In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the United Nations to present the George W. Bush administration’s case against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. His remarks were directed at two audiences: reluctant allies and unconvinced Americans.

Hawks who wanted this war termed Powell’s performance “compelling and persuasive.” His calm and commanding presence, combined with a multimedia presentation of audiotapes and photographs, built a strong case for U.S. allegations that the Baghdad regime was not fully complying with United Nations’ mandates and was seeking to build a nuclear warhead.

Even though the secretary’s “evidence” was cherry-picked or even fabricated, and artfully presented for maximum impact, his arguments didn’t sway the majority of Americans who remained unconvinced. Most did not want a war with Iraq. They weren’t asking for proof of the Iraqi government’s brutality or evil intent. They already knew that to be true. What they wanted to know was “why a war and why now?” In fact, they wanted answers to the very questions Powell had laid out years earlier in what came to be known as “The Powell Doctrine” — six requirements before the U.S. should engage in any foreign military conflict:

What they wanted to know was “why a war and why now?”

• Were vital U.S. interests at stake?

• Was the U.S. willing and able to commit sufficient resources to win swiftly, decisively and with minimal casualties?

• Were the military and political objectives were clearly defined and delineated?

• Was there the political will to sustain the commitment needed to realize the objectives?

• Did a reasonable expectation exist at the outset that the American public and Congress would support this commitment and would sustain that support?

• Have all possible means of resolving the conflict been exhausted?

We now know that the Bush administration was not truthful in making its case for war. Saddam Hussein did not have, nor was he building, a nuclear warhead, and Iraq was not the sponsor of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. However, the administration’s more significant lies were those presented to Congress seeking to address the public’s and Congress’ concerns about the war. These included: that the war would only involve a limited number of troops; that U.S. forces would be celebrated in Iraq as liberators; that the war would be over in a few weeks; that the troops could come home after six months; that the war would cost only a few billion dollars (with the remaining costs covered by Iraqi oil revenues); that extremism would be defeated and that Iraq would emerge as a beacon of democracy that would light up the whole Middle East.

The war did succeed in removing Saddam Hussein from office, but it was the unintended consequences of that war that remain with us a generation later. Thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands Iraqis were killed. The cost to the U.S. treasury was over seven trillion dollars. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops suffered from injuries and trauma from their service. Iraq remains unstable. With the defeat of Saddam, Iran was unleashed and emboldened, finding a foothold in Iraq, and the sectarian extremism of al Qaeda metastasized into ISIS, which spread across the Middle East and north and west Africa.

The war did succeed in removing Saddam Hussein from office, but it was the unintended consequences of that war that remain with us a generation later.

A thoughtful analysis of the regional situation before the war’s start would have helped policymakers understand the inevitability of these unintended consequences. But because Powell himself didn’t answer the very questions posed by his own doctrine, we went blindly into Iraq. We, the Iraqi people and the broader region are still living with the devastating and destabilizing results.

This tragic history should be considered when we assess the current U.S.-Israel war on Iran. When announcing the initial bombing of Iran, President Trump made a similar case to the one Powell and other officials made 23 years ago. He argued that Iran is seeking to build a nuclear warhead and missiles that can reach the U.S., has the blood of Americans on its hands, and has threatened U.S. allies across the Middle East. And he noted the brutal treatment of the Iranian regime toward its own people. The president argued that the U.S. and Israel seek to punish and remove the regime so the Iranian people can rise up and create a more democratic government.

Americans won’t argue with the president’s case against Iran’s domestic repression or its export of violence, though Trump has bent the truth about the nuclear issues. But no matter how problematic Americans may view the Iranian regime, a majority are opposed to this war. With the Iraq war a not-too-distant memory, Americans want to know why a war is necessary? And what might be the cost, terms of engagement and expectations of success, and how will it end?

In his effort to win support from a reluctant American public, President Trump followed the same disingenuous path laid out by the Bush administration. He said the war would be quick because overwhelming force would be sufficient and transformative. Because the Iranian people will rise up and demand change, there’ll be no need for American boots on the ground. He assured voters that the U.S. would not be involved in a nation-building exercise. And he claimed that America and the Middle East will be more secure after punishing the Iranians for their bad behavior and replacing the regime.

The result will be a costly war with no good outcome and a region in chaos for years to come.

Most of this borders on fantasy. As the war drags on, the administration has moved the goalposts. The expected duration of four to five weeks has been extended to five months. Since the Iranian people did not rise up to overthrow the regime, the U.S. is deploying armed Iranian Kurdish units to foment civil war — with American military advisors. And President Trump now insists that he pick the next head of government in Iran, which sounds a lot like nation-building.

Instead of making Americans and our allies more secure, U.S. citizens are being urged to leave the Middle East. Arab countries that had been developing ties with Iran are now embittered by Iran’s attacks on their territories and, with the instability and the economic repercussions of this war, are losing confidence in the U.S. and pressing for an end to hostilities. Despite Israel’s daily violations of its October ceasefire with Lebanon, they took advantage of a few missile attacks engineered by elements of Hezbollah to launch a full-scale attack on that country and are now pushing Lebanon into a civil war  Arming Iranian Kurdish groups will have consequences for Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iraq. If the U.S. does the same with other minority communities in Iran, the country may fracture, as happened in Libya.

The result will be a costly war with no good outcome and a region in chaos for years to come. The tragedy is that this might have been avoided had the Trump administration learned the lessons of the Iraq war debacle and been attentive to the requirements of the Powell Doctrine.

– Dr. James Zogby is the founder and president of the Washington based Arab American Institute (AAI)