The military confrontation launched by US President Donald Trump in cooperation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against Iran is approaching its third month. Despite the intensity of military operations, described as a blatant violation of international law, the field still witnesses escalating operations despite attempts at de-escalation and opening negotiation channels that have not yielded tangible results so far.
Field data confirms that the strategic objective set by the White House since the first week of the war, which was to overthrow the Iranian regime, has failed. State institutions in Tehran have shown a high capacity for resilience and absorbing major military shocks that directly and unprecedentedly targeted command and control centers.
The martyrdom of Supreme Leader Imam Ali Khamenei, along with a group of senior military and political leaders, represented the toughest test for the Islamic regime. Nevertheless, Iran managed to overcome the shock of loss by rapidly reorganizing its leadership ranks, which was evident in the election of Imam Mojtaba Khamenei as the country's new leader to ensure the continuity of political and military decision-making.
The confrontation was not limited to inside Iran but extended to include widespread military coordination with regional forces in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq. This axis, joined by the Gaza front, which shares the same fate, put additional pressure on American and Israeli calculations, making a military decisive victory elusive.
Observers believe that Trump, who aspired to control the timing of the war's end as he started it, found himself facing a completely different reality. Iranian components, including the Revolutionary Guard, army, and Basij, united behind the new leadership, supported by millions of popular marches, which deprived Washington of the ability to impose surrender terms or end the conflict according to its own vision.
Recent Islamabad negotiations revealed the extent of the American dilemma, as Trump was forced to withdraw his delegation after confirming the change in the balance of power on the ground. This withdrawal came as a result of the US administration's realization that the results intended by the decision to launch the war on February 28 had not been achieved, but rather led to completely opposite outcomes.
The White House is currently in a state of hesitation between the option of comprehensive escalation to destroy Iranian infrastructure and the desire to avoid a resounding political defeat. This confusion is evident in the continuous threats to strike power stations, bridges, and hospitals, countered by a keenness to keep the doors of Pakistani mediation ajar to preserve what remains of military prestige.
Analytical sources indicate that American military power, despite its immense destructive capability, has become politically ineffective at this stage. Waving the threat of occupying the Strait of Hormuz or blockading Iranian ports is no longer sufficient to extract diplomatic gains; rather, it has become a means of escaping the dilemma of field stagnation surrounding the attacking forces.
Trump's options have become confined to a narrow circle, where every potential path carries severe political or economic losses without guarantees of profit. In this deadlock, Washington finds itself gradually approaching acceptance of the terms set by Tehran for a ceasefire, which represents a significant retreat from the initial American demands.
The American position is further complicated by the exacerbation of internal crises in the United States and the shaking of the global economy due to the ongoing war. Moreover, increasing pressure on pro-Israel lobbies has begun to tangibly affect the US administration's reputation and influence in international forums, especially with the continuation of massacres and destruction.
On the other hand, Benjamin Netanyahu faces existential challenges amid successive military failures on the Lebanese front. These failures, coupled with fierce resistance in the Gaza Strip, have made the Israeli ally an additional burden on the American strategy in the region, rather than a partner in achieving a quick victory.
The shift in regional power balances has proven that destructive power alone does not create a sustainable political reality. Iran, despite deep wounds and the loss of its historical symbols, has proven that its institutions are capable of operating under the harshest conditions, making Trump's bet on a rapid collapse a losing bet by all measures.
The coming days remain pregnant with possibilities, as Trump seeks to secure an exit that saves face before the American voter and the world. However, the price demanded by Tehran and its allies for a ceasefire seems exorbitant and requires American concessions that could change the face of balances in the Middle East for decades to come.
Ultimately, this war shows that the policy of maximum pressure and direct military action has reached a dead end. The resistance shown by the targeted peoples and regimes has redefined the rules of engagement and forced major powers to reconsider their tools of influence and impact in a region that does not accept coercive dictates.
Trump decided to be the decision-maker for starting and ending the war, but he faced the failure of overthrowing the regime behind which the Iranian people united.
شارك برأيك
Trump's Dilemma in the Iranian Confrontation: War and Political Calculations Two Months After Escalation