Desperate Leaders Do Drastic Things
There is only one solution to a war whose continuation has no end. And time is running out.
If President Donald Trump had achieved a victory in Iran, I would have been among the first to acknowledge his success in overcoming significant challenges. However, victory in Iran was always going to pose significant challenges.
Five months after the initial declaration of swift victory by US officials, it is evident the US is now entangled in a prolonged and unresolvable situation.
Yet before February 28, 2026, the Strait of Hormuz was open, oil prices were low, and global concerns about energy costs or material shortages were minimal.
As of just a week ago, the conflict is now somewhere between an all-out regional war and entering a more critical phase. Meanwhile, Iran has demonstrated resilience against extensive bombing, continues to strike US bases in the Gulf, and maintains a substantial arsenal.
In contrast, the US has expended significant resources on expensive (ineffective) weaponry against Iran’s efficient drones and medium-range hypersonic missiles. Still, the Trump administration is attempting to persuade the public of progress in a conflict it is not winning, a pattern utilized since Vietnam.
This raises the question: why is Iran prevailing?
First, engaging in conflict with a nation whose population is deeply committed to national pride is unwise. Iran, with a population of 90 million and a rich cultural history spanning millennia, possesses a confidence rooted in its enduring legacy. And contrary to popular myths, this is true for both young and old.
Second, most Americans do not support, nor are they willing to sacrifice for, this war, and therefore have little to no skin in the game. American leadership has only perceived skin in the game. In reality, it is Israel’s war plan that they convinced the President to make it his war.
Third, Iran has closely observed US military tactics and learned from its mistakes in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, allowing it to identify weaknesses through observation for over two decades.
Fourth, sanctions have increased Iran’s resourcefulness, as demonstrated by its use of relatively inexpensive drones against much costlier missiles.
Fifth, Iran is allied with Russia and China, both nations with increasing global influence, a major reason why diplomacy should have been pursued over military action.
However, diplomatic options were not pursued, and it may now be too late.
The great irony is, in reality, the war is existential for Iran and Israel, but the President has managed to make it his existential war. Which means three parties are involved in a war for existence (Israel through expansion and elimination of adversaries, Iran well prepared and ready for the confrontation, and President Trump politically up against the ropes. Who sounds the most vulnerable of all? The Prime Minister and the President, both of whom are now increasingly desperate. And desperate circumstances often lead to drastic actions.
The President faces significant challenges from the Democratic Party in the midterms, not due to their strategic strength, but because he and his party also find themselves in an increasingly unpopular and detrimental war in which the full impact on the livelihood of Americans remains to be seen.
To make matters worse, the unpopular conflict now includes Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, and Ukraine, plus the closure of two maritime chokepoints.
The expansion of hostilities across the Middle East presents significant dangers. Both domestically and on the world stage, Trump and Netanyahu are increasingly perceived as unstable leaders nearing the end of their leadership. As a result, they may resort to desperate measures.
If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu abandons his hawkish approach, he risks facing prison for corruption charges brought against him in 2023, which he has thus far avoided by escalating conflict and redirecting national attention. War didn’t stop with Hamas. The Prime Minister then attacked Syria, Lebanon, and Iran, and has aspirations for Egypt and Turkey.
For President Trump, it is unlikely he can credibly declare victory, as the nation is still not out of the woods regarding potential food and energy price shocks around the corner as the conflict intensifies into a broadening war with colliding powers.
In the coming weeks, we could see Iran forcing the withdrawal of US forces from Gulf countries through the gradual destruction of further critical military base infrastructure. What likelihood is there that President Trump can succeed in diplomacy?
Over this past weekend, there are reports of threats to US water systems, with sources initially claiming Iran but not yet confirmed, as of writing this late in the evening August, 2.
Watch for the President to seek a rallying point for support, but the current American political hyperpolarization makes it less likely that opposing political parties will unite behind him.
If Iran conducts a cyberattack on US infrastructure, an equally likely outcome is pockets of domestic unrest and disruption to President Trump’s ability to govern.
The President should not remain committed to this war. Non-commitment gets us closer to an exit strategy before our nation enters an untenable situation.
With American troops out of harm’s way via their swift removal from the Gulf, a commitment to energy infrastructure includes, at a minimum, securing vulnerable points in the energy grid and the nation’s infrastructure, the surest way to deter attacks.