The United States and Israel launched a surgical air operation against Iran five weeks ago, with the aim of quickly changing the dictatorial theocratic regime. What was planned as an expedition of a few days has lasted for weeks and has now exceeded a month.
Trump’s triumphalist rhetoric has been transformed as the days go by. From the initial objective of regime change, different achievements have gone on to be highlighted, such as the beheading of the religious and military leadership, the destruction of the Iranian navy, the degradation of military facilities, serious damage to the defense industry and total air superiority over the Persians.
Tehran’s reaction was unexpected. It was not limited to the defensive, but expanded the confrontation and regionalized the war, establishing an asymmetric conflict by attacking US bases in the Persian Gulf and facilities of the petro-monarchies allied to the United States.
The other element of the response was the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil transits. The consequences of this closure have been worrying for the global economy: the rise in the price of a barrel of oil ($110) has a direct impact on world inflation and the stock markets have fallen rapidly. The specter of stagnation with inflation appears on the horizon. Hormuz thus becomes the decisive element of a fragile ceasefire.
The issue of the strait has caused serious confrontations with the Europeans, who have refused Trump’s request to open this route militarily. They argue that this war is not theirs: they did not start it nor were they consulted.
Although they are allies, the relationship with Israel has not been without differences. Tel Aviv has had operational success, but strategic uncertainty permeates that tactical achievement. It is true that the delay of the Iranian nuclear program and the neutralization of Hezbollah eliminate immediate threats. However, the announcement of a possible US withdrawal causes concern. Instead of a complete change of the theocratic regime, a chaotic vacuum could be generated.
Faced with Washington’s eventual departure, Israel would be forced to manage the conflict. On the other hand, rapprochements with Arab countries are significantly eroded. Military successes do not mean the end of the war, but just a phase of it.
Russia has demonstrated against the military actions of the coalition between the United States and Israel and has benefited, both because the war in Ukraine has left the media spotlight, and because of the increase in the price of oil.
China has kept a low profile. The oil blockade harms it due to its dependence on crude oil from the Persian Gulf, but the direct attack on Tehran brings it closer to Iran politically. It is worth asking whether this proximity could translate into logistical support in the future.
The repercussion on American society has accelerated the drop in Trump’s approval in the polls (33%), which has led him to announce a possible end to the war in two or three weeks. However, he has also resorted to threats such as “throwing the Persians back to the Stone Age,” a bravado that calls into question the chances of success of diplomatic negotiations with a regime that, although decapitated, resists like a thousand-headed hydra that regenerates itself beyond the obvious destruction caused by the American-Israeli incursions.
The Iranian resistance has deepened the White House crisis beyond the economic, since the insufficiency of the air war to produce a resounding victory has opened the possibility of a ground invasion (boots on the ground), which generates rejection by citizens, according to surveys.
Two major factors affect the mid-term elections –next November– in the medium term, beyond the military and geopolitical arguments. First, the increase in the cost of living, the household economy (kitchen table) and citizens’ fear of seeing their dead soldiers return generate rejection of military intervention (59%). Furthermore, 60% disapprove of the way Trump is managing the situation and 45% consider that military actions are not going well.
The mass murders promoted by the ayatollahs have not produced organized uprisings and, in the face of external attack, this ancient civilization resorts to internal cohesion to galvanize its population.
The downing of fighter planes, troop transports and helicopters has refuted the rhetoric of the total destruction of anti-aircraft defenses. Intelligence sources from the United States Government indicate that Tehran maintains an important part of its ballistic and drone arsenal. The supposed invulnerability of air supremacy has been invalidated in fact, constituting a psychological and tactical defeat.
This relative military fragility increases internal discontent and has led Trump to direct the spotlight on Cuba, in his attempt to build an electoral argument for the MAGA base, particularly in his stronghold of Florida.
The last few days reveal the strategic impotence of the superpower, lacking a clear definition of the political goal it pursues, of the state of peace it seeks to achieve through war. A decapitated regime that does not die refutes the illusion of an easy war.
Air superiority destroys material targets, but does not know what to get from the ruins. In Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez became an interlocutor; in Iran, not even Trump knows who his interlocutors are.
The coalition punishes without direction, moving from threatening total destruction to offering unconditional dialogue, then returning to pure force and threatening to destroy vital facilities.
The internal division of the Trumpist forces – between the “America First” isolationists (Marjorie Taylor) and the hawks (Pete Hegseth), supporters of total hegemony – generates an oscillation that produces strategic fog. This prevents coherent action and pushes towards withdrawal or stagnation: another endless war that citizens are not willing to accept.
The US government must now fight on two fronts: the Middle East and the domestic front, where the legitimacy of Trumpist populism is beginning to fade in the face of the awareness that the conflict not only affects the price of oil, but also medical treatments (such as dialysis), shoe manufacturing and fertilizers.
An oil crisis that becomes a crisis of everything. Trump must assume that the regime will not fall and that control of Hormuz will remain in the hands of Iran. There is no victory beyond tactical military successes.
*This article was originally published in The Nation.
