Two weeks after the start of the Iran War, the picture is coming into focus. Why would a president who promised countless times not to start new wars have leapt into this conflict? As always in the age of Trump, it's necessary to separate the president's motives and mindset from the old ways we used to decide questions of war and peace, tariffs, sanctions, immigration, taxes and other matters. Before venturing into Trump's mind, let's consider the shape of the discussion.

Those who imagine that we are still operating in a normal world are making arguments in favor of military action as if we were engaged in a national debate. Where is the acknowledgment, they demand, of what a vicious regime the mullahs in Iran run? The Islamic Republic has been at war with us since 1979, they stress, and if you doubt their murderous intent, you're forgetting the 444 days our diplomats were held hostage, the attack on our Beirut embassy and on Marines stationed at the Beirut airport, the Khobar Towers bombing, and countless IEDs and other attacks by Iranian proxies during the Iraq War, to say nothing of their unofficial national slogan "Death to America/Death to Israel."

Iran's internal repression is nearly as brutal as its external support for terrorism, with women in particular bearing the brunt. The population loathes the regime, as we've witnessed many times, but most recently in January when they thronged the streets in their tens of thousands — only to be gunned down en masse.

If we had a normal administration and a normal decision-making process, those factors would have been considered. We would have weighed the risks of war against the opportunity to strike a fatal blow to a terrible regime. The fact of Iran being a nasty piece of work is not dispositive on the matter of going to war. A poorly planned or executed war can make things worse.

Now we turn to the juvenile, facts-optional world of Trump, where the president commits the United States to war without planning, without consultation with allies, without congressional authorization and without a clue about how badly things could go.

Thrilled by U.S. firepower in last summer's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, and giddy from the perceived success of removing Nicolas Maduro, Trump came to believe that the military was a magic wand that he could wave according to his whim. Of course he was aware of his vows to keep us out of wars, but wars are boots on the ground, not beautiful strikes from the skies. Disregarding warnings from wiser heads about the risks to the Strait of Hormuz, Trump dove in.

My best understanding of his motive harks back to the hostage crisis of 1979. Trump lives in the past more than most people, and due to his exceptional sensitivity to humiliation, I think he carries the shame of that episode in his heart. In a 1980 interview that is believed to be his first public statement on foreign policy, he said, "That this country sits back and allows a country such as Iran to hold our hostages, to my way of thinking, is a horror."

In addition to wounded pride, we must add vainglory. The Lindsey Graham/Binyamin Netanyahu tag team played upon Trump's lust for glory by convincing him that while Iran had been a thorn in our side for half a century and previous presidents had vowed not to permit it to become a nuclear power, no other president had the cojones to do the job.

Trump obviously thought he could achieve regime change with an air campaign alone. He invited the Iranian people in the early hours of the attacks to take back their country. Perhaps both he and Netanyahu misread the lesson of January, believing that the people would seize power. But the real lesson of January was that the regime would do anything, including massacring thousands of its own citizens, to maintain its grip on power. The brutality worked. Only the regime has guns. The demonstrations subsided.

Iran has inflicted pain on its people for decades and it is more than happy to intensify it now. They can bear shortages, blackouts, misery and death because they have no choice. All the mullahs have to do to "win" this conflict is survive. Meanwhile, an American public that was never consulted and certainly not convinced to undertake a risky war will be intolerant of even higher inflation or a recession. The advantage in a contest of wills goes to the mullahs.

The Iranian regime is one of the worst on the planet, and we must still hope for the sake of the Iranian people and the world that it does not survive. But this war is being conducted to heal psychic wounds and to boost the ego of our dangerous commander in chief, who is now obliged to plead for help opening the Strait of Hormuz from (former?) allies and enemies alike. If the Iranian regime survives, even in a weakened condition, it may be more dangerous than ever, having shown the world that it can withstand simultaneous assault from the "big and little Satans."

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her book, "Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism," is available now.

Photo credit: chris robert at Unsplash