With the news of a 14-day cease-fire in the Middle East conflict, people around the world must be exhaling with relief. Some caution would be advised. Pauses in fighting are always tenuous; a durable solution will almost certainly take longer than the two weeks currently in hand; and forthcoming talks will be overshadowed by mistrust. After all, the United States ordered the bombing of Iran twice in the last year while diplomacy was still underway. Pakistan, the main mediator right now, doesn’t even recognize the state of Israel.

Regardless, the spin has already begun. Each of the United States, Israel, and Iran are claiming some form of victory from the last five weeks of conflict. But for U.S. President Donald Trump, the facts don’t look good. Even if the status quo endures, he has replaced an 86-year-old supreme leader with a man three decades his junior. The Islamic Republic’s regime is not only intact but emboldened, vengeful, more militaristic, and more hard-line. Tehran still has the ability to launch attack drones across the region, and it will move quickly to rebuild its capacity to fire ballistic missiles. Most worryingly, Iran’s new leadership has gained something it never had before the war, or indeed at any point in the last five decades of tensions with the United States. Tehran has de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most consequential choke point for energy and a major highway for fertilizer and helium, a vital component in the production of semiconductors. Now that Iran has learned it can use energy as a weapon of war, it no longer needs to pursue a nuclear weapon—although it is still in possession of 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium.

With the news of a 14-day cease-fire in the Middle East conflict, people around the world must be exhaling with relief. Some caution would be advised. Pauses in fighting are always tenuous; a durable solution will almost certainly take longer than the two weeks currently in hand; and forthcoming talks will be overshadowed by mistrust. After all, the United States ordered the bombing of Iran twice in the last year while diplomacy was still underway. Pakistan, the main mediator right now, doesn’t even recognize the state of Israel.

Regardless, the spin has already begun. Each of the United States, Israel, and Iran are claiming some form of victory from the last five weeks of conflict. But for U.S. President Donald Trump, the facts don’t look good. Even if the status quo endures, he has replaced an 86-year-old supreme leader with a man three decades his junior. The Islamic Republic’s regime is not only intact but emboldened, vengeful, more militaristic, and more hard-line. Tehran still has the ability to launch attack drones across the region, and it will move quickly to rebuild its capacity to fire ballistic missiles. Most worryingly, Iran’s new leadership has gained something it never had before the war, or indeed at any point in the last five decades of tensions with the United States. Tehran has de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most consequential choke point for energy and a major highway for fertilizer and helium, a vital component in the production of semiconductors. Now that Iran has learned it can use energy as a weapon of war, it no longer needs to pursue a nuclear weapon—although it is still in possession of 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium.

Why did Trump order a war that has put the entire global economy in a more fragile place than it was at the start of the year? One answer could lie in the U.S. president’s long history of listening to other world leaders instead of his own intelligence service. Presumably, this is because outsiders tell him what he wants to hear. Or perhaps, in a twisted version of the old Groucho Marx joke about clubs, Trump refuses to respect the assessment of anyone who would work for him. Unlike with the war in Iraq at the start of this century—a misadventure Trump has rightly criticized as counterproductive—experts correctly predicted exactly what would happen if the White House ordered an attack on Iran. But Trump fired in-house specialists and surrounded himself with people who wouldn’t stand up to him. Whether the cease-fire endures now depends on whether Trump realizes the importance of listening to experts instead of his gut.

---

One moment in Trump’s first term foreshadowed how the current war would go awry. In July 2018, after two hours of closed-door talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland, Trump emerged to engage with the global media. “President Putin says it’s not Russia,” Trump said, responding to questions about whether he believed his own intelligence agencies in their assessment that Moscow attempted to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. “I don’t see any reason why it would be,” he added as Putin looked on, impressively deadpan.

Trump’s shocking performance that day seemed to repeat itself in the lead-up to the war with Iran when, in February, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a visit to the White House. In a remarkable feat of reporting this week, the New York Timesrevealed how Netanyahu presented to Trump a rosy four-part assessment of an attack on Iran. First, the supreme leader would be killed; second, airstrikes would cripple Iran’s capacity to fire missiles; third, there would be a popular uprising; and fourth, a secular leader would take over the country, enacting regime change.

According to the Times, CIA Director John Ratcliffe called the regime change scenario “farcical.” U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called it “bullshit.” And Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Trump the Israelis were being too optimistic. “Sir, this is, in my experience, standard operating procedure for the Israelis,” he said. “They oversell, and their plans are not always well-developed.”

Trump seemed to realize that parts 3 and 4 of Netanyahu’s plan were implausible but remained keen on the first two planks. Yet even Part 2—airstrikes on missile facilities—has largely failed. More than 30 minutes after the cease-fire was announced, Iranian cluster munitions were seen exploding above Tel Aviv, showcasing Iran’s continuing ability to threaten its neighbors and run down their expensive interceptors.

While the initial rationale for the war revolved around Israel’s security, the conflict quickly became about energy after Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s crude and natural gas normally passes daily. Here, too, the experts were not surprised. At a Senate intelligence hearing last month, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard remarked that it “has long been an assessment of the [intelligence community] that Iran would likely hold the Strait of Hormuz as leverage” in the event of an attack. But just days earlier, Trump publicly mused, “Who knew that was gonna happen?” He also said “nobody thought they were going to hit” the Gulf states. Except, again, those pesky experts. Several former policymakers have told me that war games routinely revealed Iran would likely respond to airstrikes by firing back at major energy exporters such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. And as I’ve argued previously, the Islamic Republic was designed as a system that wouldn’t collapse if its top leader died—a fact well-known by Iran-watchers. The experts always knew. Trump just wasn’t listening.

---

One way of understanding Trump’s debacle in Iran is to realize that the conditions for such a mistake have long been brewing. At the start of his second term, Trump officials who were putting together his national security team prized loyalty above all else. They applied absurd purity tests. They discarded anyone with the slightest history of criticizing Trump or his policies, even if they would have brought formidable experience to their prospective roles. More than 1,300 State Department employees were fired. The National Security Council was gutted. A few months into the start of Trump’s second term, Laura Loomer, a conspiracy theorist with outsized influence on the White House, ran campaigns to oust high-ranking policymakers, including Nate Swanson, a career diplomat who had become Trump’s point person on Iran. (In an essay in Foreign Affairs in February, Swanson accurately predicted the risk of a quagmire in Iran.) Trump increasingly turned to friends and family—Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner led talks with Iran earlier this year—instead of career diplomats.

Beyond firing experts, Trump cultivated a climate of obedience among the cabinet officials who survived the purity tests. Criticism was frowned upon. Public displays of flattery were encouraged. And as with Trump’s first term, but to an even greater degree for both U.S. and global officials, obsequiousness became the favored currency for advancing one’s ends.

Another factor making it more likely Trump would stumble into a trap was his good fortune in previous operations. The 12-day war on Iran last June, while illegal and launched without global consultation, showcased the U.S. military’s might. It was spun by the White House as a success that led to the obliteration of Iran’s nuclear program. A leaked U.S. intelligence assessment claiming otherwise was rapidly shouted down and branded blasphemous. And then came the Jan. 3 operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. A military mission in which many things could have gone wrong and yet didn’t likely gave the president a feeling that he was infallible. As he told the Times in an interview after the Venezuela operation, “I don’t need international law.” When he was pressed if there were any limits on his global powers, he responded by saying: “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

If events turned sour, Trump always knew he could turn to the cameras. One thing the president is genuinely good at is understanding the rhythms of 24/7 cable TV. Time and again during the conflict in Iran, Trump managed to convince the markets that the war would wind down. The president owned the airwaves by simultaneously making outlandish threats—including, most recently, of warning “a whole civilization will die tonight”—while dangling the hope of “something revolutionarily wonderful.” But even Trump must have known that the longer the war went on, and the longer Iran held the global economy hostage, his silver-tongued TV performances would lose their magical effects. No amount of subordinates “straight out of central casting,” as he often puts it, can turn black into white. In any case, cable TV is so last century. Iran was winning the PR game by poking fun at Trump with AI-generated memes circulated on social media.

In the end, expertise matters. Specialists can get things wrong. But you still need them in the room, and you have to empower them to speak their mind. If Trump hasn’t learned that lesson this week, it’s likely Iran and other U.S. adversaries will continue to outplay him.