Trump says the war is ending, but the strategic risks beg to differ

When US President Donald Trump declared that the war with Iran would end "very soon," he appeared eager to frame the conflict as a limited operation — a brief show of force designed to neutralise a strategic threat. 

Trump even described the war as a "short-term excursion," suggesting that the United States had already achieved most of its objectives. And the markets reacted accordingly: Brent Crude oil price came down below $90 per barrel. US equities also rebounded, with the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite both rising more than 1% after earlier losses, as investors bet the conflict would not escalate further. 

Yet the strategic realities emerging from the battlefield tell a far more complicated story. Iran has rejected any suggestion of capitulation, regional tensions are escalating, global energy markets are in turmoil, and the US now finds itself entangled in a widening geopolitical confrontation. 

Thus, even if the open hostilities end, the political fallout and wider implications may result in the Iran conflict being another Middle Eastern quagmire. 

A war for Israel? 

The most immediate strategic problem facing Washington is the absence of a coherent political objective. The Iran intervention has started to feel like a conflict from which the sole beneficiary is Israel. And what former US secretary of state Antony Blinken has revealed recently solidified the notion. 

According to Blinken, Israeli leaders had urged the Barack Obama administration to launch strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, warning that Israel might carry out the attack itself if Washington refused. Obama resisted the pressure, arguing that Iran's nuclear programme should be addressed through what he described as "very muscular diplomacy" — combining sustained negotiations with sweeping international sanctions — rather than immediate military confrontation.

Blinken also disclosed that tensions nearly spiralled into a wider regional war following the 7 October attacks. Israeli officials, he said, presented intelligence claiming that Hezbollah was preparing to launch an imminent attack from Lebanon and pushed for a preemptive strike.

Washington was briefly convinced by the warning. "We came within about 30 minutes of having a war," Blinken said, before the situation was ultimately halted. However, during the present Trump administration, Israel succeeded. First the 12-day War last year, and now this ongoing conflict. 

The US and Israel have carried out extensive strikes across Iran since the conflict began, targeting nuclear facilities, missile production sites, and critical infrastructure. Hundreds of military and civilian targets have been hit, and senior Iranian leadership figures — including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have been killed. Yet analysts say the political purpose behind these attacks remains unclear.

Regime-change wars are notoriously unpredictable. Iran's leadership has already demonstrated its intention to prolong the conflict rather than surrender. According to regional analysts, Tehran's strategy is simple: drag the war out long enough for the costs to become politically unbearable for Washington. In that sense, time is on Iran's side.

The oil shock that surprised no one 

Perhaps the most immediate consequence of the war has been the shock to global energy markets.

The Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil supply passes — has effectively become a conflict zone. Shipping companies have halted tanker traffic amid fears of Iranian attacks, creating a severe supply disruption.  The result has been a rapid spike in global oil prices.

Within days of the conflict's escalation, crude prices surged above $100 a barrel, and at one point approached $120 — levels not seen since the early stages of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.  The impact on the global economy could be severe.

Higher oil prices ripple through the global system, driving up transportation costs, aviation fuel prices, and ultimately food and consumer goods. For energy-importing countries already grappling with inflation, the consequences could be destabilising.

Even if the war were to end tomorrow, analysts warn that damaged infrastructure and disrupted supply chains could take weeks or months to repair. 

Political fallout at home

For Trump, the economic consequences carry profound domestic political risks. At the beginning of the year, the US economy appeared relatively stable. Inflation had moderated, energy prices were manageable, and the administration could claim progress on economic recovery.

The Iran war has abruptly changed that landscape. 

Regime-change wars are notoriously unpredictable. Iran's leadership has already demonstrated its intention to prolong the conflict rather than surrender. According to regional analysts, Tehran's strategy is simple: drag the war out long enough for the costs to become politically unbearable for Washington. In that sense, time is on Iran's side.

Gasoline prices in the US have surged sharply since the conflict began, rising to their highest levels during Trump's presidency. Higher fuel costs are politically toxic in American politics. Unlike abstract economic indicators, gas prices are visible daily to voters. Polling data suggests that many Americans remain sceptical of the war, particularly if it leads to prolonged military involvement or rising living costs. 

The timing could hardly be worse. Congressional midterm elections are approaching, and control of Congress hangs in the balance. If the conflict persists and energy prices remain high, the political damage could be substantial.

