The recent military actions against Iran, now two weeks in, have starkly illuminated a significant miscalculation on the part of Donald Trump. It appears he failed to anticipate the ripple effect of such a conflict on global energy markets, specifically the potential for increased gasoline prices within the United States, despite Iran’s status as a net petroleum exporter. Furthermore, any warnings regarding Iran’s capacity to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz seem to have been disregarded.
This oil supply crisis, far from weakening Vladimir Putin, may well have provided him with a much-needed lifeline. Russia’s economic strain from its ongoing involvement in Ukraine was becoming increasingly burdensome, and the ensuing instability in oil markets could offer a crucial reprieve.
Despite two weeks of strikes against Iran, punctuated by conflicting pronouncements about the war’s imminent conclusion or its protracted nature, the underlying rationale for President Trump’s decision to initiate military engagement remains obscure. His pronouncements continue to oscillate, from demanding that other nations deploy warships – a stark departure from his earlier dismissal of British assistance, which he cynously framed as a bid to “join wars after we’ve already won” – to other, less consistent stances.
The Nuclear Question and Shifting Justifications
If concrete evidence had emerged suggesting Iran was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, the Israeli people would have possessed a legitimate right to self-defence against an existential threat, and their allies would have had a clear obligation to support them. However, no such compelling evidence has been presented by either the Israeli government or the US administration. This is particularly noteworthy given the US’s use of bunker-buster bombs in June, which they then declared a successful strike against Iran’s nuclear program.
Was Regime Change the True Objective?
A more plausible explanation for President Trump’s involvement in the strikes appears to be a belief that the Iranian regime was on the brink of collapse. Had this been the case, the strategic benefit of airstrikes in potentially aiding the liberation of the Iranian people – who have endured significant suffering under their theocratic dictatorship and were seeking international support to cast off their oppressive rule – might have warranted consideration. However, President Trump’s assurance that “help is on its way” now appears to have been hollow, lacking any concrete plan to safeguard Iranian protestors from the regime’s brutal suppression.
The Perils of Intervention and Unintended Consequences
Even in a hypothetical scenario of imminent regime collapse, the efficacy of external military action in hastening such an event, or ensuring subsequent security and stability, remains highly questionable. Even President Trump, who campaigned on an anti-war platform, should have learned from the experiences in Iraq that the removal of a tyrannical regime does not automatically guarantee an end to bloodshed. This is especially true when considering the extensive US military presence already in place in Iraq.
In reality, the Iranian regime has demonstrated a greater resilience than President Trump seemingly anticipated. The strategy of decapitation, involving the assassination of the supreme leader, has regrettably backfired as predicted. Instead of weakening the regime, it has resulted in the succession of an aging hardliner by a younger, even more hardline individual.
Recent reports indicate that Iran has instructed Abu Dhabi and Dubai to clear their ports. This action suggests that the US strike on Kharg Island has not deterred Tehran but is, in fact, escalating the conflict.
Political Ramifications and Historical Ambitions
The economic impact of this two-week conflict is already being felt by American citizens, making it fortunate for President Trump that he is not facing an imminent election. The conspicuous silence and low profile of Vice President JD Vance, who harbours ambitions to succeed President Trump, speaks volumes about the current unpopularity of this military engagement.
It is suspected that President Trump’s motivations extend beyond mere electoral considerations. He may genuinely believe his own rhetoric about bringing peace to the world and is seeking to secure his place in history. This ambition, however misguided, offers the most logical explanation for his recent decisions. His desire for peace in Ukraine is undermined by his apparent appeasement of President Putin, which paradoxically prolongs the conflict. Similarly, his pursuit of peace in the Middle East, influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s conviction that the “ayatollahs’ house of cards” needed only a “puff of high explosive” to collapse, has instead intensified the region’s “forever war” and deepened America’s entanglement. Reports from Lebanon and the West Bank highlight that Israel’s confrontation with Iran is part of a broader assertive campaign in the region.
After two weeks, Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to keep the United Kingdom out of the conflict, beyond limited and lawful defensive actions, has been validated. President Trump’s misjudgment, mistaking war for peace, has been unequivocally exposed.
