The war in Iran has entered its second week, and the Trump administration finds itself navigating a complex narrative landscape.

Most people expected the American military to dominate, and those expectations have been met.

Seven American soldiers have died in the

conflict so far, but the casualties and material damage inflicted on the Iranian forces has been

far more devastating. While many were surprised at the amount of damage that Iran has been able

to deal to American allies in the Middle East, it's obvious that the country is ultimately outmatched.

But the question at the start of the war was not whether the U.S. had superior firepower, but

whether the administration could maintain support long enough to achieve victory.

President Trump's new foreign policy has relied on limited but highly effective strikes

rather than long occupations. Now the administration

is attempting to apply that paradigm to a more expansive conflict while managing the expectations

of the American people. Donald Trump campaigned heavily on the idea that extended regime change

wars are bad for the United States. The president was never an isolationist,

but he made it clear that military actions should be limited, competent, and born of necessity.

Despite concerns from parts of his base, Trump has been able to project power while limiting

engagement to single bombing runs or midnight raids. Skeptics of foreign interventions still had their concerns,

but constrained and impressively executed operations ultimately quieted those critiques.

That becomes more and more difficult when the special military operation expands from hours

to days or from days to weeks or from weeks to months. Putting boots on the ground

has become the most salient measure of commitment. If the operation remains purely a mixture of

air and naval power, the American public can understand it as a limited engagement. While the

financial costs would still be enormous, casualties are

...