Journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan described Donald Trump's strategy for a potential war with Iran as a form of "magical thinking" during a recent interview.

The critique suggests a disconnect between the former president's strategic goals and the operational reality of international conflict. This assessment comes as the authors promote their book, "Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump."

During the appearance on the MS NOW program on MSNBC, the authors analyzed Trump's approach to foreign policy and military engagement [1]. They said the volatility of these strategies indicates that some of the plans discussed within the inner circle lack practical viability [2].

Haberman said the concerns are not merely from critics, but from within the former president's own orbit. She said, "this is a group of people who genuinely want to see" Trump succeed [1]. This indicates that even loyalists have expressed apprehension regarding the feasibility of his foreign policy directives.

The book also details a specific plan regarding the takeover of Gaza. According to the text, an unnamed aide described that particular strategy as "legitimately nutso" [3]. This description underscores the internal friction regarding the former president's unconventional approach to regional stability in the Middle East.

The authors used the platform to discuss how these patterns of decision-making characterize the "imperial presidency" described in their work [2]. The conversation centered on the risks associated with a strategy that relies on perceived strength and unpredictability, rather than traditional diplomatic or military planning [1].

“"this is a group of people who genuinely want to see" Trump succeed”

The characterization of these strategies as 'magical thinking' suggests a belief that the former president relies on an idealized version of geopolitical leverage that does not align with military or diplomatic norms. By citing internal sources and aides, the authors aim to demonstrate that these concerns are shared by those closest to the decision-making process, rather than being purely external political criticism.