passage for about a fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas shipments.

That has roiled global energy markets and driven up the cost of gas in the United States. As long as Iran continues to defy the president's military and economic reprisals − and despite Trump's declaration on social media that the strait was "NEW U.S. Territory" − it will be hard for the White House to credibly claim mission accomplished.

Americans are braced for that. More than 8 in 10 predicted in a Reuters/Ipsos poll in August that U.S. involvement in Iran "will go on for an extended period of time."

"Making sure Iran can't make a nuclear weapon is very important to this country and the world," veteran Republican pollster David Winston told USA TODAY. "But now at month six, there's a sense of − given what was said when it started, why has it taken so much longer and what's the plan?"


2. Military superiority doesn't guarantee victory
In an echo of those earlier wars, the United States has dominated the battle from the start.

But that didn't translate to a quick strategic victory, then or now. The adversaries' willingness to endure pain and the determination of their leaders to survive have sometimes enabled them to play a long game, outwaiting American patience.

Two years after Nixon withdrew troops from Vietnam in 1973, South Vietnamese allies would surrender to the Communist north. In Iraq, Obama's withdrawal of forces from Iraq in 2011 has been followed by insurgencies, sectarian conflict and violence. In Afghanistan, the Taliban government was quickly toppled after the 9/11 attacks, yet it still became America's longest war.

Even as President Joe Biden ordered the final U.S. forces out in 2021, a chaotic withdrawal that marked a stain on his presidency, the Taliban were emerging to take control again.

The shadow of a U.S. Army soldier from the 82nd Airborne Division, "Charlie" Company, 1/504 battalion, passes over an Afghan girl as troops conduct compound searches October 30, 2002 in southeastern Afghanistan as part of Operation Alamo Sweep, a mission intended to dislocate al Qaeda and Taliban holdouts in the region.
In Iran, too, the limits of military superiority are being tested.

"We've beaten and completely decimated Iran," Trump declared in an address to the nation on Day 33 of the war. "They are decimated, both militarily and economically and in every other way."

But five months later, Tehran continues to use missiles and drones to strike U.S. targets and its allies in the region.

In recent days, the White House has turned from threatening attacks to imposing sanctions. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Aug. 24 announced "the single greatest financial offensive ever marshaled against an adversary."

Will what he called "an economic D-Day" for Iran succeed where bombs have failed?

3. The kitchen table still rules: It's the economy
When the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began, they commanded broad public support. That rally-'round-the-flag sentiment at a time of peril would shatter as time passed.

On Iran, though, the military strikes were viewed skeptically from the start. The war has never commanded majority support, and it has fueled questions about Trump's leadership.

At the beginning, only 27% in a Reuters survey supported the attacks, while a 43% plurality opposed them and nearly a third of Americans were undecided. A 56% majority said Trump was too quick to use military force.

In the August poll, support was at 31%. Trump's approval rating, at 33%, matched the lowest level of his first or second terms.


Rising opposition to the Vietnam War during LBJ's tenure would spark huge demonstrations on college campuses and elsewhere and contribute to Nixon's election to the White House in 1968. Opposition to the Iraq War during Bush's tenure helped Democrats win back control of the House and Senate in 2006. He called it "a thumpin'."


Then, as now, a Republican president was waging an unpopular war at a time of economic unease.

In 2024 the GOP won the Washington trifecta − control of the White House, the House and the Senate − in large part with an economic appeal. "It was basically to fix the Biden economy," Winston said, amid concern about inflation outpacing wages. "Is there a sense that there's been enough progress made?"

Even during times of war, the pollster said, "the economic narrative generally always takes over."

Republicans are expressing concerns, and more often out loud, that Trump's focus is out of sync with voters' concerns.

"Not even a little bit," the president said when he was asked whether financial pressure on Americans was motivating him to reach a deal with Iran. "The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon," he said. "I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing. We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon, that's all."

In contrast, in an Emerson College poll in August, the issue voters ranked as the top concern facing the nation was the economy; 37% cited jobs and inflation and taxes. "Threats to democracy" and health care were second and third, at 16% each.

