General Paul Eaton understands the consequences of poorly prepared wars in the Middle East. In Iraq, he led the operations to train the Iraqi army after the 2003 invasion carried out by the United States. Fifteen days into the conflict with Iran, the seventy-year-old criticizes the lack of strategy from the White House and expresses concerns about the future.
LA TRIBUNE DIMANCHE – Since the beginning of the war against Iran, the objectives stated by the United States have been constantly changing. What is the final goal being sought?PAUL EATON – The American and Israeli strikes are destroying military, political, and some Iranian economic resources. However, our civilian leaders seem incompetent and unable to leverage these actions to create a diplomatic opening, a possibility to achieve a final goal that is not yet defined. Due to this incompetent conduct of the war, the United States finds itself adrift diplomatically, economically, and militarily.
Did the Trump administration launch this conflict without anticipating the closure of the Strait of Hormuz? Does this seem coherent to you?
This closure was perfectly foreseeable. The use of this economic weapon was among the hypotheses studied by the interagency operations command responsible for long-term planning for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is included in operation plan 1002, which anticipates a large-scale conflict in the Persian Gulf.
This plan has often been pulled out of the drawers for review and revision. But since the purge of our senior military officials by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, fear and intimidation have stifled the discussion phase before and after the issuance of a battle order. Since the beginning of operations, ideas emerge in press conferences of the president and the Secretary of Defense, without a supporting planning structure. They are improvising as they go. The United States is in reactive mode in response to Iranian actions.
Could the US Navy escort the tankers through the strait, or is it too late to do so?
Based on the assumption of a strait closure, planning should have ensured that the US Navy or coast guards had the necessary means to ensure the transit of oil through the strait. However, it seems that this is not the case. This is a new illustration of military negligence in this conflict.
The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran view this war as an existential threat.
Is a ground operation to recover the Iranian enriched uranium stockpile or to seize Kharg Island possible?
Iran is a country of 93 million people and is two and a half times larger than Texas. Its terrain is complex with a maritime facade and very long communication lines. The discontent of Iranians towards their own government could turn into a strong hostility against anyone attacking their territory. Seizing the heights around the Strait of Hormuz or Kharg Island would be possible. But the idea of introducing troops into Iranian soil seems extremely risky to me.
Are the United States trapped in an asymmetrical conflict?
This chosen war was not intended to defend a vital national interest of the United States. Trump decided to intervene largely influenced by his success in removing Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela. He underestimated the Iranians and overestimated his own ability to influence the course of events.
On the contrary, the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran see this war as an existential threat. In this conflict, the initiative has shifted from the attacker to the defender. The Iranians have seized an opportunity at a very low cost and very high impact by closing the strait. The duration of this war could depend on the Iranians and a decision made in an office in Tehran.
How long could it last?
The amount of ammunition available to both sides will impact the situation. The most likely scenario is that Trump will declare victory by claiming to have crippled Iran’s ability to wage war and influence the Gulf. However, if the strait remains closed after their departure, the United States would be left with an unsatisfied vital national interest. The global economy would suffer significantly, and our economy would also be threatened. The United States may have caused more damage than they think.
Are they making the same mistake as during the invasion of Iraq in 2003?
In our second war against Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld prohibited the Centcom command and staff from planning the occupation phase of Iraq. He assumed that the Iraqi political infrastructure would remain in place without Saddam Hussein and that we would be welcomed with open arms. Therefore, we did not foresee the aftermath. The fact that we are now witnessing an Iran 2.0 in Iran shows that the American administration has not learned the lessons from the past or has forgotten them.
Is the US military becoming an instrument at the service of the president?
By firing a handful of senior generals, Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth have made it clear that open discussions are not welcome in the military. A senior officer may hesitate to express their opinions. We all took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not an allegiance oath to the president or the Secretary of Defense. The president and his Secretary of Defense want to make the US military a political tool in their hands. It remains to be seen if this will materialize.
/2026/03/14/000-a38q7hl-69b4fd94b335d316958522.jpg "Donald Trump says that Iran is completely defeated, Tehran threatens to reduce to ashes the")
