The war with Iran is developing into much more than a military confrontation for Donald Trump. The revelations of recent months paint a picture that raises severe questions not only about the strategy adopted, but also about the way the White House handles the most sensitive political cost of a war: fallen American soldiers. From his persistent refusal to acknowledge allegations regarding Russian assistance to Iran, to the continuous shifts in the official accounting of military casualties, the Trump administration stands accused of manipulating data to serve the President's political narrative and reinforce the legal justification for continuing operations without Congressional approval. For Trump's critics, the issue is not merely about managing a war, but about turning the ultimate sacrifice of American service members into a tool for political communication strategies.
Indifference
When President Donald Trump initiated the war with Iran, one of his primary objectives was to halt Tehran from funding proxy groups across the Middle East. As he had highlighted, these proxy groups were responsible for injuring and killing dozens of American troops. However, regarding whether Russia is aiding Iran in targeting these Americans, Trump appears remarkably indifferent. This attitude has become a rather familiar stance for him. The latest instance emerged during the testimony of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth before a Senate committee last week. When asked whether China and Russia are aiding Iran, Hegseth replied that there are "ways in which both of these countries facilitate some of Iran's actions, yes."
Not involved
Two days later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio evaded a related question while seated opposite Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Subsequently, Trump posted on social media, contradicting Hegseth. He argued that, "in my view," China and Russia are "not involved" in the war with Iran, because their leaders assured him they were not selling weapons to Tehran. "I think I trust them," he stated later that same day, adding: "They might be doing a few things. But so far, at least, it's nothing major. I don't believe they would want to disappoint me," Trump said.
Satellite imagery
However, Russia is not only accused of potentially arming Iran. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has stated that Moscow provided Iran with satellite imagery of US military bases. When questioned about this on Monday, Trump once again downplayed the matter's significance, stating that such an action would be "without meaningful impact." He added, however: "We'll see if it's true. I'll ask Vladimir Putin about it."
Intelligence on American targets
Yet, this is hardly a brand-new issue that he could only now bring up with Putin. The initial revelation by CNN came nearly five months earlier, in early March, reporting that, according to multiple sources familiar with US intelligence reports, Russia was supplying Iran with targeting data on American military positions. (Since then, The New York Times reported that US and European officials also believed Moscow was supplying Iran with unmanned aerial vehicles and components, a claim the Kremlin denied).
No indication, no significance
The President addressed the CNN report back in March in much the same way he approaches current intelligence. He declared that he "had no such indication," but asserted that the course of the war in its early days proved the issue carried no real significance. "Frankly, whether it happened or not, it really doesn't matter," added White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, contending that "President Trump and the United States Armed Forces are completely destroying Iran's terrorist regime."
The Witkoff warning
One of Trump's negotiators for ending the Russia-Ukraine war, Steve Witkoff, stated that he warned Russia "in very stern terms" against providing Iran with targeting intelligence or other assistance. However, Trump himself never issued such a definitive public statement. Even after additional American deaths attributed to Iran this month, the issue still does not appear to greatly concern him.
Persistent denial
All of this bears a strong resemblance to Trump's first presidential term, when intelligence reports similarly linked Russia to targeting American troops. Back then, it involved allegations that Russia may have offered bounties on American soldiers in Afghanistan. Through mid-2020, Trump denied being verbally briefed on the matter. However, CNN and other outlets reported that the intelligence was included in his written daily briefing in February 2020 (which he was not known to read in full) and that the White House had received relevant intel as early as early 2019.
Hoax
Trump labeled the matter a probable "hoax" and "fake news," and weeks after it became public, he stated he chose not to bring it up during a phone call with Putin. "I never discussed it with Putin," he told Axios at the time. "I could have, I have no problem with that." The Trump administration emphasized that the intelligence was not conclusive, while the Biden administration stated in 2021 that the CIA had only "low to moderate confidence" in its reliability. Still, that left open the possibility that it was true. And given that the matter involved the lives of American troops, one would expect it to be of paramount interest to a President.
The "red line"
Trump, however, did what he frequently does: he drew an explicit moral equivalence between Russia's actions and those of the United States. During his first term, he likened the possibility of Russia placing bounties on US troops to the support provided by the US to anti-communist forces fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Last March, he remarked that Russia "would say that we do the same against them, wouldn't they?" The problem with this stance is not just that it places the United States on the same moral plane as Russia, American analysts note. It also signals to Russia that helping Iran target American service members — if indeed occurring — does not constitute a red line for Trump.
Why the Pentagon hides the dead
When The New York Times first revealed last week that four recent deaths of American soldiers in the war with Iran had suddenly disappeared from the Department of Defense website tracking military casualties, the Pentagon insisted it was merely a "temporary data outage." However, it has become increasingly clear that this was not the whole story. It represents merely the latest episode in the chaotic and often insensitive manner in which President Donald Trump manages military fatalities.
Accounting in 3 different ways
The deaths have not only been reclassified in a way that is more politically advantageous for the administration — making the total number of fallen troops in Trump's war with Iran appear smaller and bolstering his claims regarding presidential war powers — but it has also been revealed that within just the past week, these same deaths were logged in three distinct ways on the Pentagon website.
