The decision to attack Iran while diplomatic negotiations
were under way undermined the credibility of diplomacy itself. If negotiations
can be interrupted by military action, what assurance can any adversary have
that future American commitments will be honoured? The consequences extend
beyond Tehran, weakening confidence in Washington as a negotiating partner.
The reported killing of Iran’s spiritual leader appears to
have failed to produce the anticipated political transformation. Rather than
compelling the Iranian leadership to surrender, the campaign has confronted the
US with the resilience of a state whose institutions and national interests
cannot simply be eliminated through targeted strikes.
At the outset, expectations were raised that the conflict
would be short-lived. Yet a prolonged confrontation without Iranian
unconditional surrender raises serious questions about the assumptions
underpinning the military campaign. Escalating threats may project
determination, but they cannot substitute for a credible exit strategy.
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries face their own
strategic dilemma. If their military installations are perceived as serving
Israel’s security more directly than their own, the political justification for
hosting foreign forces becomes increasingly contentious. Regional security
arrangements cannot remain sustainable without the confidence of host countries
and their populations.
The Strait of Hormuz presents another contradiction.
Restricting Iranian oil exports may impose costs on Tehran, but disruption to
maritime trade also threatens Arab oil producers through reduced export opportunities,
higher transport costs and uncertainty over energy revenues. Economic pressure
is rarely a one-sided instrument.
Meanwhile, Iran’s ability to withstand the campaign may
reinforce perceptions of its military resilience and regional influence,
regardless of the physical damage it has suffered.
Reports of Trump seeking Russian diesel supplies would add
another uncomfortable dimension if confirmed, even a superpower can face
practical vulnerabilities when geopolitical confrontation disrupts energy
markets.
Ultimately, the measure of American power is not the volume
of presidential rhetoric but the ability to achieve sustainable political
objectives. If coercion fails to secure submission, Washington must reconsider
whether escalation is strengthening its position—or exposing the limits of
military supremacy.
