By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The United States and Israel’s attack on Iran in 2026, driven by President Trump’s desire to settle old scores rather than address current threats, appears anachronistic, supported by older generations but unpopular with younger cohorts. This war exposes the US’s overstretched military and strategic indiscipline, potentially signaling a shift away from Middle East policing. Despite potential hopes for this conflict to be a turning point, the US remains powerful and the war could lead to deeper entanglement in the region, with Gulf partners seeking stronger defense commitments. Ultimately, preventing future wars requires public action against warmakers and a cessation of US entanglement in the Middle East.
Read the original article here
The notion that Donald Trump is engaged in a “Boomer war” in Iran, a conflict broadly unpopular with those under 60, resonates with a significant generational divide in perspectives on foreign policy and military engagement. This idea suggests a disconnect between the priorities and experiences of older generations, particularly those who came of age during the Cold War and subsequent interventions in the Middle East, and the younger demographics for whom these conflicts have been a constant, often costly, backdrop to their lives. For many under 40, the concept of “oil wars” feels like a perpetual state of affairs, with gasoline prices rarely dipping below levels that feel affordable.
The sentiment is often framed as a clash of realities, with older generations emphasizing notions of strength and national pride as justifications for military action. There’s a feeling that these arguments often fail to address the practical costs and potential repercussions, particularly for younger people who may eventually bear the brunt of any prolonged conflict. This disconnect is highlighted by accounts of family members, even those identifying as Republican and of a certain age, expressing an almost childlike glee at the prospect of military action, while younger family members are acutely aware of the potential for disaster and economic instability, especially concerning oil prices.
Interestingly, the initial enthusiasm for military action among some older individuals appears to wane as the reality of the situation unfolds, leading to a more subdued acknowledgment of the concerns raised by younger generations. This suggests that while initial reactions might be driven by deeply ingrained beliefs or a desire for decisive leadership, the consequences of war can eventually temper these views, even if not explicitly admitted. The generational aspect of this disagreement is particularly striking, with priorities seeming to diverge so significantly that genuine understanding and listening become difficult.
However, labeling this solely as a “Boomer war” is an oversimplification, as data suggests it’s more accurately a Republican-aligned sentiment, with older Republicans showing significantly higher approval for Trump’s handling of the conflict than their younger counterparts. Conversely, Democrats and Democratic leaners, regardless of age, largely disapprove of the military action. This distinction is crucial, pointing to a partisan divide that cuts across age groups, although older Republicans appear to be a key demographic supporting the current approach.
The perceived outcomes of such actions also fuel the generational rift. Before any significant military engagement, the argument goes, Iran did not control the Strait of Hormuz, its oil was sanctioned, and it wasn’t actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Furthermore, US bases in the Gulf were seen as assets rather than liabilities, and inflation was on a downward trend. The subsequent shifts in these areas are viewed by many as evidence of a failed strategy, making the war seem counterproductive and ill-advised.
There are also many individuals over 60 who strongly oppose the war, challenging the idea that all members of that generation are in favor of it. These voices emphasize that the conflict is deeply unpopular with them, and they have consistently voted against such policies for decades, viewing them as driven by a desire for power and destruction rather than genuine national interest or democratic values. The argument that it’s a Republican war, not a Boomer war, gains traction here, suggesting the opposition is rooted in political affiliation more than generational cohort.
Some express frustration with the generalizations about “Boomers,” suggesting that younger generations also exhibit concerning behaviors and hold beliefs that are not always aligned with progressive ideals. There’s a call to avoid divisive labels and instead focus on the true architects of such policies, which some identify as a combination of Trump, Israeli interests, and potentially Russian influence, rather than pinning it on an entire generation.
The idea that this is a “chicken hawk war” rather than a generational one also gains traction, implying that those advocating for conflict are not the ones who will directly experience its hardships. The financial motivations behind such wars are often cited as a primary driver, with speculation that the conflict is intended to boost electoral prospects, distract from other issues, or enrich war profiteers, rather than serving America’s genuine interests.
The disconnect between the perceived priorities of older leaders and younger constituents is starkly illustrated by the focus on affordable housing, healthcare, and groceries for those under 65. War, in this context, is seen as antithetical to achieving these fundamental needs. The argument that younger generations want to “reverse” progress on issues like civil rights and abortion is also raised, complicating the simple narrative of generational conflict.
Ultimately, the “Boomer war” framing highlights a deeper societal divide, suggesting that some older generations are perceived as eager to “burn everything down” while also criticizing younger generations for their perceived inability to cope with the consequences. The idea that significant investment in renewable energy could have led to energy independence, rather than perpetual spending on wars for oil, further underscores a sense of missed opportunities and misplaced priorities.
Many individuals over 60 unequivocally condemn the war and Trump’s actions, viewing the age-based generalization as inaccurate and dismissive of their own deeply held anti-war sentiments. The notion that MAGA supporters are pro-war, seeing it as patriotic, is contrasted with the reality that many Republicans are described as engaging in a cycle of starting wars, causing recessions, and enriching the wealthy at the expense of the working class.
The argument that Trump’s worldview is stuck in the past, rooted in bygone eras and aesthetics, is also presented as a key factor. This arrested development, it’s suggested, prevents him and his supporters from understanding the desires and concerns of younger generations, leading to policies that feel increasingly out of touch. The enthusiasm of some younger men for the idea of war, which then wanes when they realize they might be the ones fighting, illustrates a practical learning curve that older generations may have already navigated.
The comparison of the Republican Party itself to a “relic unpopular with anyone under 60” further emphasizes the generational gap in political appeal. The idea that older generations might have learned from past conflicts, like Vietnam, only to repeat similar mistakes, is a source of deep frustration. The notion that younger generations no longer respect elders is partly attributed to the perceived failures of those elders to learn from history and to advocate for responsible governance.
Finally, the pervasive influence of smartphones and real-time information is seen as a crucial factor in dismantling the effectiveness of war propaganda. Unlike in the past, when information was more controlled, today’s interconnected world allows for immediate scrutiny and dissemination of the realities of conflict, making it harder to sustain popular support for prolonged military engagements, especially when the costs and consequences become transparent.