The reclassified deaths
The four deaths reappeared in the Pentagon's Defense Casualty Analysis System over the weekend. However, instead of being re-integrated under Operation Epic Fury (the mission covering the war with Iran), as expected if it were truly a technical glitch, they were placed into an entirely new site category: the broadly titled "Overseas Operations". The Pentagon also logged more than 140 additional wounded personnel into the system during this update. This new category is described as tracking "casualties from July 7, 2026, onward," the date on which the administration contends a new conflict with Iran commenced.
Operation Inherent Resolve
This is not the only instance in which the Pentagon website altered the classification of these fatalities. In a press release published early last week, the Pentagon announced the deaths of two of the four soldiers, stating they were "supporting Operation Inherent Resolve." Operation Inherent Resolve is the mission launched in 2014 aimed at defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria. However, these service members were killed in Iranian attacks. Shortly thereafter, the wording was altered to state that the fallen soldiers were "supporting overseas operations in Jordan."
Why the changes serve Trump
In other words, these specific service members have now been linked on the Pentagon website to three different operations — two of which, notably, allow the administration to claim the casualties do not belong to Operation Epic Fury. While it is not entirely clear why this shift occurred, it clearly serves the administration politically and legally in two key ways. First, it could allow Trump to claim fewer American deaths occurred in the war with Iran. Last week, Trump continued to reference 18 dead — a figure that includes the four most recent — instead of 14. At the same time, he has made it abundantly clear that he is acutely focused on the political dimension of military casualties and overall death tolls. After all, he repeatedly criticized then-President Joe Biden over the 13 Americans killed during the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The second reason
The second reason this shift serves the administration is that it strengthens Trump's legal claim that he possesses the authority to continue the war without required Congressional approval. The War Powers Act allows Presidents to conduct military operations without Congressional authorization for a duration of 60 to 90 days. To circumvent this limit, the administration argues that the initial conflict ended with the ceasefire that took effect in April and that a new conflict began on July 7. (Even some Republicans have expressed doubts regarding this legal interpretation). For this specific argument, displaying the four latest deaths as part of Operation Epic Fury is problematic, given that, according to the administration, that operation has already concluded. Thus, the administration ensured it indicated that these soldiers belonged to a different operation, whether that was Operation Inherent Resolve or "Overseas Operations".
The politicization of military casualties
However, it is difficult to interpret this development as anything other than a form of "accounting management" regarding fallen soldiers. These four service members were killed in the very same war in which the first 14 lost their lives. There was simply a three-month lull in hostilities, during which the administration and Iranian leadership attempted to maintain two fragile ceasefire agreements. The picture becomes even more problematic considering the Pentagon's initial, dismissive response attributing the disappearance of records to a "temporary data disruption."
Intentional change
The New York Times cited anonymous military officials who indicated that the change was deliberate, even though it was not clear at that moment how the Pentagon intended to reclassify the deaths. This represents a highly problematic approach to handling a topic as grave and sensitive as military fatalities. These are matters expected to be handled accurately from the outset. Yet this stance is largely characteristic of Trump and his administration. Trump has struggled for years to speak with empathy regarding fallen and wounded service members. This has manifested on numerous occasions: from his attitude toward the late Senator John McCain to describing troops as "suckers" and "losers", downplaying traumatic brain injuries, and making unfortunate remarks regarding medals for wounded soldiers and NATO troops who served in Afghanistan.
Difficult management
The war with Iran has presented him with more occasions to address the subject, and it is evident that he continues to struggle with managing it. Both he and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered awkward statements following the initial troop fatalities in March. Meanwhile, Trump has begun comparing the lower death toll achieved thus far with that of other recent wars, while even claiming that the fallen soldiers and all their families supported his war policy toward Iran — despite at least one family member publicly stating the opposite. However, for Trump, very few things are treated as truly sacred. Thus, as occurs with so many other issues, military deaths are quickly transformed into items of political calculation and public relations strategy.
Iran: At least 100 to 200 dead Americans in 13 days
Behnam Saeedi, secretary of the National Security Committee of the Iranian Parliament, stated that estimates point to 100 to 200 American deaths during the 13-day war. According to the Iranian Tasnim news agency, Behnam Saeedi, referring to the clashes and exchange of fire between Iran and the United States, declared that the US was defeated and retreated faster in the recent 13-day war (from July 8 onward following the US agreement breach) compared to past wars, having concluded it could not achieve its objectives through military operations. Behnam Saeedi also reported that Iranian fighters achieved significant success in neutralizing American radar systems and electronic signals. All targets included in the target list of the Iranian armed forces were struck, while US air defense systems were also hit. Saeedi added that despite US efforts to conceal or censor information, the extent of damage was gradually uncovered, with even some American security officials admitting to it. According to the estimates he presented, the US suffered between 100 and 200 fatalities during the 13 days, while the high number of wounded renders these unprecedented military losses.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών