Did the US and Israel miscalculate Iran? Is Iran emerging victorious from the war? Geography is leveraging Iran against the superpowers—the US and Israel. After razing Gaza and now bombing Iran, is Israel nearing total alienation from the American public?
According to a New York Times survey, more than half of Americans under the age of 30 oppose providing economic and military support to Israel. Has the US gained or sacrificed its national interests by engaging in war with Iran? Its historical and traditional allies refused to join the American war. Decades of unconditional US support for Israel have dashed hopes for peace in the Middle East.
At the time of writing this piece, bombs have stopped, markets have climbed, and news of peace is being broadcast everywhere. Both the US and Iran have agreed to a two-week truce. Islamabad’s mediation efforts took place, yet talks did not conclude. No breakthrough came out of the negotiations, yet the ceasefire is in place. The question of who gains what and who emerges as strategically mature during the 40-day conflict requires careful evaluation.
Israeli war objectives are purely based on the idea of “Greater Israel,” which involves expanding borders. To fulfil its appetite for expansion, it has carried out ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Moreover, it weakens neighbouring states from fostering their Zionist expansionist policies.
After the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, the weakening of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the crippling of Hamas in Gaza, Israel attacked Iran. Israel portrayed its attack on Iran as a pre-emptive strike. Its aim of wrecking Iran was to replace a hardliner regime with a new regime subservient to the United States.
For decades, the abundance of oil has prioritised the Middle East for the US. However, now the US Middle East policy is largely Israel-driven. Unconditional support for Israel within the American administration has undermined its own national interests. The current behaviour of the US in world affairs shows that if US interests collide with Israel’s interests, the US would likely pursue Israel’s interests due to the powerful Israeli lobby operating within its political system.
For decades, Netanyahu tried to convince successive US presidents to strike Iran but remained unsuccessful. This time, he convinced President Trump to wage war against Iran. Even though the American deep state was not enthusiastic about war, Trump entered the conflict contrary to the assessment of the US intelligence community. Although it was not originally America’s war, its main goals included ending nuclear enrichment, regime change, halting long-range missile development, and ending support for proxy groups—the “three Hs”.
Israel is not happy with the negotiations. It may sabotage the resumption of the US–Iran dialogue
Iran’s stance lies in maintaining its peaceful nuclear programme under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), protecting its territorial integrity, and not surrendering to what it calls imperialistic aggression by Zionist–US forces.
It was difficult to imagine that a country under sanctions, with low economic growth and a defence budget of around $16 billion, could withstand attacks from a country spending nearly $900 billion on defence. The US and Israeli officials calculated that decapitating top leadership would work, but it failed to produce a quick and decisive victory.
The US has 13 military bases in the Middle East, which were reportedly damaged by Iranian missile strikes, if not destroyed. Secondly, its powerful navy hesitated to enter Iranian waters or nearby regions. One aircraft carrier reportedly left the conflict zone, while another remained far from Iran’s coast—about 700 to 1,400 km away.
Iran has inflicted blows that the US had not anticipated. In rescue operations alone, America reportedly lost more aircraft in a single day than at any time since the Vietnam War. The US is also bringing weaponry from East Asia to deal with Iran, suggesting a diversion from its China-focused strategy.
Primarily, the US appears to have lost on the political front. Its former European allies refused to join the war. This conflict also exposed the defence vulnerabilities of Gulf Cooperation Council states, as America could not fully shield them from Iranian missile barrages. Moreover, Iran’s war reportedly increased Russia’s oil revenues by $9 billion, according to Reuters.
This suggests that the US is weakening its position in containing China and Russia, thereby compromising its own national interests in pursuit of Israel’s objectives. Domestically, the Trump administration is facing widespread public criticism. Thus, America appears to have gained less and lost more. At negotiations in Islamabad, Iran reportedly presented a maximalist list of demands. The Guardian noted that the US faced a strategic setback during the conflict.
Iran holds a significant strategic position by potentially disrupting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, thereby affecting the global economy. Geography gives Iran leverage in the Gulf.
The consequences of the conflict are already affecting global energy prices. Iran has inflicted considerable damage on Israel through cruise and ballistic missiles. Moreover, despite the killing of more than 50 of its top leaders, the regime has survived. Thus, Iran appears to be in a strong position on the escalation ladder, leaving limited exit options for Trump.
Israeli war aims remain unfulfilled. Iran appears to be emerging stronger. Its domestic audience seems intact behind the regime. Furthermore, it has strained US-Israel relations. Public opinion in the US has shifted against Israel. Thus, it may be considered a colossal blunder by the US-Israel partnership, as also pointed out by John Mearsheimer.
Currently, a fragile two-week ceasefire is in progress. The US president has not yet issued any new military threats against Iran. However, Israel has maintained its military aggression in southern Lebanon. Israel is not happy with the negotiations. It may sabotage the resumption of the US–Iran dialogue. This conflict has devastating consequences for the world economy. World leaders are pressing for peace. Therefore, a fair chance must be given to diplomacy for peace to prevail.