Foreign policy was ninth, at less than 2%.

4. Wars can consume presidential legacies
LBJ enacted the most far-reaching domestic programs in modern history, landmark achievements that included Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

But his presidency is remembered, first and foremost, by the Vietnam War.

"That bitch of a war killed the lady I really loved, the Great Society," he told historian Doris Kearns Goodwin after he had left the White House.

President John F. Kennedy had sent military advisers to support the anti-communist government in South Vietnam, but it was Johnson who dramatically expanded the U.S. commitment into a full-scale war with bombing campaigns and a deployment of American troops that would reach more than 500,000.

Anti-Vietnam War protesters demonstrate by burning military draft cards in front of the Pentagon outside Washington, DC, on May 22, 1972.
He saw no good options, unable to withdraw for fear of the strategic consequences but facing an American public bitterly divided by the war.

Vietnam didn't erase his domestic achievements, but it did overshadow them.

Trump is clear about what he considers his biggest achievements: a soaring stock market, an historic tariffs regime, sweeping immigration enforcement, record tax cuts and the physical stamp he is making on official Washington with everything from a White House ballroom to, perhaps, a triumphal arch.


"A lot of people are saying that I'm one of the greatest presidents ever," he told Punchbowl News in August.

But the war in Iran, with its consequences still unfolding, may stand in the first line of assessments of his presidency.

"I think the reality is that Iran is going to join that list of failed wars in the Middle East," including Iraq and Afghanistan, Panetta said. "And just as it's impacted on the legacy of past presidents, it’ll impact on the legacy of Donald Trump."

Consider Bush, who was elected in 2000 as a "compassionate conservative" and was proud of legislation he pushed to expand Medicare and combat AIDS in Africa. As he prepared to leave the White House, though, he acknowledged that his presidency would be defined by the wars he had launched and not finished.

"I will be long gone" before history makes a final judgment about them, he said.


Susan Page, the Washington Bureau chief of USA TODAY, has covered 12 presidential elections and interviewed 10 presidents. Her latest book, "The Queen and Her Presidents," was published by Harper in April.

SOURCE:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/08/25/donald-trump-lessons-irannths-later/91387922007/-war-6-mo

(NewsNation) — Iran pledged to fight back against expanded United States sanctions aimed at isolating its economy, expressing confidence that major trading partners would resist Washington’s pressure campaign.

Almost six months into a conflict the U.S. has struggled to resolve, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent unveiled the measures Monday but stopped short of the most punishing sanctions.

While he said countries that continued trading with Iran risked being forced out of the dollar-based financial system, he declined to give a timeline or identify which may be targeted, saying he would give them time to comply with the new directive.

“Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?” he said when asked why the measures had not gone further.

‘Atmosphere of fear’: How Iran regime’s threats isolate people from outside world
The Treasury Department announced new sanctions on 60 individuals, entities and vessels, but the list did not feature any of the Chinese financial institutions suspected of facilitating Iran’s oil trade.

“We want to make clear here today that no one is above the reach of U.S. sanctions,” Bessent said in response to a question about Chinese banks.

China says its cooperation with Iran is lawful
China has been the biggest buyer of Iranian oil for several years, although the U.S. blockade of Iran’s ports has cut Iranian oil flows to China since Washington renewed it in mid-July.

Experts said Washington is wary of Chinese retaliation for any sanctions on its banks ahead of expected talks next month between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, with any curbs on China’s exports of critical minerals especially sensitive.

China said Tuesday its cooperation with Iran is conducted within the framework of international law and should not be interfered with or disrupted.

Oil prices fell for a second day as traders brushed off the impact of the sanctions, although market participants remained wary of Iran’s continued ability to disrupt shipping.

Oil tanker struck near Strait of Hormuz
An oil tanker was struck Tuesday by an unidentified projectile and disabled about 9 nautical miles northeast of Oman’s Ash Shishah, which lies at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations said.

The strike damaged the vessel’s engine room, while its crew was reported safe, UKMTO said in an advisory note, adding the environmental impact was not immediately known.

Before news of the latest sanctions, Iran threatened both a possible military response and further reduction in oil exports from the Gulf in retaliation for any U.S. economic measures.

After they were unveiled, Iranian Economy Minister Ali Madanizadeh said Iran was prepared.

“Our defense is no longer so defensive; the enemies should wait for an attack,” he told state television. Neither China nor Russia had “accepted” the U.S. measures, he added, predicting that other countries would resist them.

Brigadier General Hossein Mohebbi, a spokesperson for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, vowed heavy blows to U.S. vital interests and energy chokepoints if Iran’s infrastructure is threatened, Press TV reported.

SOURCE:https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/iran-vows-retaliate-us-widens-sanctions/

Every crisis has a villain. Pakistan's water crisis is often blamed on climate change, population growth, or shrinking glaciers. These factors are real, but they are not the whole story. The country's worsening water scarcity is equally a consequence of political choices, institutional failure, and the gradual privatisation of a resource that should belong to every citizen.

Pakistan is approaching an ecological tipping point. Per capita water availability has collapsed from over 5,000 cubic meters in the early 1950s to less than 900 cubic meters today, placing the country well below the internationally recognised threshold for water scarcity. Groundwater now supplies nearly 70 per cent of domestic water, around 90 per cent of rural household needs, and more than half of agricultural irrigation. Yet this invisible reserve is being extracted faster than nature can replenish it.

The irony is striking. Millions of Pakistanis cannot trust the water flowing from their taps, but corporations have built thriving businesses by selling that same public resource back to them in plastic bottles.

The bottled water industry did not flourish because Pakistanis suddenly preferred packaged water. It grew because governments failed to provide safe drinking water. When public utilities collapsed, multinational beverage companies stepped into the vacuum, transforming a public necessity into a commercial product. What should have been treated as a basic human right gradually became another commodity.

This business model depends on an outdated legal framework inherited from the colonial era, under which landowners enjoy extensive rights over the groundwater beneath their property. By purchasing land above productive aquifers, companies can legally extract enormous quantities of groundwater at negligible cost before selling purified water at prices hundreds of thousands of times higher than the extraction charges they pay.

The economics are staggering. Supreme Court audits revealed that billions of liters of groundwater were extracted by major bottling companies over just a few years, with nearly half of that water lost during processing. Communities living beside these extraction facilities have reported falling groundwater tables, dried-up wells and increasing dependence on unsafe water sources. In villages such as Bhati Dilwan near Sheikhupura, residents have argued for years that while bottled water leaves their communities for urban markets, clean water disappears from their own homes.

This pattern is not unique to Pakistan. Around the world, bottled water corporations have faced criticism for exploiting public water resources while marketing their products as symbols of purity. Yet Pakistan's situation is particularly troubling because public alternatives remain so weak. When only a fraction of the population has access to safe drinking water, the bottled water market no longer reflects consumer choice - it reflects state failure.

The consequences extend far beyond household consumption. Waterborne diseases continue to account for a substantial share of Pakistan's illness burden, while contaminated groundwater contributes to child malnutrition, lost productivity and rising healthcare costs. The country is not merely facing a water shortage; it is confronting a public health emergency with profound economic implications.

The Supreme Court attempted to address this imbalance in 2018 by imposing groundwater extraction charges on bottled water companies and directing stricter monitoring of industrial pumping. Although the intervention highlighted the urgency of regulating groundwater, it also exposed constitutional questions about judicial authority and revealed how fragmented Pakistan's water governance has become. Some provinces implemented the court's directives, while others lagged behind, demonstrating that judicial activism cannot substitute for comprehensive public policy.

More recently, Punjab has introduced legislation declaring groundwater a public resource and strengthening licensing requirements for private extraction. These reforms are steps in the right direction, but legislation alone cannot solve a crisis rooted in decades of institutional neglect. Regulatory bodies remain under-resourced, enforcement is inconsistent, and corporate lobbying continues to shape policy outcomes.

Meanwhile, an even larger conflict is unfolding across the Indus Basin. Controversial canal projects, expanding corporate agriculture and competing provincial claims over water allocation are deepening political tensions between upstream and downstream regions. Climate change undoubtedly intensifies these pressures, but climate alone did not create them. Water insecurity in Pakistan has become inseparable from questions of governance, federalism and distributive justice.

This is why Pakistan must fundamentally rethink how it governs water. Groundwater should no longer be treated as private property attached to land ownership but as a shared public trust held on behalf of present and future generations. Every major commercial extractor should face transparent licensing, scientifically determined withdrawal limits and real-time monitoring of groundwater abstraction. Industries that profit from public aquifers must contribute fairly to their protection and recharge.

At the same time, policymakers must move beyond mega-projects as the only solution. Community-managed rainwater harvesting, decentralised filtration systems, wastewater recycling and aquifer recharge initiatives have already demonstrated success in some of Pakistan's most water-stressed regions. These local solutions are often cheaper, more resilient and more equitable than politically attractive but environmentally costly infrastructure projects.

Pakistan frequently frames national security in terms of borders, weapons and military preparedness. Yet no country can secure its future while allowing its aquifers to disappear beneath its feet. A nation that cannot guarantee safe drinking water to its citizens cannot claim lasting security, regardless of its geopolitical strength.

The real battle for Pakistan's future is not simply over rivers or reservoirs. It is over whether water remains a shared public inheritance or becomes another resource captured by wealth and power. Unless that question is answered wisely, the country's next great conflict may not be fought over territory - it may be fought over every remaining drop.

SOURCE:https://tribune.com.pk/story/2625641/pakistans-water-crisis-built-on-theft-not-scarcity

As Pakistan celebrates 79 years of independence, this is an ideal time to reflect on the country's social development successes and difficulties. Since 1947, Pakistan has achieved enormous strides in education, health and human development. However, in comparison to neighbouring countries such as India and Bangladesh, the rate of socioeconomic advancement has been slower in some important indicators. Understanding these tendencies gives vital insights into the country's development trajectory as well as future policy goals.

Education is a key pillar of social and economic advancement. As per Economic Survey 2025-26, Pakistan now has a literacy rate of 63%, which is much lower than India's 80.9% (Labor Force Survey 2023-24) and Bangladesh's 77.9% (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). Similarly, according to World Bank, the estimated number of years of schooling in Pakistan is only 7.9, compared to 13 in India and 11.1 in Bangladesh. The difficulty is exacerbated by the large percentage of out-of-school children, estimated at 28%, compared to 16.8% in India according to UDISEPlus 2023-24. This is one of the most significant impediments to developing a trained and productive workforce.

Women's involvement in economic activities is another important indicator of social advancement. Pakistan's female labour force participation rate is only 24.5%, significantly lower than India's 32% and Bangladesh's 39%. Pakistan's low female participation percentage demonstrates unrealised economic potential and emphasises the importance of measures that promote women's access to education, skill development, childcare facilities and safe working conditions.

Health indicators show both advances and ongoing problems. According to WHO, Pakistan's life expectancy has improved significantly after independence, reaching 67 years. However, this is still lower than the average life expectancy in India which is 72 years and Bangladesh's 73 years. Similarly, Pakistan's child mortality rate is still high, with 47 fatalities per 1,000 live births, compared to 29.08 in India and 30.67 in Bangladesh. These numbers indicate that, despite advances in healthcare access and disease management, Pakistan still faces substantial issues in maternity and child health, nutrition, sanitation and basic healthcare delivery.

Healthcare infrastructure is another issue that need immediate attention. Pakistan has just 6.96 hospital beds for per 10,000 inhabitants, which is less than half of India's 15.9 beds and fewer than Bangladesh's 9.2. The lack of healthcare facilities puts enormous strain on the health system, especially during public health emergencies and epidemics. Expanding healthcare infrastructure and investing in primary and preventive care will be critical to improve population health outcomes.

