NPR’s Scott Detrow talks with Susan Glasser, who writes the “Letters from Trump’s Washington” column in The New Yorker, about the war on Iran and how its early days differ from historical norms.
SCOTT DETROW, HOST:
This past weekend, the United States went to war. The president did not present his case for war in a primetime speech from the Oval Office or the White House’s East Room, but rather in an edited video posted at 2:30 a.m. on a social media platform owned by President Trump. Since then, his administration’s justifications for war with Iran have changed repeatedly. That video post came between others this week where Trump has falsely claimed that elections were rigged and stolen, called for the prosecution of people who have opposed him and lobbied to put his face on U.S. currency. All of that is to say, the presidency and the norms surrounding it have changed a lot under Trump. The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser has been tracking all of this week by week since 2018, and it seemed like a good time to check back in with her. Hi, Susan.
SUSAN GLASSER: Hi. How are you?
DETROW: I’m all right, and I’m – the thing I’m mostly wondering is if you had gotten a message from the future somehow, hearing a version of that introduction when you first started this column, what would your response have been – that this is the place that President Trump has taken the presidency?
GLASSER: (Laughter) You know, it’s interesting you say that. My very first letter from Trump’s Washington for The New Yorker in the spring of 2018 was about Donald Trump and his administration arguing over Iran and whether and how to strike Iran. This has been a long-running theme for the president, for many of those surrounding him. And I think the difference between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 is that he’s much more willing to take risky, big actions like this.
DETROW: Yeah. You speculated a little bit about what could be driving this at a core level, you know, everything from the fact that this is – you know, the ayatollah is somebody who president after president after president had a really hard time dealing with, wanted to get rid of in one way or another. Trump can now say, I’m the guy who did it, you know? And then at a different level, maybe he just gets a rush out of ordering military strikes. Based on your reporting and analysis, like, what do you think the core reasoning is here?
GLASSER: Well, you’re right. This is a president in search of legacy and big legacy moments. We’re talking in Washington, where he’s busy putting his name on buildings all over the city. He knocked down the East Wing of the White House. Things like his interest in Greenland, what you hear from the president is someone who’s in search of almost rewriting the map of the world. The Iranian government under the ayatollahs has bedeviled the United States, has launched a campaign of terror against the U.S. and Israel and others. And Donald Trump, as you know, has nothing but disdain for most of his predecessors, so he can now say he had the boldness to act where they failed to do so. I believe that is a motivating factor here. The other important thing is this was a moment of opportunity for the United States and Israel. And I think there was a sense, like, if we were going to go after the Iranian regime, now was an opportunistic time to do it.
DETROW: I’ve been, over the past few days, comparing this war with Iran to the Gulf War in a few different ways. You happen to have written a book about Secretary of State James Baker, and you focused a lot on the diplomacy and the coalition-building and the public arguments that went into that conflict. This is a cynical question, but I’m wondering if any of that matters in the end if you see, as some indications seem to, you know, show, American voters don’t necessarily care about all of that not happening this time around?
GLASSER: Yeah. I mean, look, it’s a measure of how different and changed we are as a society and our politics, in particular, are so much more polarized than the first Gulf War. You mentioned Secretary of State James Baker, President George H. W. Bush so intent upon showing the justice and the justification for especially that first Gulf War. So all the more remarkable…
DETROW: Yeah.
GLASSER: …That Donald Trump, the president of no new wars, and Kamala Harris is going to get you into World War III, that he would be the president to launch a war of choice without an immediate precursor event in the Middle East. It’s a political flip-flop, really, of epic proportions.
DETROW: Yeah. Trump did an interview with The New York Times earlier this year, and he was asked if he sees any limitations on his power, and his response was, yeah, there’s one thing – my own morality, my own mind – it’s the only thing that can stop me. I’m wondering what you think about this. I mean, if Congress and the courts and other countries don’t push back on Trump, is he right, in a sense?
GLASSER: (Laughter) It’s quite a chilling thought considering that, you know, the American experiment – 250 years old this year – is based on the premise of us having a government of laws and not of men and certainly not of one man with kingly powers. I would say this, things like dramatically spiking oil prices, dramatically plummeting approval ratings for Trump and his party, those remain constraints of a sort. You know, interest rates as well may go up. American allies and partners in the Gulf who’ve now been attacked by Iran may pressure Trump to pull back on the operations. I think for him, he’s still holding out the option of keeping this a relatively limited and short-duration conflict and getting out. Now, of course, you know, once you unleash something like this, you don’t get the only vote, and events will transpire that may or may not make that possible for Trump.
DETROW: Susan Glasser is a staff writer for The New Yorker. Thank you so much for talking to us about all of this.
GLASSER: Thank you.
Copyright © 2026 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
