-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Talk about whiplash. After issuing apocalyptic threats of destroying bridges and power plants (i.e., war crimes) and even ending Persian civilization itself (which some speculated meant a nuclear strike), President Trump suddenly backed away from bombing Iran “back to the Stone Ages” just in time to embrace a two-week ceasefire.
Only time will tell whether the tenuous deal collapses or evolves into a lasting agreement. Perhaps it will join the growing list of Trump’s deadlines that just seem to evaporate. You know the ones: “15 days to slow the spread” and that ever-imminent healthcare plan perpetually just two weeks away. As Trump likes to say, we’ll see what happens.
Regardless, Trump is now claiming “total and complete victory,” a boast that feels a little like me declaring I’ve successfully completed a diet because I briefly stopped eating a slice of pie.
But even assuming this ceasefire holds, it’s worth asking: What exactly have we won?
Iran’s regime remains in place, with every incentive to regroup, rebuild and resume its nuclear ambitions (it still has nearly 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium) and its support for terrorism.
And then there’s the Strait of Hormuz, which was open for business before Trump launched this war.
In the last several weeks, Iran has demonstrated it can choke off one of the world’s most vital energy arteries any time it wants. And now — if this ceasefire deal holds — it gets to charge massive amounts of rent for passage. (Note: I place Trump’s assertion that charging a toll will be a “joint venture” in the same category as his insistence that Mexico will pay for the wall.)
Throw in the American casualties, the financial cost of the war and the loss of credibility that comes from deciding to cut and run, and I’m not sure America could sustain too many more of these “total and complete” victories.
And these aren’t the only costs we’ve incurred.
The more underrated cost is domestic: the psychological toll that Americans have endured this last month or so.
Consider waking up on Easter Sunday to a presidential message that veers from profanity to “Praise be to Allah” to threats of mass destruction.
Sure, Trump has been jerking us around like this for a decade. But nothing could have prepared us for the wild oscillations — coupled with the high stakes — we have recently weathered.
Think of it. One day we’ve already won the war; the next, Iran has just 48 hours before … complete annihilation.
One day the Strait of Hormuz must be opened or else; then, another reprieve. Then, we don’t care if the strait is opened, since we don’t need the oil anyway (let Europe open it).
Finally, we were given multiple moving deadlines, including one threatening that “a whole civilization will die tonight.” Then we got TACO (“Trump Always Chickens Out”) Tuesday.
The result is a national nervous system that’s been put through a blender.
To be sure, Trump apologists argue this was all part of Trump’s brilliant “madman theory” — that his unpredictability is all part of Trump’s “Art of The Deal” negotiation strategy with Iran.
Even by those standards, the results do not suggest that this game of “three-dimensional chess” worked.
Regardless, it’s easy to imagine that Trump’s erratic behavior is taking a toll on Americans. And even if you dismiss the psychological trauma individuals have endured, there are also political and societal ramifications. Imagine what this does to the collective social fabric.
Humans can’t perpetually stay on high alert. So when every statement sounds like it could trigger World War III — but then nothing happens — one response is to become inured to the chaos.
And once those outrage receptors burn out, we won’t magically reset to normal if and when a serious, competent leader finally emerges.
Which raises an uncomfortable question: After years of this high-drama, reality-show version of governance, could a normal, competent politician even hold our attention?
For those who aren’t conditioned to crave copious amounts of drama, the other temptation during and after a dramatic rein is to tune out entirely.
At the individual level, that’s a logical way to preserve your sanity. At the macro level, it’s mass suicide. Especially when you consider the types of people most likely to check out are the most sane, sensitive and moderate.
Then again, Trump may see American apathy as a feature, not a bug.
As “Autocracy, Inc.” author Anne Applebaum has warned, “With autocrats … what they want is for you to be disengaged. They want you to drop out. They want you to become overwhelmed, and they want you to … say, I can’t do anything. It’s all hopeless.”
If that was the goal, then the result isn’t just chaos — it’s exhaustion. It’s millions of Americans who feel powerless and frantic, or defeated and resigned.
In other words, “Mission Accomplished.”
Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article contends that Trump’s Iran ceasefire does not constitute a genuine strategic victory, noting that Iran’s regime remains in power with continued incentive and capability to pursue nuclear ambitions and support for terrorism[1]. The piece argues that Trump’s assertion of “total and complete victory” is misleading, particularly given that the Strait of Hormuz remained open to commerce before the military conflict and Iran has now demonstrated the ability to control this vital waterway and potentially extract significant payments for its use[1].
The column suggests that Trump’s unpredictable oscillations between apocalyptic threats and sudden retreats—such as threatening complete annihilation and then announcing a ceasefire, or declaring the Strait of Hormuz must be opened and later claiming U.S. indifference to its status—have inflicted substantial psychological damage on the American public[1]. The piece emphasizes that this pattern of escalation followed by reversal has created exhaustion rather than productive negotiation outcomes, even accounting for those who defend his approach as tactical “madman theory” strategy[1].
The article maintains that the cumulative costs of this military engagement include American casualties, significant financial expenditure, and damaged U.S. credibility, making it difficult to characterize the outcome as a strategic success[1]. Beyond these material costs, the piece argues that constant exposure to high-stakes threats followed by anticlimax creates a burnout effect where citizens become inured to serious warnings[1].
The column contends that this manufactured chaos may serve autocratic objectives of disengagement, citing researcher Anne Applebaum’s observation that autocrats deliberately seek to overwhelm citizens into apathy and powerlessness[1]. The piece warns that this exhaustion undermines democratic participation and could permanently damage citizens’ capacity to respond appropriately to genuine future threats[1].
Different views on the topic
Some administration supporters argue that Trump’s unpredictability represents a deliberate and sophisticated negotiation tactic, with the “madman theory” intended to demonstrate resolve and keep adversaries off-balance during diplomatic engagement[2]. Proponents contend that Trump’s willingness to credibly threaten escalation, followed by strategic retreat, demonstrates flexibility in pursuit of negotiated outcomes[2].
Internal administration figures have expressed competing views on the Iran strategy itself, with disagreements about whether military engagement was necessary or strategically sound[3]. These debates within the administration suggest differing assessments about whether the military approach served U.S. national interests[3].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
In this episode, we bring you the update on how an Altadena resident and her neighborhood are coming along, plus a re-run of the two-part series we did on the Poppyfields people back in June.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