Population dynamics have a significant impact on social development results. Pakistan's population growth rate of 2.1% exceeds India's 0.89% and Bangladesh's 1.7%. Rapid population increase puts additional strain on educational institutions, healthcare facilities, housing, job prospects and government functions. While a youthful and increasing population might provide a demographic dividend, realising this possibility would need significant expenditures in human capital development and employment creation.

Comparing social development with neighbouring countries shows that economic growth alone is insufficient without long-term investment in people. Bangladesh, which began with development indicators comparable to or worse than Pakistan's in the early decades of independence, has now exceeded Pakistan in several social measures. India has also achieved tremendous advancements in education and health sectors in recent decades. As Pakistan approaches its 80th year of independence, the route forward necessitates putting human development at the forefront of national policy. Improving literacy, lowering out-of-school children, expanding female labour force participation, enhancing healthcare institutions and regulating population increase should all be national priorities. The country's future success will be determined not just by economic progress, but also by its capacity to translate social development indicators into opportunities for all inhabitants.

SOURCE:https://tribune.com.pk/story/2625640/79-years-and-counting-still-catching-up

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to revoke the business and tourism visas of up to 200,000 foreigners who have applied for or are currently seeking asylum status in the United States. If it happens, the move would be the largest single mass revocation of visas in U.S. history and would likely face legal challenges.

Unless challenged or revised, the State Department is expected to announce in the coming weeks the revocation of so-called B1 and B2 visas issued between 2016 and 2026 whose holders have sought asylum or are now seeking asylum, according to State Department documents obtained by The Associated Press and two U.S. officials. The action will be taken in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security.

“We are coordinating with DHS to identify and revoke the nonimmigrant visas of foreigners who have come to the United States claiming to be short-term visitors, but then file for asylum to stay here permanently,” said State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott.

He declined to comment on the number of visas that might be revoked, saying “as the process will be ongoing, the number of revocations remains dynamic and will be done on a rolling basis.”

The revocations would not necessarily result in their immediate deportation, the officials said. Most of those with asylum cases currently pending would be recategorized but would lose their status as business or tourism travelers, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the revocations are not final yet.

Since President Donald Trump took office for his second term last year, his administration has steadily ramped up restrictions on visa applicants — demanding more information about their social media histories, requiring the posting of expensive bonds for the processing of visas, and outright banning the issuance of visas to citizens of certain countries.

In a social media post on Monday, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau called out people who he said try to use tourist and business visas to get into the United States and then apply for asylum.

“People in the US and all over the world are fed up with bogus asylum claims,” Landau wrote on X. “Asylum isn’t supposed to be a loophole to circumvent immigration law.” Landau cited the case of a Colombian citizen who came to the U.S. in 2015 on a tourist visa and then applied for asylum.

B1 visas are generally issued for business trips and B2 visas are generally issued for tourism, family visits or medical care. It was not immediately clear from the documents or the officials how many of these visa holders are seeking or have sought asylum in the United States and would be affected by the revocations.

Current applicants for B1 and B2 visas are asked to affirm that they will not apply for asylum in the United States and prove that they intend to return to their home countries.

In the past 18 months, the State Department has revoked about 175,000 visas for people who have been convicted or accused of crimes ranging from drunken driving to rape and robbery, as well as for people who have spoken out publicly against U.S. policies, particularly in the Middle East.

The administration has also moved to crack down on so-called birth tourism, a practice the administration claims is used by foreign pregnant women to come to the United States to give birth so that their child will benefit from birthright citizenship. Trump has tried several times to end birthright citizenship, but those challenges have been rejected by courts, including the Supreme Court.

The State Department documents obtained by the AP suggest screening of current B1 and B2 visa holders began after the State Department received information about asylum requests from the Citizen and Immigration Service.

SOURCE:https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2026-08-24/u-s-set-for-largest-mass-visa-revocation-in-history-targeting-up-to-200-000-foreigners-officials-say