'America First' revolt within the Republican camp

While the White House has attempted to frame the Iran strikes as a limited and necessary military operation, a significant faction within the GOP — particularly the "America First" wing — has begun openly rejecting the conflict.

Several prominent members of Congress associated with the "America First" movement have emerged as leading critics of deeper US involvement in the war.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has been among the most outspoken. Greene has argued that military engagement abroad undermines domestic priorities, insisting that Washington should prioritise issues such as border security and economic challenges at home. In her view, foreign wars represent a continuation of what she describes as a long-standing pattern of "America last" policymaking.

Other influential figures within the Republican House caucus have echoed similar concerns. For them, the Iran conflict risks repeating the mistakes of previous Middle Eastern interventions, particularly the Iraq War, which many Republicans now view as a strategic miscalculation.

Across the broader ecosystem of MAGA-aligned media outlets and commentators, the war has been framed as another example of what critics describe as a "pointless foreign conflict" that diverts attention and resources away from domestic priorities. The narrative emphasises the economic costs of war, particularly at a time when rising fuel prices and inflation are already placing pressure on American households.

The global chessboard

Meanwhile, major powers outside the conflict are quietly adjusting their strategies. Russia stands to benefit from rising energy prices. Higher oil prices increase Moscow's export revenues, providing economic relief as it continues its war in Ukraine.

China and India, the world's largest energy importers, have also moved quickly to secure alternative supplies. 

India, for example, has increased purchases of Russian crude oil as it attempts to offset disruptions caused by the Middle East crisis. Meanwhile, the US eased restrictions on India from buying Russian oil. 

Russia — which has received extensive military support from Iran during the Ukraine war, including large shipments of drones — has stopped short of offering tangible assistance on the battlefield. Iranian officials reportedly sought help from Moscow after the strikes but left with little more than diplomatic backing and symbolic gestures. 

China has adopted a similarly cautious approach. Beijing has called for negotiations and an immediate cessation of hostilities but has avoided taking any steps that might escalate the confrontation with Washington.

However, Narendra Modi's open support for Israel is being seen as a moral defeat. Former Indian military officers and diplomats described the incident as a "strategic embarrassment" to the Indian government and a "blow to its regional credibility". 

Across Europe, governments remain deeply sensitive to energy market volatility following the economic shock triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. European economies are still recovering from years of high inflation and supply disruptions. Just when the Qatari LNG flow stopped, European allies urged de-escalation.  

The hesitation is equally visible among US allies in Asia. Japan and South Korea — both heavily dependent on Middle Eastern energy imports — are particularly concerned about disruptions to oil shipments passing through the Persian Gulf.

Even among Gulf partners, enthusiasm for the war remains limited. Although several Gulf states view Iran as a regional rival, their economies depend heavily on stable energy exports and secure maritime trade routes. A large-scale regional war risks damaging oil infrastructure, attack on desalination plants, disrupting shipping lanes and undermining investment flows across the region. Riyadh has prevented the US from accessing its bases for offensive operations. 

Global economic institutions are also monitoring the situation closely. The Group of Seven (G7) has held emergency discussions about the impact of rising oil prices and the possibility of releasing strategic petroleum reserves to stabilise markets. 

The United Nations: From guardian of peace to a paper tiger

Another revealing feature of the current Iran war is the near-total absence of meaningful intervention by the United Nations. 

In theory, the UN was created precisely to prevent conflicts of this kind. The organisation's founding charter places the prohibition of aggressive war at the centre of the international system. Yet in practice, the past decade has demonstrated how limited the institution's ability has become when major powers choose to act unilaterally.

The war involving Iran is only the latest example in a growing list of conflicts where the UN has largely been reduced to issuing statements rather than shaping outcomes in recent years. 

They failed to take any step whatsoever against Israeli genocide in Gaza. They failed to prevent any meaningful step against Russian aggression in Ukraine. In Syria, Russian and Chinese vetoes repeatedly prevented the Council from adopting measures against the Assad government. Critics argue that the UN's credibility has been steadily eroding as a result. When conflicts break out and the organisation fails to prevent or resolve them, its authority appears symbolic rather than practical.

For now, the Trump administration continues to insist that the war will end soon. But wars rarely follow the timelines imagined by political leaders. 

Iran's strategy of prolonging the conflict, combined with global economic disruption and domestic political pressure within the United States, creates a classic quagmire scenario: a conflict that becomes increasingly difficult to win yet politically costly to abandon.